Section 3.8 Watershed and Soilsa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · Indicators include erosion, ... stream bank disturbance, water quality, water

Environmental Assessment Page 1 of 28 August 2011 High Sierra Fuelbreak Maintenance Project USDA Forest Service

Section 3.8 Watershed and Soils

Introduction The spatial scope of this analysis includes 23 watersheds at approximately the HUC8 scale

(ranging from approximately 550 to 3000 acres in size), for a total of approximately 42,520

acres included in the analysis. These watersheds are the established scale at which the Sierra

NF conducts Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) analysis. Possible downstream

accumulation of effects in connected watersheds is also considered. The Watershed Specialist

Report and it‟s Appendices are incorporated by reference.

The temporal scope of the analysis includes „short-term‟, up to 5 years after project

implementation, and „long-term‟, 5 -30 years after implementation.

The technical scope of this analysis includes information related to the existing condition of

watershed resources (in this project area, soils and stream channels), and the direct and

indirect effects of the alternatives. Indicators include erosion, soil quality, streambank stability,

stream bank disturbance, water quality, water quantity, and ERAs. The Disturbed WEPP model

(Elliot et al 2000) was used to estimate potential erosion and sediment delivery. The Cumulative

Watershed Effects (CWE) analysis follows direction in FSH 2509.22 R5 Amendment 2.

The methodology used for the analysis of the environmental consequences of the alternatives,

including the scope of the report, assumptions made in the analysis, and the indicators of

effects, is described in this section. The discussion of the direct and indirect effects of the

alternatives is organized by resource (soils, streams, subdrainages) and by activity (hand

cutting, mastication, dozer piling, etc), then reviewed for each fuelbreak unit. The discussion of

cumulative effects integrates the effects on soils and streams in subdrainages.

Affected Environment

Soils

Soils in the project area are characterized based on an Order 3 soil survey (USDA Forest

Service 1986). The project area contains 20 Soil Map Units, which are combinations of nine

different soil families and rock outcrop. The soil map units are shown in Table 2. The soils that

are considered to have a moderate or high sensitivity to disturbance are indicated by a symbol

(†) after the map unit number. They include the Auberry, Holland, Coarsegold, and Shaver

families. The sensitivity rating of a soil describes its level of susceptibility to a loss of productivity

as a result of ground-disturbing activities. It considers the thickness of the A horizon, depth to

bedrock, and the maximum erosion hazard rating of the map unit.

The acreages shown in Table 3.8-1 are approximate, and were derived from GIS analysis.


Table 3.8-1. Acres of treatments proposed on each soil type within the project area. Rock outcrops

(approx. 250 acres) will not actually be treated. (Acres shown are the maximum potential treated

areas, and could include re-treating the same area within the life of the document.)

Soil

Map

Unit

Soil Families

Hand

Line

(ac)

Hand

Cutting

(ac)

Mastication

w/Shar (ac)

Tractor

w/Brush

Rake (ac)

Pile

Burning

(ac)

Herbicide

(ac)

101 Ahwahnee 0.2 13 - 60 73 68

102 Ahwahnee - 0.2 4 - 0.2 5

103 Ahwahnee – Rock Outcrop - 0.3 - - 0.3 0.3

105† Auberry 0.3 10 48 51 61 108

106† Auberry 0.8 110 221 41 151 368

107† Auberry - Ahwahnee - 2 189 - 2 191

108† Auberry - Ahwahnee 0.4 43 98 0.2 43 111

110† Auberry – Tollhouse - 7 221 - 7 221

126 Chawanakee – Rock Outcrop - - 104 - - 104

136† Holland - - 66 - - 66

137† Holland - 12 - - 12 12

138† Holland - Chaix - 1 336 121 122 336

139† Holland - Chaix - 418 472 460 878 889

140† Holland - Chawanakee - 22 4 - 22 26

141† Holland - Chawanakee - - 23 - - 23

147 Rock Outcrop - - 204 40 40 204

156† Shaver - 5 - 5 -

166 Tollhouse – Rock Outcrop - 16 313 53 70 328

167 Tollhouse – Rock Outcrop - - - - - -

169† Typic Argixerolls - Coarsegold - - 210 - - 210

The soil families are briefly described below.

Ahwahnee family soils are moderately deep to deep coarse, sandy loams formed in material

weathered from granitic rock. Sensitivity is high on slopes over 50%.

Auberry family soils are moderately deep to deep coarse sandy loams at the surface with a

sandy clay loam subsoil. They formed in material weathered from granitic rock. Sensitivity is

high on slopes over 50%. If the coarse sandy loam surface layer is removed and the sandy

clay loam subsoil is exposed, it is prone to gully erosion.

Tollhouse family soils are generally shallow coarse sandy loams that formed in material

weathered from granitic rock. Sensitivity is high because of the shallow soil profile – soil loss

can affect total productivity.

Chaix (pronounced „shay‟) family soils are moderately deep to deep coarse sandy loams

formed in material weathered from granitic rock. Sensitivity is high on slopes over 50%.

Chawanakee family soils are shallow coarse sandy loams formed in material weathered

from granitic rock. Sensitivity is high because of the shallow soil profile – soil loss can affect

total productivity.


Coarsegold family soils are moderately deep to deep loam with a gravelly clay loam subsoil,

formed in material eroded from metasedimentary rocks. These soils have a high sensitivity

on slopes over 50%, and their fine surface texture makes them prone to gully erosion on

bare slopes.

Holland family soils are deep sandy loams with a sandy clay loam subsoil, formed in

material weathered from metamorphic rock. These soils are susceptible to compaction when

moist or wet, and roads and skid trails are highly susceptible to gully erosion if proper

drainage is not maintained.

Shaver family soils are deep coarse sandy loams formed in material weathered from granitic

rock. Sensitivity is moderate.

Typic Argixerolls are deep to moderately deep sandy loams with a gravelly sandy clay loam

or clay loam subsoil. They are formed in material weathered from gabbro or

metasedimentary rock. They generally occur in association with Auberry and Coarsegold

family soils, and are similarly prone to gully erosion on unsurfaced roads that lack proper

drainage.

Streams

The project area contains approximately 114 miles of streams, as shown in Table 3.8-2

Table 3.8-2. Miles of stream, by stream order, in the Fuelbreaks.

Stream Order Miles Flow Regime

1 76.1 Ephemeral

2-3 33.6 Intermittent

4+ 4.5 Perennial

Total 114.2 Miles

None of the streams in the fuelbreak areas have had physical channel data collected, including

bank disturbance information. The stream channels in this project area are generally steep,

bedrock- or boulder-controlled, brushy, and not easily accessible. Limited field observations

suggest that direct stream bank disturbance is limited to road crossing impacts, and has not

been observed to exceed 20%.

There has been no water quality data collected in the project area streams. The steeper gradient stream channels are predominantly bedrock or boulder, and generally do not hold fine sediment. Some lower-gradient reaches are gravel-bed streams that contain some sand. These streams are more likely to show a response in sediment accumulations or stream channel adjustments as a result of increases in streamflow or sediment. Water temperatures have not been measured in these fuelbreaks. Late summer temperatures up to 27°C (80°F) are considered to be normal in low-elevation streams. Chemical constituents of interest in this project are glyphosate, oil, and grease. There is no data on chemical constituents in these areas. They may be introduced in small quantities at discrete points due to incidents at or near road crossings or due to herbicide application by the FS, PG&E, or private landowners. Other than an ongoing remediation effort for historically leaking underground gasoline storage tanks adjacent to Little Sandy Creek in the town of Auberry, there are no known issues with chemical constituents in any of these areas.


The beneficial uses of water in the project area are shown in Table 3.8-3. Descriptions of the beneficial use codes follow the table. Water bodies tributary to these rivers fall under the same beneficial use criteria (i.e. the „Tributary Rule‟). Assuming that the water quality currently meets or exceeds water quality standards, the water is subject to the Anti-degradation Policy, which requires that wherever existing water quality is better than the established objectives, the existing quality will be maintained (CVRWCB 2004, 2009).

Table 3.8-3. Designated Beneficial Uses for the Streams in the Project Area, by Fuelbreak

Major River Segments and Associated Fuelbreaks M

UN

AG

R

PO

W

RE

C-1

RE

C-2

RA

RE

WA

RM

CO

LD

MIG

R

SP

WN

FR

SH

WIL

D

San Joaquin River @ Millerton, including: Powerhouse and Powerhouse Rd Jose Basin Rd Lerona Beal – NW portion

X X X X X X X X

Kings River @ Pine Flat, including: Shaver Springs Upper Sycamore Vincent Burrough Beal – SE portion

X X X X X X X

Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) - Uses of water for community, military, or individual water supply systems including, but not limited to, drinking water supply.

Agricultural Supply (AGR) - Uses of water for farming, horticulture or ranching including, but not limited to, irrigation (including leaching of salts), stock watering, or support of vegetation for range grazing.

Hydropower Generation (POW) - Uses of water for hydropower generation.

Water Contact Recreation (REC-1) - Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, white water activities, fishing, or use of natural hot springs.

Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2) - Uses of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but where there is generally no body contact with water, nor any likelihood of ingestion of water. These uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tidepool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing.

Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE) - Uses of water that support habitats necessary, at least in part, for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species established under State or Federal law as rare, threatened or endangered.

Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM) - Uses of water that support warm water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates.


Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD) - Uses of water that support cold water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates.

Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR) – Uses of water that support habitats necessary for migration or other temporary activities by aquatic organisms, such as anadromous fish.

Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN) – Uses of water that support high quality habitats suitable for reproduction and early development of fish.

Freshwater Replenishment (FRSH) – Uses of water for natural or artificial maintenance of surface water quantity or quality.

Wildlife Habitat (WILD) - Uses of water that support terrestrial or wetland ecosystems

including, but not limited to, preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats or

wetlands, vegetation, wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates)

or wildlife water and food sources.

Water quantity in these streams has generally not been measured. The majority of the streams

in the project area are ephemeral (76 miles) or intermittent (34 miles) (see Table 3.8-2). The

perennial streams have very low flows during the summer months. The mean annual

precipitation of the fuelbreak areas ranges from about 22 inches at Powerhouse and Jose Basin

to about 32 inches at the upper portion of Vincent. The majority of the project area receives

most of its precipitation in the form of rain, transitioning into a mixed rain-snow zone at around

3600 ft (Shaver Springs, Upper Sycamore, Vincent, and the upper portions of Burrough and

Beal).

There is little stream stability data for the fuelbreak areas. Most of the existing information on

channel stability is from reaches downstream of the project area. It was collected using the

Pfankuch channel stability rating (USDA Forest Service 1975), which is a qualitative visual

method based on ratings of 15 different indicators. The conversion of the indicator ratings into

an overall reach stability rating of „good‟, „fair‟ or „poor‟ has been modified to reflect the expected

characteristics of different stream types (Rosgen 1996). Existing stream stability

characterizations range from excellent to poor in and downstream of the project area.

Subdrainages

The fuelbreak treatment areas lie within 23 subdrainages (HUC8s), as displayed in Table 3.8-4.

The natural watershed sensitivity and a determination of the presence of existing CWE

concerns are also shown. Table 3.8-5 shows the approximate acreage of each treatment type

by subdrainage. These acreages were derived from GIS analysis.

Table 3.8-4. The 23 HUC8 subdrainages in the project area, their natural sensitivity, and the

fuelbreaks within them.

HUC8 # Watershed

Sensitivity

Existing

CWE

Concerns? Fuelbreaks


HUC8 # Watershed

Sensitivity

Existing

CWE

Concerns? Fuelbreaks

518.0005 Moderate N Burrough

518.0010 High Y Beal, Burrough, Shaver Springs, Upper

Sycamore

518.0011 High Y Upper Sycamore, Vincent

518.0012 High Y Burrough

518.0054 High N Burrough

518.0055 Moderate N Burrough, Vincent

518.2001 High Y Vincent

519.3053 Moderate Y Vincent



523.0005 High Y Powerhouse

523.0006 Moderate N Powerhouse, Powerhouse Rd

523.0010 High N Jose Basin Rd, Powerhouse

523.0011 High N Jose Basin Rd

523.0012 High N Jose Basin Rd, Lerona

523.0015 High N Jose Basin Rd, Lerona

523.0052 High N Powerhouse, Powerhouse Rd

523.0053 High N Powerhouse, Powerhouse Rd

523.3001 High N Jose Basin Rd

525.0002 High N Beal

525.0003 High N Beal, Burrough

525.0052 High N Beal, Burrough



Table 3.8-5. Acres of treatments proposed within each subdrainage (HUC8) in the analysis area.

(Acres shown are the maximum potential treated areas. Some areas will be treated more than once, e.g.,

piles are constructed by a tractor with brush rake, the piles are burned, then the area is sprayed with

herbicide.)

HUC8 #

Total

WS

Size

(ac)

Total

(Gross)

Treatment

(ac)

Hand

Line

(ac)

Hand

Cutting

(ac)

Mastication

w/Shar (ac)

Tractor

w/Brush

Rake

(ac)

Pile

Burning

(ac)

Herbicide

(ac)

518.0005 2037 387 - - 387 - - 387

518.0010 2520 943 - 34 261 647 681 943

518.0011 2173 236 - 42 169 25 67 236

518.0012 2771 211 - - 211 - - 211

518.0054 1607 76 - - 76 - - 76

518.0055 1779 469 - - 469 - - 469

518.2001 2530 1009 - - 744 - - 744

519.3053 2083 9 - - 9 - - 9

523.0001 1586 85 - - 85 - - 85

523.0003 1516 53 - - 53 - - 53

523.0005 537 12 - - - 12 12 12

523.0006 1058 49 0.6 23 - 26 49 49

523.0010 2436 11 - 5 - 6 11 -

523.0011 3068 2 - 2 - - 2 -

523.0012 1849 76 - 7 69 - 7 69

523.0015 1536 141 - 16 125 - 16 141

523.0052 2019 38 1.2 22 - 17 38 38

523.0053 2553 105 - 13 - 92 105 -

523.3001 546 12 - 12 - - 12 -

525.0002 1378 113 - - 113 - - 113

525.0003 893 113 - 15 97 1 16 113

525.0052 1613 299 - 33 32 33 65

525.0053 2432 53 - - 287 - 287


The current condition of these subdrainages is described below. The effects of all the past,

present, and foreseeable activities listed in the EA are included in the descriptions.

518.0005 – This subdrainage contains a fourth order tributary to Sycamore Creek. NAIP

imagery shows a landscape that is somewhat modified, especially in the lower portion of the

area where roads, cleared areas, and homes are prevalent. The upper portion of the area has

some roads, and previously treated areas (and untreated stream buffers) are visible. A CWE

analysis conducted in 2009 using ERAs concluded that this area is probably not experiencing

CWEs. Almost 20% of this subdrainage is in the Burrough Fuelbreak.

518.0010 – This subdrainage contains a fifth order tributary to Sycamore Creek. Disturbances

include roads (Highway 168, Tollhouse Road, and many smaller roads and driveways), cleared

areas, homes, the Shaver Springs subdivision sewage disposal ponds, powerlines, etc. At least

one large gully from Tollhouse Road is connected to the drainage system. Previously treated

areas are visible on the NAIP imagery. A 2009 CWE analysis using ERAs concluded that this

area was probably not at risk for CWEs: however, the current review suggests that CWEs could

be occurring. This area has one of the highest proportions of proposed treatment areas,

including portions of Beal, Burrough, Shaver Springs, Upper Sycamore, and Vincent fuelbreaks.

518.0011 – This subdrainage contains the upper portion of Sycamore Creek and its tributaries.

Disturbances include portions of Cressman Road, Peterson Mill Road, and Cripe Road, and the

associated cleared areas, man-made ponds, and homes, as well as powerlines. Previously

treated areas are visible on NAIP imagery.

518.0012 – This subdrainage contains the headwaters of Little Dry Creek, including Duncan

Canyon and Burrough Valley. Visible disturbances include development in Burrough Valley

(roads, cleared areas, homes) and the Burrough Fuelbreak. There are some first order channels

in the Burrough Fuelbreak, which are visible on the imagery because of untreated buffer areas

around them.

518.0054 – This subdrainage contains middle Sycamore Creek and tributaries. Disturbances

visible on NAIP include roads and some cleared areas with homes, particularly in the lower

portion of the subdrainage. A 2009 CWE assessment concluded, using ERAs, that this

subdrainage is probably not experiencing CWEs. Previously treated areas are visible on the

imagery.

518.0055 – This subdrainage contains middle Sycamore Creek and tributaries, upstream of

518.0054. NAIP imagery shows a largely unmodified landscape, with a few roads and

previously treated areas comprising the only visible disturbances. A 2009 CWE assessment

concluded that the area is probably not experiencing CWEs.

518.2001 – This subdrainage contains South Fork Sycamore Creek and its tributaries. Existing

disturbances include a portion of Peterson Mill Road and associated cleared areas, driveways,

and homes. Previous vegetation management, including fuel reduction treatment, has also

occurred. A 2009 evaluation concluded that this area is not experiencing CWEs.

519.3053 – This subdrainage includes lower Rush Creek and its tributaries. On NAIP this area

appears to be only slightly modified, with some roads and homes. However, previous ERA

analyses in 2006 and 2009 concluded that this area is above its threshold for CWEs. Existing


information and recent stream channel observations note stream channel instability and

excessive sediment deposition in pools, which support this conclusion.

523.0001 – This subdrainage includes an unnamed fifth order tributary to Big Sandy Creek and

its tributaries. Prominent disturbances in this area include cleared areas in and near Big Sandy

Valley, homes, and roads including portions of the 4-Lanes and of Auberry Road. The Auberry

Fire burned here in 2008 in the area between the 4-Lanes and Auberry Road.

523.0003 – This subdrainage contains a fourth order tributary to Big Sandy Creek. On NAIP,

visible disturbances include cleared areas in Big Sandy Valley, roads including a portion of the

4-Lanes, and homes in Big Sandy Valley and along the Beal Fire Road. Previously treated

areas are visible on the imagery.

