appendix g: soils and hydrology specialist...

$: Appendix G: Soils and Hydrology Specialist Reporta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2015. 7. 29. · H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2085\20850034\Hydro Soils Report\20850034$
Fouts Springs Decommissioning/Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2085\20850034\EA\20850034 Fouts Springs Draft EA.docx

Appendix G: Soils and Hydrology Specialist Report

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


www.FirstCarbonSolutions.com

Hydrology and Soils Specialist’s Report Fouts Springs Decommissioning/Restoration Project

Colusa County, California

Prepared for:

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Grindstone Ranger District Mendocino National Forest Colusa County, California

on behalf of

Solano County Department of General Services Division of Architectural Services

675 Texas Street, Suite 2500 Fairfield, CA 95433

Contact: Orlie Coronel‐Mangune

Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions 2000 “O” Street, Suite 200

Sacramento, CA 95811 916.447.1100

Contact: Jason Brandman, Project Director Christine Donoghue, Project Manager

Report Date: June 12, 2015

Revised based on USFS comments: July 15, 2015

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Fouts Springs Decommissioning/Restoration Project Hydrology and Soils Specialist’s Report Table of Contents

FirstCarbon Solutions iii H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2085\20850034\Hydro Soils Report\20850034 Fouts Springs Hydro Soils Report.docx

Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 ‐ Overview of Issues Addressed ........................................................................................... 1

Section 2: Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3 2.1 ‐ Fouts Springs Action Area ................................................................................................. 3 2.2 ‐ Geology ............................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 ‐ Soils ................................................................................................................................... 4 2.4 ‐ Hydrologic Resources ........................................................................................................ 5 2.5 ‐ Management Requirements and NEPA ............................................................................. 6

2.5.1 ‐ Mendocino National Forest Goals, Guidelines and Standards ............................... 6 2.5.2 ‐ Existing Laws, Executive Orders ........................................................................... 14

Section 3: Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................... 17 3.1 ‐ Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis .......................................................... 17 3.2 ‐ Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................................ 17 3.3 ‐ Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...................................................................................... 18

3.3.1 ‐ Summary of Proposed Action .............................................................................. 18 3.3.2 ‐ Project Design Features ........................................................................................ 19 3.3.3 ‐ Direct Effects ........................................................................................................ 21 3.3.4 ‐ Indirect Effects ...................................................................................................... 22 3.3.5 ‐ Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................ 22 3.3.6 ‐ Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations,

Policies, and Plans .............................................................................................. 26

Section 4: Monitoring Recommendations and Conclusions .......................................................... 27

Section 5: Contributors ................................................................................................................ 29

Section 6: References ................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix A: Forest Plan Consistency Checklist

List of Tables

Table 1: Soil Map Units within Fouts Springs Action Area ...................................................................... 5

Table 2: Fouts Springs Watersheds ......................................................................................................... 6

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Area Soils Map ........................................................................................................................ 7

Exhibit 2: Watershed/Regional Drainage Map ....................................................................................... 9

Exhibit 3: Local Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 11

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Fouts Springs Decommissioning/Restoration Project Hydrology and Soils Specialist’s Report Introduction

FirstCarbon Solutions 1 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2085\20850034\Hydro Soils Report\20850034 Fouts Springs Hydro Soils Report.docx

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

This report describes an assessment of the current condition of the proposed project area and the

potential effects to soil and water resources from the decommissioning of the now defunct Fouts

Spring Youth Facility. Decommissioning consists of: (1) the abatement of hazardous materials,

including but not limited to the potential presence of lead based paint, asbestos, polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs), and contaminated soil; (2) the demolition of the existing facilities, including but not

limited to buildings, utilities, pavement, and site improvements; and (3) full site restoration to a

natural state.

The analysis herein will concentrate on the potential impacts from the above decomissioning and

subsequent restoration activities to soil quality, stream stability, and water quality.

The proposed action area is within the Mendocino National Forest and Colusa County, 1 mile east of the

Snow Mountain Wilderness, with the nearest town of Stonyford approximately 9 miles to the east.

1.1 ‐ Overview of Issues Addressed

The primary issues surrounding soil and water resources are related to impacts from soil

(compaction) from the proposed decommissioning and subsequent restoration activities, and

sediment delivery to nearby stream channels. The primary concerns are that the proposed activities

will and create erosion and sediment delivery, affecting water quality.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Fouts Springs Decommissioning/Restoration Project Hydrology and Soils Specialist’s Report Affected Environment


SECTION 2: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2.1 ‐ Fouts Springs Action Area

The action area is a contiguous 74‐acre site adjacent to South Fork Stony Creek. The site is currently

unoccupied. The area surrounding the action area consists primarily of undeveloped land.

Northeast of the action area are Forest Service developed campgrounds, off highway vehicle staging

areas and trails, and trailheads for hiking.

Existing unused structures within the action area include facilities and infrastructure that was used

to operate and sustain the Fouts Springs Youth Facility. The facilities include:

Dormitory facilities, including the California Youth Authority dormitory (Grable Dormitory or

Hall), the former Snow Mountain Academy group/classrooms, the new Snow Mountain

Academy dormitory [Nystrom Dormitory], and County dormitory,

Maintenance building,

Recreation hall

Classroom facilities (including modular classrooms),

Storage building,

Shop building,

Kitchen/dining room, offices,

Multi‐function building,

Fire department building,

Commander’s residence,

Staff trailers and residences,

Historical swimming pool,

Swimming pool, and

Basketball court

The infrastructure within the action area includes:

Finished steel water tanks (x2) Redwood water storage tank Water treatment facility

Trout Creek water diversion structure Fuel tank Roads

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Fouts Springs Decommissioning/Restoration Project

Affected Environment Hydrology and Soils Specialist’s Report

4 FirstCarbon Solutions

H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2085\20850034\Hydro Soils Report\20850034 Fouts Springs Hydro Soils Report.docx

The geology, soils, and hydrologic conditions (including geomorphology) existing within and

surrounding the action area are described in detail in the following subsections.

