The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · The Summit Healthy Forest Project (SHFP) is designed to

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

USDA Forest Service, Sequoia National Forest Summit Healthy Forest Project – Soils and Watershed Report

i

i

Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 Affected Environment: Geology, Soils, and Watershed .................................................................. 5 Geology and Soils: Methodology for Analysis ........................................................................... 7 Soils Pre-Treatment Condition ................................................................................................... 8 Watershed ................................................................................................................................. 10 Watershed: Methodolgy for Analysis ...................................................................................... 13 Stream Condition ...................................................................................................................... 17 Water Quality ........................................................................................................................... 21 Cumulative Watershed Effects ...................................................................................................... 22 Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................................... 24 General Discussion: Soils ........................................................................................................ 24 Direct and Indirect Effects: Soils ............................................................................................. 27 Cumulative Effects: Soils .......................................................................................................... 28 General Discussion: Watershed ............................................................................................... 28 Direct and Indirect Effects: Watershed .................................................................................... 32 Cumulative Effects: Watershed ................................................................................................ 33 Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................... 34 Riparian Conservation Objectives Consistency Analysis Summary ............................................. 34 Design Features (Soil and Water Quality Protection) ................................................................... 34 References ..................................................................................................................................... 39 Appendix 1: Best Management Practices for Water Quality Protection ....................................... 43 Appendix 2: Riparian Conservation Objectives Consistency Analysis ......................................... 61 Appendix 3: Erosion Control Plan ................................................................................................ 66 List of Tables

Table 1. Soil Family Taxonomy Profiles ........................................................................................ 5 Table 2. Soil Map Units by Treatment Area ................................................................................... 7 Table 3. Disturbance Indicators for Each Soil Severity Class ......................................................... 8 Table 4. Summary of Disturbance from Soil Transect Inventory ................................................... 9 Table 5. Soil Transect Observations .............................................................................................. 10 Table 6. Affected Stream Mile Summaries ................................................................................... 12 Table 7. Stream Condition Inventory Plots in or Near Project Area ............................................. 14 Table 8. Sediment Classification Table ......................................................................................... 15 Table 9. Isabella Lake-Kern River Subwatershed Affected Drainages and Stream Class ........... 17 Table 10. Upper Credar Creek Subwatershed Affected Drainages and Stream Class .................. 18 Table 11. Bull Run Subwatershed Affected Drainages and Stream Class .................................... 20 Table 12. Designated Beneficial Uses for Major Perennial Streams ............................................. 21 Table 13. Disturbance Variables Used in the CWE Model ........................................................... 23 Table 14. CWE Results ................................................................................................................. 24 Table 15. RCA, SMZ, and RCA widths ........................................................................................ 36


ii

ii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location Map of SHFP . .................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2. Location Map of the 18 Soil Transects ............................................................................ 9 Figure 3. Project Area HUC 12 Subwatersheds ............................................................................ 11 Figure 4. Project Area Perennial-Intermittant Streams. ................................................................ 11 Figure 5. Project Area HUC 14 Drainages .................................................................................... 12 Figure 6. Map showing Stream Condition Inventory Plots. .......................................................... 14 Figure 7. Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers (Key) .............................................................. 16 Figure 8. Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers (Longitudinal and Cross-Section Types) ....... 16 Figure 9. SCI Plot of Ice House Creek .......................................................................................... 18 Figure 10. SCI Plot of Cedar Creek near Alder Creek Campground ............................................ 19 Figure 11. SCI Plot of Cedar Creek at Cedar Campground .......................................................... 19 Figure 12. SCI Plot of Cow Creek................................................................................................. 20 Figure 13. SMZ Protection Buffer Map for Project Area ............................................................. 35


3

3

Executive Summary

Introduction The Summit Healthy Forest Project (SHFP) is designed to increase forest stand resiliency to insects and disease by thinning trees on up to 1100 acres in the Sequoia National Forest within the wildland urban interface (WUI) near the community of Alta Sierra in Kern County, California. The project is located in Township 25 South, Range 32 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (Figure 1). This mountain community area has recently experienced significant increases in tree mortality. The proposed action would treat areas that are experiencing declining forest health due to drought, insects and disease. This project would improve forest health, increase resilience, and reduce safety hazards both from falling trees as well as fire hazard caused by fuel loading. This report includes a review of relevant regulatory direction, the methodology for soils and watershed analysis, a description of the existing conditions in the project area, and a discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the project on soils and watershed resources. The Best Management Practices, Riparian Conservation Objectives Consistency Analysis and Erosion Control Plan are included in appendices. Floodplains and wetlands are present in the project area, but use of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) will reduce impacts to less than significant. A Cumulative Watershed Effect response has not occurred nor is it likely to occur with the proposed project activity.

Because of the coarse textured nature of the project areas soils, loss of soil productivity through compaction is considered low. Likewise, loss of fine organic and large woody debris material is considered negligible, and accelerated erosion from exposed areas where soil cover is less than 50% after treatment will be mitigated by water quality protection BMP’s and design features. With post project mitigation (i.e., erosion control and slash treatment), long term impacts to soil productivity is considered low and the short term impacts are greatly outweighed by the potential for catastrophic wildfire and the extreme safety hazards posed to the community of Alta Sierra.

Soils and Watershed Condition Soils and watershed analysis show current conditions to be within the range of natural variability. Repeated Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) surveys since 2002 show stable and hydrologically functional perennial drainage systems in the project area. Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) analysis of the proposed project activity (coupled with existing baseline conditions) showed all project HUC 14 drainages to be below the Threshold of Concern (TOC). 18 soils transects measured throughout the project area showed pre-disturbance conditions at minimal levels, with average ground cover on most slopes exceeding 90%.


4

Figure 1. Location Map of the Summit Healthy Forest Project (SHFP).


5

Affected Environment

Geology and Soils The most common rocks occurring in the project area include early to late Cretaceous granitoids such as the Alta Sierra granodiorite and the Black Mountain, Kern River, and Portuguese Pass granite suites. Inclusions of Mesozoic metasedimentary rock (the “Tehachapi Metasedimentary Belt”) can also be found as generally north-trending pendants containing siliceous, pelitic, and calcareous thin beds and some beds of massive marble. Seven Soil families can be identified in the project area: Auberry, Chaix, Chawanakee, Cieneba, Dome, Livermore, and Woolstalf (Table 1). These seven soil families (including rock outcrop) make up seven individual soil map units affected by project activity. Table 2 shows the soil map units where treatment is proposed and the associated treatment units, maximum erosion hazard (MEH), and sensitivity. MEH rates the potential of land use activities to cause accelerated erosion (i.e., erosion rates that exceed natural erosion rates); low, moderate, high and very high erosion hazard rating (EHR) can be given. The sensitivity rating of each soil is determined by its susceptibility to a loss in soil productivity by ground disturbing activities. Soil sensitivity is determined by the thickness of the A horizon, depth to the underlying bedrock and the MEH rating. A low, moderate or high sensitivity rating can be given.

Table 1. Soil Family Taxonomy Profiles.

Soil Family Taxonomy Temp. Regime

Texture HydGrp.

Drainage Class

Auberry Ultic Haploxeralfs

Thermic A1: 0-7 inches, sandy loam B Well Drained

A3: 7-14 inches, sandy clay loam

B21t: 14-21 inches, sandy clay loam

B22t: 21-30 inches, sandy clay loam

B23t: 30-41 inches, clay loam

Cr: 41 inches weathered granitic material

Chaix Dystric Xerochrepts

Mesic A1: 0-7 inches, sandy loam B Well Drained to Somewhat Excessively

drained B2: 7-25 inches, sandy loam

Cr: 25 inches, weathered granitic rock

Chawanakee Dystric Xerochrepts

Mesic A1: 0-3 inches, coarse sandy loam B-C Somewhat Excessively

Drained B2: 3-10 inches, sandy loam

Cr: 10 inches, weathered granitic material


6

Soil Family Taxonomy Temp. Regime

Texture HydGrp.

Drainage Class

Cieneba Typic Xerorthents

Thermic A1: 0-12 inches, coarse sandy loam C Somewhat Excessively

Drained Cr: 12 inches highly weathered granitic material

Dome Dystric Xerochrepts

Mesic A1: 0-7 inches, sandy loam B Well Drained

B2: 7-28 inches, sandy loam

C1: 28-50 inches, sandy loam

C2: highly weathered granitic rock

Livermore Typic Haploxerolls

Thermic A11: 0-5 inches, stony sandy loam C Well Drained

A12: 5-18 inches, cobbly sandy loam

B2: 18-25 inches, very gravelly sandy loam

C1: 25-29 inches, , very gravelly sandy loam

C2r: 29 inches, weathered metasedimentary rock

Woolstalf Ultic Haploxerolls

Mesic A11: 0-6 inches, gravelly fine sandy loam

B Well Drained

A12: 6-15 inches, gravelly fine sandy loam

A13: 15-36 inches, very gravelly fine sandy loam

B2: 36-58 inches, extremely gravelly fine sandy loam

Cr: 58 inches, weathered metasedimentary rock


7

Table 2. Soil Map Units by Treatment Area

Soil Map Unit

Map Unit Name MEH Sensitivity Treatment Unit(s)

212 Auberry-Cieneba-Rock outcrop Complex, 10-30%

Slopes

Moderate Moderate 29

213 Auberry-Cieneba-Rock outcrop Complex, 30-50%

Slopes

Moderate/High Moderate/High 62

236 Livermore-Family-Rock-Oucrop Complex, 30 to

50% Slopes

Moderate Moderate 62

619 Chaix-Rock outcrop-Chawanakee Complex, 30-

50% Slopes

High Moderate/High 5, 6, 8, 14, 21, 50, 51, 55, 76, 83

620 Chaix-Rock outcrop-Chawanakee Complex, 50-

75% Slopes

High/Very High Moderate/High 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 19, 21, 27, 28,50,

51, 55, 62, 71, 81, 84

622 Dome-Chaix-Rock outcrop Association 30-50%

Slopes

Moderate Low/Moderate 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 26, 55, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75

676 Woolstalf-Rock outcrop Complex, 30-50% Slopes

High Moderate 19, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 62, 81, 82

Methodology for Analysis In order to determine existing soil conditions (and hence their potential susceptibility to loss of soil productivity within the treatment units), soil transects were surveyed following the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (USDA Forest Service, 2009). The Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (FSDMP) describes how to monitor forest sites before and after ground disturbing management activities. The FSDMP describe surface conditions that affect three key elements: 1. site sustainability, 2. hydrologic function, and 3. site productivity. A FSDMP soils transect can be classified into one of four severity classes: D0 - no previous entries, D1 - faint signs of entry, D2- obvious signs of entry and D3 - extensive signs of entry. The severity class is determined by the disturbance types present along a soil transect. Each individual transect point will contain seven disturbance indicators for a total of 70 indicators collected per transect. Disturbance type indicators include: (1) Wheel Tracks or Depressions, (2) Penetration and Resistance, (3) Soil Physical Condition, (4) Forest Floor, (5) Mineral Soil, (6) Erosion and (7) Burning. The soil transect is then rated with the severity class, which has the largest proportion of indicators present. See Table


8

3 for a complete list of the soil disturbance types and their corresponding severity class used to determine the overall soil severity classification.

Table 3. Disturbance indicators for each soil severity class D0-D3.

Disturbance Type

Severity Class D0 - No Previous Entry

D1 - Faint Signs of Entry D2 - Obvious Signs of Entry

D3 - Extensive Signs of Entry

Wheel Tracks or Depressions

Natural conditions.

Faint or slight (<2 in deep). Tracks >2 in.

Obvious tracks > 4 in.

Penetration and Resistance

Natural conditions.

Slight resistance of surface soil.

Increased resistance throughout the top 12 in.

Packed (major skid trail or landing).

Soil Physical Condition

Natural conditions.

Change in soil structure from crumb or granular to platy in the surface.

Change in soil structure to greater depth up to 12 in.

Change in soil structure > 30 cm.

Forest Floor Natural conditions. Present and intact.

Partially missing or patchy. Bare soil.

Mineral Soil Natural conditions.

Soil surface has no cover. Mineral topsoil shows some mixing with subsoil (different soil colors present).

Obvious topsoil removal, gouging, piling. Subsurface soil exposed.

Erosion Natural conditions.

Slight evidence (sheet erosion) of soil movement but some litter present.

Rills present. Gullies evident.

Burning Natural conditions.

Lightly charred residues.

Litter consumed but soil is not visibly changed.

All woody material consumed and soil visibly altered - white ash present - soil may appear orange and powdery.

Pre-Treatment Condition 18 soil transects were placed throughout the project area to get an overall representation of the current soil conditions (Figure 2). 70 points were collected along each 1000-foot transect, recording the occurrences of each disturbance class (D0-D3, Table 4). A total of 1,260 points were collected throughout the project area, with undisturbed or minimally disturbed (D0 and D1) areas considered acceptable (i.e., meeting regional soil standard conditions requiring that less than 15% of the activity area be detrimentally disturbed). The project area is at 98.7% minimal or no disturbance (Table 4). Extensive signs of entry (D3) was found at only one point along transect T5, where the soil was highly compacted due to an old skid road; the occurrence of this one point is statistically insignificant.


9

Figure 2. Location map of the 18 soil transects surveyed for the project.

Transect observations for the project area show that mean soil cover is 90%, with shallow soil and rock outcrop averaging 34% and 22%, respectively (Table 5). Large woody debris (LWD) was at 5.8 pieces per acre and mean slope was 40%. Soil cover meets the R5 and MSA standards and guides of a minimum of 50% cover on slopes 35% gradient or less and 70% cover on slopes greater than 35% gradient. Likewise, LWD averages 5.8 logs/acre, which meets the R5 and MSA standards and guides of at least 5.0 logs/acre. Compaction hazard (and the reduction in site porosity) is considered low due to the coarse texture of the dominate soils in the project area (e.g., Chawanakee and Chaix).

Table 4. Summary of Disturbance Levels from Soil Transect Inventory

Transect Treatment Unit(s) ID

D0 - Natural

Condition

D1 - Faint Signs of

Entry

D2 - Obvious Signs of

Entry

D3 - Extensive Signs of

Entry

Indicator Condition

Assessment

T1 4 93% 7% 0% 0% Good T2 59 84% 14% 1% 0% Good T3 3 84% 10% 6% 0% Good T4 5 87% 7% 6% 0% Good T5 1 90% 4% 4% 2% Good T6 9 100% 0% 0% 0% Good T7 47 95% 5% 0% 0% Good T8 55 99% 1% 0% 0% Good T9 15 97% 3% 0% 0% Good

T10 11, 56 97% 3% 0% 0% Good T11 55 94% 6% 0% 0% Good T12 6 96% 6% 1% 0% Good T13 14 96% 4% 0% 0% Good T14 20 100% 0% 0% 0% Good T15 18 99% 1% 0% 0% Good T16 34 81% 16% 3% 0% Good T17 40 99% 1% 0% 0% Good T18 40 94% 4% 1% 0% Good

Average 93.6% 5.1% 1.2% 0% Good


10

Table 5. Transect observations for soil cover, shallow soil, rock outcrop, large woody debris (LWD) and slope.