523.0005 – This subdrainage includes a reach of Little Dry Creek and tributaries in the vicinity of

the town of Auberry. NAIP imagery shows a highly modified landscape with extensive areas of

clearing and many homes, roads, man-made ponds, etc. The stream is obviously impacted

through the town of Auberry, where encroachment, channelization and incision are apparent.

Historically, a railroad switchyard existed on the terrace adjacent to the creek just upstream of

town, which now hosts homes and the sewage treatment ponds for the New Auberry

subdivision.

523.0006 – This subdrainage contains an unnamed tributary to Kerckhoff and its tributaries.

NAIP imagery shows large cleared areas with man-made ponds that are used for grazing

animals, homes, roads including Powerhouse Road, and powerlines. 2006 and 2009 CWE

evaluations concluded that this area was not experiencing CWEs.

523.0010 – This subdrainage includes Backbone Creek and tributaries. In NAIP, visible

disturbances appear along Auberry Road, including the Big Sandy Rancheria and associated

clearing and developments, homes, and roads. A 2009 CWE evaluation based on ERAs

concluded that this area was not experiencing CWEs.

523.0011 – This subdrainage includes Bald Mill Creek and tributaries. In NAIP, the upper

portion of this subdrainage appears highly modified, with housing subdivisions (Meadow Lakes,

Corlew Meadows), an orchard, numerous ponds and roads including Auberry Road. Much of the

lower drainage is steep and covered with dense brush. A 2009 CWE evaluation based on ERAs

concluded that this area was not experiencing CWEs.

523.0012 – This subdrainage includes unnamed third and fourth order streams that flow into

Redinger Lake, and their tributaries. Disturbances including roads, homes, man-made ponds,

and several cleared areas are visible on NAIP. A 2009 evaluation concluded that this area is not

experiencing CWEs.

523.0015 – This subdrainage includes Italian Creek and tributaries. Disturbances include roads

and a portion of the Sugarloaf brush conversion project that was implemented in the 1960s for

range improvement. The area is not part of the surrounding CARs, although Italian Creek is

perennial. A 2009 evaluation concluded that this area is not experiencing CWEs.

523.0052 – This subdrainage includes the reach of the San Joaquin River through Kerckhoff

Lake and tributaries. NAIP imagery shows a moderate level of disturbance including the


reservoir and powerhouse, roads and lakeside recreation facilities, a landing strip, homes, and

other cleared areas. Part of the Powerhouse Fuelbreak and the Powerhouse Road treatments

are in this area. A 2006 evaluation concluded that CWEs were not occurring. Since that time, a

power company ditch failure in 2009 resulted in extreme gullying and sediment delivery to

Kerkhoff Lake which may constitute an existing CWE response.

523.0053 – This subdrainage includes a reach of the San Joaquin River upstream of

Powerhouse 4, and tributaries. The predominant disturbances visible on NAIP include roads,

the powerhouse substation, the Wish-I-Ah inpatient facility, and an area of mass wasting into

the river. A 2006 evaluation concluded that CWEs were not occurring, and other than the

relatively small and low to moderate severity Powerhouse Fire in 2008, there have been no

significant disturbances since that time.

523.3001 – This subdrainage includes a third order tributary to Jose Creek, and is located in the

Jose Basin CAR for Foothill yellow-legged frog. NAIP imagery shows disturbances including

roads, areas converted from brush to grassland in the 1960s for range improvement, and man-

made ponds associated with the grazing project. The known watershed problems in this area

are related to the roads. A 2006 evaluation concluded that CWEs were not occurring, and no

significant projects have been implemented since that time.

525.0002 – This subdrainage includes tributaries to Dry Creek. NAIP imagery shows a

moderately modified landscape, with roads (including a portion of the 4-Lanes), homes, and

some cleared areas, surrounded by brush and rock outcrop areas. It contains portions of the

Beal Fuelbreak near Buckeye Heliport and the Messenger Spur. These units contain some first-

order channels and sensitive soils.

525.0003 – This subdrainage includes Tollhouse Creek and tributaries. NAIP imagery shows a

moderately modified landscape with disturbances such as roads, including Tollhouse Road and

a section of the Highway 168 „4-Lanes‟, homes, and powerlines. A 2009 evaluation using ERAs

concluded that this area is not experiencing CWEs.

525.0052 – This subdrainage includes a reach of Dry Creek and tributaries upstream of and

including the town of Tollhouse. Disturbances in this area include the town, roads including

Tollhouse Road and a short section of the Highway 168 „4-Lanes‟, and powerlines. Roads are

probably the disturbance with the greatest influence on watershed condition. Other than these

disturbances which are limited in area, NAIP imagery shows a mostly intact landscape of brush

with large rock outcrops.

525.0053 – This subdrainage includes a reach of Dry Creek and tributaries located downstream

of the town of Tollhouse. The majority of this area is on private property. NAIP imagery shows a

modified landscape that is affected by roads (including Tollhouse Road), homes, a school, and

various clearings and developments. The previous fuelbreak treatments are visible on the

imagery.

Affected Environment by Treatment Area

The streams in the Jose Basin Road brushing area are generally steep tributaries to the San

Joaquin River, including several perennial streams and their tributaries (Backbone, Bald Mill,


Italian, and Jose Creeks). The road treatment crosses 5 subdrainages, all with High natural

watershed sensitivity. The majority of the project area, and much of the subdrainages the

project area is in, lie on sensitive soil types (mostly Auberry and Ahwahnee families). The

subdrainages in this project area do not appear to be experiencing CWEs.

Streams crossed by the Powerhouse Road brushing area are steep to very steep first- and

second-order tributaries to the San Joaquin River. No data has been collected in these streams,

but portions of the area were visited in 2006 for the Patterson Bend Allotment EA (Gott 2006).

The streams in this area generally alternate between steep channels in fine-grained substrates

(such as A5 channel types) and steep rocky reaches (A1-A2). Localized instabilities were

observed, and most were attributed to the natural instability of A5 channels or to impacts from

roads. Some of the potentially affected streams may be perennial. Almost all of the treatment

area is on sensitive soils (Auberry and Ahwahnee families). Three subdrainages contain

portions of this treatment area, two of which have High sensitivity and one (523.0006) which has

Moderate sensitivity. The subdrainages in this treatment area are not thought to be experiencing

CWEs.

The Powerhouse Fuelbreak intersects some first order streams according to the streams gis

data, however observations during field review of the NFS portion of the area indicated that

these are unchanneled swales with channel initiation occurring near the boundary of the

fuelbreak. Only one observed channel contained flow and supported riparian vegetation. About

half of the fuelbreak is on sensitive soils (Auberry family). The area spans 5 subdrainages, four

with High sensitivity and one (523.0006) with Moderate sensitivity. The southern portion of this

treatment area, on private land, lies in subdrainage 523.0005, which has been identified for

CWE concerns related to private land development and impacts from historic land uses.

The streams in the Lerona Fuelbreak are unchanneled swales and steep, first-order tributaries

to Italian Creek and Redinger Lake (the San Joaquin River). The treatment area lies in two

subdrainages, both with High natural sensitivity. No data exists for the streams, and none of

them are thought to be perennial. The main equipment access route along the ridgeline was

evaluated in 2008 for possible addition to the NFTS as a motorized trail. This evaluation

documented severe erosion along this access route because unauthorized motor vehicle use

had breached the constructed drain dips. However, the material was deposited near the route,

and no sediment delivery to any channel was noted. The northern half of this treatment area is

located on sensitive soils (Auberry-Awahnee families). Neither of the subdrainages in this area

is thought to be experiencing CWEs.

Beal Fuelbreak streams are mostly first- with some second-order streams, tributary to Big

Sandy Creek or Tollhouse / Dry Creeks, with about 60 acres tributary to Sycamore Creek. The

treatment areas lie in 6 subdrainages which all have High natural sensitivity. Portions of the

main access road (10S307) are maintained by private land owners. Year-round use of this

native surface road for access to homes on private land results in rutting, erosion, and sediment

movement off of the road. Drain dips have large quantities of sediment deposited in them, but

none was observed to enter stream channels. There is one known severe gully related to road

runoff in this area. Previous fuels treatments are visible on NAIP imagery, and the existing

vegetation pattern generally shows untreated areas in the vicinity of most of the streams on the


GIS layer. The treatment areas in the eastern portion of Beal have predominantly sensitive soils

(Holland-Chaix families), while these soils are present in only a small part of the western

treatment areas. An existing landslide area on Highway 168 is located downslope from a portion

of Beal, but based on the topography of this area and the fact that the surface drainage from the

treatment area flows away from the landslide location rather than towards or through it, this was

not identified as a concern for the effects of the proposed treatments. The small units of Beal

that are east of Tollhouse Road are in subdrainage 518.0010, which has been identified for

CWE concerns related primarily to private land development and roads.