2.2 ‐ Geology

The action area is located in a region of sheared and folded rocks that represent a Mesozoic sea floor.

These rocks consist of sandstone, shale, and volcanic rocks that were faulted and folded to form the

Coast Ranges approximately 30 million years ago by the collision of the Pacific and North American

plates. Local geology includes Pleistocene to recent age terrace deposits in the stream terrace areas to

deformed and sheared Franciscan formation volcanic and metavolcanic rocks in the mountainous terrain

to the west (USGS 1964). The stream terrace deposits consist of semi‐consolidated pebble to cobble

gravel with lenses of silt and sand (USFS, 2000). While ultramafic rocks containing naturally occurring

asbestos (NOA) are known to occur in every county of California, and have been found in the watershed

surrounding the action area, they have not been found in the soil studies conducted for the action area.

Soil types and their composition are discussed in Section 2.3, below.

The bulk of the action area is located on a gently sloping stream terrace located on the south side of

the South Fork of Stony Creek (Exhibit 3). The stream terrace has 0‐2% percent slopes to the

northeast (approximately 2 feet per 100 feet). The South Fork of Stony Creek is a perennial stream

with its headwaters approximately six miles to the southwest of the action area. The creek is

entrenched approximately 40 to 80 feet along the northern side of the stream terrace. The elevation

of the action area ranges from 1,660 feet to 1,673 feet above sea level.

2.3 ‐ Soils

The four major soil units, as classified by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service within the

action area are described in detail below. Serpentine soils from ultramifac rocks containing NOA are

not known to occur in the soil types existing on the site. Exhibit 1 includes the area soils map. Table

1 describes the acres and percent total of each soil unit found within the action area. The acreages

presented in Table 1 are not representative of the acres of soil that would be disturbed by the

decommissioning and subsequent restoration actions of the project.

185 Riverwash

This unit forms within 0‐2 percent slopes and is found along the northern margin of the project

adjacent along and including the South Fork of Stony Creek. This unit is made up of loose materials

within or adjacent to the active floodplain, and are subject to frequent fluvial processes.

190 Arand very gravelly loam

This unit forms 0‐2 percent slopes and is found on the gently sloping stream terrace on the south

side of the South Fork of Stony Creek. The existing onsite facilities are located on this unit. This is a

very deep, somewhat excessively drained soil developed on alluvium weathered from mixed rock

sources. The soil is regionally formed on floodplains and alluvial fans at elevations from 1,520 to

1,720 feet mean sea level (msl). The surface layer is typically brown to light yellowish brown,

extremely gravelling loam, and about 32 inches thick. The subsoil is yellowish brown, extremely



gravelly loamy sand. Permeability is rapid and surface runoff is negligible to very low. The erosion

hazard is slight, although stream bank erosion may be severe. Major management factors for this

soil are low water holding capability and excess rock fragments.

526 Etsel‐Maymen‐Marpa Association

This soil forms 30‐50 percent slopes and is found on the slopes to the southwest, south, and west of

the facility, and portions of the slopes to the north. The existing steel treated water storage tanks

are located on this soil south of the former staff trailers. This soil is a shallow, somewhat excessively

drained soil developed on residuum weathered from sandstone and shale. Regionally the soil is

formed on steep, brush‐covered mountain slopes at elevations from approximately 1,700 to 3,050

feet msl. The surface layer in the typical profile is 3 inches thick, and consists of a brown sandy

loam, underlain by pink gravelly sandy loam form a depth of 3 to 16 inches, which in turn is

underlain by highly fractured sandstone and shale. Permeability is moderately rapid and surface

runoff is medium. The erosion hazard for this soil type is severe, which could create mass wasting

processes, although the soil surveys conducted for the site do not indicate that mass wasting has

been known to occur on the site for this soil type. Major management factors include steep slopes,

erosion hazard, slow permeability, and shallow soil depth.

520 Stonyford‐Guenoc Complex

This soil forms 15‐30 percent slopes and makes up a portion of the ridge adjacent to and southwest

of the facility. This soil is shallow, well drained, and developed on residuum weathered from basalt.

The soil is formed regionally on mountain side slopes at elevations from 1,450 to 2,500 feet msl. In

the typical profile, the surface layer is approximately 3 inches thick and is a brown gravelly loam.

The subsoil is dark reddish brown gravelly clay loam over highly fractured, partially weathered

metamorphosed basalt at a depth of 14 inches.

Table 1: Soil Map Units within Fouts Springs Action Area

Soil Unit Acres of Soil Unit in

Action Area

185 Riverwash 4.5

190 Arand very gravelly loam 83.6

526 Etsel‐Maymen‐Marpa Association 6.0

520 Stonyford‐Guenoc Complex 7.3

Soils in the project area have previously been compacted or disturbed as a result of the installation

of the existing features, and through a history regular pedestrian and vehicle traffic on the site.

