environmental assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2013. 4. 19. ·...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

March 2013

Environmental Assessment

Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine Aquatic Organism Passage Project

Placerville and Georgetown Ranger Districts, Eldorado National Forest Eldorado County, California

For More Information Contact:

Jann Williams Eldorado National Forest

100 Forni Road Placerville, CA 95667

530-621-5240 [email protected]

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 TTY). To file a

complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal

opportunity provider and employer.


i

Table of Contents

Background ...............................................................................................................................................2 Purpose and Need for Action ....................................................................................................................2 Decision Framework .................................................................................................................................2 Consistency with Planning Documents .....................................................................................................2 Issues .........................................................................................................................................................3

Proposed Action and No Action Alternative .................................................................................................3 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................................6 No Action Alternative .............................................................................................................................14

Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................................................14 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ..............................................................15 Proposed Action Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................20 No Action Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ...............................................................................21

Agencies and Persons Consulted .................................................................................................................21 Federal, State, and Local Agencies: ........................................................................................................21 Tribes ......................................................................................................................................................22 Others ......................................................................................................................................................22

References ...................................................................................................................................................23

List of Tables

Table 1. Potential Effects of Aquatic Organism Passage Crossing Replacement ......................................15

List of Figures

Figure 1. Plum Creek Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................4 Figure 2. Sailor Ravine Vicinity Map ..........................................................................................................5 Figure 3. Plum Creek existing low water crossing .......................................................................................6 Figure 4. Example of bridge to be installed at Plum Creek Crossing ...........................................................7 Figure 5. Plum Creek Crossing project activity locations ............................................................................8 Figure 6. Example of bottomless arch to be installed at Sailor Ravine ........................................................9 Figure 7. Sailor Ravine Crossing - Project Activity Locations ..................................................................10


2

Background During 2011, seventy-five stream crossings were surveyed on the ENF using the National

Inventory and Assessment Procedure for Identifying Barriers to Aquatic Organism Passage at

Road-Stream Crossings (USFS 2005) protocol. This protocol assessed whether or not juvenile

and adult salmonids could pass through the crossings during low stream flow. Between 64 and 91

percent of the culverts surveyed were assessed as impassable using the California Department of

Fish and Game criteria and the Region 1 Forest Service criteria.

Plum Creek was identified because of the importance of the fishery to the community and the

improvement in stream connectivity that could be achieved. Sailor Ravine was identified because

of the amount of available aquatic habitat which could be increased upstream (0.55 mile) and the

poor condition of the crossing.

Purpose and Need for Action This proposal is needed because both crossings prevent the passage of fish and other aquatic

species. The crossings also restrict movement of annual bed load causing substrate to aggrade in

the channel upstream of the crossings and degrade the channels downstream, sometimes down to

bedrock.

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment provides direction to “maintain and restore the

hydrologic connectivity of streams by identifying roads and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt

natural surface and subsurface water flow paths” (RCO100), and to “ensure that culverts or

other stream crossings do not create barriers to upstream or downstream passage for aquatic-

dependent species”(RCO 101) (USFS 2004).

Additionally, unauthorized dispersed camping access roads shall be blocked to reduce impacts to

Plum Creek. Dispersed camping next to the stream has led to compacted soil, reduced riparian

vegetation, and water quality impacts.

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment provides direction to “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” (RCO-116)(USFS 2004).

Decision Framework Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action, the other

alternatives, and their environmental consequences, in order to determine whether to implement

the proposed action as described, select a different alternative or take no action at this time.

Consistency with Planning Documents A complete discussion of the management practices, general forest direction, and standards and

guidelines are included within the Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan (LRMP) (USFS 1988) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SNFPA DSEIS) (USFS 2010).

The stream crossings are in the Streamside Management Zones (SMZs). Proposed activities

would be consistent with applicable LRMP direction regarding activities in SMZs.


3

Issues No issues were identified by the public.

Proposed Action and No Action Alternative In this section, the proposed action is compared to the no action alternative. The no action

alternative provides a baseline to compare to the proposed action.

The locations of the project areas are as follows and are shown on figures 1 and 2:

Plum Creek – Placerville Ranger District – Road 10NY20A, T10N, R14E, Section 10, NE ¼,

NW ¼

Sailor Ravine – Georgetown Ranger District – Road 12N70, T12N, R 11E, Section 36, NE ¼,

NE 1/4


4

Figure 1. Plum Creek Vicinity Map


5

Figure 2. Sailor Ravine Vicinity Map


6

Proposed Action The proposed action is to remove existing crossings at two locations and replace them with

crossings that allow passage of fish and other aquatic organisms. Existing crossings are shown on

figures 3 and 5. Details of the proposed action are provided below.

Plum Creek - Road 10NY20A

At the Plum Creek crossing, the existing concrete vented low water crossing structure would be

removed. Built up bedload upstream of the crossing would be removed if a forest hydrologist or

engineer deems it excessive and taken to an appropriate stockpile location. Concrete footings

would be installed on both stream banks and a permanent prefabricated bridge would be placed

across the creek (similar to the bridge shown in figure 4) to allow Sierra Pacific Industries access

to their land in Section 3.

Figure 3. Plum Creek existing low water crossing


7

Figure 4. Example of bridge to be installed at Plum Creek Crossing

Three dispersed campsites and unauthorized road entrances off Forest Road 10NY20 would be

blocked using partially buried logs or barrier rock.

A landing area located on Forest Road10NY20 at the crossing would be used to stage equipment,

pile brush, barrier rock, and temporarily stockpile excess fill material. The concrete and steel

from the existing crossing would be hauled away and recycled.

Proposed activities and locations at Plum Creek are shown on figure 5.