Streams in the Vincent Fuelbreak are mostly first and second-order streams, with some third-

order channels along the western and southern edges, tributary to Sycamore Creek in

subwatersheds 518.2001, 518.0011, and 518.0055. These subdrainages have High and

Moderate (518.0055) natural sensitivity. Some of these streams may be perennial. Some data

was collected in 1991 in North Fork Sycamore Creek within the project area, and in 1995 in

Sycamore Creek about 1.5 miles downstream of the project area. The data indicates that North

Fork Sycamore Creek is an A4 channel type, dry on the survey date of May 2, with a stability

rating of Poor. Sycamore Creek surveyed reaches, flowing on the survey date of July 12, are A1

type with Good stability and B4 type with Poor stability. The main access road 10S06 has

several ford crossings that provide opportunities for improvement, but this work is outside the

scope of this project. The stream reach visited at the downstream edge of the treatment area is

a bedrock slot channel (probably A1). The majority of the treatment area lies on sensitive soils

(Auberry, Awahnee, and Holland-Chaix families). Three of the four subdrainages associated

with this treatment area have been identified for CWE concerns: 518.0011 and 518.2001

primarily for private land development and roads, and 519.3053 (Rush Creek) for various

reasons including roads and past FS land management actions. Only 9 acres of this treatment

area lie in 519.3053.

Streams in the Upper Sycamore and Shaver Springs Fuelbreaks are first, second, and third-

order streams with some fourth order reaches near the lower boundaries, that are tributary to

Sycamore Creek in subdrainages 518.0010 and 518.0011. These subdrainages have High

natural sensitivity. The fourth order reach that I observed on May 27, 2010 had a substrate of

boulders, cobbles, and sand, and appeared to be perennial (although this may be due to an

unusually late and wet spring season in 2010). These project areas are located about 4 miles

upstream of the reaches where stream data was collected in 1995. The streams that cross the

powerline access road (10S408A) just south of the Shaver Springs subdivision support riparian

areas near the road and will require SMZs. One severe gully caused by drainage from

Tollhouse Road (a paved county road) is connected to the stream channel network. Almost all

of these treatment areas are located on sensitive soils (Holland-Chaix families complex). Both of

the subdrainages have been identified for possible CWE concerns related primarily to roads and

private land development.

Burrough Fuelbreak streams are mostly first- and second-order tributaries to Sycamore Creek

and Dry Creek in eight subdrainages with Moderate to High natural sensitivity. The only existing

data is the Sycamore Creek data described above, which is farther downstream from this

fuelbreak than it is from Vincent. The main access roads (10S009, 10S009A, 10S009B, and

10S009BA) have sections with severe ruts and gullies, and are in need of maintenance.


Previous treatments are visible on NAIP imagery, and the existing vegetation pattern generally

shows untreated areas in the vicinity of most of the streams on the GIS layer. Sensitive soils in

the northern portion of this treatment area include Holland-Chaix families. Auberry-Awahnee

family soils underlay most of the central portion, and the southern portion has only a small area

of sensitive soils. Four of the subdrainages (518.0010, 518.0012, 523.0003, and 525.0053)

have been identified for possible CWE concerns, primarily due to private land development and

roads.

Alternative 1 Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects on Soils, by Activity

Hand Line – Hand line construction causes soil disturbance by removing cover (including

surface organic matter). Slight displacement of the soil surface is also typical. However,

because the line will be only about 3 feet wide, the effects will be minimal. BMP 1-17 directs the

construction of cross-drains for erosion control on hand lines.

Hand Cutting – Cutting of brush with a chainsaw will have minimal impacts to soils (Robichaud

and others 2010). The material may be left on-site for later underburning, or piled by hand for

later pile burning. The impacts of the burning are discussed under headings for those activities.

In the short-term, preparing for underburning leaves more soil cover and organic matter on site

than piling the material. However, because understory vegetation will not be removed, the

minimum groundcover of 50% will easily be met. Porosity will not be appreciably modified by

foot traffic.

Mastication with Shar – The effects of mastication have the potential to disturb or compact soil

and have not been widely studied (Robichaud and others 2010). However, the studies that have

been conducted have concluded that this type of treatment has minimal effects on soils.

Hatchett and others (2006) concluded that erosion and compaction on their study area‟s coarse

sandy loam were minimal, but that their findings were probably the result of the equipment being

operated on masticated material rather than on bare ground. In an unpublished paper

examining the effects of a rubber-tracked mulching machine on a gravelly fine sandy loam,

Tepler (unpublished, 2005) measured some increases in bulk density, but they did not exceed

the NRCS threshold for detrimental disturbance of that soil. He noted a concern that the

remaining mulched woody material, up to 5 inches deep in some places, might restrict the

regrowth of vegetation. Moghaddas and Stephens (2007) found that commercial thinning of a

mixed conifer forest followed by mastication did not increase compaction of the Holland and

Musick series soils in the study area. Based on these studies and previous experience with the

treatment on the Sierra NF, mastication is expected to increase soil cover and organic matter

and cause slight / minimal decrease in porosity.

Tilling – Most of the research that has been done on the effects of tilling have examined the

practice when applied for the amelioration of soil compaction (restoration of roads, landings, or

skid trails) rather than as a method of eliminating vegetation for fuel reduction. Porosity is

increased by tilling. However, Luce (1997) suggested that ripping compacted surfaces provides

only marginal and temporary improvements in soil bulk density, porosity, and infiltration capacity

that could be improved by incorporating organic material into the soil as part of the treatment.

Kolka and Smidt (2004) found that subsoiled road surfaces had similar soil bulk densities,


runoff, and sediment production as roads with revegtated but otherwise untreated surfaces.

Both of those road surfaces produced greater runoff and sediment than adjacent undisturbed

areas. Kane and others (2009) studied the effects of tilling masticated material for fuels

reduction on understory vegetation response; although their study did not focus on impacts to

soils, they did note that the treatment increased bare mineral soil compared to mastication

alone. This information suggests that the proposed tilling would increase sediment production

compared to the present condition and compared to mastication alone, but not as much as

traditional tilling without the incorporation of organic matter into the soil. Moisture regime can be

affected if soil cover and organic matter are reduced enough that the soil dries out quickly due

to exposure to sunlight and air circulation. Because a minimum of 50% soil cover will be

maintained, impacts will be minimized. This treatment could occur on slopes of up to 35%, but

by operating on the contour, the tilled areas will provide for adequate infiltration, reduce runoff,

and minimize the potential for overland flow to initiate rill erosion. Tilling disturbs the soil, but

when adequate soil cover and organic matter remain, does not impair soil productivity.

Glyphosate Herbicide – Glyphosate rapidly attaches to organic matter and soil particles on the

ground surface and on plant surfaces (Ghassemi and others 1981). Its mobility is very limited. It

does not become mobile again with precipitation and does not leach through the soil. Because

of its very low mobility in soil, the only mechanism for off-site movement of glyphosate would be

if it were attached to soil particles that were eroded and transported to another location. If

sediment with glyphosate bonded to it reaches water, it would not be in a form that can be taken

up by plants or released through digestion by animals - normal hydrolysis in a stream will not

break the attachment of glyphosate to soil particles

Glyphosate application causes little or no direct soil disturbance. Dead foliage and leaf drop

onto the soil surface continues provides groundcover. The herbicide biodegrades within weeks

of application into natural products including: carbon dioxide, nitrogen, phosphate and water.

The half-life of glyphosate can range from 20 to 60 days (SERA 2003). The primary metabolite

of glyphosate is aminomethylphosphonate (AMPA). The position taken by U.S. EPA/OPP

(2002) that AMPA is not of toxicological concern, regardless of its levels in food, appears to be

reasonable and is well-supported (SERA 2003; p.3-25). The only potential impact to the soil

resources is from direct disturbance and displacement of the soil by applicators walking on the

ground.

Effects on soil micro flora are minimal and not pronounced (Ghassemi and others 1981). There

is very little information suggesting that glyphosate will be harmful to soil microorganisms under

field conditions, and a substantial body of information indicating that glyphosate is likely to

enhance or have no effect on soil microorganisms (SERA 2003; p.4-7). There are numerous

reports of harmful effects of herbicides to microorganisms in laboratory studies. Contrary to

laboratory results, most agriculture field studies have shown either no effect or a slight

stimulation of soil microorganisms by glyphosate. Because most of the information regarding

affects of glyphosate on soil microorganisms comes from agricultural studies, a recent study

(Busse and others 2001) was conducted to investigate the effects of glyphosate on forest soils

and microorganisms. Their findings suggest that laboratory studies are of limited relevance in

predicting glyphosate toxicity to soil organisms, and that common field rate applications should

have little or no effect on soil microbial communities. “Long-term, repeated applications of


glyphosate had minimal affect on microbial characteristics despite substantial changes in

vegetation composition and growth.”

A suite of BMPs (5-7, 5-8, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13) have been specified for herbicide use in order

to control and minimize impacts.

Broadcast Burning – Broadcast burning has the potential to affect soil cover, organic matter, soil

hydrologic function, and moisture regime. Soil cover and organic matter will be reduced as a

result of being consumed by the fire. In a low to moderate severity underburn, soil cover and

organic matter would be reduced at the surface, but organic matter within the soil profile would

not be consumed. The reduction in organic matter will be within the normal variability for the

project area. The effects of broadcast burning are similar to the effects of low to moderate

severity underburning, except that the proportions of low, moderate, and high burn severity are

shifted towards higher severities. The overall burn pattern mosaic is expected to be similar, but

the majority of the area that actually burns will experience moderate burn severity effects rather

than the low severity effects that are created by underburning. High burn severity is expected to

occur on less than 5% of the treated area.