Transect %Soil Cover

Shallow Soil%

Rock Outcrop% LWD Slope

T1 91 50 40 4.3 36.8 T2 85 30 40 4.4 50.6 T3 54 20 40 3.5 44.5 T4 96.5 50 20 7.6 41.4 T5 90.5 30 0 3.2 31.7 T6 100 20 10 7.8 34.4 T7 100 0 0 3 25.7 T8 94.3 60 20 8 46.6 T9 92 20 0 9.2 38.1 T10 85.5 20 20 4.5 47.8 T11 74.5 10 30 3.8 44.4 T12 96 80 0 6.6 20.9 T13 86 70 10 2.7 36.5 T14 96 50 0 5.1 55.1 T15 95.5 20 10 9.3 33.4 T16 99.5 0 70 3.9 24 T17 98.5 40 60 10.6 49.5 T18 87 40 30 7.1 50.8

Average 90.1 33.9 22.2 5.8 39.6

Watershed The project treatment area intersects three National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Hydrologic Unit Code 12 (HUC 12) watersheds, which include Bull Run Creek (180300010603), Isabella Lake-Kern River (180300010607), and Upper Cedar Creek (180300040102) (Figure 3). The northeast part of the project area is drained by Calf Creek, Cow Creek, and Deep Creek, which all flow generally east and confluence with Bull Run Creek. Bull Run Creek runs approximately 6 miles east until it confluences with the North Fork of the Kern River. The south-southeastern portion of the project area is principally drained by Ice House Creek, which confluences with Tillie Creek approximately 2.5 miles east of the project area; Tillie Creek flows into Lake Isabella. The western part of the project area is drained by Cedar, Alder, and Slick Rock Creeks, which confluence with Poso Creek to the west (Figure 4).


11

Figure 3. Map showing the project area in relation to the three NHD HUC 12 subwatersheds.

Figure 4. Map showing the Class I-III perennial-intermittent streams in or near the project area.


12

Within the project boundary, the USFS GIS data show 17 miles of perennial streams, 10 miles of intermittent streams, and approximately 111 miles of ephemeral streams (Table 6). Table 6 provides a summary of the drainages and associated water bodies in the project area and Figure 5 shows the HUC14 subdrainages used for analysis. Table 6. Stream mile summaries and stream miles potentially affected by project activities.

Main Stream Systems

HUC12 Watershed

Local HUC14

Subdrainage

Stream Miles Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Total

Calf Creek Cow Creek Deep Creek Bull Run Creek

Bull Run Creek (180300010603)

9DF

17 10 111 138

Ice House Creek Shirley Creek Tillie Creek

Lake Isabella-Kern River

(180300010607)

9GA 9GB 9GC 9GJ 9GK

Cedar Creek Slick Rock Creek Alder Creek

Upper Cedar Creek

(180300040102)

5CB 5CE 5CK 5CC

Figure 5. Map of the local “HUC 14” drainages used for analysis.


13

Methodology for Analysis

Stream Condition Inventory The purpose of the Pacific Southwest Region Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) is to collect intensive and repeatable data from stream reaches to document existing stream condition and make reliable comparisons over time within or between stream reaches. SCI is therefore an inventory and monitoring program. It is designed to assess effectiveness of management actions on streams in managed watersheds (non-reference streams), as well as to document stream conditions over time in watersheds with little or no past management or that have recovered from historic management effects (Frazier, et al., 2005). The SCI technical guide was developed in 1993 (revised, 2005) by a Pacific Southwest Region team of hydrologists, fisheries biologists, and a mathematical statistician from the regional research station. The intent was to select stream condition attributes and establish attribute measurement protocols that could be used across forest boundaries so that information could be shared across the region. Several criteria were established for selecting attributes: Attributes were demonstrated through research to be able to detect change resulting from

management Attributes could be sampled by field crews Attributes had a small enough measurement error to be useful in describing differences with

a moderate to high level of confidence (e.g., detecting a 20% change with a confidence of 80%)

SCI consists of stream features, or attributes, that are useful in classifying channels, evaluating the condition of stream morphology, aquatic habitat, and making inferences about water quality. Attributes are collected at selected reaches on streams of interest. Reaches are monumented to reduce variability when survey measurements are repeated. Benthic Macroinvertebrates are collected as part of the survey and will been submitted to Utah State University’s Logan Bug Lab for processing (see aquatic report for a full discussion on biotic condition). In addition to aquatic insects, particle distribution, and channel geometry information, large woody debris, bank configuration, shade, channel stability and limited water chemistry data are collected. The SCI attributes and protocols are designed to measure a suite of characteristics for inventorying stream condition at a specific time and place. SCI consists of established and proven stream assessment techniques that are organized into a package that can be measured in the field (Frazier, et al., 2005). The SCI plots were installed pre project to define existing conditions. These same sites will be monitored post project to assess any effects of the project on water quality and watershed condition and to evaluate the effectiveness of the BMP’s within the project area. Four Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) plots have been surveyed near or in the project area. Surveys (and re-surveys) occurred between 2001 and 2010. Table 7 summarizes the survey information and Figure 6 displays the locations. Complete SCI data can be found in project record.


14

Figure 6. Blue circles mark the locations of Stream Condition Inventory surveys conducted in the project area. Table 7. Stream Condition Inventory Plots in or near the project area.

HUC12 Watershed

Creek Located By UTM Year of Survey/Resurvey

Upper Cedar Creek

(180300040102)

Cedar Creek Cedar Creek Campground

11N, E 3566732, N 3956908

2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009

Upper Cedar Creek

(180300040102)

Cedar Creek Alder Creek Campground

11N, E 3540060, N 3954039

2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009

Lake Isabella-Kern River

(180300010607)

Ice House Creek

Below Alta Sierra 11N, E 0361793, N 3954049

2003, 2010

Bull Run Creek (180300010603)

Cow Creek Near Black Mountain Saddle

11N, E 0361565, N 3959456

2006, 2007, 2008, 2009

Classification of Stream Channels The majority of stream channels in the project area have been classified using the Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1996). The majority streams (and those surveyed for SCI) are “B” channel types, with some gradation between a “B” and an “A” channel type. The numeric value attached to each letter represents the dominant particle size (Table 8). The letters not capitalized relate to channel gradient (Figures 7 and 8). A brief description of common channel types is included below. “A” stream types range in slopes of 4 to 10 percent. They are entrenched and confined channels, giving them a low width/depth ratio and sinuosity. The typical “A” channel will have step-pool system morphology. “Aa+” channel types are over 10 percent gradients. Due to high channel


15

gradients and fine substrate, these streams are sensitive to disturbance, particularly A3 to A6 channel types. Recovery potential for these streams is very poor, with the exception of A1 and A2 channel types (Rosgen, 1996), which are a result of the bedrock/boulder substrate. “B” stream types have a 2 to 4 percent gradient range and are moderately entrenched. “B” stream types can exceed 5 percent gradient without abandoning their morphological characteristics. These channels would receive a notation sub “a” indicating a gradient greater than 5%, i.e. B2a, B1a. Sinuosity of a B channel is considered moderate and the width/depth ratio is moderate. These channel types have an excellent recovery potential assuming the cause of instability is corrected (Rosgen, 1996). “C” stream types have gradients ranging from 0.1 to 3.9 percent. They have a well-established floodplain, moderate to high sinuosity, and a moderate to high width/depth ratio. These channels are considered to be sensitive to disturbances, especially C4, C5, and C6 stream types with a very high sensitivity rating. However, their recovery ratings range from fair to very good once the instability problem is corrected (Rosgen, 1996). Table 8 shows the numeric value in the stream classification system. Streams dominated by bedrocks or boulders will have the highest stability, highest recovery potential, and lowest sensitivity to disturbances. Otherwise the stream channels will vary depending on the slope and dominate particle size. Table 8 – Sediment classification table associated with channel types.

Number Sediment Type Range of Sizes (mm) 1 Bedrock 2048 and above 2 Boulders 256 to 2048 3 Cobble 64 to 256 4 Gravel 2 to 64 5 Sand 0.062 to 2 6 Silt/Clay Less than 0.062


16

Figure 7. Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers (after Rosgen, 1996).

Figure 8. Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers (after Rosgen, 1996).


17

Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation Developed in 1975 by Dale J. Pfankuch, a method of stream surveying more commonly referred to as “Pfankuch,” was developed to evaluate the stream channel condition and stability from within the floodplain and stream channel. His method takes into account a total of 15 attributes from the upper banks, lower banks, and channel bottom. The upper bank is a vertical observation from the floodplain to bankfull. The lower bank is a vertical observation from bankfull to the base of the bank. The channel bottom is a horizontal observation between both banks of the channel. Each attribute is assigned a numeric value based on the observations made in the field. When the attributes are tallied, they are categorized into four different ratings, which are poor, fair, good, or excellent. The total score of these values can range from 15 to 152 and each of these ratings has internal ranges (Pfankuch, 1975); an example would be a channel determined to have a low good stability rating. The low indicates the score was near the “lower” end of a good rating, but not having a score high enough to reach a low fair rating. The Pfankuch rating system was later modified to work with the Rosgen classification system. This modified system (Rosgen, 2001) combines Pfankuch ratings with Rosgen stream classification as a function of channel type and ranking of those indicators identified in statistical evaluations by Myers and Swanson (1992). Pfankuch stream stability surveys were conducted in conjunction with SCI.

Stream Condition Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) plots have been surveyed near or in the project area. Surveys (and re-surveys) occurred between 2001 and 2010. Channel types surveyed in the project area consist of “A” and “B” channels. “A” stream types range in slopes of 4 to 10 percent. They are entrenched and confined channels, giving them a low width/depth ratio and sinuosity. The typical “A” channel will have step-pool system morphology. “Aa+” channel types are over 10 percent gradients. Due to high channel gradients and fine substrate, these streams are sensitive to disturbance, particularly A3 to A6 channel types. Recovery potential for these streams is very poor, with the exception of A1 and A2 channel types (Rosgen, 1996), which are a result of the bedrock/boulder substrate. “B” channel types have a 2 to 4 percent gradient range and are moderately entrenched. “B” stream types can exceed 5 percent gradient without abandoning their morphological characteristics. These channels would receive a notation sub “a” indicating a gradient greater than 5%, i.e. B2a, B1a. Sinuosity of a B channel is considered moderate (>1.2) and the width/depth ratio is moderate (>12). These channel types are stable and have an excellent recovery potential assuming the cause of instability is corrected (Rosgen, 1996). Lake Isabella-Kern River (9G) The 9G subwatershed is located west of the community of Wofford Heights. This watershed has been previously impacted by grazing, timber sales, forest service roads and trails, as well as the community of Alta Sierra and the Shirley Meadows Ski Area. An SCI site is located on Ice House Creek below Alta Sierra to monitor this subwatershed. Table 9 displays the subwatersheds and their associated drainages within the project area. Table 9. Isabella Lake-Kern River Subwatershed, Affected Drainages, and Associated Stream Classes

NHD HUC12 Subwatershed

SQF Subwatershed Drainage (Local “HUC14”) Drainage # Stream Class

Isabella Lake-Kern River

(180300010607) 9G

North Fork Ice House Creek 9GA IV Ice House Creek 9GB III

Shirley Creek 9GC III Lower Ice House Creek 9GJ III

Southern Trib. To Ice House Creek 9GK III


18

9G stream surveys indicate the riparian ecotypes are 50% naturally unstable and 50% naturally stable. Shirley Creek drainage (9GC) contains a naturally unstable A3a channel type and a naturally stable A1a channel type. The A1a reach is closely downstream from the A3a. The southern tributary to Ice House Creek drainage (9GK) contains one A5 naturally unstable stream. This reach is located within private property. The other naturally stable A1 stream is located in the Shirley Creek drainage (9GJ). Riparian ecotype level of impact is high for the naturally unstable and minimum for the naturally stable reaches. An SCI plot was established on Ice House Creek. Figure 9 illustrates a cross section of the creek and particle distribution. Ice House Creek is a stable sensitive, low impact, gravel dominated, low gradient, B4 channel, with a well-defined bankfull feature and floodplain, which suggests that it is a stable and hydrologically functioning system. This drainage yielded a Pfankuch stability rating of good. Average shading along the stream channel is 97 percent.

Figure 9. SCI plot on Ice House Creek below Alta Sierra. Figure on the left is a typical channel cross-section; the figure on the right is the substrate particle size distribution. Upper Cedar Creek (5C) The Upper Cedar Creek subwatershed 5C begins in the western part of the Greenhorn Mountains and flows west toward the community of Glennville. Past impacts in this watershed include grazing, forest service roads and trails, State Highway 155, past timber sales, and the community of Alta Sierra. Two SCI sites are located on Cedar Creek to monitor this watershed. Table 10 shows the relationship between the NHD HUC 12 subwatershed and the local drainage network. Table 10. Upper Cedar Creek Subwatershed, Affected Drainages, and Associated Stream Classes


SQF Subwatershed

Drainage (Local “HUC14”) Drainage # Stream Class

Upper Cedar Creek

(180300040102) 5C

Upper Alder Creek 5CC III Upper Cedar Creek 5CB III

Lower Slick Rock Creek 5CE III Upper Slick Rock Creek 5CK III

The westernmost part of Upper Cedar Creek subwatershed contains an SCI site. The surveyed reach is located near Alder Creek Campground. The reach extends 250 meters, starting above the tributary to Alder Creek. Figure 10 illustrates a cross section of the creek and particle distribution.


19

Figure 10. Cross-section and substrate particle size distribution of Cedar Creek near Alder Creek Campground. Shading from riparian vegetation surrounding the stream has slightly increased from the 2006 surveys; average cover was measured at 80.3%. The Pfankuch stream stability evaluation yielded fair rating. Alder Creek has a well-defined bankfull feature and floodplain, which suggests a stable and hydrologically functioning system. These conditions are stable even with additional impacts produced by the campground, bridge, and road. SCI data analysis supports a hydrologically functioning system. Drainage 5CB has an SCI site located below Cedar Creek Campground and state highway 155. The 2006 survey of Cedar Creek identifies the reach as a stable B4a channel type with a Pfankuch stream stability rating of fair. Recovery potential for an impacted B4a channel type is good. The average cover provided by the riparian and surrounding habitat is 87.5%. The stream appears to be hydrologically functioning. Figure 11 illustrates a cross section of the creek and particle distribution.

Figure 11. Cross-section and substrate particle distribution of Cedar Creek at Cedar Campground. Streams in the Alder Creek drainage are comprised of 60% naturally-stable, A1a, A2a, and B1 channel types of bedrock and boulder controlled reaches. These reaches have a minimal to moderate impact rating. The other 40% of the stream reaches are steep, fine-grained, naturally unstable, A4a and A3 reaches. These have impact ratings of minimal.


20

Of the reaches surveyed about 49% have sediment levels high enough to impact fish habitat. The source of this sediment is road 25S04, dispersed camping adjacent to Alder Creek, and the Alder Creek Campground. Riparian vegetation and bank stability conditions are similar to Cedar Creek. Bull Run Creek (9D) The Bull Run Creek subwatershed (9D) begins in the northern part of the Greenhorn Mountains and flows east toward the Kern River. Past impacts in this watershed include grazing, forest service roads and trails, mining activity, and past timber sales. An SCI sites is located on Cow Creek to monitor this watershed. Table 11 shows the relationship between the NHD HUC 12 subwatershed and the local drainage network. Table 11. Bull Run Subwatershed, Affected Drainage(s), and Associated Stream Class


SQF Subwatershed

Drainage (Local “HUC14”) Drainage # Stream Class

Bull Run Creek (180300010603) 9D Cow Creek

9DF II

Cow Creek surveys were conducted between 2006 and 2009 (Figure 12). Cow Creek is a B3a naturally-stable channel with well-defined bankfull features and floodplain, suggesting a stable and hydrologically functioning system. The survey was conducted just below the confluence of Cow and Calf Creek with a drainage area of 3.6 square miles. Results from repeated surveys indicate any changes in the channel geometry have been negligible. Channel attributes for Cow Creek have remained stable throughout the survey period. No trends were noticed to indicate effects from land management activities were having a negative impact on the channel or water quality on the survey reach.

Figure 12. Cross-section and substrate particle distribution of Cow Creek from 2006-2009.