2.4 ‐ Hydrologic Resources

The action area is located within the Coastal Mountain Range in a valley floor surrounded by steep

slopes and mountain ridges. The action area is located in the Upper Stony Creek Basin,





encompassing 740 square miles, and within the 8th field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds of

Lower South Fork Stony Creek and Miner Creek. The average annual precipitation in the Upper Stony

Creek Basin is 34.75 inches with lesser amounts falling at lower elevations, and higher amounts falling at

higher elevations. Table 2 for the acreage of each watershed, see Exhibit 2 for an overview of these

watersheds, and see Exhibit 3 for an aerial view the local hydrology of the action area.

The South Fork of Stony Creek flows near the northern border of the site. Almost immediately to the

west of the action area, Trout Creek joins the South Fork of Stony Creek (see Exhibit 3). Mill Creek is

located approximately 1,600 feet east of the action area, and is also a tributary the South Fork of

Stony Creek (see Exhibit 3). Stony Creek eventually flows into the Stony Gorge Reservoir in western

Glenn County. Discharge from the Stony Gorge Reservoir is tributary to the Sacramento River.

Table 2: Fouts Springs Watersheds

8th Field HUC Watershed Area in Acres

Miners Creek 7,055

Lower South Fork Stoney Creek 9,889

Source: FCS 2015.

The 74‐acre site is not known to have seeps, springs, or wet areas, and were not observed during

project site visits. Furthermore, the site is somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability

and low surface runoff due to medium dense sand, gravel and silt mixture soils classified according

to Unified Soil Classification System as silty sand with gravel (SM). In 2000, Solano County

implemented a field exploration to profile soils in the action area and found that soil profiles were

relatively uniform across the site, that the lower soil horizons contained less than 5 percent fines,

and the depth to groundwater is about 38 feet. The soil profile in the action area is not conducive to

artesian conditions, which refers to situations where water is confined under pressure below layers

of relatively impermeable rock, such as clay or shale, creating seeps and springs on site (USGS,

2015).

2.5 ‐ Management Requirements and NEPA

2.5.1 ‐ Mendocino National Forest Goals, Guidelines and Standards

The primary plan associated with the proposed decommissioning of the facility is the Mendocino

National Forest LRMP (USDA, 1995) because the facility is located entirely within the Forest.

Consistency of the proposed action is based on a review of Forest Goals, Guidelines and Standards

from the LRMP. Preparation of the LRMP is required under the National Forest Management Act

(NFMA) (Title 36, CFR 219).



Goals

Goals relevant to the proposed decommissioning of the Fouts Springs Youth Facility are listed below.

Soils and Geology

Maintain or improve long‐term soil productivity and slope stability.

Watershed

Maintain and improve watershed conditions to maintain stream channel function and stability, and

to provide water of sufficient quality and quantity to meet or exceed expected beneficial use

requirements. As a minimum, existing levels will be protected.

Standards

Standards relevant to the proposed decommissioning of the Fouts Springs Youth Facility are listed

below.

Riparian and Aquatic Ecosystems

Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape‐

scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and

communities are uniquely adapted.

Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds.

Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands,

upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must

provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history

requirements of aquatic and riparian‐dependent species.

Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks,

and bottom configurations.

Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and

wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the

biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth,

reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

Maintain and restore in‐stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and

wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing,

magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected.

Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water

table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in

riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation,

nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration

and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical

complexity and stability.





Maintain and restore habitat to support well‐distributed populations of native plant,

invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian‐dependent species.

Soils and Geology

Develop specific soil evaluation and mitigation measures for each project that has the

potential to impact the soil resource.

Identify and evaluate area of known or suspected instability as part of project planning. Protect areas with a high probability of mass wasting from ground disturbing activities. In the

action area, areas of known or suspected instability include cuts along Stony Creek.

Protect long‐term soil productivity in controlled burn prescriptions through the use of

“Mendocino National Forest Guidelines for Prescribed Burning of Chamise/Chaparral,” and by

meeting aquatic conservation strategy objectives.

Protect long‐term soil productivity in controlled burn prescriptions through the use of

“Mendocino National Forest Guidelines for Prescribed Burning of Chamise/Chaparral,” and by

meeting aquatic conservation strategy objectives.

Watershed and Water Quality

Identify depleted watershed areas during the project environmental assessment process.

Incorporate improvement activities as a part of the project.

Analyze projects that propose land disturbing activities for their effects on the appropriate level of watershed (normally second to fourth order watersheds) in order to prevent excessive

cumulative watershed effects on stream channel condition and water quality. Cumulative

watershed effects (CWE) analysis will be used to gauge impacts of past, present, and proposed

management activities on a watershed.

Implement Best Management Practices (BMP) to meet water quality objectives and maintain

and improve the quality of surface water on the Forest. Identify methods and techniques for

applying the BMPs during project level environmental analysis and incorporate them into the

associated project plan and implementation documents. During implementation of the

project, utilize additional BMPs as necessary to protect water quality even though the BMPs

may not be specifically identified in the project plans.

2.5.2 ‐ Existing Laws, Executive Orders

Clean Water Act of 1977

The objective of the Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of

the Nation’s waters (Section 101(a)). It also regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into

navigable waters (waters of the U.S.) (Section 404). The Forest Service abides by the Clean Water

Act through the implementation of BMPs (and other actions) otherwise known as Soil and Water

Conservation Practices within the Forest Service. A BMP is a practice, or a combination of practices,

that is determined by the state or designated area‐wide planning agency to be the most effective,



practicable means of preventing, or reducing the amount of pollution generated by non‐point

sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. BMPs are certified by the California State

Water Resource Control Board and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, in compliance

with Section 208 of the Clean Water Act.