Burning has the potential to affect soil hydrologic function by increasing soil hydrophobicity,

which results in increased runoff and decreased infiltration. If this occurs over large areas, it can

reduce soil moisture enough to affect the soil moisture regime. Natural hydrophobicity exists in

some soils, and project area soils are likely among these. The chaparral vegetation type is the

classic location for hydrophobicity to occur. Both natural and fire-induced hydrophobicity tend to

be spatially discontinuous. A low to moderate severity underburn is not expected to dramatically

increase hydrophobicity in any soil. The mosaic burn pattern that will result from prescribed fire

provides areas of soils that will be slightly burned or unburned, and which serve as infiltration

areas for any excess runoff that is generated in the intervening hydrophobic areas. Fire induced

hydrophobicity is expected to return to pre-fire levels within 3 years of the burn, except in

severely burned areas where it can be more persistent. Some area may burn at high severity,

although this is expected to be a small part (<5%) of the treated area.

Pile Burning – Pile burning essentially results in small isolated areas of high-severity soil

impacts located beneath the piles, with unburned areas between the piles. High-severity

impacts include loss of ground cover, destruction of soil organic matter, alteration of soil

structure, dramatic changes in soil chemistry, and in some cases, increased hydrophobicity

(Clark 2001). The associated effects on runoff and erosion would be mitigated by the small size

of the burned patches, the unburned areas between them, and buffers along streams where

piles will not be burned to ensure a filter stirp between these areas and streams (BMP 1-22).

Grubbing by Hand – This treatment would have minimal effects to soil resources because

disturbance would be targeted at the base of sprouting vegetation. Removal of cover would be

patchy and localized at the base of individual plants. Porosity would not be reduced, and would

be increased at the locations of the individual plants if the roots are pulled out. Organic matter

would be left on site, and moisture regime would not be altered through this maintenance

activity.


Goats – No literature regarding the effects on soils from the use of goats for brush control in fuel

breaks was found. Green and others (1979) concluded that goats will not readily browse mature

brush, and stated that they did so only when fenced, and after problems with fencing, health of

the animals, and soil disturbance. If goats are used on the fuelbreaks, real-time monitoring

would be needed to ensure that soil disturbance standards are met.

Tractor with Brush Rake – Tractors with brush rakes cause more direct soil disturbance than the

other proposed methods. This treatment has the potential to affect soil cover, porosity, organic

matter, and hydrologic function (which is related to porosity and organic matter).

Soil cover will be reduced by piling of brush using a tractor with rake. The activity will follow

BMP 5-1 in Appendix 1, and a minimum of 50% well-distributed groundcover will remain after

project completion. This meets applicable standards, which were developed in order to protect

soil from accelerated erosion.

Soil porosity will be slightly reduced. The weight of the machinery passing over soils will cause

some packing of soil particles. Moist soils are more prone to compaction. In order to limit the

change in porosity that occurs, moist soils will be evaluated by a soil scientist prior to equipment

operation, and operation will not be permitted until soil moisture is low enough to minimize

compaction (see BMP 5-6 in Appendix 1).

Soil organic matter will be reduced, but not enough to affect physical or biological soil processes

or the nutrient cycle. Disruption of topsoil will be minimized to a maximum of 15%, so that 85%

of the topsoil will remain undisturbed. Surface organic matter will be maintained through the soil

cover standard.

Soil hydrologic function could be altered by this treatment. If significant reductions in porosity

and organic matter occur, hydrologic function will be affected. The possible effects include

decreased infiltration capacity, increased runoff, and increased erosion that could result in rilling

or gullying, especially on the soils that are sensitive to disturbance. The design criteria in

Appendix 1 are expected to limit the reductions in porosity and organic matter to levels below

those that would result in changes to soil hydrologic function. Soil cover will limit runoff and

erosion. Implementation of those measures is crucial for preventing changes in hydrologic

function.

Road Maintenance – Roads are considered to be dedicated land where the maintenance of soil

productivity does not apply. None of the soil quality indicators apply to road surfaces. Since road

maintenance does reduce erosion and sediment movement off the road, it could improve soil

conditions adjacent to the road. The routine road maintenance described for this project falls

under a Categorical Exclusion for NEPA documentation – it could proceed regardless of any

decision for the fuelbreaks being analyzed in this report.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Streams, by Activity

Hand Line – Hand lines will cross streams. However, BMP 1-17 requires cross drains for

erosion control and should minimize runoff, erosion, and sediment delivery. BMP 2-19 ensures

that any brush removed during construction is not discarded in stream channels, which protects

channel cross sectional area and function. The effects of hand line construction on water

quantity, water quality, and channel stability will be minimal.


Hand Cutting – Cutting vegetation with chainsaws could result in minor stream bank

disturbance, as cut vegetation that falls into channels is pulled out for disposal. This disturbance

would be minimal compared to the potential disturbance that would result from treatment with

heavy equipment. S&G 103 from the SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004) requires that such

disturbance would not impact more than a maximum of 20% of any given stream reach. In these

channel types, this level of disturbance is not expected to trigger channel adjustments or

significantly increase channel erosion in the long-term. Water quality could be affected if fuel or

other petroleum products leak or are spilled into or near stream channels, but BMP 2-12

minimizes these already low risks. Water quantity will not be affected by hand removal of

vegetation because the scale of removal will be relatively small, and in this moisture limited

area, other vegetation will quickly take up any additional groundwater. Runoff is not expected to

increase since soil cover will be maintained. Because bank disturbance will be within

management guidelines (no more than 20%), and runoff and hillslope erosion will not be

increased, stream channel stability will not be affected.

Mastication with Shar – Since the effects on soils are minimal, effects to hydrology are also

slight. The treatment leaves good groundcover and does not significantly increase erosion, so

increases in runoff or erosion are not expected to occur. Although the effects of mastication on

water resources has not been well-studied, researchers expect that this treatment would not

result in changes to water yield since thinning treatments generally require 20% of basal area

removal before detectable effects are found in the short-term (Troendle and others 2010).

Hibbert and others (1982) found increases in water yield after brush removal, but their study

removed almost all brush from entire drainages, including streamside areas. They concluded

that shrubs should be eradicated and treatments should be adjacent to channels in order to

increase water yield; this treatment will leave a mosaic of live brush, particularly along stream

channels in the SMZs. This treatment is not expected to measurably increase water quantity,

and any increase would be short-lived because the excess moisture will be taken up by other

plants in these moisture limited areas. Hatchett and others (2006) found that the precipitation

simulations in their study did not produce runoff on the plots with masticated material for

groundcover. Water quality could be affected if equipment leaks fuel or other fluids into a

stream, but this is not expected, and an approved spill plan that addresses this situation will be

in place. Sediment is not expected to increase from mastication since stream disturbance will be

limited, operation must occur outside of SMZs, no activity-generated debris will be left in

channels, and operations will be almost entirely on top of a mat of masticated brush rather than

on the ground. Mastication will have no direct effects on stream bank disturbance or stream

channel stability, because it will not occur in SMZs. The equipment will cross stream channels

within the mastication units, but will follow direction in BMP 1-19. Any damage to streambanks

will be repaired if practicable. Because stream bank disturbance will be very limited and other

impacts are not expected, there will be no effect on stream channel stability resulting from this

activity.

Tilling – Since tilling is likely to increase runoff and sediment production (Kolka and Smidt 2004;

Luce 1997), there is potential for delivery of increased runoff and sediment to streams. The

effects are expected to be short-term, since vegetation would colonize the sites within 2 years.

The potential effects will be minimized by application of no-equipment SMZs, as well as the


slope limitation of equipment which in many places will limit equipment access to greater

distances from the channels than the SMZs.

Glyphosate Herbicide – The effects of glyphosate on water resources was covered in the soils

section, above. Because of its affinity for organic material and soil particles, glyphosate is not

mobile once it is applied by ground application, so it does not affect either surface or ground

water quality. The greatest risk of introducing glyphosate into the water would be by accidental

spills. This risk would be minimized by implementation of BMP 5-7 that would limit transportation

of herbicides to designated routes and specify batching and mixing locations, and BMP 5-10

that provides for a Spill Contingency Plan. A suite of BMPs (5-7, 5-8, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13)

have been specified for herbicide use in order to control and minimize impacts.

From 1991 to 2000, surface water adjacent to projects involving the use of glyphosate was

monitored on seven projects on the Sierra, Stanislaus and Eldorado National Forests. All

resulted in no detections (Bakke 2001).

Broadcast Burning – Because prescribed fire is planned and implemented in a manner to

control burn severity and specifically to limit high burn severity, the effects of prescribed fire are

much smaller in magnitude than those of wildfire. In a study comparing sediment production

from different sources, MacDonald and others (2004) found that severely burned areas

produced 1,000 times more sediment than prescribed burn areas. Little sediment yield was

found in a study in the northern Sierra Nevada where ignition was allowed within the riparian

area; Beche and others (2005) found that V* did not change significantly. Zwolinski (2000)

reports that low-severity fires (such as most prescribed fires) generally have little or no

hydrologic impacts, even though most contain a small proportion of high burn severity.