21

Water Quality

Beneficial Uses Water quality objectives and beneficial uses in the project area are managed by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) under the Central Valley Basin Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin (CVRWQCB, 2004). This plan designates the beneficial uses to be protected, water quality objectives, and an implementation program for achieving objectives. Table 12 shows the designated beneficial uses for major perennial drainage(s) downstream of the project area. Water bodies tributary to these major perennial drainages also 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).

Table 12. Designated beneficial uses for major perennial drainages downstream of the project area. Water Bodies MUN AGR POW REC1 REC2 WARM COLD WILD RARE SPWN GWR FRSH

Kern River Above Lake Isabella

X X X X X X X X X X

Poso Creek 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, 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.

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.


22

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.

Threatened and 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.

Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN) – Uses of water that support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early development of fish (SPWN shall be limited to cold water fisheries).

Ground Water Recharge (GWR) – Uses of water for natural or artificial recharge of ground water for purposes of future extraction, maintenance of water quality, or halting of salt water intrusion into fresh water aquifers.

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

303(d) listing A water body or segment of a water body (e.g., a fresh stream, river, or lake) that does not meet (or is not expected to meet) water quality standards may be considered a “Water Quality Limited Segment” (WQLS). These WQLS’s are added biennially by the CVRWQCB to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Lake Isabella has been listed on the State’s 303(d) list of impaired waters for Dissolved Oxygen and pH, source unknown. The establishment of a TMDL is scheduled for 2021. It is important to note that, as of this writing, the perennial drainages in SHFP project area are not included or proposed for the State’s 303(d) list of impaired waters.

Water Quality Objectives Water Quality Objectives are narrative or numeric limits designed to protect beneficial uses of water. The parameters with specified objectives in the Tulare Basin Plan include ammonia, bacteria, biostimulatory substances, chemical constituents, color, dissolved oxygen, floating material, oil and grease, pH, pesticides, radioactivity, salinity, sediment, settleable material, tastes and odors, temperature, toxicity, and turbidity. The parameters that this project has the potential to affect are dissolved oxygen (DO), sediment, temperature, and turbidity. The other parameters are not likely to be affected by the proposed action

Cumulative Watershed Effects Cumulative watershed effects (CWE) are those that result from the incremental impacts of the proposed action when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative watershed effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over space and time. The objective of CWE analysis is to protect the identified beneficial uses of water from the combined effects of multiple management activities. A CWE analysis was conducted following established protocol, consistent with Sequoia Mediated Settlement Agreement and the Regional Methodology for CWE assessment described in Forest Service Handbook 2509.22. This method assumes that an acre of road represents the greatest (common) management disturbance, and normalizes all other activities to this standard, called


23

Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERAs). Established coefficients are used to convert acres of other land disturbing activities into ERAs. Local drainages (“HUC14”) are used for spatial analysis for ERA’s (Figure 5); these drainages range in size from 250 to 2000 acres. The CWE model evaluates six watershed characteristics used to set watershed sensitivity and assign threshold values. These include soil, topography, climate, geology, vegetation, and fluvial geomorphology. Disturbance modeling focuses on chronic sedimentation through the adoption of disturbance coefficients derived from studies performed on the Idaho Batholith (Stowell, et al., 1983). The modeling coefficients used to derive ERA values are determined by silvicultural prescription and logging system, as well as a suite of variables used in the model to evaluate the cumulative ERA’s (Table 13). ERAs for vegetation management and logging are prorated by their age, assuming that 95% recovery occurs over 30 years (USDA-FS 1990: Chapter 20). Assuming 95% recovery over time, as opposed to 100% recovery, takes into account major skid roads and landings, which may not fully recover to pre-disturbance conditions. Disturbance activities include roads and OHV trails; past, present, and foreseeable vegetation management and logging activity, grazing; and land development. All known disturbances that occurred within the past 30 years and all reasonably foreseeable disturbances are included in the CWE analysis. Table 13. Disturbance variables used in the CWE model to calculate ERA’s in the project area.

Disturbance Variable Description Slope Length Best fit line from the top to the bottom of the treatment unit.

Delivery Distance The distance of the disturbance to the nearest Class III stream. Ground Cover Expressed as a percent between 0 (bare ground) and 100% (mineral soil

completely covered). This factor is evaluated between the disturbance and the creek.

Slope Gradient The vertical elevation difference between the lower boundary of the disturbance site and the stream channel divided by the horizontal distance multiplied by 100 and expressed as a %.

Slope Shape Based on the convexity (i.e., the degree of channelization) of the slope between the disturbance and the nearest creek. A convex slope is given a coefficient of 4, where a concave slope is given a coefficient of 0. Slope shapes in between these two extremes are assigned coefficients 1-3 based on professional judgement.

Surface Roughness An estimate of the roughness of the surface of the ground between the disturbance and the nearest creek. Roughness influences how much energy flowing water will have to cause erosion. This factor is estimated from 0 to 4 with 0 being smooth (no energy dissipation) and 4 being rough (high energy dissipation).

Texture of Eroded Material Expressed as a percent eroded material finer than silt (0.05mm). Material finer than silt is highly transportable.

Aggregate Stability Aggregate stability is the tendency of soil particles to adhere together and resist deformation. This factor is dependent upon texture, soil organic matter, and chemical composition.

Geologic Erosion Factor A coefficient used to modify basic erosion rate based on gross lithology (e.g., granitic vs. metamorphic).

Mitigation Factor A coefficient used to reduce erosion rates from roads based on vegetative and/or physical mitigations used to reduce erosion.

Management actions are generally planned to prevent ERAs from exceeding threshold; however, in very small drainages, even limited disturbance can result in ERA values exceeding threshold. Exceeding threshold does not represent the exact point at which cumulative watershed effects will occur. Rather, it serves as a “yellow flag” indicator of increasing susceptibility of a CWE response. If the ERA threshold is exceeded, a detailed IDT field assessment of CWE susceptibility allows for more specific knowledge of the area, including the position of past and proposed disturbances


24

relative to the drainage network, and the sensitivity and condition of stream channels, to be factored into the final determination of the risk for CWEs. If a drainage has exceeded threshold (with the Proposed Action and reasonably foreseeable future actions), and is determined to be at risk following a detailed IDT field assessment, then ground disturbing activity (e.g., tractor logging) would be reduced, modified, and/or mitigated with site-specific design features and BMP’s to reduce the probability of a CWE response.

CWE Results 10 HUC 14 drainages were analyzed for CWE. Pre-project baseline conditions show none of the drainages exceeding threshold nor do the drainages exceed threshold with the proposed action (Table 14). Table 14. CWE results for the 10 drainages analyzed for the SHFP.

Subwatershed HUC7

Subwatershed Name

Total ERA’s

Available

ERA’s Proposed

Action

ERA’s Remaining

TOC Percentage

Over TOC?

IDT Field Evaluation Required?

5CB Middle Cedar Creek

31.52 16.79 14.73 53.28 N N

5CC Upper Alder Creek 23.67 3.33 20.34 14.08 N N 5CE Slick Rock Creek 42.54 13.21 29.33 31.06 N N 5CK Upper Slick Rock

Creek 19.62 7.77 11.85 39.62 N N

9DF Calf Creek 112.28 15.59 96.69 13.88 N N 9GA North Ice House 22.72 7.14 15.31 32.60 N N 9GB Upper Ice House

Creek 30.20 15.92 14.28 52.72 N N

9GC Upper Shirley Creek

25.44 21.38 4.06 84.03 N Y

9GJ Shirley Creek 52.47 14.78 37.69 28.16 N N 9GK Happy Daze 7.20 4.84 2.36 67.26 N N

Drainage 9GC was reviewed in the field by an Interdisciplinary Team since its TOC is at or above the 80% TOC threshold. Channel conditions on Shirley Creek (the main outlet and proxy for 9GC) show a stable Ba3 cobble dominated channel with vigorous and well developed riparian vegetation. Pools showed minimal fines (<20%) and glides showed clean cobbles and gravel. These conditions indicate that a CWE response is not occurring, which corroborates with the CWE model analysis.

Environmental Consequences

The Environmental Consequences chapter includes a “General Discussion” section of effects consisting of a literature review, followed by sections that describe the predicted effects of the various project related alternatives.

General Discussion: Soils The project could affect soil productivity in the project area by reducing: 1) soil cover, 2) soil porosity, 3) large woody debris (LWD) and 4) disturbance of surface soils.

Soil Compaction The main physical property that can be affected by the project activity is porosity, the


25

interconnected spaces between individual soil particles. Soil hydrologic function is primarily dependent on the size and arrangement of soil pores, or pore geometry. Soil pore geometry also controls the transmission of air through soils, which is critical for plant growth. When porosity is decreased, the soil becomes denser, making it more difficult for roots to penetrate. Maintenance of natural soil porosity is important for maintaining healthy native plant communities and for maintaining the hydrologic function of the soil. Severe losses of porosity through soil compaction decrease the water and air available to plant roots, creating droughty and/or anaerobic conditions as well as inhibiting root growth. Soil hydrologic function is usually impaired as water storage capacity, infiltration, and permeability decrease. As a consequence, increased runoff can occur, which could result in accelerated erosion and cumulative watershed effects.

Severely compacted soils could take at least 50 years to recover. Bulk density (ratio of soil mass to soil volume) and soil strength (penetration resistance) are two widely accepted indirect means of measuring changes in porosity in the field. Qualitative indicators of compaction include platy soil structure, loss of soil structure (e.g. puddling), impressions or ruts in the mineral soil surface, and in some cases, redoximorphic features that indicate a recent change in soil aeration. Redoximorphic features are soil properties associated with wetness that results from reduction and oxidation of iron and manganese compounds after saturation and desaturation with water.

Use of heavy equipment, especially rubber tired skidders, for logging and tractor piling could compact soils, in the upper 12” of the soil profile. Soil compaction can have a detrimental effect on soil productivity on fine-textured soils that are moist or at optimal soil moisture conditions for soil compaction. Soil compaction is not a concern in coarse textured soils. In fact, soil compaction has been found to have an increase in soil productivity by increasing the available water holding capacity of the soil (Powers, et al 2005). Soils have been classified into sensitive and non-sensitive soils types for the purpose of identifying soils that are susceptible to detrimental soil compaction. Soil porosity should be at least 90 percent of total porosity over 85% of an activity area (stand) found under natural conditions. A ten percent reduction in total soil porosity corresponds to a threshold for soil bulk density that indicates detrimental soil compaction. Soil Organic Matter and Soil Cover Soil productivity is dependent on the amount of soil organic matter available to prevent significant short or long-term nutrient cycle deficits, and to avoid detrimental physical and biological soil conditions. Soil organic matter should include fine organic matter and large woody debris (LWD). Fine organic matter (e.g., pine needle cast and leaf litter) provides soil nutrients and protects the soil by providing soil cover. Soil cover aids in protecting the soil from rain spatter impacts and accelerated erosion. Lack of soil cover can affect soil productivity by removal of surface soils from accelerated erosion. Soil loss should not exceed the rate of soil formation (approximately the long-term average of 1 ton/acre/year). Replenishment of fine organic matter to preexisting conditions could occur in less than 10 years as forests shed their needles and leaves, which accumulate on the forest floor. Large organic matter or large woody debris, provides habitat for soil micro-organisms including fungus, soil insects and soil bacteria. All of these organisms are critical for soil health and soil


26

productivity. The loss or reduction of large woody debris in a forest could last anywhere from 10 to 50 years, depending on the number of decadent trees or snags that are left in the stand after treatment. At least 5 well distributed logs per acre, representing the range of decompositions classes, should be left on the forest floor after the proposed action is completed. Soil Displacement Soil productivity can be reduced or impacted from displacement of surface soils. Surface soils include valuable amounts of organic matter and nutrients that are critical for productive soils. Surface soils can be disturbed by logging and mastication equipment operating in the forest, by tractors piling slash and by construction of roads and skid roads from excavation of the soil to construct a road or skid trail prism. Tractor logging on sustained slopes over 35% could result in soil displacement exceeding desired conditions. Mastication equipment can operate on slopes greater than 35% under normal, dry soil moisture conditions. During times of increased soil moisture content, mastication equipment operating on slopes greater than 35% could cause additional soil disturbances, increasing the likelihood of soil displacement, compaction and the formation of ruts and track incision. The surface area of new roads will result in a loss of soil productivity for that area.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis Direct effects on soil resources occur during the proposed logging or mastication activities and could include disturbance or displacement of soil or reduction of soil cover. Prescribed fire could reduce soil cover for 3 to 5 years after the prescribed fire is implemented. Indirect effects on soil resources can occur sometime after the activities take place and could include erosion along skid trails or mastication trails during winter storms or during the spring snowmelt. Cumulative effects on soil resources could occur for up to 30 years after the proposed activities. All of these effects could reduce soil productivity from 5 to 30 years after the proposed action.

Proposed Action Commercial and non-commercial thinning would remove overstocked green trees up to 30 inches dbh, as well as salvage dead or dying trees, to achieve desired conditions on 1100 acres within the units identified in the project area (Figure 1). It would also remove trees of any size which are creating hazards to recreation residences, private homes, power lines, roads and other infrastructure.

Commercial timber harvest would occur using mechanized equipment. Thinning would emphasize retention of large trees, while promoting stands that are resilient to insects and disease. Diseased or insect damaged “cull” trees may be sold as firewood. A borax-based fungicide will be applied to cut trees to prevent the spread of annosus root disease. The proposed action would also authorize fuels reduction in the project area including felling, chipping, piling or prescribed burning to achieve desired conditions. Burning would occur during periods approved by the air pollution control district to maximize dispersion of smoke and minimize effects on local residents, especially when compared to wildfire effects. Re-planting of native tree species, including rust-resistant sugar pines, may occur in some areas following thinning and fuels reduction.


27

Due to a significant increase in the number of dead and dying trees, the SHFP is proposed for implementation in 2016, to increase forest health and reduce the imminent hazards to the Alta Sierra community, and to recover the economic value of dead timber before it deteriorates.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Commercial Thinning Compaction During times of increased soil moisture (e.g., after a rain event) there is an increased risk of soil compaction in soils with high clay contents. Soils need to have moisture contents below 14-16% to minimize the potential of detrimental soil disturbance and/or compaction. A loss in soil productivity from compaction could occur in areas where sensitive (clay-rich) soils are located. For the Proposed Action, none of the soils in the commercial thinning units are clay rich; rather, they are dominantly comprised of Chaix and Chawanakee soils, which are coarse textured sandy loams and not susceptible to adverse compaction (Powers, 2005).

Soil Displacement, Cover and Organics Ground based harvest systems on slopes that are too steep or are on shallow soils will displace surface soil horizons that could result in accelerated erosion and/or reduce soil productivity. Chaix and Chawanakee soils have shallow A-horizons with high to very high EHR’s and are thus very sensitive to displacement. This is particularly true for treatment activity on sustained slopes over 35%, in particular where adverse skidding is required. No mechanical treatments are planned on sustained slopes greater than 35%. Fine organics will be affected in areas where skid trails and landings are constructed or re-used from previous timber activity. Removal of the fine organics could result in accelerated erosion along skid trails and landings if water quality protection BMP’s and design features are not properly implemented. Long term affects to soil productivity from loss of fine organic material is considered low because the rate of needle cast and leaf litter accumulation in unburned forests is high. As such, disturbed areas will have >50% ground coverage of fine organic material within 1-2 years after project activity. LWD would be maintained at a minimum of 5 logs per acres, which meets the desired condition for forest soil standards.

Prescribed Fire Areas planned for prescribed fire pose little risk of causing significant effects to soil productivity based on the past performance of the prescribed fire program on the Sequoia National Forest. Past prescribed fires on the forest has resulted in low burn intensity in most areas. Prescribed fire burns in a mosaic pattern leaving patches of burned and unburned vegetation, where duff and litter is usually only partially consumed in the burned areas. Most trees are left undamaged, except for a few small patches that have burned at moderate to high burn intensity with moderate burn severity.