BMP implementation and effectiveness are assessed through both Regional and National monitoring

programs. The Mendocino National Forest annually reports on the monitoring program to the State

Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the Forest Service Regional Office. BMPs used on this

project will be reviewed for implementation success and effectiveness one to five winters after

project completion.

National Forest Management Act 1976

The objectives of the act ensure that forest planning and management services provide for the

conservation and sustained yield of soil (site productivity) and water resources.

Executive Order 11990, 1977; Wetlands Management

E.O. 11990 requires federal agencies to follow avoidance, mitigation, and preservation procedures

with public input before proposing new construction in wetlands. To comply with E.O. 11990, the

federal agency would coordinate with ACOE, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and mitigate

for impacts to wetland habitats.

Executive Order 11998, 1977; Floodplain Management

E.O. 11998 requires all federal agencies to take actions to reduce the risk of flood loss, restore and

preserve the natural and beneficial values in flood plains, and minimize the impacts of floods on

human safety, health, and welfare.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Fouts Springs Decommissioning/Restoration Project Hydrology and Soils Specialist’s Report Environmental Consequences


SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This report will examine impacts to hydrologic and soil resources and beneficial values associated

with the alternatives.

3.1 ‐ Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (40 CFR § 1508.8).

Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are

still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth ‐inducing effects and other effects

related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related

effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (40 CFR § 1508.8). The

analysis for direct and indirect effects for the proposed action is considered at the site specific

activity area scale.

Cumulative effects are those impacts on the environment, which may result from the incremental

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions

regardless of what agency (Federal or non‐Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place

over a period of time (40 CFR § 1508.7). Cumulative impacts for the proposed action are assessed at

the scale of the 8th field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds of Lower South Fork Stony Creek

and Miner Creek. The northern portion of the action area is located in the Lower South Fork Stony

Creek watershed, and the southern portion is located in the Miner Creek watershed. These

watersheds are located within the Upper Stony Creek Basin, as described above.

For the purpose of this analysis, short‐term effects are considered to be those occurring within 18

months. Medium term effects are considered to be those which occur between 18 months and 20

years. Effects of longer‐duration than 20 years are considered to be long‐term effects.

3.2 ‐ Alternative 1 – No Action

The No Action Alternative provides a point of reference from which to evaluate the action alternative.

Under the No Action alternative, the site would not be restored and there would be no use or tenant for

the Fouts Springs Youth Facility. All of the facilities and structures associated with the site would remain,

and no specific actions would be taken to restore the site. Limited actions may be taken to secure

utilities. In addition, structures could be fenced to discourage vandalism, trespassing, or injury.

This alternative would allow continuation of the existing condition, which is inconsistent with the

desired conditions for this area. The No Action Alternative would result in no direct or indirect

resource impacts, due to the limited action taken. The trend of the current conditions would

continue, and the site would not benefit from full restoration, including surface restoration or

replanting. The long‐term effect of no action would be to move this area further away from desired

conditions as defined in the LRMP.


Environmental Consequences Hydrology and Soils Specialist’s Report



3.3 ‐ Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The proposed action is the decommissioning of the now defunct Fouts Spring Youth Facility.

Decommissioning consists of: (1) the abatement of hazardous materials, including but not limited to

the potential presence of lead based paint, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and

contaminated soil; (2) the demolition of the existing facilities, including but not limited to buildings,

utilities, pavement, and site improvements; and (3) full site restoration to a natural state.

3.3.1 ‐ Summary of Proposed Action

The following facilities and infrastructure within the action area would be decommissioned (i.e.,

demolished and removed) as follows:

Removal of all permanent and temporary buildings

Removal of concrete slabs, foundations, parking lot, walkways, curbs, basketball court, planter

boxes, swimming pools, and walls

Removal of facility improvements, including (and limited to) the perimeter fence (except for

along county road), archway entrance, signs, flag poles, football goal posts, obstacle course,

baseball backstop, and basketball poles

Removal of utility infrastructure, including (and limited to) power poles and associated power

lines, transformers, and switch gear; sewer and water systems; and propane and steel water

tanks

Removal of underground fuels tanks (if applicable)

Disconnection and capping of all below‐grade utilities at one foot below surface

Abandonment of septic tanks in place, consistent with Forest Service permit decommissioning

requirements and Colusa County septic tank abandonment requirements.

Site restoration activities within the former area of use would include the removal of exotic

and non‐native plants, including oleander and tree‐of‐heaven

Decommissioning of access road to the water tanks, requiring ripping, seeding, water barring,

and mulching with weed‐free straw

Restoration of man‐made depressions in the earth and earthen mounds to natural grade

Removal of apple orchard from the permitted area

Filling the historic pool with native material

Mulching of all disturbed soils with weed‐free straw

All below‐grade utilities, except septic tanks, would be disconnected and capped one foot below the

surface. Septic tanks would be abandoned in place according to proper procedure, as has been

determined by Colusa County.



The Forest Service would retain the following systems within the former area of use:

Trout Creek Diversion Dam, pump house, and waterline from the pump house to the redwood

storage tank,

Power poles, power lines, and transformer necessary to maintain power to the pump house,

Perimeter fencing along County Road M10, and

Entry road accessing the permit area.