Robichaud‟s investigations of post-timber harvest prescribed fires in Montana and Idaho found 5

and 15% of those areas burned at high severity (Robichaud and others 2010). For this project,

high burn severity is expected to occur on less than 5% of the treated area.

Broadcast burning could result in short-term water quality effects, but is not likely to result in

stream bank disturbance, increased water quantity, or changes in stream channel stability. High

burn severity is considered to be stream bank disturbance. There will be no ignition within

SMZs. Although fire may back into SMZs, it is not expected to burn to a stream bank at high

severity over large areas, due to the fuel moistures that are likely to be present according to the

conditions of the Burn Plan. In order for a fire to increase water quantity, ground cover removal

and vegetation mortality must occur to increase overland flow in response to precipitation and

ambient soil moisture conditions. These prescribed burns will leave at least 50% groundcover

and are not expected to kill enough vegetation to increase soil moisture. The remaining

vegetation will utilize any soil moisture increases that result from vegetation mortality. In order

for stream channel stability to be affected, either direct effects to stream channels or changes in

the water and sediment provided to them would need to occur on a large enough scale to

initiate channel adjustment. Direct effects to stream channels and increases in water quantity

are not expected, as just described. The effects to water quality are described in the following

paragraph. They will not be great enough to reduce channel stability.

Short-term water quality effects could result from the deposition of smoke and ash into surface

water in and near the project area during the burn operation. Following the burn, runoff will likely


carry some ash and sediment into project area stream channels. The amount of material carried

to streams will likely be greater than occurs in an average year in these areas, however, it will

be far less than would occur after a wildfire, and will be well within the range of natural variability

for these streams.

Water quantity is not likely to be affected – as described under Direct and Indirect Effects on

Soils, vegetation in this area is moisture limited, so although killing brush may result in higher

soil moisture and therefore more streamflow in the short-term, vegetation will quickly take up the

excess moisture. Dissmeyer (1965) concluded that the Haslett Fire did not affect peak flows in

Big Creek, although it may have increased base flows slightly during the late summer dry

period. This prescribed broadcast burn is expected to create a smaller, lower severity burn and

have smaller hydrologic effects than the Haslett Fire.

Pile Burning – Pile burning essentially results in small isolated areas of high-severity soil

impacts located beneath the piles, with unburned areas between the piles. High-severity

impacts include increased runoff and erosion (MacDonald and others 2004). The associated

effects on runoff and erosion would be mitigated by the small size of the burned patches, the

unburned areas between them, and buffers along streams where piles will not be burned to

ensure a filter strip between these areas and streams (BMP 1-22).

Grubbing by Hand – This treatment is expected to have no impacts to stream bank disturbance,

water quality, water quantity, or stream channel stability. Streambank vegetation and riparian

vegetation will not be treated, so it will not create stream bank disturbance. The soil disturbance

that results will occur in small discontinuous patches that will not increase runoff, erosion, or

sediment delivery. There will be no chemicals used in this treatment, including oil and grease

(no chainsaws). This is a treatment for maintenance of brush removal, so in itself, it will not

affect water quantity, though it will perpetuate the effects created by the initial brush reduction

treatments. Because there will be no impacts to streams, it will not affect stream channel

stability.

Goats – No literature regarding the effects on water resources from the use of goats for brush

control in fuelbreaks was found. A section about providing water for the animals in Green and

Newell (1982) noted that they can require 1gal/goat/day, and that providing water is often the

most expensive part of the operation. If goats are used on the fuelbreaks, real-time monitoring

would be needed to ensure that BMPs are employed and water quality impacts are minimized.

Tractor with Brush Rake – Creating piles using a tractor with brush rake will have no direct

effects on stream bank disturbance, water quality, water quantity, or stream channel stability,

because it will not occur within any SMZ (BMP 1-22). The equipment will cross stream channels

within the dozer crushing units, but will follow direction in BMP 1-19. Crossings on all streams

with a scoured channel will be approved by the hydrologist and aquatic biologist, even if the

channels are dry (BMP 1-19). Damage to streambanks will be repaired if practicable. Water

quality could be affected if equipment leaks fuel or other fluids into a stream, but this is not

expected, and an approved spill plan that addresses this situation will be in place. Indirect

effects on streams from dozer piling could include increases in runoff (water quantity) and

sediment (affecting water quality) delivered from upslope treated areas. However, as described

in the Direct and Indirect Effects to Soils, runoff and erosion are not expected to increase. If


runoff and erosion do increase in treated areas, untreated SMZs are designed to act as buffers

to disperse flow and deposit sediment prior to reaching stream channels. Should increased

runoff and sediment reach streams, the quantity is not likely to be enough to impact water

quality, overall stream water quantity, or stream channel stability, even in reaches that are

sensitive to disturbance.

Road Maintenance – Luce and Black (1999) found that road maintenance can cause a short-

term increase in sediment yield from roads due to ground disturbance, particularly in the ditch

where stabilizing vegetation is lost during maintenance. However, roads generally require

maintenance in order for the water drainage and erosion control elements of the road design

(e.g. rolling dips, ditches) to continue to function through time - lack of maintenance can result in

increased erosion (Gucinski et al 2001). The routine road maintenance described for this project

is needed to correct problems with the drainage structures and to repair erosion that has

occurred as a result (rilling and gullying). This work falls under a Categorical Exclusion for

NEPA documentation – it could proceed regardless of any decision for the fuelbreaks being

analyzed in this report. Overall, it will benefit water quality.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Soils and Streams, by Treatment Area

The effects conclusions are based on the description of the effects of the individual activities,

above, and on WEPP modeling presented in Table 3.8-6.

Table 3.8-6. Summary of Disturbed WEPP modeling results for selected fuelbreaks. The sediment

delivered estimate is for a 15-year return period event.

Fuelbreak

Pre-Treatment

(Existing Condition) Post-Treatment

Sediment

delivered

(t/ac)

Probability of

sediment

delivery

Sediment

delivered

(t/ac)

Probability of

sediment

delivery 1st

yr

Powerhouse 0.0163 13% 0.0023 10%

Beal 0.0139 17% 0.0005 13%

Vincent 0.0000 3% 0.0416 10%

Burrough 0.0003 20% 0.1685 23%

Lerona 0.0010 17% 0.0006 13%

Shaver Springs 0.0000 3% 0.0668 17%

Jose Basin Road Brushing –Because hand cutting, hand piling, and pile burning would have limited effects on soils and streams, the treated area will be small, and piles will not be burned in channels or on streambanks (see BMP 1-22), the effects in this treatment area will be minimal. This fuelbreak was not modeled with WEPP.

Powerhouse Road Brushing and Powerline Fire Line – Within 50 feet of the road on both sides (a total of 48 acres on NFS lands), brush would be cut with a chainsaw, hand piled, and burned. The Powerline Fire Line would be created by hand scraping to create a 3-foot wide fire line above the road, in the right-of-way (within 20 feet of the road), for a total of less than 1 acre cleared. Roads 9S313 and 9S313A would be maintained following normal road


maintenance practices. Because hand cutting, hand piling, pile burning, and constructing hand line have limited effects on soils and streams, the effects in this treatment area will be minimal. Hand line construction near streams will follow BMPs 1-17 and 6-3 (see Appendix 1) to ensure that effects are minimized. Routine road maintenance may increase sediment movement in the short-term, but in the long-term will minimize erosion and sediment delivery from the treated roads. This fuelbreak was not modeled with WEPP.

Powerhouse Fuelbreak - This new fuelbreak would be created with dozer treatments. The dozer work will result in soil displacement, possibly a decrease in porosity, and decreased groundcover/organic matter. Because the work will be conducted when soil moisture conditions will limit soil disturbance and loss of porosity, and a minimum of 50% well-distributed groundcover will be left on the site, impacts to soils will be minimized. The WEPP model shows essentially no effect on sediment delivery to an adjacent spring channel post-treatment, with results indicating the probability decreased from 13% to 10% in the first year after treatment, and the quantity also decreased slightly. Burning of the piles is not expected to result in stream channel or off-site effects.

Beal Fuelbreak – This existing fuelbreak encompasses 361 acres. It would be maintained using the most practicable of the described possible treatment techniques, depending on the condition of the vegetation when implemented. At this time, mastication is the anticipated treatment. Disturbed WEPP modeling results for a slope draining to a perennial stream channel shows no increase in the potential for erosion or sediment delivery following treatment. Routine road maintenance of 10S307 may increase sediment movement in the short-term, but in the long-term will minimize erosion and sediment delivery from the treated roads.

Vincent Fuelbreak – This existing fuelbreak encompasses 1276 acres. It would be maintained using the most practicable of the described possible treatment techniques, depending on the condition of the vegetation when implemented. Hand work will be used upslope of Peterson Mill Road. Mastication is the anticipated treatment on the remainder of the area. Disturbed WEPP modeling shows an increase in the probability of some sediment delivery through a 25 foot SMZ to a stream channel, from 3% under the existing condition to 10% the year following treatment, assuming 50% groundcover remaining. This is the minimum required groundcover: however, mastication typically leaves a higher percent ground cover than this, which would minimize this change.