28

Soil Cover and Organics There is potential that ground cover will be less than 50% in areas where the fire intensity is high; however, coverage from needle-cast and leaf litter will probably occur in these areas prior to the first runoff-producing storms in the fall. There is potential for rain storms in the summer, prior to these areas having adequate ground cover. Where soil cover does not meet the 50% minimum prior to coverage by natural fine organic material, erosion control materials (e.g., weed-free straw or wood fiber mulch) will be used to mitigate accelerated erosion in the interim.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of the proposed action have been analyze using established protocol, consistent with Sequoia Mediated Settlement Agreement and the Regional Methodology for CWE assessment described in Forest Service Handbook 2509.22. Results of the analysis show that the drainages affected by project activity show % TOC ranging from 13% to 84%, with none of the 10 affected drainages exceeding TOC threshold (Table 14). This analysis (coupled with the SCI results) indicates that a CWE response has not occurred nor is it likely to occur with the proposed project activity.

Summary of Effects Because of the coarse textured nature of the project areas soils, loss of soil productivity through compaction is considered low. Likewise, loss of fine organic and LWD material is considered negligible, and accelerated erosion from exposed areas where soil cover is less than 50% after treatment will be mitigated by water quality protection BMP’s and design features. With post project mitigation (i.e., erosion control and slash treatment), long term impacts to soil productivity is considered low and the short term impacts are greatly outweighed by the potential for catastrophic wildfire and the extreme safety hazards posed to the community of Alta Sierra.

Soil Monitoring Recommendations Monitoring of soil conditions would be conducted to determine if soil standard and guidelines and soil management objectives are being met. Monitoring would be accomplished in accordance with the National Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (USDA Forest Service, 2009). Soil monitoring would be conducted along pre-treatment transects after implementation to determine the extent of detrimental soil disturbance (i.e., compaction, cover, organics, and displacement) from mechanical treatments and prescribed fire.

General Discussion: Watershed

Effects of Timber Harvest on Flows and Water Quality Most of the existing research on the effects of timber harvest on stream flows has examined the effects of clearcutting or other intensive treatments, and as a result, much of the understanding of the hydrologic effects of thinning is based on inference rather than direct study (Robichaud and others, 2006; Troendle and others 2006).


29

Researchers have concluded that if less than 10% of the basal area is removed, there is little impact on flows. This is supported by paired watershed studies and by modeling (Troendle and others 2006). With removal of between 10 and 20% of basal area, flow is affected but the change is not detectable due to the natural variability of flow. Many investigators have found that approximately 20% of the basal area must be removed before a statistical change in flow is detected (Troendle and others 2006). MacDonald and Stednick (2003) state that 15% basal area must be removed before a change in flow can be detected in small research watersheds, and detection becomes more difficult as watershed size increases. There are several mechanisms by which timber harvest affects stream flows: changes in interception of precipitation, changes in snow accumulation and snowmelt (important in snow-dominated areas but less so in rain-dominated and ‘warm snow’ zones), and changes in available soil moisture due to decreased evapotranspiration.

The change in interception is related to the change in canopy. Interception losses may account for 25-35% of the annual precipitation received in cold snow zone conifers, and 10-12% in deciduous forests (Troendle and others 2006). In the Rocky Mountains, any reduction in stand density will increase snow pack accumulation. In general, canopy changes are slightly lower than basal area changes because the majority of trees removed are not the dominant canopy-forming trees. They are intermediate or suppressed trees that are growing under the dominant canopy.

Potential increases in peak flows are related to changes in snow accumulation and snowmelt. This would apply mostly to the snow-dominated portions of the project area. Troendle and others (2006) note that there is debate over the effects of harvest on peak flows in maritime climates where mid-winter rain-on-snow events are responsible for the highest peak flows. They state that rain-on-snow events with warm wind increase snow melt the most, suggesting that changes in wind speed at the snow surface is a key element in determining the magnitude of the effect. Turbulence theory research has shown that widely spaced objects can reduce turbulence at the bottom surface; so thinning may result in little increase from this process.

When a stand is thinned, the remaining vegetation captures at least a portion of the excess soil water, and the increase in water available for base stream flow is moderated. Troendle and others (2006) state that the potential for thinning to have an effect on streamflow due to reduced evapotranspiration depends on the amount of precipitation. In wet summers, there may be surplus water to contribute to increased stream flow, while in dry years; it is likely that the residual stand will use all of the available water. If the climate is dry in the summer and rainy in the winter, then the largest changes in runoff would occur during fall and early winter (Robichaud and others 2006). In snow-dominated areas, nearly all of the change in flows would occur during spring runoff, and spring runoff may occur slightly sooner if reductions in canopy allow faster melting of the snow pack. Any increase in flows that results from thinning is not likely to persist for more than 5 – 10 years (Robichaud and others 2006). Lewis and others (2001) found that under wet antecedent moisture conditions, flows in a partially clearcut watershed increased 3% compared to 23% in a clearcut watershed.

Effects of timber harvest on water quality could include increases in sedimentation caused either by the transport of eroded material out of harvested areas into stream channels, or by increased flows that result in channel erosion that in turn increases sedimentation. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are applied to minimize erosion and sediment delivery to streams. MacDonald and Stednick (2003) note that forest harvest and fuels treatments should have little effect on water quality if they are well planned and BMPs are implemented.

Monitoring of BMP on Forest Service lands in California has shown that, when implemented, timber management BMP’s are 95-98% effective (USDA 2012). An exception is Streamside Management Zones, which were found to be 85% effective due to inadequate implementation (failure to properly


30

identify SMZ on the ground). However, meadow protection was 98% effective. The Monitoring Report (USDA 2012) identifies a need to improve the implementation and effectiveness rates of timber management BMP’s, and presents a plan for accomplishing this goal that includes training and additional monitoring of these BMP’s. These measures are included in the Monitoring Plan for this project.

Literature has shown that BMP’s are effective in minimizing the erosion in harvest units and at preventing sediment from reaching streams. In a study of sediment redistribution after harvesting, Wallbrink and Croke (2002) found that sediment eroded from skid trails was deposited in the harvest unit and the 23–30 m wide stream buffers. Water bars were found to be very effective at reducing coarse sediment loads, and finer sediment was deposited in the 5m below the water bar outlets. The stream buffers trapped more sediment per unit area than the harvested area. In a review of published studies of buffer strip effectiveness, Norris (1993) notes that studies he reviewed indicate that buffer zones are effective at reducing sediment concentrations in runoff.

Effects of Roads on Flows and Water Quality A synthesis of existing information on the effects of forest roads (Gucinski and others 2001) lists effects of roads on hydrologic processes: they intercept rainfall on the road surface and subsurface flow at cutbanks, and they concentrate flow on the road surface or in a ditch. Both of these effects divert water from the flow paths normally taken. When roads concentrate surface flow and deliver it to streams via surface flow paths, they operate as extensions of the drainage network and functionally increase drainage density (Wemple and others 1996). Areas with higher drainage density tend to have higher, faster peak flows as a result of precipitation. Wemple and others (1996) found 57% of the road length in their study was hydrologically connected to streams, which means that surface runoff was delivered directly into streams via stream crossings or gullies formed at culvert outlets. In a study of forest road segments on the Eldorado National Forest, Coe (2006) found that 25% of the road segments surveyed were hydrologically connected. Robichaud and others (2006) note that studies in the western US have found between 23 and 75% hydrologic connectivity of roads.

Robichaud and others (2006) describe three studies that were able to isolate the effects of forest roads alone (not in combination with other forest management actions) on stream flow. These studies in Colorado and Idaho were unable to detect a change in runoff from roads that occupied 2 – 4 percent of the watershed area. Jones and Grant (1996) suggested that roads could intercept increases in subsurface water resulting from clearcuts, convert it to surface water and deliver it to streams. The literature suggests that roads may affect peak flow timing and magnitude, but do not affect annual yield (Gucinski and others 2001).

Studies have consistently shown that roads produce more sediment than other forest management practices (Robichaud and others 2006). Schnackenberg and MacDonald (1998) found that fine sediment in their study stream channels in Colorado was more strongly correlated with the number of road crossings than with the Equivalent Clearcut Area (similar to the Equivalent Roaded Acres used in Cumulative Watershed Effects analysis, but indexed to the effects of clearcuts rather than to roads) in the watershed.

Reid and Dunne (1984) found that road erosion rates tended to increase with increased traffic and with heavier vehicles. Timber harvest and other forest management projects can result in increases in the amount of heavy truck traffic.

Road design can mitigate these effects by controlling runoff and minimizing erosion. Maintenance is required on most roads to ensure that they function as designed, but Luce and Black (1999) found a short-term increase in erosion related to maintenance, especially cleaning inboard ditches. BMP’s can


31

also be used to mitigate the effects of roads. For example, Coe’s study (2006) on the Eldorado National Forest found that native surface roads produced 10-25 times more sediment than rocked roads.

Rocking roads and reducing the length of roads hydrologically connected to the channel system will also reduce sediment. If half of the road crossings are redesigned to reduce hydrologic connectivity, sediment could be reduced by as much as 250 tons/yr based on WEPP:Road sediment production rates, or 25 tons/yr based on Korte and MacDonald’s sediment production rates. This amounts to approximately 2 miles of road, and over ten years, sediment will be reduced by as much as 2500 tons (WEPP) to 250 tons (Korte and MacDonald, 2005).

Effects of Wildfire and Prescribed Fire on Flows and Water Quality 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. This leads to larger and flashier peak flows and more erosion on hillslopes. Wondzell and King (2003) identify three mechanisms by which fire affects hydrology: 1) decreasing canopy interception increases the proportion of precipitation available for runoff; 2) decreasing evapotranspiration increases base flow; and 3) consuming ground cover increases runoff velocity and reduces infiltration and storage as soil moisture. 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. Shakesby and Doerr (2006) report a study in Utah that estimated that in a burned area with 60-75% ground cover, 2% of rainfall contributed to overland flow while in an area where only 10% cover remained, over 70% of the rainfall ran off. In a study of post-fire erosion from simulated rainfall, Benavides-Solorio and MacDonald (2001) found that sediment yields 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 (Neary and others 2005, Shakesby and Doerr 2006). Some studies have found that more of the observed sediment load increases were due to in-channel erosion than to hillslope erosion (Shakesby and Doerr 2006). Wondzell and King (2003) note that it is difficult to determine how large episodic sediment inputs factor into the sediment budget of a watershed, and that post-fire mass-wasting events such as landslides and debris flows exert lasting effects on stream channel morphology.

Post-fire peak flows increase more in smaller drainages than in larger ones. Bigio and Cannon (as cited in Neary and others 2005) found in their compilation of post-wildfire runoff data that the average unit area discharge from watersheds less than 1km2 in size was 17,660 cfs/mi2 (193 m3/s/km2), while the average for watersheds between 1 and 10 km2 was 2,077 cfs/mi2 (22.7 m3/s/km2). Intense rainfall produces the greatest increases in peak flows (Neary and others 2005). Wondzell and King (2003) note the steep gradients in intensity and total precipitation of convective thunderstorms, which seldom results in a watershed receiving equal rainfall intensity over its entire area. It is more likely that small watersheds would receive intense rainfall over their entire area than larger watersheds, which may help explain Bigio and Cannon’s findings.


32

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.

Empirical studies have often found it difficult to demonstrate increases in water yield due to fire (Clark 2001). However, a study in Arizona found that annual water yield increased eight-fold in a 20-acre drainage the first year after a wildfire; the increase dropped to 3.8-fold the following year (Campbell 1977, as cited by Shakesby and Doerr 2006). Reviews by Shakesby and Doerr (2006) and Neary and others (2005) note a study in Washington that found a 42% increase in water yield the year following a fire, and others that found 9 and 12% increases in water yield in Oregon and South Africa.

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 investigation of post-timber harvest prescribed fires in Montana and Idaho found 5 and 15% of those areas burned at high severity (Robichaud and others 2006).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Flows and Channel Stability A majority of trees identified for harvest would be diseased or killed by drought induced insect attack, thus, effects to water yield due to altered interception and evapotranspiration as a result of their removal would be small and immeasurable (Troendle et al 2010, Campbell and Morris 1988). The Project is not expected to affect channel stability. Direct impacts to channels are avoided or minimized with design features including delineation of SMZs, designation of stream crossings, and other BMPs. Indirect effects that could occur in the case of increased flow or sediment delivery from adjacent hillslopes are also not expected, since hillslope effects have also been minimized. There could be indirect effects resulting from equipment operation in un-scoured Class V ephemeral swales, which will not have SMZs. Sediment could be mobilized from these areas and carried into the channel network.

Water quality - temperature, sediment, chemicals Temperature Project activity associated with the Proposed Action is not expected to cause changes in stream temperature because no harvest activity is planned within SMZ’s. Affects to stream temperature will be those caused by existing tree mortality (i.e., loss of canopy cover from dead trees). Elevated stream temperatures occur most frequently in mid- to late summer and early fall, when stream flows are at their lowest. Channel shading in seasonal channels has little influence on water temperature further downstream during these late season periods, because the seasonal streams are generally not flowing. Temperatures in perennial streams in drainages with high tree mortality could increase slightly due to increased solar radiation; however, mixing with cooler water downstream will dilute these small and localized potential effects with no degradation to beneficial uses.

Sediment


33

Ground-based treatments in RCAs would cause ground disturbance, due to tractor / heavy equipment use, skidding or end-lining logs, and development and use of temporary roads, skid trails, and landings. Disturbed ground could result in increased erosion (erosion rates above pre-project levels). If project-generated erosion is delivered to a stream channel, that sedimentation could result in a water quality impact that would affect beneficial uses. For example, delivery of fine sediments from the project could decrease the quality of cold water fish habitat by filling pools and embedding spawning gravels. There would be some effects to water quality resulting from ground disturbance associated with treatments in un-scoured Class-V ephemeral swales that receive no SMZ buffers. These effects would consist of small, short-term (1-3 years) increases in sediment delivery to streams, which are not expected to be measurable. The project was designed to minimize or avoid these impacts, through design features including BMPs. BMPs are effective at protecting water quality. BMP monitoring on the Sequoia NF has found that water quality was protected in 80% of the forest-wide timber, prescribed burning, and vegetation manipulation activities evaluated from 2014-2015. Evaluations did not identified issues with timber harvest or other related activities; deviations from standards were found in a Range survey and dispersed camping survey, and in both cases, BMPs had not been properly implemented or were difficult to meet due to extended drought conditions. With proper implementation, the BMPs specified for this project are expected to minimize or avoid sediment delivery resulting from project activities.

Research has indicated that loss of ground cover is the primary cause of increases in runoff and erosion; experiments have found increases in runoff and erosion when cover is less than 50% - 70% (Larsen et al 2009). Leaving slash and debris to increase ground cover in the treatment areas to a minimum of 50% cover overall and 70% cover on steep slopes and in SMZs (where possible) would mitigate treatment effects and reduce runoff and erosion. Soil transect data show that the average cover for all slope types is 90%. Chemicals (fungicides, herbicides, oil and gas) Borax-based fungicides (e.g., Sporax) have been commonly used on the Sequoia NF to reduce the spread of tree root diseases. Based on information regarding the fate of this material in relation to soils and water (USDA FS 2006), it is not expected to have a negative effect on water quality. Borax is adsorbed onto mineral particles in the soil, and the potential for leaching is low (USDA FS 2006). Monitoring found that levels of boron in soil surrounding treated stumps were not elevated above background levels (USDA FS 2006). The assessment also concluded that a direct spill into a waterbody would be unlikely to cause an increase above naturally occurring levels. The risk of petrochemicals reaching streams would be reduced by implementing BMP 2.11, which requires that equipment servicing and refueling activities occur outside of RCAs. Suitable locations for such activities would be designated prior to project implementation. Existing developed water sources would be used for drafting sites. All draft sites must meet BMPs specifications and thus impacts to the drafting site and the potential for turbidity or chemicals leaking from trucks to reach the stream will be minimized. All the stipulations in BMP 2.5 apply (Appendix 1).