All decommissioning and subsequent restoration work for the proposed action would be performed

in accordance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances as well as Forest

Service policy.

3.3.2 ‐ Project Design Features

The project design features are a combination of use permit requirements, and USFS recommended

conditions/practices, including BMPs in order to comply with the Forest Plan, and other laws and

regulations. The Forest Service BMPs for the project are based on the Forest Service Handbook,

Southwest Region (Region 5), handbooks R5 FSH 2509.22‐Soil and Water Conservation Handbook and

Chapter 10‐Water Quality Management Handbook (Effective Date December 5, 2011) (USFS, 2011). The

following measures are highlighted below due to their specific applicability to the topic of this report.

The full list of project design features is listed in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment.

Erosion Control and Water Quality Protection Measures

Appropriate preventative measures shall be implemented to control drainage and erosion associated

with construction, repairs, and/or replacement of systems or stormwater runoff. These measures

include:

A Forest Service‐approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be implemented

during the decommissioning/demolition project. This plan shall define actions and

responsibilities for the prevention of erosion during storm events throughout the construction

period when there is a high likelihood of areas of exposed native soil.

During demolition the use of water for any purpose will be undertaken in such a way as to

preclude runoff and erosion from the construction site to South Fork Stony or Mill creeks. For

example if vehicles are washed for invasive species control, this washing must take place in a

location where run off to the streams cannot occur through either natural (hill, porous soil) or

constructed (berms, sand bags) means.

Equipment and vehicles shall not travel through, nor do any work outside of the action area

nor encroach upon the northern side of South Fork Stony Creek beyond the northern

boundary of the action area where instable soil and steep slopes exist. The project boundary

area shall be well marked and staff shall be well informed to avoid use of the area on the

northern side of South Fork Stony Creek.





All demolition and restoration activities shall follow Forest Service BMPs to minimize the area

affected. These include, but are not limited to the following:

‐ 2.7 Road Decommissioning: Stabilize, restore, and vegetate unneeded roads to a more

natural state to protect and enhance NFS lands, resources, and water quality. The end result

is that the decommissioned road will not represent a significant impact to water quality.

‐ 2.11 Equipment Refueling and Servicing: Prevent fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other

harmful materials from discharging into nearby surface waters or infiltrating through soils to

contaminate groundwater resources.

‐ 2.13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other activities): Effectively limit and mitigate erosion

and sedimentation from any ground‐disturbing activities, through planning prior to

commencement of project activity, and through project management and administration

during project implementation.

‐ 5.1 Soil‐Disturbing Treatments on the Contour: Decrease sediment production and stream

turbidity, while mechanically treating slopes.

‐ 5.4 Revegetation of Surface‐disturbed Areas: Protect water quality by minimizing soil

erosion through the stabilizing influence of vegetation foliage and root network.

‐ 5.6 Soil Moisture Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operations: Prevent compaction,

rutting, and gullying, with resultant sediment production and turbidity.

‐ 7.4 Forest Hazardous Substance Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan:

Prevent contamination of waters from accidental spills.

The County shall take reasonable precautions to prevent pollution or deterioration of lands or waters, which may result from the demolition/restoration project. No waste or byproduct shall

be discharged into water. Storage facilities for materials capable of causing water pollution, if

accidentally discharged, shall be located to prevent any spillage into waters or channels leading

into water that would result in harm to fish and wildlife or to human water supplies. Materials

and supplies for spill mitigation and containment will be kept on site at all times during

construction.

The County shall be responsible for prevention and control of soil erosion and gullying within the area of use and lands adjacent thereto, resulting from construction, operation,

maintenance, and termination of the authorized use. The County shall so construct permitted

improvements to avoid the accumulation of excessive heads of water and to avoid

encroachment on streams.

Revegetation of Ground Cover and Surface Restoration

Planting plans would be reviewed and approved by a Forest Service FS landscape architect and botanist prior to site restoration and planting.

The County shall revegetate or otherwise stabilize all ground where the soil has been exposed as a result of the County’s construction, maintenance, operation, or termination of the

authorized use and shall construct and maintain necessary preventative measures to

supplement the vegetation.



Revegetation shall be completed using native plant species and with specific avoidance of

noxious or invasive weed species.

The County shall hydroseed the sites using water trucks with plant species selected by the County and in conjunction with Forest Service representatives. To prevent the seed from drying up or

being blown away, a watering schedule based on the seed selected will be utilized.

3.3.3 ‐ Direct Effects

Soils

Past use of the action area disturbed and compacted much of the soil on site. The proposed action

would disturb, compact, and displace soil in the process of decommissioning the youth facility. The

beneficial and adverse direct effects on soils are described below.

The proposed action would directly disturb and expose soils in the course of removing the existing

features associated with the former Youth Facility on the majority of the 74‐acre site. Depending on

the decommissioning action, the depth of soil disturbance would vary anywhere from the surface

level, to deeper depths for the removal of orchard trees and underground tanks/utilities. Soil would

also be moved in the process of removing mounds and pits existing on the site. The proposed action

would include the contouring and resurfacing of areas to return conditions to a more natural state.

Effects from soil disturbance are anticipated to be avoided or reduced in the near term through the

use of BMPs, and permanently decreased over time as revegetation efforts are established.