Burrough Mountain Fuelbreak – This existing fuelbreak encompasses 1666 acres. It would be maintained with a mastication treatment. Disturbed WEPP modeling results for a masticated swale draining to the downslope stream channel shows an increase in both the quantity and the probability of sediment delivery to the channel, from 20% under the existing condition to 23% the year following treatment, assuming only 50% groundcover remains. Mastication typically leaves a higher percentage of groundcover than this, which would minimize this change. Routine road maintenance of roads 10S09, 10S09A. 10S09B, and 10S09BA may increase sediment movement in the short-term, but in the long-term will minimize erosion and sediment delivery from the treated roads.

Lerona Fuelbreak – This existing fuelbreak encompasses 200 acres. It would be maintained using the most practicable of the described possible treatment techniques, depending on the condition of the vegetation when implemented. At this time, mastication is the anticipated treatment. Disturbed WEPP modeling results of a 200 foot slope draining to a channel with a 50 foot SMZ shows no increase in either the quantity of sediment eroded by a 15-yr event or in the probability of sediment delivery, even assuming 50% cover which is probably lower than will result from mastication. Repairing the drainage structures on the


dozer trail through this area would greatly reduce erosion; however, the sediment being eroded is not currently affecting water quality, so there would be no decrease in impacts to streams or to CWEs as a result of this work.

Upper Sycamore Fuelbreak – This is an existing fuelbreak that would be maintained with dozer treatments. This fuelbreak was not modeled with WEPP because it is very similar to Shaver Springs (see below) and is expected to have similar effects.

Shaver Springs Fuelbreak – This existing fuelbreak encompasses 773 acres. It would be maintained using the most practicable of the described possible treatment techniques, depending on the condition of the vegetation when implemented. This is expected to be dozer piling. Disturbed WEPP modeling results for a continuous 675 foot long treated slope draining through a 75 foot SMZ to a stream channel shows an increase in the probability of sediment delivery to the stream from 3% under the existing condition to 17% in the year following treatment. This illustrates the importance of treating long slopes discontinuously / in patches to avoid creating a disturbance along such a long flow path.

Cumulative Effects on Soils and Streams, at the Subdrainage Scale (CWEs)

A CWE Assessment was conducted following FSH 2509.22. All of the past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable activities listed in the EA, and the existing condition of each

subdrainage, were considered in an evaluation of existing CWE concerns. Previous ERA

analyses were utilized where available. Based on this information, 9 of the 23 subdrainages in

the project area may currently be experiencing CWEs. In addition, each subdrainage was

considered to determine whether this project would increase the likelihood or severity of CWEs.

For this determination, the natural watershed sensitivity, percent of the watershed planned for

treatment and the anticipated effects of treatment, and what is known about the existing

condition including existing data, NAIP imagery, recent channel and subdrainage observations,

and field assessment of the proposed treatment areas was used.

This project may influence CWEs in 2-3 of the 23 subdrainages. A summary of these

evaluations is displayed in Table 3.8-7, and a paragraph containing rationale for each

subdrainage follows the table. The rationale builds on the beneficial uses and the description of

the current condition in the Affected Environment section.

Table 3.8-7. Summary of the CWE Evaluation of the High Sierra Fuelbreak Project.

HUC8 # Total

Acres

Gross

Treatment

Acres

Max.

Percent

Treated

Natural

Sensitivity

Existing

CWE

Concerns?

Project May

Contribute to

a CWE

Response?

518.00051 2037 387 19% Moderate N Y*

518.00101 2520 943 37% High Y Y

518.0011 2173 236 11% High Y N


HUC8 # Total

Acres

Gross

Treatment

Acres

Max.

Percent

Treated

Natural

Sensitivity

Existing

CWE

Concerns?

Project May

Contribute to

a CWE

Response?

518.0012 2771 211 8% High Y N

518.00541 1607 76 5% High N N

518.00551 1779 469 26% Moderate N N

518.20011 2530 1009 40% High Y Y*

519.30531,2

2083 9 0.4% Moderate Y N

523.0001 1586 85 5% High Y N

523.0003 1516 53 4% High Y N

523.0005 537 12 2% High Y N

523.00061,3

1058 49 5% Moderate N N

523.00101,3

2436 11 0.4% High N N

523.0011 3068 2 <0.1% High N N

523.00121 1849 76 4% High N N

523.00151 1536 141 9% High N N

523.00521,3

2019 38 2% High N N

523.00531,3

2553 105 4% High N N

523.30011,4

546 12 2% High N N

525.0002 1378 113 8% High N N

525.00031 893 113 13% High N N

525.0052 1613 299 18% High N N

525.0053 2432 53 2% High Y N

* If dozer treatment is used instead of the anticipated mastication treatment. 1 These subdrainages were evaluated for the Travel Management Project CWE analysis in 2009.

2 This subdrainage was evaluated for the Kings River Project CWE analysis in 2006.

3 These subdrainages were evaluated for the Patterson Bend Range Allotment CWE analysis in

2006. 4 This subdrainage was evaluated in the Sugarloaf Range Allotment CWE analysis in 2006.


518.0005 – Although almost 20% of the subdrainage is in the Burrough Fuelbreak area,

because areas steeper than 35% and stream buffers will not be mechanically treated, the actual

proportion of disturbed area will be smaller. The anticipated treatment of mastication is expected

to have minimal impacts on erosion and hydrology because it leaves adequate groundcover.

Because of this, and considering the BMPs that will be implemented, this project is not likely to

influence CWEs in this subdrainage. If tilling or dozer piling treatment is used instead of

mastication, following BMPs for remaining groundcover and stream buffers will be even more

important for minimizing impacts. With these treatments, there is a slight risk of this project

increasing the potential for CWEs in the short term (approximately 2 years), until ground cover

is reestablished by grass and other vegetation.

518.0010 – Because Shaver Springs and Upper Sycamore are both anticipated to be treated by

dozer piling, and these units are almost entirely on sensitive soils, careful operation and strict

adherence to BMPs are critical for minimizing impacts and preventing contributions to CWEs.

This subdrainage has a short-term risk of treatment influencing CWEs (for about 2 years after

treatments). The effects could be expressed as short-term sedimentation impacts to aquatic

habitat in Sycamore Creek. The risk would be reduced by minimizing the total disturbed area,

distributing ground disturbing treatment in a mosaic pattern, strict adherence to SMZs and other

BMPs, and leaving as much groundcover as possible (with 50% being the minimum allowable,

but 60-70% being more desirable from a soil and hydrology standpoint).

518.0011 – Proposed treatments in this area include a portion of Vincent, proposed for

mastication, and a small piece of Upper Sycamore, planned as a dozer piling treatment.

Because this portion of Upper Sycamore is small and has only a few first order channels which

will receive SMZs if warranted, this is not likely to influence CWEs. The mastication in Vincent

will leave adequate groundcover as well as adhering to SMZs, making it unlikely to influence

CWEs.

518.0012 – Since the untreated stream buffers currently visible in the Burrough Fuelbreak will

remain, and a portion of the remaining area is greater than 35% and will not be treated, the

limited amount of disturbance that will result from this project combined with the BMPs that will

be implemented make it unlikely that this project will influence CWEs in this subdrainage.

518.0054 – A portion of the Burrough Fuelbreak is in this area, and contains first order channels

and one second order reach. Given the BMPs that will be implemented, it is unlikely that this

project will influence CWEs in this subdrainage.

518.0055 – A large amount of the Burrough Fuelbreak is in this subdrainage, but almost half of

the area is over 35% slope and will not be mechanically treated. These steep slopes appear as

dense brush areas on the imagery. A portion of Vincent is also in this subdrainage. All

anticipated treatments are mastication, which leave adequate groundcover. Combined with

SMZs and other BMPs, these treatments are not likely to influence CWEs in this subdrainage.

518.2001 – The majority (about 1000 ac) of the Vincent Fuelbreak is in this subdrainage. About

300 ac of the total treated area will be hand cut and piled for burning. The remaining 700 ac

(minus SMZs and rock outcrop areas) is anticipated to be treated by mastication. With careful


implementation of all applicable BMPs, this project is not likely to influence CWEs in this

subdrainage. Because of the large proportion of this subdrainage that will be treated, if tilling or

dozer piling treatment is used instead of mastication, following BMPs for remaining groundcover

and stream buffers will be even more important for minimizing impacts. With these treatments,

there is a slight risk of this project increasing the potential for CWEs in the short term

(approximately 2 years), until ground cover is reestablished by grass and other vegetation. The

effects could be expressed as short-term sedimentation impacts to aquatic habitat in Sycamore

Creek.

519.3053 – Although CWEs are currently occurring here, due to the very small amount of

treatment that will occur here, associated with the Vincent Fuelbreak, the location of the

treatment area near a ridgeline, and implementation of BMPs, it is unlikely that this project will

influence CWEs in this subdrainage.