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects of the proposed action have been analyze using established protocol, consistent with Sequoia Mediated Settlement Agreement and the Regional Methodology for CWE assessment described in Forest Service Handbook 2509.22. Results of the analysis show that the drainages affected by project activity show % TOC ranging from 13% to 84%, with none of the 10 affected drainages


34

exceeding TOC threshold (Table 14). This analysis (coupled with the SCI results) indicates that a CWE response has not occurred nor is it likely to occur with the proposed project activity.

Monitoring The following monitoring would be conducted:

• BMP implementation would be verified using a checklist prepared by the Hydrologist that

reflects the BMPs planned for the project, including any site-specific design features.

• The project would be included in the appropriate candidate pools for random selection for the BMP Effectiveness Program implementation and effectiveness monitoring.

Riparian Conservation Objectives Consistency Analysis A consistency review of the applicable Riparian Conservation Objective (RCO) Standards and Guides was conducted to ensure that project activities adhered to the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. The Proposed Action is consistent with the Riparian Conservation Objectives Standard and Guides. The complete RCO consistency analysis can be found in Appendix 2.

Design Features Forest policy and regulations to protect water quality and ensure watershed health are detailed by Best Management Practices (BMP’s) described in the FSM 2509.22 - Soil and Water Conservation Handbook Chapter 10 - Water Quality Management Handbook, (USDA, 2011), the Riparian Conservation Objective Standards and Guides as set forth in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA, 2004), and the Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, 1991) as amended by the Sequoia National Forest mediated settlement agreement. General project BMPs with their corresponding design features are listed in Appendix 1. BMPs would be implemented through project contract specifications, maps & administration, and adhered to during project activities, in order to protect water quality. Implementation of BMPs (FSH 2509.22 Ch. 10, R5 Supplement 2011) is required to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act and agency obligations to the State Water Quality Control Board. Applicable Riparian protection buffers (SNFPA ROD S&G #91) would be designated. SMZs (USDA FS 1989), Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) (USDA FS 1989), and Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) (USDA FS 2004) would be designated as follows (Table 15, Figure 13):


35

Figure 13. SMZ protection buffer map for the project area.


36

Table 15. USFS RCA, SMZ, and RMA widths for the project.

Feature Type RCA Width Stream Class

Stream Order

SMZ Width1 RMA Width

Perennial Streams 300 feet I2 ≥4 At least 100 feet 100 feet

Seasonally Flowing Streams

150 feet

II 3 At least 75 feet

N/A III 2 At least 50 feet

IV 1 0 - 25 feet3

V

Streams in Inner Gorge Top of Inner Gorge

Varies

Special Aquatic Features (fens, bogs, springs, seeps,

lakes, ponds, wetlands, etc.)

300 Feet

N/A N/A

100 Feet Perennial Streams with Riparian Conditions

extending more than 150 feet from edge of stream bank I At least 100 Feet Seasonally Flowing streams with riparian conditions

extending more than 50 feet from edge of stream bank

N/A

Soil and Water Quality Protection

Soils • When possible, it is best to use old temporary roads, skid trails, or landings to minimize

the impacts to the soil resource.

• Maintain a 100 foot wide buffer of 90% soil cover below rock outcrops that have the potential to generate runoff into management activity areas and cause erosion. Loping and scattering slash within these areas will maximize soil cover and surface organic matter retention.

• Conduct mechanical equipment operations (mechanical thinning and biomass removal

equipment, log skidders and tractor-piling operations) when the soil is sufficiently dry (<14- 16% moisture content) in the top 12 inches to prevent unacceptable loss of soil porosity

1 All SMZ widths include an additional three feet for each percent slope above 30 percent. SMZs are applied to each side of streams, so if treatments are located on both sides of a perennial stream, there are 100 foot SMZs on both sides for a total mechanized exclusion area of 200 feet, plus any needed slope adjustments. 2 Class I streams are not always perennial. Intermittent streams with certain characteristics can also be Class I. 3 Application of the Class IV-V SMZ buffer is left to the discretion of the TSA: ephemeral Class V swales would have no SMZ buffer; ephemeral Class IV-V drainages with defined bed-and banks would have a 25 foot buffer.


37

(soil compaction). Maintain 90% of the soil porosity over 85% of an activity area (stand) found under natural conditions. (FSM 2500 – Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2550 – Soil Management)

• Excluding mastication, limit mechanical operations where sustained slopes exceed 35%,

except where supported by on-the-ground interdisciplinary team evaluation.

• Subsoil skid roads and trails in areas where soil compaction exceeds 15% of a treatment area.

• Soil cover needs to be maintained at an average of 50% on slopes less than 35% to minimize soil erosion and uphold surface organic matter accumulation; soil cover components include the 1 to 100-hour fuels with some 1,000 hour fuels up to 10 inch diameter. Within treated areas on slopes greater than 35%, 70% soil cover needs to be maintained. Where shrub species predominate, attempt crushing prior to piling to create small woody fragments left scattered over the site for soil cover and erosion protection.

o Soil cover includes ash, organic surface materials, living vegetation less than 3 feet tall (grasses, forbs and low growing shrubs), surface rock fragments larger than ¾ inch or where needed applied mulches;

o Some soil and ecological types may not be capable of producing 50 percent soil cover because of naturally low productivity;

• Endlining that may produce surface soil displacements (furrows) within SMZs, near rock outcrops or on steeper slopes, should have slash placed along the furrow and water bars installed per BMP 1.17 if soil displacements exceed 6 inches in depth and 25 feet in length. Final approval of design feature implementation effectiveness would be done by the sale administrator after consultation with the district hydrologist and/or fisheries biologist.

• Maintain at least five well-distributed logs per acre as large woody debris (LWD) representing the range of decomposition classes. LWD is defined as downed woody material (logs) at least 10 feet long and 12 inches in diameter (SNFPA ROD S&G 10)

• Maintain 10 to 30 tons per acre of coarse woody debris to provide desirable quantities for soil

productivity and protection.

o Coarse woody debris is considered as any dead standing or downed pieces larger than 3 inches in diameter.

Landings and Temporary Roads The hydrologist and/or fisheries biologist should be consulted prior to constructing a new temporary road or enlarging a landing in an RCA (SNFPA S&G 92, 113). Existing temporary roads and landings located in SMZs should be inspected by the hydrologist and/or fisheries biologist and sale administrator prior to use and again prior to acceptance to ensure that BMPs are properly implemented (SNFPA S&G 113).


38

Stream Crossings The greatest potential for the project to affect the hydrologic connectivity of streams and aquatic habitat exists at stream crossings. To minimize the potential for project-related effects on hydrologic connectivity, existing crossings would be used whenever possible. In the event that it is necessary to construct a temporary crossing, the methods used for construction would be selected to avoid or minimize detrimental soil and vegetation disturbance and to maintain hydrologic connectivity between upstream and downstream features. All temporary crossings would be removed following the completion of project-related activities and would be treated as necessary to restore to pre-project conditions (final approval of treatment to pre-project conditions would be done by the sale administrator after consultation with the district hydrologist and/or fisheries biologist). Implementation of the activity-specific BMP’s (Appendix 1) would further ensure that hydrologic connectivity in streams and special aquatic features not be adversely affected by project activities.


39

References Beche, Leah A., Scott L. Stephens and Vincent H. Resh. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a

Sierra Nevada (California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology and Management, 218(2005):37-59.

Benavides-Solorio, Juan, and Lee H. MacDonald. 2001. Post-fire runoff and erosion from simulated rainfall on small plots, Colorado Front Range. Hydrological Processes, 15:2931-2952.

Campbell, R.E., and S.E. Morris. 1988. Hydrologic response of Pack River, Idaho, to the Sundance Fire. Northwest Science 62(4): 165-170.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2004. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Fourth Edition. Available via: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/

Clark, Bob. 2001. Soils, water, and watersheds. Chapter V in: Fire Effects Guide. National Wildlife Coordinating Group, Fire Use Working Team. Available via: http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/RxFire/FEG.pdf

Coe, Drew B. 2006. Sediment production and delivery from forest roads in the Sierra Nevada, California. MS Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Frazier J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J.B. Reiner, D.L. Azuma, J.L. Furnish, B.P. Staab8, S.L. Grant. 9/2005. Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region - Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA. 111 pg.

Gucinski, Hermann, Michael J. Furniss, Robert R. Ziemer, and Martha H. Brookes, eds. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. PNW-GTR-509. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 103p.

Jones, J.A., and G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research, 32(4):959-974.

Korte and MacDonald. 2005. Road Sediment Production and Delivery in the Southern Sierra Nevada, California. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2005, abstract #H51E-0416. Available via: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.H51E0416K

Lewis, J., S.R. Mori, E.T. Keppeler, and R.R. Ziemer. 2001. Impacts of logging on storm peak flows, flow volumes, and suspended sediment loads in Caspar Creek, California. In: M.S. Wigmosta and S.J. Burges, eds., Land use and watersheds: human influence on hydrology and geomorphology in urban and forest areas. Water Science and Application Volume 2, p.85-125. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.

Luce, Charles H., and Thomas A. Black. 1999. Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon. Water Resources Research 35(8):2561-2570.

MacDonald, L.H., and J.D. Stednick. 2003. Forests and water: a state-of-the art review for Colorado. CWRRI Completion Report No. 196. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/

http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/RxFire/FEG.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.H51E0416K


40

MacDonald, L.H., Drew Coe and Sandra Litschert. 2004. Assessing cumulative watershed effects in the Central Sierra Nevada: hillslope measurements and catchment-scale modeling. Proceedings, Sierra Nevada Science Symposium, October 7-10, 2002, Kings Beach, CA. PSW-GTR-193: 149-157.

Meyers, T.J. and Swanson, S., 1992. Variation of stream stability with stream type and livestock bank damage in Northern Nevada. Water Resources Bull. AWRA, 28(4): 743-754.

Neary, D.G., P.F. Ffolliott, and J.D. Landsberg. 2005. Fire and streamflow regimes. Chapter 5 in: Neary, D.G.,K.C. Ryan, and L.F. DeBano, eds., Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soil and water. RMRS-GTR-42-vol 4. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 250p.

Norris, Vol. 1993. The use of buffer zones to protect water quality: a review. Water Resources Management, 7:257-272.

Powers, Robert F. et al. 2005. The North American Long-Term Soil Productivity Experiment:

Findings from the First Decade of Research. Forest Ecology and Management 220 (2005) 31-50. 20 pages

Pfankuch, Dale J. 1975. Stream reach inventory and channel stability evaluation. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, R1-75-002. Government Printing Office #696-260/200, Washington, D.C.; 26 pg.

Reid, Leslie, and Thomas Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources Research 20(11):1753-1761.

Robichaud, P.R.; W.J. Elliot, F.B. Pierson, D.E. Hall, and C.A. Moffet. 2006. Erosion Risk Management Tool (ERMiT) Ver. 2013.03.01. [Online at http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/]. Moscow, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Robichaud, P.R., J.L. Beyers, and D.G. Neary. 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of postfire rehabilitation treatments. RMRS-GTR-63. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 85

Rosgen, D. L., 2001. A Stream Channel Stability Assessment Methodology, Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Vol. 2, pp. II - 18-26, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, NV.

Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.

Schnackenberg, E.S., and L.H. MacDonald. 1998. Detecting cumulative effects on headwater streams in the Routt National Forest, Colorado. JAWRA 34(5):1163-1177.

Shakesby, R.A., and S.H. Doerr. 2006. Wildfire as a hydrological and geomorphological agent. Earth-Science Reviews, 74(2006):269-307.

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/


41

Troendle, C.A., L.H. MacDonald, and C.H. Luce. 2010. Fuels management and water yield. Chapter 7 in: Elliot, W.J., I.S. Miller, and L. Audin, eds., Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. RMRS-GTR-231, Fort Collins, CO. 299p. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr231.html

Troendle, C.A., L.H. MacDonald, and C.H. Luce. 2006 (May 22, last update). Fuels management and water yield. Chapter 7 in: Elliot, W.J., and L.J. Audin, eds. Draft Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuels Management in the Western United States. Available online: http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/engr/cwe/

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for water quality management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. USDA FS, FS-990a. April 2012. 165p. http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2011. R5 Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 – Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Chapter 10 – Water Quality Management Handbook. Amendment No. 2509.22-2011-1. 12/15/2011. 262p. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5399662.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol, USDA GTR WO-82a and WO-82b. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/34427

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Human health and ecological risk assessment for borax (Sporax). Forest Health Protection, USDA Forest Service, Arlington, VA. 136p.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision (ROD). R5-MB-046. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 72p. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5416715.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Sequoia National Forest Land Management Plan, Mediated Settlement Agreement. Sequoia National Forest, Porterville, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. R5 Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 - Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Chapter 20 – Cumulative Off-site Watershed Effects Analysis. Amendment 2, effective 7/16/1990.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Sequoia National Forest, Porterville, CA.

Wallbrink, P.J., and Croke, J. 2002. A combined rainfall simulator and tracer approach to assess the role of Best Management Practices in minimizing sediment redistribution and loss in forests after harvesting. Forest Ecology and Management 170:217-232.

Wemple, Beverly C., Julia A. Jones, and Gordon E. Grant. 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin, 32(6):1195-1207.

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr231.html

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/engr/cwe/

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5399662.pdf

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/34427

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5416715.pdf


42

Wondzell, Steven M. and John G. King. 2003. Post-fire erosional processes in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain regions. Forest Ecology and Management 178(2003):75-87.

Zwolinski, Malcom. 2000. The role of fire in management of watershed responses. In: USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-13.


43

Appendix 1 Best Management Practices for Water Quality Protection Specific to Summit (from R5 FSH 2509.22 Soils and Water Conservation Handbook, Chapter 10 – Water Quality Management Handbook, USDA Forest Service, 2011)

BMP Name, Objective, and Direction Application to the Summit Project

BMP 1.1 Timber Sale Planning Process: To incorporate water quality and hydrologic considerations into the timber sale planning process.

Implemented through the specification of operational BMPs, the Environmental Analysis including interdisciplinary team office and field discussions, Riparian Conservation Objectives/Forest Plan Consistency report, and incorporation of water quality protection measures in the contracts for the Aspen Project.

BMP 1.4 Use of Sale Area Maps (SAM) and/or Project Maps for Designating Water Quality Protection Needs: To ensure recognition and protection of areas related to water quality protection delineated on a SAM or project map.

The Summit Project SAM would be reviewed by the IDT prior to being finalized. The sale administrator and contractor would review these areas on the ground prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities. Examples of water quality protection features that would be designated on the project map include:

1) Location of streamcourses and riparian zones to be protected, including the width of the protection zone for each area.

2) Wetlands (meadows, lakes, springs, etc.) and other sensitive areas (such as shallow soils) to be protected.

3) Boundaries of harvest units, specified roads and roads where hauling activities are prohibited or restricted, areas of different skidding and/or yarding methods, including post-harvest fuels treatments, and water sources available for drafting.


44


BMP 1.5 Limiting the Operating Period of Timber Sale Activities: To ensure that the contractor conducts their operations, including erosion control work, road maintenance, and so forth, in a timely manner, within the time frame specified in the contract.