A portion of the former facility’s water supply system was drawn from the South Fork of Stony

Creek. Infrastructure used to obtain this water supply included a water transmission pipeline and a

22,000‐gallon tank, located on the north side of the stream where the terrain slopes very steeply

southeast toward the creek (USFS, 2000). The riverwash soils in this area of steep terrain are made

up of loose materials within or adjacent to the active floodplain, and are subject to frequent fluvial

processes. Effects from mass wasting such as landsliding and the displacement of wet soil in this

area will be avoided entirely by retaining those systems within the former area of use, and

prohibiting activity on the north side of South Fork Stony Creek.

Areas with disturbed soils would be planted with native vegetation, with the intent of returning the site

to a more natural soil condition over the medium to long‐term. It is anticipated that revegetation of

disturbed soils will occur on the bulk of the 74‐acre site. The site would be hydroseeded via water

trucks. A prospective watering schedule for the site would be based on the species of seed selected for

the site. The native plant species to be used by the County to revegetate the bulk of the site would be

approved by the Forest Service through the use of a replanting plan before planting.

Hydrologic Resources

As discussed above, the proposed action would directly disturb and expose soils in the course of

removing the existing features associated with the former Youth Facility, as well as during ground

contouring and resurfacing. Resurfacing will make the disturbed areas more receptive to native

plantings and revegetation, but will also make soils susceptible to erosion in the short‐term until





plantings begin to stabilize the soil. Erosion potential will be reduced and minimized through the

implementation of BMPs for erosion control during decommissioning and restoration (see Project

Design Features above), and thereby reduce the potential for short‐term impacts related to erosion

and soil runoff into nearby streams. With implementation of BMPs and the Erosion Control and

Water Protection Measures described above, no direct effects to hydrologic resources are

anticipated. In the medium to long‐term, the area will be seeded with native plants, which would

establish a cover to aid in natural erosion control.

Soil types are generally pervious and generate low to moderate rates of runoff. Local drainage

patterns at the site are generally overland with concentrated flow through swales and ditches.

Existing culverts convey drainage water from one side of the roadway to the next. However, past

activity with buildings on site created minor shallow gullying on the developed portion of the facility

due to concentrations of sheet flow drainage around structures (USFS, 2000). Additionally, many of

the unpaved areas were subject to heavy foot traffic, such as along pathways, the parade grounds, or

other areas where marching drills were practiced resulting in compacted soils, and thereby

decreases in permeability and increases in rate and volume of runoff. The removal of structures and

impervious surfaces, and restoration of the site to a natural state would reduce sheet flow, gullying,

and impacts resulting from impervious surface and soil conditions in the action area.

3.3.4 ‐ Indirect Effects

Soils

The effects to soil resources would occur solely in location and time as a direct effect. It is not

expected that there would be any delayed indirect effects to the soil resource.

Hydrologic Resources

Indirect effects to water resources are those which occur off‐site and do not immediately affect water

quality, riparian health, or stream channels, such as the local creeks. The effects usually occur at a later

time or place as a result of precipitation and runoff. The proposed action will stabilize, and vegetate all

areas of ground disturbance to control erosion over the short‐, medium‐, and long‐term, as described

above for direct effects, so that off‐site effects to hydrologic resources are not anticipated.

3.3.5 ‐ Cumulative Effects

As discussed above, cumulative effects are those impacts on the environment, which result from the

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions regardless of which entity undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects for the

decommissioning project are assessed at the scale of the of the 8th field HUC watersheds of Lower

South Fork Stony Creek (11 square miles) and Miner Creek (15 square miles). The northern portion

of the action area is located in the Lower South Fork Stony Creek watershed, and the southern

portion is located in the Miner Creek watershed. Both watersheds are located within the larger

Upper Stony Creek watershed.



Past Actions

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed

action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current conditions as the most useful and relevant

information regarding the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the

aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment

and might contribute to cumulative effects. Also, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an

interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions. It acknowledges the

above‐stated principles, in that, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by

focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of

individual past actions.”

The Mill Fire started on Saturday July 7, 2012 within the Upper Stony Creek watershed. The fire

quickly burned toward the town of Stonyford. The fire was contained before reaching Stonyford but

burned almost 30,000 acres. The fire burned through part of the Blue Slides Late‐Successional

Reserve (LSR), a reserve set aside to preserve old growth forest and species like the Northern

Spotted Owl, and through 122 miles (52%) of the 236 miles of off‐highway vehicle (OHV) trails and

roads open to OHV use in the Stonyford Off‐Highway Vehicle Area. The fire increased the cumulative

hydrological and soil disturbance within the watersheds and subwatersheds where it occurred

through soil heating, loss of organic matter and soil cover, and increased erosion.

Ongoing, Concurrent, and Reasonably Foreseeable (Future) Actions

Geology

Local landslides and mass wasting events are prevalent in the watersheds within and near the action

area, particularly within the inner gorges of streams, including along the South Fork of Stony Creek

to the north of the action area. Landsliding and mass wasting have detrimental impacts to water

quality due to soil eroding into stream systems, and has been exacerbated in the past by human

activity.

The decommissioning and subsequent restoration of the 74‐acre site would not likely have a

discernable effect on landsliding or mass wasting potential on the majority of the site. This is due to

the site’ minimal slope aspect (0‐2%) existing on the south side of Stony Creek, and the nature of the

project, which includes mechanical disturbances to soil for infrastructure removal, and restoration of

the site to a natural state. The recontouring of the site, and return of the site to a vegetated natural

state could temporarily reroute surface waters, but implementation of the project would increase

evapotranspiration and root support, eventually decreasing landslide and mass wasting potential in

the middle, and long‐term (10‐20 years). Additionally, activity on the steep slopes on the northern

side of Stony Creek would be avoided to prevent any landslide potential. The proposed action’s

effects on landsliding in this area would be further reduced with the application of geologic resource

protection measures, hydrologic protection measures, and soils protection measures.