523.0001 – Portions of the Beal Fuelbreak are in the area, and previously treated areas are

visible on imagery. WEPP modeling supports that the project is not likely to influence CWEs in

this subdrainage.

523.0003 – This area contains portions of the Beal Fuelbreak, which include some first order

channels. Given the limited amount of treatment, its location in relation to channels, and the

BMPs that will be implemented, it is unlikely that this project will influence CWEs in this

subdrainage.

523.0005 – This subdrainage contains a portion of the Powerhouse Fuelbreak. Given the

location and limited amount of treatment in this subdrainage, the BMPs that will be implemented

during the treatment, and the highly disturbed context, it is unlikely that this project will influence

CWEs here.

523.0006 – A portion of the Powerhouse Fuelbreak and the Powerhouse Road treatments will

occur in this area. The Powerhouse Road treatments are hand work with limited potential for

impacts. The Powerhouse Fuelbreak contains a few first order channels. However, given the

BMPs specified for their protection, it is unlikely that this project will affect CWEs.

523.0010 – A small portion of the Powerhouse Fuelbreak and a section of the Jose Basin Road

treatment are in the area. Because of the very small percentage of the subdrainage being

treated, and given the BMPs that will be implemented, it is unlikely that this project will influence

CWEs in this subdrainage.

523.0011 – The Jose Basin Road treatments that will occur in this subdrainage involve hand

work and pile burning in a limited area comprising a very small portion of the subdrainage – it is

very unlikely that this project will influence CWEs in this subdrainage.

523.0012 – The Jose Basin Road treatments that will occur in this subdrainage involve hand

work and pile burning in a limited area – it is very unlikely that this project will influence CWEs in

this subdrainage.

523.0015 – The subdrainage contains part of the Lerona Fuelbreak and a portion of the Jose

Basin Road treatment area. Previously treated portions of Lerona are visible on the NAIP

imagery. Given the location of the Lerona fuelbreak with respect to stream channels, and the


limited impacts that will result from the hand treatments in the road treatment area, it is unlikely

that this project will influence CWEs in this subdrainage.

523.0052 – Although excess sediment from the ditch failure may have triggered a CWE

response, the anticipated effects of this project, given the location with respect to stream

channels, the specified BMPs, and the limited impacts associated with the hand work along the

road, are not likely to influence CWEs in this subdrainage.

523.0053 – The Powerhouse Fuelbreak lies along the ridgeline between this subdrainage and

523.0006. Part of the Powerhouse Road work is also in this subdrainage. The Powerhouse

Fuelbreak contains a few first order channels. However, given the BMPs specified for their

protection, it is unlikely that this project will affect CWEs.

523.3001 – Given the limited area and nature of the treatments in this area (hand piling and

burning in a narrow road corridor) and the low natural sensitivity, it is unlikely that this project

will influence CWEs here.

525.0002 – Given the locations of the treatment areas, the BMPs for the project, and the

relatively small amount of area to be treated, it is unlikely that the effects of this project will

influence CWEs in this subdrainage.

525.0003 – Proposed treatments in this subdrainage include the portions of Beal near Buckeye

Heliport and along Tollhouse Road, and the northern tip of Burrough. The previously treated

areas are visible on the imagery. Given the locations of the treatment areas and the BMPs for

the project, it is unlikely that the effects of this project will influence CWEs in this subdrainage.

525.0052 – About 30 ac of Beal and 270 ac of Burrough are in this subdrainage, and previously

treated areas are visible on the imagery. Some of the treatment areas are on sensitive soils. A

portion of the Burrough acreage is the hand-treatment area, and some is greater than 35%

slope and will receive no treatment. Given the locations of the treatment areas and the BMPs for

the project, it is unlikely that the effects of this project will influence CWEs in this subdrainage.

525.0053 –Two percent of the area is in the Burrough Fuelbreak. The treatment area contains

one first order channel that has an untreated buffer area surrounding it. A portion of the area is

greater than 35% slope and will not be treated. Given the extensive modification of this

subdrainage and the small area to be treated, as well as the BMPs for the project, it is unlikely

that the effects of this project will influence CWEs in this subdrainage.

RCO Consistency

RCO Consistency is discussed fully in the Riparian Conservation Objectives Consistency

Report for this project (Appendix 2 of the Watershed Specialist‟s Report). This project will

involve mechanical treatments and burning within the RCAs. Mitigation measures were

developed and incorporated as design criteria to be implemented under all action alternatives.

These design criteria were developed specifically to minimize the risk to the aquatic and riparian

systems. The Riparian Conservation Objectives Consistency Report (Appendix 2) concludes

that the project is consistent with RCOs.


Alternative 2 No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects on Soils and Streams

There would be no direct or indirect effects on soils or streams as a result of the No Action

alternative. Soil quality and stream indicators would remain unchanged.

There is however a greater risk of high burn severities resulting from wildfire in untreated areas

than from either prescribed burning (MacDonald and others 2004) or from wildfire on treated

fuelbreak areas (Graham and others 2009). Many investigations of wildfire effects on hydrologic

processes have found increases in stream flows and in sedimentation. MacDonald and Stednick

(2003) state that wildfire poses the biggest threat to water quality in forested areas. Changes in

soil properties such as removal of organic ground cover and creation of water repellent,

(hydrophobic) conditions result in decreased infiltration capacity and increased runoff, which

leads to larger and flashier peak flows and more erosion on hillslopes. Robichaud and others

(2000) state that surface runoff can increase by 70% and erosion by three orders of magnitude

when ground cover is reduced from 75% to 10%. Fire severity has a large effect on erosion and

sediment yields. In a study of post-fire erosion from simulated rainfall, Benavides-Solorio and

MacDonald (2001) found that sediment yield from high burn severity plots was 10-26 times

greater than from low severity and unburned plots. Ground cover accounted for 81% of the

variability, including lower sediment yields found in older, recovering burned areas. Sediment

yield increases are usually the highest the first year following a fire (Robichaud and others

2000), then decease as groundcover increases, vegetation becomes established, and water

repellency recovers. Robichaud and others (2000) found that summer peak flows in chaparral in

Arizona increased 5 – 15 fold after a wildfire, but winter peak flows did not change. They

attribute this to less intense precipitation and less water repellency during the winter season.

Cumulative Effects on Soils, Streams, at the Subdrainage Scale (CWEs)

Although there would be no incremental direct or indirect effects to soils or streams that would

contribute to cumulative effects under this alternative, there would be an increased likelihood of

intensive fire suppression techniques, such as multiple-pass dozer lines and heavy retardant

drops, being utilized in and around the fuelbreaks. Minimum Impact Suppression Techniques

(MIST) are recommended, but they are not required, and are often not employed in areas where

homes are at risk. Direct impacts to stream channels are more likely to occur from these

suppression activities than from the proposed treatments, for which BMPs are required.

For these reasons, the long-term risk of CWEs may be higher without fuelbreak maintenance

(under this alternative) than with fuelbreak maintenance (in Alternative 1 or 3).

RCO Consistency

This alternative is consistent with RCOs. The Riparian Conservation Objectives Consistency

Report for this project does not specifically analyze the No Action alternative, however, no

disturbance would result in RCAs from this alternative.


Alternative 3 No Herbicide Treatment

Direct and Indirect Effects on Soils

The direct and indirect effects on soils would be the same as described under the effects of

Alternative 1, with the exception that no herbicides would be used. This would result in repeated

entry with mechanical treatments such as mastication and dozer piling, which have a higher

potential for causing soil disturbance.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Streams

The direct and indirect effects on streams would be the same as described under the effects of

Alternative 1, with the exception that no herbicides would be used. This would result in repeated

entry with mechanical treatments such as mastication and dozer piling, which have a greater

potential for causing impacts to streams.

Cumulative Effects on Soils, Streams, at the Subdrainage Scale (CWEs)

The cumulative effects on soils, watershed, and water quality could be different than described

for Alternative 1. More repeated entries of mechanical equipment could result in incremental

changes in cover, porosity, and organic matter that would cumulatively result in changes in soil

quality. Individual direct disturbances to stream banks that result from each entry could present

a similar scenario, with a few added during each entry that over time could begin to exert some

influence on water quality (sediment supply) or even localized channel stability. More frequent

equipment entries equate to more frequent risk of chemical constituents such as oil and grease

being accidentally introduced into streams, and if introduced into adjacent channel or to one

channel numerous times, could have a larger impact on beneficial uses than an isolated incident

would have.

In terms of downstream CWE response, this alternative would be very similar to described for

Alternative 1. Even if the cumulative effects described above do occur, the impacts would likely

be on-site or in the same stream reach. Implementation of BMPs is expected to prevent

widespread or severe cumulative effects from occurring that would propagate downstream and

cause perceptible cumulative impacts off-site.

RCO Consistency

This alternative is consistent with RCOs for the same reasons described in Alternative 1. See

the RCO Consistency Analysis (Appendix 2 of the Watershed Specialist‟s report) for the full

analysis rationale.

Documents

Section 3.8 Watershed and Soilsa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · Indicators include erosion, ... stream bank disturbance, water quality, water