The contract operation period would be limited to contract-specified periods when adverse environmental effects are not likely. The Sale Administrator would close down operations due to rainy periods, high water, or other adverse operating conditions in order to protect resources. Mechanical equipment operations (mechanical thinning and biomass removal equipment, log skidders and tractor-piling operations) would be conducted only when the soil is sufficiently dry in the top 12 inches to prevent unacceptable loss of soil porosity (soil compaction). “Maintain 90% of the soil porosity over 85% of an activity area (stand) found under natural conditions.” (FSM 2500 - Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2550 - Soil Management).

BMP 1.8 Streamside Management Zone Designation: To designate a zone along riparian areas, streams and wetlands that will minimize potential for adverse effects from adjacent management activities. Management activities within these zones are designed to improve riparian values.

Streamside management zones (SMZs) and other riparian protection zones have been specified as described in Table 15, above. In SMZs, the constraints defined in Sequoia MSA (REF, 1989) apply. This includes no self-propelled ground based equipment. SMZs should be clearly delineated with flagging or other obvious markers that are easily discernable by field personnel and equipment operators. Modifications to these guidelines are possible where site-specific needs exist, if the action is reviewed by a hydrologist or aquatic species biologist.

BMP 1.9 Determining Tractor Loggable Ground: To minimize erosion and sedimentation resulting from ground disturbance of tractor logging systems.

Limit machine falling, ground-skidding and machine piling to sustained slopes less than 35%. On short pitches >35%, limit soil erosion and reduce the risk of soil erosion by smoothing or water-barring any ruts or trenches exceeding 6 inches in depth and 25 feet in length (in SMZs, 10 feet in length). End-lining could be used to remove logs from steeper slopes. Ground disturbance on areas of shallow soils, notably soils adjacent to and abutting rock outcrops, would be avoided.


45


BMP 1.10 Tractor Skidding Design: By designing skidding patterns to best fit the terrain, the volume, velocity, concentration, and direction of runoff water can be controlled in a manner that will minimize erosion and sedimentation.

The sale administrator and contractor would designate all skid trails prior to ground disturbing activities. If uncertainty arises regarding potential resource impacts of skid trail location, an earth science specialist (i.e., hydrologist, aquatic biologist, or soil scientist) would be consulted.

BMP 1.11 Suspended Log Yarding: To protect the soil mantle from excessive erosion, to maintain the integrity of the SMZ, and control erosion on cable corridors.

The areas where suspended yard logging is required will be determined during the pre-sale planning process, and they will be included in the sale plan. The specific systems must be included in the timber sale contract, and designated on the sale area map by the Sale Preparation Forester


46

BMP 1.12 Log Landing Location: To locate new landings in such a way as to avoid watershed impacts and associated water quality degradation

The following criteria are to be used by the Sale Administrator when evaluating landings: a. The cleared or excavated size of landings will not exceed that needed for safe and

efficient skidding and loading operations. Trees considered dangerous will be removed around landings to meet the safety requirements of OSHA.

b. Selected landing locations will involve the least amount of excavation and fill possible. Landings must be located outside of SMZ/RMAs.

c. Locate landings near ridges away from headwater swales in areas that will allow skidding without crossing stream channels, violating SMZs, or causing direct deposit of soil or debris to a stream.

d. Locate landings where the least number of skid roads will be required, and sidecast can be stabilized without entering drainages or affecting other sensitive areas. Keep the number of skid trails entering a landing to a minimum.

e. Position landings such that the skid road approach will be nearly level as feasible, to promote safety and to protect soil from erosion.

f. Avoid excessive fills associated with landings constructed on old landslide benches. g. Construct stable landing fills or improve existing landings by using appropriate

compaction and drainage specifications. Landing locations would follow this order of preference: 1) outside RCAs; 2) existing landings inside RCAs but outside SMZs; 3) existing landings inside an SMZ or RMA – these are to be reviewed on the ground by a watershed specialist (hydrology, soils, or geology) prior to use and again prior to acceptance of erosion control work in the unit.


47


BMP 1.13 Erosion Prevention and Control Measures during Timber Sale Operations: To ensure that the purchasers’ operations will be conducted reasonably to minimize soil erosion.

Contractor responsibilities for erosion control will be set forth in the contract. Equipment will not be operated when ground conditions are such that excessive damage will result. The kinds and intensity of control work required of the purchaser will be adjusted by the sale administrator to ground and weather conditions with emphasis on controlling overland runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Erosion control work required by the contract will be kept current. At certain times of the year this means daily, if precipitation is likely or weekly when precipitation is predicted for the weekend. Erosion prevention measures must be applied no later than October 1 and immediately upon completion of activity begun after November 1. If the purchaser fails to perform seasonal erosion control work prior to any seasonal period of precipitation or runoff, the Forest Service may temporarily assume responsibility, complete the work, and use any unencumbered deposits as payment for the work.

BMP 1.16 Log Landing Erosion Protection and Control: To reduce the impacts of erosion and subsequent sedimentation associated with log landings by use of mitigating measures.

The contract administrator is responsible for properly implementing this practice. Landings will be properly cross-ditched, ripped (if soils are compacted), re-contoured (as necessary), and mulched after use and before the winter precipitation period, whichever comes first. Excess material not needed for erosion control can be piled and burned. Prevent road drainage from reaching landings. The hydrologist would assist the contract administrator in the evaluation of this work in any areas where temp roads or landings in SMZs or RMAs were used.

BMP 1.17 Erosion Control of Skid Trails: To protect water quality by minimizing erosion and sedimentation derived from skid trails.

Erosion control measures will be installed on all skid trails and temporary roads. These measures may include, but are not limited to, cross ditches (water bars), organic mulch, or ripping. Cross ditches will be spaced according to the guidelines below, maintained in a functioning condition, and placed in locations where drainage would naturally occur (i.e., swales). The level of maintenance will be contingent upon existing or predicted weather patterns as determined by the Sale Administer (see BMP 1.13).

% Slope Maximum Spacing


48

BMP Name, Objective, and Direction Application to the Summit Project 0 - 15 125 feet

15 - 35 45 feet

BMP 1.18 Meadow Protection during Timber Harvesting: To avoid damage to the ground cover, soil, and hydrologic function of meadows.

Mechanical equipment is not permitted in meadows.

BMP 1.19 Streamcourse and Aquatic Protection: The objectives of this BMP are: a. To conduct management actions

within these areas in a manner that maintains or improves riparian and aquatic values.

b. To provide unobstructed passage of stormflows.

c. To control sediment and other pollutants entering streamcourses.

d. To restore the natural course of any stream as soon as practicable, where diversion of the stream has resulted from timber management activities.

a. The location and method of crossings on Class IV and V streams must be agreed to by the sale administrator (SA) prior to construction. Also see BMP 2.8 for applicable direction on stream crossings. b. Stream crossings on Class I – III streams must be approved by the hydrologist. c. Damage to stream banks and channels will be repaired to the extent practicable. d. All sale-generated debris will be removed from streamcourses, unless otherwise agreed to by the SA, and in an agreed upon manner that will cause the least disturbance. e. Felled trees will not be pulled across perennial or intermittent stream channels without prior approval by the hydrologist. f. Methods for protecting water quality while utilizing tractor skid trail design in stream course areas where harvest is approved include: (1) end lining, (2) falling to the lead, and (3) utilizing specialized equipment with low ground pressure such as feller buncher harvesters. g. Water bars or other erosion control structures will be located so as to disperse concentrated flows and filter out suspended sediments prior to entry into a streamcourse. h. Material from temporary road construction and skid trail stream crossings will be removed and streambanks restored to the extent practicable. i. Special slash treatment site preparation activities will be prescribed in sensitive areas to facilitate slash disposal without use of mechanized equipment (see BMP 1.22) j. Project-related bare soil areas (e.g. skid trails, landings, temporary roads, etc.) will be covered with existing native vegetation mulch, organic debris, or certified weed free


49

BMP Name, Objective, and Direction Application to the Summit Project straw to at least 50%, well distributed cover, and cross-ditched per BMP 1.17

requirements.

BMP 1.20 Erosion Control Structure Maintenance: To ensure that constructed erosion control structures are stabilized and working

During the period of the timber sale contract, the purchaser will provide maintenance of soil erosion control structures contracted by the purchaser until they become stabilized, but not more than one year after their construction. If the purchaser fails to do seasonal maintenance work, the Forest Service may assume the responsibility and charge the purchaser accordingly. The Forest Service sale administrator is responsible for ensuring erosion control maintenance work is completed.

BMP 1.21 Acceptance of Timber Sale Erosion Control Measures before Sale Closure: To ensure the adequacy of required erosion control work on timber sales.

The sale administrator must inspect erosion control measures to ensure their adequacy prior to accepting closure on the unit and/or sale. The effectiveness of erosion control measures will be evaluated using BMPEP protocols after the sale area has been through one or more wet season. This evaluation is to ensure that erosion control treatments are in good repair and functioning as designed before releasing the purchaser from contract responsibility. The purchaser is responsible for repairing erosion control treatments that fail to meet criteria in the Timber Sale Contract, as determined by the Sale Administer, for up to one year past closure of the sale.

BMP 1.22 Slash Treatment in Sensitive Areas: To maintain or improve water quality by protecting sensitive areas from degradation which would likely result from using mechanized equipment for slash disposal.

There would be no mechanical piling in SMZs or RMAs.


50


BMP 2.1 Travel Management Planning and Analysis: To develop measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts to water, aquatic, and riparian resources during road management activities, contribute toward restoration of water quality where needed, and identify the road system which can be effectively maintained.

Identify road segments causing or threatening to cause adverse impacts to environmental resources. Identify and prioritize mitigation measures for existing roads that cause resource or watershed impacts. Mitigation measures may include: relocating or reconstructing segments; improving roads with deferred maintenance needs to standards; improving stream crossings; hardening road surfaces; putting roads in storage (BMP 2.6); closing roads seasonally; or decommissioning (BMP 2.7). At project-level analysis, roads identified for one-time use only are temporary roads, subject to decommissioning (BMP 2.7) according to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (16 USC 1608).

BMP 2.2 General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads: Locate roads to minimize problems and risks to water, aquatic, and riparian resources. Incorporate measures that prevent or reduce impacts through design for construction, reconstruction, and other route system improvements.

Implementation considers location, relocation, and design only. Construction, reconstruction, maintenance, decommissioning, and erosion control are covered in other BMPs. For temp roads: locate roads in an interdisciplinary manner with a hydrologist, soil scientist, or geologist. Avoid sensitive areas to the extent practicable. Locate these roads outside of SMZs whenever possible, with a minimum number of crossings and connections between roads and streams. Find optimal places for crossing streams (see BMP 2.8). For reconstructed roads: Incorporate design features to reduce or eliminate identified water quality impacts. Surface stabilization of native surface roads would be considered where grades exceed 12% or where the road is in an SMZ. Design diversion potential dips where a risk of flow diversion onto the road exists. The hydrologist would review road reconstruction plans prior to their approval and incorporation into the contract.

BMP 2.3 Road Construction and Reconstruction: To minimize erosion and sediment delivery from roads during road construction or reconstruction and their related activities.

For reconstructed roads: No sidecasting in SMZs/RMAs. Schedule operations when precipitation is less likely, soil moisture is optimal for construction, and rutting does not occur.


51


BMP 2.4 Road Maintenance and Operations: To ensure water quality protection by providing adequate and appropriate maintenance and by controlling road use and operations.

Roads needed for project activities would be brought to current engineering standards of alignment, drainage, and grade before use, and would be maintained through the life of the project. Roads would be inspected at least annually to determine what work, if any, is needed to keep ditches, culverts, and other drainage facilities functional and the road stable. Identify road maintenance measures to protect and maintain water, aquatic, and riparian resources, including surfacing, outsloping, dips and cross drains, armoring ditches, spot rocking, replacing culverts, and installing new drainage features. Where economically feasible, place aggregate on existing native surface roads located in areas with High and Very High Soil Erosion Hazard ratings. Require aggregate on road slopes greater than 5% in areas with High and Very High Soil Erosion Hazard ratings. Maintain road surfaces to dissipate water uniformly using outsloping, rolling dips, or cross- drains. Where feasible, use outsloping with rolling dips as the primary technique. Adjust surface drainage structures to minimize hydrologic connectivity by discharging runoff into areas with high infiltration and surface roughness; armoring outlets; or increasing the number of drainage structures. Clean ditches only as often as needed to keep them functional. Prevent unnecessary vegetation disturbance. Avoid undercutting the toe of the cutslope. Install erosion control measures when grading hydrologically connected segments and ditches. Minimize diversion potential by installing diversion prevention dips downslope of crossings, and armor them if needed. Enforce pre-, haul, and post- maintenance specifications. Require the commercial operator to leave roads in satisfactory condition based on the maintenance level and management strategy (open, closed, storage). Develop and follow Forest Wet Weather Operation Standards. On roads not designated for all weather use, operations will be limited during the wet season to periods when the soil is sufficiently dry to support site access without damage to the road surface or drainage


52

BMP Name, Objective, and Direction Application to the Summit Project structures.

BMP 2.5 Water Source Development and Utilization: To supply water for road construction, maintenance, dust abatement, fire protection, and other management activities while protecting and maintaining water quality.

Coordinate all water drafting with the hydrologist. Drafting sites would be located where vehicle approach and water removal have minimal effects on the stream. There are several existing developed drafting sites located in the project area. Where overflow may enter the stream, erosion control devices shall be installed. Water drafting vehicles must carry spill kits including petroleum-absorbent pads. Drafting vehicles would be inspected daily for leaks and repaired when needed to prevent petroleum leaks in the SMZ. For non-fish-bearing streams that are also not occupied by amphibians or reptiles, drafting is not permitted when bypass flows are less than 10 gallons per minute (FSH 2509.22- 2011-1). No more than 50% of the flow exceeding these minimum levels may be removed. Drafting pumps must be placed a minimum of 5 feet from the top of the stream bank, OR be placed in a spill containment tray. They must have a low entry velocity, and be fitted with a 2mm screen.

BMP 2.6 Road Storage: To ensure that road drainage functions properly and damage to adjacent resources is prevented. Stored roads are managed to be returned to service at various intervals.

The IDT would develop an Erosion Control Plan for roads to be placed in storage (ML1 roads). All treatments would be appropriate for the length of the storage period and any planned use that would be permitted during the storage period (for example, motorized or non- motorized trail). Watershed staff would work with engineering to identify any culverts that need to be removed.


53


BMP 2.7 Road Decommissioning: To stabilize, restore, and vegetate unneeded roads to a more natural state as necessary to protect and enhance NFS lands, resources, and water quality.

Temporary roads would be ‘decommissioned’ (effectively closed and erosion control installed) after use. Site-specific treatments would be developed by the IDT and included in the Erosion Control Plan. Decommissioning treatments could include: (1) road effectively barricaded; (2) road effectively drained by measures such as re-contouring or outsloping to return surface to near natural hydrologic function; (3) a well distributed mulch or organic cover provides at least 50% cover, or road surface is revegetated using local native species; (4) sideslopes are reshaped and stabilized to match the natural contour (as necessary); and (5) stream crossings are removed and natural channel geometry is restored. If non-local mulch is used (such as straw), it must be approved by the Forest Service as weed free.

BMP 2.8 Stream Crossings: To minimize water, aquatic and riparian resource disturbances and related sediment production when constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining temporary and permanent water crossings.