Soils

Cumulative impacts to soils (disturbance, compaction, and displacement) are minimal for past Forest

projects and activities as very few projects have occurred in this area in recent decades including

minor prescribed burns and timber thinning projects, with the exception of the Mill Fire. The Mill

fire was by far the largest impact upon soils in the area in recent times. Past activity on the project

site included soil compaction and soil disturbance through regular use, and would be reduced by

limiting heavy equipment use to minimize soil compaction and disturbance, and the addition of

vegetated ground cover following decommissioning activities. These actions would minimize

cumulative soils impacts in the Lower Stony Creek and Mill Creek watersheds, and would prevent

significant impacts on soils from occurring on the site in the long term.

Hydrology

The proposed action would disturb soil within a portion of the two 8th field HUC watersheds in the

project area. This could include the magnitude and duration of detectable increases in peak flows,

proximity of disturbance to stream channels, and stream channel characteristics within and

downstream of the affected watersheds in the short‐term. However, it is anticipated that very little

disturbance to the watershed due to the proposed action’s low connectivity to the stream system

through avoidance of unstable conditions existing in local riparian areas and the implementation of

BMPs. Furthermore, the removal of structures and revegetation of the site would result in overall

reduced rates and volume of runoff due to decreased impervious surface area, which would create a

beneficial impact for the watersheds.

Project design standards would control additional site runoff around improved areas. Site grading

would be designed to provide positive drainage away from receiving waterbodies. The BMPs would,

to the maximum extent practicable, utilize vegetated ditches and swales designed to slow the flow of

runoff from the site. This would promote infiltration and would tend to reduce any increase in the

rate of runoff from the site. BMPs for the proposed action also include the minimization of soil

disturbance and the preservation of soil cover. The drainage improvements would be implemented

inclusive of BMPs in order to maintain the sediment regime of the Lower South Fork Stony Creek and

Miner Creek watersheds, resulting in improved overall hydrological conditions.

As described above in Direct Impacts, although site soils are highly permeable and generate low to

moderate levels of runoff, past activity with buildings on site created minor shallow gullying on the

developed portion of the facility due to concentrations of sheet flow drainage around structures.

Removal of structures would remove these sources of sheet flow and gullying. Additionally, the

removal of buildings, pavement, and other impervious surfaces would result in reduced rates and

volume of runoff due to decreased impervious surface area, which would create a beneficial

hydrological impact for the watersheds.

Recreation

Most of the recreation activity within the vicinity of the action area involves dispersed use

associated with camping, hunting, fishing, off highway vehicle (OHV) use and hiking. The Stonyford



OHV riding area is a system of OHV trails and Forest Service roads open to OHV use. In addition, a

number of dispersed OHV and recreation facilities are located near the action area and receive light

to moderate use in the summer months, and increased use in the fall. The use of these recreation

facilities is expected to continue into the future. While the proposed action is not anticipated to

have cumulative effects on recreation and OHV use in the area, the combined effect of short‐term

soil disturbance resulting from the action in combination with soil erosion caused by OHV use could

lead to an overall short‐term increase in soil movement within the watersheds. These impacts

would be temporary (several years), lasting in the short and medium‐term only as vegetation

regrowth occurs following site restoration.

Roads

Road maintenance, which includes grading, spot surfacing, cleaning or replacement of culverts,

hazard tree removal, bridge repair, low water crossing maintenance, etc. has been on‐going for

decades within the Forest, and will continue into the future. Hydrologic effects are controlled and

limited because very little roadwork is expected in the near future and all maintenance includes

implementation of forest standard and guidelines and BMPs.

Forest Management/Timber Harvest

There is no reasonably foreseeable timber harvest on Mendocino National Forest lands anticipated

within the watersheds affected by the Fouts Springs decommission. While there is no timber harvest on

private land scheduled, there are 320 acres of salvage removal harvest that are currently on‐going. It is

unknown what management will occur on smaller personal inholdings, however, it is likely that some

small, scattered timber harvest will occur. Hydrologic effects are controlled by implementation of forest

standards and guidelines and project specific BMPs on Forest lands and by State planning requirements

on private land.

Fire Suppression/Wildfire/Fire Management

Based on recent fire activity, it is likely that some small and large wildfires will continue to occur

within or adjacent to the action area and effects will vary depending on the fire size, timing, and

intensity. Fire reduces ground cover, and results in a short‐term increase in the volume and rate of

runoff, contributing to erosion, sediment loading, turbidity, and other hydrologic effects. These

effects decrease over time as vegetation recovers.

Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action

The proposed action could result in short‐term detrimental effects to the Lower South Fork Stony

Creek and Mill Creek watersheds due to soil disturbance, compaction, and displacement, as well as

the potential for subsequent detrimental effects to hydrological resources should soils be

transported to waterbodies. These effects will be avoided or reduced through the implementation

of project design features, including BMPs. The removal of buildings, structures, and other

impervious surfaces and the return of the site to a natural state will have positive cumulative

impacts for both watersheds due to reduced soil disturbance, sheet flow, and increased water





infiltration into the system through vegetated, permeable surfaces. The net effect of short and long‐

term cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed action would be negligible.

3.3.6 ‐ Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans

Project consistency with the Forest Plan is documented in Appendix B. Forest‐wide directives for project

standards are to implement BMPs that meet state and federal guidelines in water quality protection and

appropriate standards in Forest Service manuals and handbooks.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Fouts Springs Decommissioning/Restoration Project Hydrology and Soils Specialist’s Report Monitoring Recommendations and Conclusions


SECTION 4: MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Forest‐wide standards and guidelines require monitoring of the implementation and effectiveness of

BMPs and mitigation to achieve water quality goals. Guidance for BMP use and effectiveness

evaluation is provided in USFS National Sampling and Monitoring Protocols and Best Management

Practice Evaluation, Draft V.1.0, March 2013.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Fouts Springs Decommissioning/Restoration Project Hydrology and Soils Specialist’s Report Contributors


SECTION 5: CONTRIBUTORS

FirstCarbon Solutions

Project Director .............................................................................................................. Jason Brandman

Project Manager/Geologist .......................................................................... Christine Jacobs‐Donoghue

Project Manager/Water Specialist ................................................................................... Vanessa Welsch

GIS Specialist ................................................................................................................ Karlee McKracken

Word Processor .............................................................................................................. Ericka Rodriguez

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Fouts Springs Decommissioning/Restoration Project Hydrology and Soils Specialist’s Report References


SECTION 6: REFERENCES

U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1995. Land and Resource Management Plan, Mendocino National Forest.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2015. Artesian water and artesian wells. Website: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/gwartesian.html. Accessed July 2015.

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2015. Soil Survey.

USFS. 2000. Fouts Springs Youth Facility Environmental Assessment, Mendocino National Forest. Prepared by Dames and Moore. March.

USFS. 2007. Investigating Water Quality in the Pacific Southwest Region, Best Management Practices Evaluation Program: A User’s Guide. Pacific Southwest Region.

USFS. 2011. Forest Service Handbook, Southwest Region (Region 5), R5 FSH 2509.22‐Soil and Water Conservation Handbook and Chapter 10‐Water Quality Management Handbook. December 5, 2011.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Fouts Springs Decommissioning/Restoration Project Hydrology and Soils Specialist’s Report

FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2085\20850034\Hydro Soils Report\20850034 Fouts Springs Hydro Soils Report.docx

Appendix A: Forest Plan Consistency Checklist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Fouts Springs Decommissioning/Restoration Project Hydrology and Soils Specialist’s Report Forest Plan Consistency Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions A‐1 H:\Client (PN‐JN)\2085\20850034\Hydro Soils Report\20850034 Fouts Springs Hydro Soils Report.docx

FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST

Forest‐wide Standards and Guidelines

Management Direction Consistency

Riparian and Aquatic Ecosystems

1c. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

Proposed Action Complies: Implementation of project design features, including BMPs will protect these features from significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. In addition, the proposed action would return the site to a more naturalistic condition, consistent with this management direction. Project area does not include aquatic system components such as banks and stream bottoms. Runoff will be contained onsite during construction to keep the site hydrologically disconnected from nearby streams.

1d. Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

Proposed Action Complies: With implementation of project design features, including BMPs, no adverse effects to aquatic and riparian communities are anticipated. In addition, the proposed action would return the site to a more naturalistic condition, consistent with this management direction. No water, aquatic sediments nor stream features are found within the project area. Runoff will be contained onsite during construction to keep the site hydrologically disconnected from nearby streams.

1e. Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport.

Proposed Action Complies: Implementation of project design features, including BMPs will prevent significant direct or indirect effects on sediment protection rates or on sediment routing. In addition, over the long‐term the project site would be returned to a more naturalistic condition. No water, aquatic sediments nor stream features are found within the project area. Runoff will be contained onsite during construction to keep the site hydrologically disconnected from nearby streams.

1h. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of course woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

Proposed Action Complies: Given the developed state of the site, localized plant community diversity is lacking. The proposed action will return the site to a more naturalistic state in terms of surface restoration and native planting, positively contributing to this management direction. No water, aquatic sediments, riparian or aquatic plants or species nor stream features are found within the project area. Runoff will be contained onsite during construction to keep the site hydrologically disconnected from nearby streams.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Fouts Springs Decommissioning/Restoration Project Hydrology and Soils Specialist’s Report Forest Plan Consistency Checklist

A‐2 FirstCarbon Solutions


Forest‐wide Standards and Guidelines (cont.)

Management Direction Consistency

Watershed and Water Quality

1c. Within all watersheds, analyze projects that propose land disturbing activities for their effects on the appropriate level of watershed (normally second to fourth order watersheds) in order to prevent excessive cumulative watershed effects on stream channel condition and water quality. Cumulative watershed effects analysis will be used to gauge impacts of past, present, and proposed management activities on a watershed.

Proposed Action Complies: Implementation of project design features, including BMPs will prevent significant direct or indirect effects on watersheds.

1d. Within all watersheds, implement best management practices to meet water quality objectives and maintain and improve the quality of surface water on the Forest. Identify methods and techniques for applying the BMPs during project level environmental analysis and incorporate them into the associated project plan and implementation documents.

Proposed Action Complies: Specific BMPs have been incorporated in the proposed action as project design features, and are specifically intended to control erosion and runoff, and protect water quality.

NRCS 2015; FCS 2015.

appendix g: soils and hydrology specialist...

Documents