Coordinate with the hydrologist for construction or reconstruction of any temporary or permanent stream crossing. Installed and replaced crossings would not create barriers to aquatic organism passage (SNFPA S&G 101). In order to accomplish this, design should sustain bankfull dimensions of width, depth, and slope, and maintain streambed and bank resiliency. Vertical control would be established and preserved through the crossing structure. Crossings would be sized to accommodate the 100-yr flow, plus anticipated sediment and debris (SNFPA S&G 70). Streams would be diverted / dewatered during construction. Clean all equipment prior to it entering the water body. Inspect equipment daily for leaks and repair as needed. Fuel and service equipment according to BMP 2.11. Keep excavated materials outside of the channel and floodplain. Install erosion control if needed to prevent material from entering these areas. Construct diversion prevention dips if site has potential for flow diversion onto the road. For crossings on temporary roads: stabilize if the crossing must remain in place during high runoff seasons. Remove the crossing and restore the channel dimensions when the need has been met, even if it was previously left in place. For crossings on skid trails: Mechanical equipment crossing of perennial and intermittent


56

BMP Name, Objective, and Direction Application to the Summit Project (generally class I – III) streams is not permitted unless approved by the district hydrologist.

Ephemeral streams (stream class IV and V) may be crossed at designated locations agreed upon by the sale administrator and purchaser. Designate skid trails to avoid stream crossings and SMZs wherever possible. Designated crossings must be as perpendicular to the channel as possible and avoid sensitive soils and riparian vegetation damage. Stream banks must be repaired upon completion of the project.

BMP 2.11 Equipment Refueling and Servicing: To prevent fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other harmful materials from discharging into nearby surface waters or infiltrating through soils to contaminate groundwater resources.

Project personnel would be aware of the Forest Spill Plan, including who to contact and other steps to take in case of a spill. A spill kit would be kept on-site. All waste oil, containers, and other materials would be removed from NFS lands, and properly disposed of. For heavy equipment: Storage of hazardous materials (including fuels) and servicing and refueling of equipment would be conducted at pre-designated locations outside of RCAs. If fueling and/or storage of hazardous materials are needed in these areas, sites must be reviewed and approved by the hydrologist or aquatic biologist prior to contractual agreements by the SA. Additional protection measures, such as containment devices, may be necessary. For chainsaws and other gas powered equipment: Refueling may not occur in SMZs or RMAs. In the remainder of the RCA, refueling may occur with the use of an absorbent spill pad.

BMP 2.13 Erosion Control Plan: To effectively limit and mitigate erosion and sedimentation from any ground- disturbing activity, through planning prior to commencement of project activity, and through project management and administration during project implementation.

BMP checklists would be prepared by the hydrologist for all project activities, even when an Erosion Control Plan is not necessary. Erosion Control Plan requirements are detailed in FSH 2509.22, 12.21 Exhibit 13. Erosion Control Plans are not required for work performed as part of timber sale contracts, such as this project.


57


BMP 5.2 Slope Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operations: To reduce gully and sheet erosion and associated sediment production by limiting tractor use.

Tractors would not be used on sustained slopes greater than 35%. See BMP 1.9. Masticators may be used on slopes up to 45%, provided that they are operating on a mat of masticated material that protects soils from disturbance. If disturbance with the potential to concentrate water occurs due to mastication, it would be mitigated by techniques such as raking, constructing waterbars, or increasing groundcover.

BMP 5.3 Tractor Operation Limitation in Wetlands and Meadows: To limit turbidity and sediment production resulting from compaction, rutting, runoff concentration, and subsequent erosion by excluding the use of mechanical equipment in wetlands and meadows except for the purpose of restoring wetland and meadow function.

These areas are protected from mechanical operations except when trained and qualified IDT personnel identify areas for treatment. The Summit Project does not propose the use of heavy equipment in any meadow, wetland, or riparian area.

BMP 5.6 Soil Moisture Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operations: To prevent compaction, rutting, and gullying, with resultant sediment production and turbidity.

The soil moisture provisions described in BMP 1.5 would apply to mechanical operations conducted by any entity (contractor or USFS) for any treatment. Fuels clean-up, site preparation, or any other treatment utilizing mechanical equipment would occur only when soil moisture is within an appropriate range as determined by a soil scientist, if necessary. Mastication would be limited to time periods when soils are sufficiently dry to prevent rutting and/or compaction by a single pass of the equipment.


58


BMP 5.8 Pesticide Application According to Label Directions and Applicable Legal Requirements: To avoid water contamination by complying with all label instructions and restrictions for use.

Directions on the label of the fungicide are detailed and specific, and include legal requirements for use. Constraints identified on the label and other legal requirements of application must be incorporated into project plans and contracts. For force account projects, the Forest Service project supervisor (who will have a Qualified Applicator Certificate) is responsible for ensuring that label directions and other applicable legal requirements are followed. For contracted projects, the contracting officer, or the contracting officer’s representative will be responsible for ensuring that label directions and other applicable legal requirements are followed.

BMP 5.10 Pesticide Spill Contingency Planning: To reduce contamination of water by accidental pesticide spills.

Pesticide spill contingency planning will be incorporated into the project safety plan. The site-specific environmental evaluation and resulting documentation will include public and other agency involvement in plan preparation. The plan will list the responsible authorities.

BMP 5.11 Cleaning and Disposal of Pesticide Containers and Equipment: To prevent water contamination resulting from cleaning or disposal of pesticide containers.

The cleaning and disposal of fungicide (e.g., Sporax), and any other herbicide containers would be done in accordance with label directions and Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and directives.


59


BMP 7.1 Watershed Restoration: To repair degraded watershed conditions and improve water quality and soil stability.

This is a corrective measure to: improve groundcover density; improve infiltration; prevent excessive runoff and conserve the soil resource; stabilize stream banks and channels; improve soil productivity; reduce flood occurrence and flood damage; enhance economic, social, and/or aesthetic values of the watershed; and improve overall watershed function. It is implemented through addressing sites identified in the Watershed Improvement Needs inventory.

BMP 7.3 Protection of Wetlands: To avoid adverse water quality impacts associated with destruction, disturbance, or modification of wetlands.

Ground disturbing activities would not occur in wetlands. Coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers is not necessary for the project.

BMP 7.4 Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Contingency Plan and Spill Prevention Containment and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan: To prevent contamination of water from accidental spills.

For small quantities of hazardous materials, the Forest Spill Plan would be used (see BMP 2.11) A spill contingency plan and spill prevention and countermeasure plan (SPCC) must be prepared if hazardous materials (including fuels and oils) stored on the Sierra National Forest exceed 1320 gallons, or if a single container exceeds 660 gallons. The plan will at a minimum include: the types and amounts of hazardous materials located in the project area, pre-project identified locations for hazardous materials storage and fueling/maintenance activities (must be located outside of RCA unless prior approval by District Hydrologist or Aquatic Biologist is obtained), methods for containment of hazardous materials and contents of on-site emergency spill kit, and a contingency plan (including contact names with phone numbers) to implement in the event of a spill. The SPCC plan must be approved by the Forest Service prior to project implementation.


60


BMP 7.8 Cumulative Off-Site Watershed Effects: To protect the identified beneficial uses of water from the combined effects of multiple management activities which individually may not create unacceptable effects, but collectively may result in degraded water quality conditions

CWEs for the Summit Project were assessed using the Sequoia NF MSA ERA model, following Regional direction. The environmental analysis described the CWE results. The CWE analysis may provide the basis for the recommendation of additional site-specific watershed protection measures.


61

Appendix 2 Riparian Conservation Objectives Consistency Analysis

Standard and Guideline Does it Apply?

Why or Why Not?

Consistency Determination and Rationale

Yes No Standards and Guidelines for RCAs and CARs

91. Designate RCA widths as described in Part B of ROD appendix. RCA widths may be adjusted at the project level if a landscape analysis has been completed and a site-specific RCO analysis demonstrates a need for different widths.

X There are streams in the project area.

Consistent – RCAs have been delineated as described in the SNFPA ROD (2004). See Table 15 of this report.

92. Evaluate new proposed management activities in CARs and RCAs during environmental analysis to determine consistency with RCOs at the project level and the AMS goals for the landscape. Ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are enacted to: 1) minimize risk of activity-related sediment entering aquatic systems and 2) minimize impacts to habitat for aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant and animal species.

X Management activities are proposed within RCAs.

Consistent – design criteria were developed to minimize sediment delivery and impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat. See the design features for Watershed and Riparian Resources, Soils, and BMPs listed in Appendix 1 of this report.

93. Identify existing uses and activities in CARs and RCAs during landscape analysis. At the time of permit reissuance, evaluate and consider actions needed for consistency with RCOs.

X This is not a landscape analysis or a permit re-issuance project.

N/A

94. As part of project-level analysis, conduct peer reviews for projects that propose ground-disturbing activities in more than 25% of the RCA or more than 15% of a CAR.

X Ground-disturbing activities are proposed within RCAs, and must be assessed to determine whether a peer review is triggered.

Consistent – ground disturbing activities are defined in the SNFPA ROD (2004) as “activities that result in detrimental soil compaction or loss of organic matter beyond the thresholds identified by soil quality standards”. Peer reviews have occurred and have found disturbance actives under prescribed thresholds.

Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #1 95. For waters designated as “Water Quality Limited” (Clean Water Act Section 303(d)), participate in the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and TMDL Implementation Plans. Execute applicable elements of completed TMDL Implementation Plans.

X There are no 303(d) listed waterbodies in the project area.

N/A

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

X Vegetation modification has the potential to change stream shading, which could affect water temperatures.

Consistent- Water temperature and riparian canopy cover are indicators in Aquatic BE/BA Analysis. Design criteria and SMZ minimize reduction of overstory cover within 100 feet of stream channels.

97. Limit pesticide applications to cases where project level analysis indicates that pesticide applications are consistent with RCOs.

X Fungicide application is included in the project.

Consistent – No application of fungicide will occur within SMZ’s; this design feature and BMP’s 5.8, 5.10, and 5.11 will limit impacts to riparian areas and species.

98. Within 500 feet of known occupied sites for the California red-legged frog, Cascades frog, Yosemite toad, foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow-legged frog, and northern leopard frog, design pesticide applications to avoid adverse effects to individuals and their habitats.

X There are no sites occupied by these species in or within 500 feet of the project area.

N/A


62


Why or Why Not?


Yes No 99. Prohibit storage of fuels and other toxic materials within RCAs and CARs except at designated administrative sites and sites covered by a Special Use Authorization. Prohibit refueling within RCAs and CARs unless there are no other alternatives. Ensure that spill plans are reviewed and up-to-date.

X Fuel will be needed for heavy equipment operations, chainsaws, and for the drip torches used for pile burning and underburning.

Consistent – This direction addressed by BMP 2.11. Storage of these materials, refueling and maintenance will not occur in RCAs unless site-specifically approved by the hydrologist and aquatic species biologist.

Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #2 100. 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.

X Roads in the project area may disrupt flow paths. In some cases, road work will occur for the project and could be designed to address these issues.

Consistent – The accompanying road work will correct diversion of water flow paths when possible as part of road reconstruction or routine maintenance actions.

101. 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.

X Existing roads used in the project area cross intermittent and perennial streams.

Consistent – Stream crossings in the project area were surveyed for condition and AOP passage potential. None of the intermittent or perennial stream crossings have AOP restrictions. Water drafting for dust abatement will only occur at approved locations and follow BMP 2.5.

102. Prior to activities that could 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 that will result in an upward trend. Evaluate long-term restoration actions and implement them according to their status among other restoration needs.

X Vegetation manipulation and prescribed burning have the potential to affect streams, although design features included in the project are designed to minimize this risk.

Consistent - Stream Condition Inventory data indicates that channel conditions are within the range of natural variability.

103. Prevent disturbance to streambanks 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, sites authorized under SUPs, and designated off-highway vehicle routes.

X Mechanized treatments have the potential to disturb streambanks.

Consistent – Application of SMZs (BMP 1.8) will protect streambanks from being disturbed by mechanized equipment. Stream crossings will be permitted but will be in approved locations (BMP 1.19) and limited in number to minimize impacts.

104. In stream reaches occupied by, or identified as “essential habitat” in the conservation assessment for the Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout and the Little Kern golden trout, limit streambank disturbance from livestock to 10 percent of the occupied or “essential habitat” stream reach. (Conservation assessments are described in the record of decision.) 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.

X There is no ‘essential habitat’ for these species in or near the project area.

N/A


63


Why or Why Not?


Yes No 105. At either the landscape or project-scale, determine if the age class, structural diversity, composition, and cover of riparian vegetation are within the range of natural variability for the vegetative community. If conditions are outside the range of natural variability, consider implementing mitigation and/or restoration actions that will result in an upward trend. Actions could include restoration of aspen or other riparian vegetation where conifer encroachment is identified as a problem.

X Riparian vegetation could be affected by under-burning.

Consistent - Design features are in place to protect riparian vegetation (for example, no cutting riparian vegetation, no lighting of riparian vegetation). Design features also allow for hand removal of conifers identified as invading small areas with riparian characteristics.

106. Cooperate with Federal, Tribal, State and local governments to secure in stream flows needed to maintain, recover, and restore riparian resources, channel conditions, and aquatic habitat. Maintain in stream flows to protect aquatic systems to which species are uniquely adapted. Minimize the effects of stream diversions or other flow modifications from hydroelectric projects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

X No element of this project relates to instream flows or stream diversions.

N/A

107. For exempt hydroelectric facilities on national forest lands, ensure that special use permit language provides adequate in stream flow requirements to maintain, restore, or recover favorable ecological conditions for local riparian- and aquatic-dependent species.

X This project is not related to hydroelectric facilities.

N/A

Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #3 108. Determine if the level of coarse large woody debris (CWD) is within the range of natural conditions in terms of frequency and distribution and is sufficient to sustain stream channel physical complexity and stability. If CWD levels are deficient, ensure proposed management activities, when appropriate, contribute to the recruitment of CWD. Burning prescriptions should be designed to retain CWD; however short-term reductions below either the soil quality standards or standards in species management plans may result from prescribed burning within strategically placed treatment areas or the urban wildland intermix zone.

X Hand Treatments in SMZ’s could affect CWD recruitment.

The natural variability of CWD for the Sequoia National Forest has not been established; however, a study conducted on the Stanislaus National Forest found approximately 18 CWD/100 m of stream channel within undisturbed streams. There was a range of 1 – 50 CWD/100 m. Of these pieces, roughly 4.5/100 m were considered stable in the channel. CWD data from project area streams range from 2-82 CWD/100m with an average of 36 CWD/100m and approximately 8 CWD/100m stable within the channels. These data suggest that streams within the SHFP analysis area are within the range of natural variability for CWD recruitment.

Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #4 109. Within CARs, in occupied habitat or “essential habitat” as identified in conservation assessments for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, evaluate the appropriate role, timing, and extent of prescribed fire. Avoid direct lighting within riparian vegetation; prescribed fires may back into riparian vegetation areas. Develop mitigation measures to avoid impacts to these species whenever ground disturbing equipment is used.

X There are no CARs associated with the project

N/A

110. 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 habitats.

X Water drafting may be required for dust abatement

Consistent- Water source development will be consistent with water quality protection BMP 2.5. If water-drafting sites are needed, a screening device and pumps with low entry velocity will be used.

111. Design prescribed fire treatments to minimize disturbance of ground cover and riparian vegetation in RCAs. In burn plans for project areas that include, or are adjacent to RCAs, identify mitigation measures to minimize the spread of fire into riparian vegetation. In determining which mitigation measures to adopt, weigh the potential harm of mitigation measures, for example fire lines, against the risks and benefits of prescribed fire entering riparian vegetation. Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and identify those instances where fire suppression or fuel management actions could be damaging to habitat or long-term function of the riparian community.

X Water drafting may occur for dust abatement and areas where water drafting occurs may be impacted by drafting activities.

Consistent- Water source development will be consistent with water quality protection BMP 2.5. If water-drafting sites are needed, a screening device and pumps with low entry velocity will be used.


64


Why or Why Not?


Yes No 112. Post-wildfire management activities in RCAs and CARs should emphasize enhancing native vegetation cover, stabilizing channels by non-structural means, minimizing adverse effects from the existing road network, and carrying out activities identified in landscape analyses. Post-wildfire operations shall minimize the exposure of bare soil.

X Applicable in the event of a wildfire

Consistent - In the event of a wildfire, protection of resources would be evaluated under the Burned Area Emergency Response, Implementing BMP 6.5, Repair, or Stabilization of Fire Suppression Related Watershed Damage and BMP 6.6, Emergency Rehabilitation of Watersheds Following Wildfires will accomplish this S&G.

113. 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.

X Project activities will remove hazard trees in RCA’s

Consistent - All hazard tree removal in RCA’s will follow required BMP’s (1.12 – 1.25) and design features, which is consistent with riparian conservation objectives.

114. As appropriate, assess and document aquatic conditions following the Regional Stream Condition Inventory protocol prior to implementing ground disturbing activities within suitable habitat for California red-legged frog, Cascades frog, Yosemite toad, foothill and mountain yellow-legged frogs, and northern leopard frog.

X Project activity has the potential to affect the aquatic conditions of project area streams.

Consistent - Four stream condition inventory plots have been established in the project area with surveys beginning in 2001 and recurring through 2009. Project is outside of the range of the designated species

115. During fire suppression activities, consider impacts to aquatic- and riparian-dependent resources. Where possible, locate incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, helispots, and other centers for incident activities outside of RCAs or CARs. During presuppression planning, determine guidelines for suppression activities, including avoidance of potential adverse effects to aquatic- and riparian-dependent species as a goal.

X Project does not include fire suppression planning

N/A

116. Identify roads, trails, OHV trails and staging areas, developed recreation sites, dispersed campgrounds, special use permits, grazing permits, and day use sites during landscape analysis. Identify conditions that degrade water quality or habitat for aquatic and riparian-dependent species. At the project level, evaluate and consider actions to ensure consistency with standards and guidelines or desired conditions.

X Deals with OHV and dispersed recreation. These are not part of the project, but are considered as part of the project CWE analysis.

N/A

Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #5 117. Assess the hydrologic function of meadow habitats and other special aquatic features during range management analysis. Ensure that characteristics of special features are, at a minimum, at Proper Functioning Condition, as defined in the appropriate Technical Reports: (1) “Process for Assessing PFC” TR 1737-9 (1993), “PFC for Lotic Areas” USDI TR 1737-15 (1998) or (2) “PFC for Lentic Riparian-Wetland Areas” USDI TR 1737-11 (1994).

X Meadows are exclusion zones in the project area and rangeland readiness is not part of the project.

N/A

118. Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affect hydrologic processes that maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen ecosystems and plant species that depend on these ecosystems. During project analysis, survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheeled vehicles. Criteria for defining bogs and fens include, but are not limited to, presence of: (1) sphagnum moss (Spagnum spp.), (2) mosses belonging to the genus Meesia, and (3) sundew (Drosera spp.) Complete initial plant inventories of bogs and fens within active grazing allotments prior to re-issuing permits.

X Meadows and fens are exclusion zones and will not be impacted by project activity

N/A


65


Why or Why Not?


Yes No 119. Locate new facilities for gathering livestock and pack stock outside of meadows and riparian conservation areas. During landscape analysis, evaluate and consider relocating existing livestock facilities outside of meadows and riparian areas (RCA42). Prior to re-issuing grazing permits, assess the compatibility of livestock management facilities located in riparian conservation areas with riparian conservation objectives.

X grazing related activities are not part of the project

N/A

120. Under season-long grazing: § For meadows in early seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to 30 percent (or minimum 6-inch stubble height) § For meadows in late seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a maximum of 40 percent (or minimum 4-inch stubble height). Determine ecological status on all key areas monitored for grazing utilization prior to establishing utilization levels. Use Regional ecological scorecards and range plant list in regional range handbooks to determine ecological status. Analyze meadow ecological status every 3 to 5 years. If meadow ecological status is determined to be moving in a downward trend, modify or suspend grazing. Include ecological status data in a spatially explicit Geographical Information System database. Under intensive grazing systems (such as rest-rotation and deferred rotation) where meadows are receiving a period of rest, utilization levels can be higher than the levels described above if the meadow is maintained in late seral status and meadow-associated species are not being impacted. Degraded meadows (such as those in early seral status with greater than 10 percent of the meadow area in bare soil and active erosion) require total rest from grazing until they have recovered and have moved to mid- or late seral status.


N/A

121. Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs and no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. Remove livestock from any area of an allotment when browsing indicates a change in livestock preference from grazing herbaceous vegetation to browsing woody riparian vegetation.


N/A

Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #6 122. Recommend and establish priorities for restoration practices in: (1) areas with compaction in excess of soil quality standards, (2) areas with lowered water tables, or (3) areas that are either actively down cutting or that have historic gullies. Identify other management practices, for example, road building, recreational use, grazing, and timber harvests that may be contributing to the observed degradation.

X Project treatments will promote riparian species in RCA’s

Consistent - Watershed Improvement Need (WIN) restoration opportunities have been identified at the forest level. WIN site restoration projects have and will address compaction, gullying, and water table issues, in meadows and other sensitive riparian areas.

Standards and Guidelines Associated with Critical Aquatic Refuges 123. Determine which critical aquatic refuges or areas within critical aquatic refuges are suitable for mineral withdrawal. Propose these areas for withdrawal from location and entry under U.S. mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, for a term of 20 years.

X Mineral withdrawal activities are not part of the project

N/A

/s/ Nina Hemphill, PhD June 20, 2016 Nina Hemphill Date Fisheries, Aquatic Ecology, and Watershed Program Manager, the Sequoia National Forest /s/ Keith Andrew Stone June 20, 2016 Keith Andrew Stone Date District Hydrologist, Kern River Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest /s/ Steve Anderson June 20, 2016 Steve Anderson Date Forest Range Specialist and District Wildlife Biologist, Sequoia National Forest


66

Appendix 3 Erosion Control Plan (BMP 2.13) Implementation of this BMP effectively limits and mitigates erosion and sedimentation from ground-disturbing activities. This plan will include those elements identified under BMP 2.13 and include the following:

a. List of anticipated ground-disturbing actions associated with the project.

• Opening of previously used skid roads o Installation of water bars o Removal of debris and brush along the road bed for access o Add slash on access road to further prevent erosion

• Creation of landings • Closing skid roads after project completion • Ground-based/ mechanized harvesting with possible equipment:

o rubber tired skidders, cat skidders, water trucks, stoke delimbers, excavators, and feller bunchers

b. Checklist which includes mitigation measures required by project NEPA, requirements to meet BMPs, project plans, specifications, and permits, if any. The selection of erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be based on assessments of site conditions and how storm events may contribute to erosion.

• Dust Abatement on access routes • Waterbars and grading of access routes • Use of developed draft sites • Use of developed landings • Location of all refueling sites a minimum outside of RCA’s or at least 100 feet from riparian features if

approved by the district hydrologist. • Installation of berms and trenches around refueling sites • Development of SCC spill plan • Project implementation during dry conditions • Development of erosion control plan • Pre project monitoring to establish baseline conditions • Post project monitoring to evaluate project BMP effectiveness

c. Illustrations of control practices designed to prevent erosion and sedimentation. Illustrations must show construction and installation details for control practices, and must be included in the erosion control plan. (for example, California Stormwater Quality Association BMP standard specifications CASQA at http://www.cabmphandbooks.com, or Caltrans Stormwater and Water Pollution Control guides at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/stormwater/stormwater1.htm)

• The access roads will have water bars to prevent erosion and sedimentation. The design procedures can be read in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.56 Chapter 40.

• Under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan’s Harvest Systems, ground-based systems will not operate on slopes greater than 40%. However, equipment operators on the Project will not operate on slopes over 35%.

d. Map/drawing(s) showing soil or water buffer zones, RCAs, RCHAs, SMZs or other soil or water protection areas to be protected from project activities. Project boundary extends beyond disturbance limits (see Hydrology Report).

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/stormwater/stormwater1.htm


67

e. A description of the color and/or pattern of flagging or marking for soil or water buffer zones, RCAs, RCHAs, SMZs or other soil or water protection areas for each unit.

• Blue/white stripe flagging will be used to mark buffers zones.

f. Relevant sections from the forest’s WWOS that apply to activity/activities. The WWOS will provide guidance to prevent significant adverse impacts to water quality from wet weather operations on NFTS roads and trails.

• Wet weather operations are not anticipated as part of the Project.

g. Forest motor vehicle use map will be used to determine season closures for all NFTS routes that are not under permit or for administrative use only.

• A storm preparedness plan that describes additional control practices to be implemented when the National Weather Service predicts a 50 percent or greater chance of precipitation.

• A winterization plan that describes additional control practices to be implemented to stabilize the site during periods of seasonal inactivity. The dates vary by locality, and may be determined by the individual RWQCB (for example, October 15 through May 1). “Winterized” means that the site is stabilized to prevent soil movement permanently if project activities are complete, or temporarily in a manner which will remain effective until end of the stabilization period.

• If winter activity, including over-snow operation is proposed, specifications for snow/ice depth or soil

operability conditions must be described.

h. Control practices to reduce the tracking of sediment onto paved roads. These roads will be inspected and cleaned as necessary.

• The Timber Sales Administrator or another qualified staff will routinely inspect that correct erosion control measures are being placed to avoid unwanted sediment on paved roadways.

i. Control practices to reduce wind erosion and control dust.

• Dust abatement will be performed by watering the access roads and staging areas to reduce wind erosion and control dust.

j. A proposed sequential schedule to implement erosion and sediment control measures, in addition to the general construction schedule.

Project implementation will occur during the operational season (generally June 1-November 15). During project implementation, several Best Management Practices will be used within areas of the project. Skid roads reopened for project use will have water bars installed in accordance with the Timber Sale Administration (TSA) Handbook 2409.15. R5 supplement 2409.15-4.3.61.42d Skid Trail and Fire Lines Recommended Spacing Guidelines. Water bar spacing is expected to use the Soil Erosion Rating of High.

• Location information, including directions to access the project area. Include a scaled map, with road names/numbers.

Directions from Kernville, CA are as follows: Drive south on Kernville Road to Wofford Heights; turn right onto Highway 155 west (toward Glenville). Turn left (south) on Rancheria Road.

Contact information of project personnel, including name and cell phone number (that is, sale administrator, contracting officer’s representative, project manager, project supervisor, contractor, site superintendent, hydrologist, permit administrator and so forth)


68

John Gomez- Project Leader/ Forester- 760- 376-3781 x673

k. Maps requirements: Maps must be clear, legible, and of a scale such that depicted features are readily discernible. For example, sale area maps may be used to satisfy the mapping requirements outlined in b.ii, below, if they meet this intent

Acres and locations of usable roads, skid trails, storage and landings are discussed in the Timber Sales Contract.

a. As a means of determining BMPs and erosion control measures, a topographic map should be in the project file. The map should extend beyond the boundaries of the project site, showing the project site boundaries, and surface and subsurface water bodies (ephemeral and intermittent waters, springs, wells, and wetlands) that could be at risk of water-quality impacts from project activities.

b. For timber harvest activities, unit-specific map(s) shall be scaled no smaller than 1 inch equals 1,000 feet (1:12,000). For all other activities, maps shall be scaled to provide legible interpretation of requirements shown above. All maps shall include:

1. Specific locations of storm water structures and controls used during project activities.

2. Erosion hazard ratings for each unit, specified down to 20 acres if different EHRs exist within each unit.

All units are within a moderate erosion hazard rating.

3. Locations of existing and proposed haul roads, watercourse crossings, skid trails, and landings.

4. Locations of post-project storm water structures and controls. 5. Equipment access, storage, and service areas.

l. N/A

m. Diversion of Live Streams: If the project involves stream diversions for crossing construction, the erosion control plan must include detailed plans for these activities, including storm contingencies. See BMP 2.8 - Stream Crossings.

n. Non-Storm Water Management: The erosion control plan shall include provisions which eliminate or reduce the discharge of materials other than storm water to the storm sewer system and/or receiving waters. Such provisions shall ensure that discharged materials shall not have an adverse effect on receiving waters. Materials other than storm water that are discharged shall be listed, along with the estimated quantity of the discharged material.

Skid roads will be designed to reduce the potential for erosion through the installation of properly spaced water bars. Water bars will be installed in accordance with TSA Handbook 2409.15. R5 Supplement 2409.15-4.3.61.42d Skid Trail and Fire Lines Recommended Spacing Guidelines. Water bar spacing is expected to use the Soil Erosion Rating of High.

Ground disturbance associated with the Project will occur under dry conditions, during period of operation (generally June 1- November 15).

o. Waste Management and Disposal: The erosion control plan shall describe waste management and disposal practices to be used at the project site. All wastes (including equipment and maintenance waste) removed from the site for disposal shall be disposed of in a manner that is in compliance with Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Include plan for project-specific


69

activities that produce waste products, such as concrete truck/chute/pump washout, equipment servicing, equipment washing, and so forth.

Under the Standard Provision for Scaled Timber Sales (Contract FS-2400-6), the Purchaser shall take reasonable precautions to prevent pollution of air, soil, and water by Purchaser’s Operation. The Timber Sales Administrator (or another qualified staff) will routinely inspect the operations to make sure waste management and disposal practices are sanitary.

p. Maintenance, Inspection, and Repair: The erosion control plan shall include inspection, maintenance and repair procedures to ensure that all pollution-control devices identified in the erosion control plan are maintained in good and effective condition and are promptly repaired or restored. A qualified person shall be assigned the responsibility to conduct inspections. The name and telephone number of that person shall be listed in the erosion control plan. A tracking and follow-up procedure shall be described to ensure that all inspections are done by trained personnel and that adequate response and corrective actions have been taken in response to the inspection. This procedure may be in the form of a written checklist, with inspections signed and dated. Photo documentation is encouraged.

Under the Standard Provision for Scaled Timber Sales (Contract FS-2400-6), the Purchaser shall maintain all equipment operating on Sale Area in good repair and free of abnormal leakage of lubricants, fuel, coolants, and hydraulic fluid. Servicing of equipment will not take place on National Forest System lands. The Timber Sale Administrator (or another qualified staff) will routinely inspect the operations to make sure all pollution-control devices are working and in place.

q. Other Plans: This erosion control plan may incorporate, by reference, the appropriate elements of other plans required by local, State, or Federal agencies. A copy of any requirements incorporated by reference shall be kept in the project file.

Substance Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan will be incorporated as described in BMP 7.4.

r. Post-Project Storm Water Management: The erosion control plan shall describe the storm water control structures and management practices that will be implemented to minimize pollutants in storm water discharges after project activity phases have been completed at the site. It shall also specify controls to be removed from the activity site(s) and methods for their removal. The discharger must consider site-specific factors and seasonal conditions when designing the control practices that will function after the project is complete.

Skid roads will be designed to reduce the potential for erosion through the installation of properly spaced water bars. Water bars will be installed in accordance with TSA Handbook 2409.15. R5 supplement 2409.15-4.3.61.42d Skid Trail and Fire Lines Recommended Spacing Guidelines. Water bar spacing is expected to use the Soil Erosion Rating of High.

Slash will be added to the access roads to prevent erosion in the form of rilling or gullying. Skid roads will be put to bed (ripped and slashed) and will be blocked to prevent people from further access following project completion.

Effectiveness monitoring through Best Management Practices will be completed as directed by the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.22, Chapter 10, as amended on December 5, 2011.

s. Preparer: The erosion control plan shall include the title and signature of the person responsible for preparation of the erosion control plan, the date of initial preparation, and the person and date responsible for any amendments to the erosion control plan.

Documents

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · The Summit Healthy Forest Project (SHFP) is designed to