8

Figure 5. Plum Creek Crossing project activity locations


9

Sailor Ravine - Road 12N70

Road fill and the two existing double culvert pipes would be removed and a bottomless arch

would be placed in Sailor Ravine at Road 12N70. The road grade would be lowered to reduce the

length of the bottomless arch crossing. An example of a bottomless arch crossing is shown in

figure 6.

Figure 6. Example of bottomless arch to be installed at Sailor Ravine

Two existing landings are located on the northern approach to the crossing, on the east and west

sides of the road. One is near the stream and the other is approximately 200 meters to the north

of the crossing. These would be used as equipment staging areas, brush pile storage, and

temporary excess fill material storage. Rebar and concrete from existing stemwalls would be

hauled away and recycled.

Proposed activities at Sailor Ravine are shown on figure 7.


10

Figure 7. Sailor Ravine Crossing - Project Activity Locations


11

Both Crossings:

Stream simulation1 would take place in the stream channels of both crossings by placing habitat

elements in appropriate locations within the stream channel and/or on the stream banks. This

work may include the addition of habitat elements such as logs, boulders, or step pools.

Development and implementation of this work would be guided by a Forest Fisheries Biologist or

Hydrologist. During the rainy season, native plants approved by the Forest Botanist would be

planted along the stream banks of all crossings.

It is estimated that it would take approximately 120 days to complete each structure replacement.

During this time each road would be closed to the public. Road closure locations would be

signed at appropriate road junctions.

2.1.2 Design Features

The following resource protection measures shall be used during project implementation.

Cultural Resources

CR-1. The district archaeologist shall be notified prior to implementation to provide sufficient

time to flag resources at risk. The Cultural Resources Manager of the United Auburn

Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria will be notified prior to implementation so

that he can participate in the flagging of at-risk sites.

CR-2. Flagged areas shall be avoided during all phases of the project, unless an archaeologist is

present to monitor work and provide authorization for certain activities within these

areas. Flagging shall be removed after the project is completed.

CR-3. Native materials to be used as natural barriers or habitat elements will not be harvested

from, or dragged across, flagged cultural resource sites.

CR-4. Should any previously unrecorded cultural resources be encountered during

implementation of this project, all work shall immediately cease in that area and the

District Archeologist be notified immediately. Work may resume after approval by the

District Archeologist. Should any cultural resources become damaged in unanticipated

ways by activities proposed in this project, the steps described in the Sierran PA for

inadvertent effects will be followed (USFS, 1996).

CR-5. Should the project boundaries or activities be expanded beyond the current APE, Section

106 compliance for this project would be incomplete until additional cultural resources

review is completed.

CR-6. Monitoring of the area would occur after the project has been completed. The District

Archaeologist would be kept informed of the status of various stages of the project, so

that subsequent field work can proceed in a timely fashion. All subsequent inventory

monitoring and site monitoring related to this project would be documented in

amendments to this report, as appropriate.

1 Stream simulation is a method for designing and building road-stream crossings intended to permit free

and unrestricted movements of any aquatic species.


12

Botany

B-1. Sensitive plant occurrences discovered during project implementation would be flagged

for avoidance and reported to the project botanist.

B-2. Sensitive plant occurrences would be monitored by a Forest Botanist after the completion

of the project to ensure that protection measures were effective.

B-3. Forest Service personnel would monitor staging areas, fill deposit sites, and disturbed

areas for invasive plants in the two years following completion of the proposed action. If

priority invasive plant species are detected, Forest Service personnel would treat the

plants by hand pulling or digging. Invasive plants that have or are developing seeds

would be disposed of off National Forest System lands.

B-4. The Himalayan blackberry occurrence found north of Plum Creek crossing would be

removed by Forest Service personnel prior to project implementation.

B-5. Equipment would be cleaned per standard contract specifications prior to entering the

project area to avoid the introduction of invasive plant species.

B-6. Locations of any new infestations of invasive plants species discovered prior to or during

project implementation, would be mapped, reported to the project botanist, and

documented for possible treatment and monitoring, and/or flagged and avoided.

B-7. Mulch or straw would be used for erosion control would be certified weed free. A

certificate from the county of origin stating the material was inspected would be required.

B-8. Any seed used for erosion control or restoration would be from a locally collected source

and approved by the project botanist prior to use.

B-9 Off-site fill material or barrier rocks would come from weed-free sources. Consult with

Forest Botanist for list of weed-free sources.

Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife

W-1. Any fish that are impounded by project operations would be netted safely out of the

construction area and moved downstream.

W-2. Prior to construction activities a qualified biologist would clear the area of any sensitive

aquatic species, i.e. fish or frogs, and move all individuals to a safe location.

W-3. Any western pond turtles found in the area during construction would be moved to a safe

area.

W-4. To avoid attracting opportunistic predators such as coyotes, domestic and feral dogs and

cats, opossums, skunks and raccoons, all food and trash must be appropriately stored in

closed containers and removed from the project site at the end of each day.

W-5. Maintain a limited operating period (LOP), prohibiting activities within ¼ mile of the

spotted owl activity center for PAC ELD 0046 from March 1 through August 15 unless

non-nesting for the season is confirmed.

W-6. If any newly listed or unknown occurrences of special status species are found within the

affected project area during project preparation or implementation, work would stop in


13

the area and the District biologist would be contacted immediately to determine

appropriate action. Additional species protection measures may be required.

Water Quality

WQ-1. Project activities should be scheduled to occur between August 15 and October 15 to

avoid the period of highest rainfall, streamflows, and erosion potential.

WQ-2. Ground and vegetation disturbance would be minimized during implementation of the

project.

Windblown dust is not anticipated during implementation due to the small area of

disturbance. If windblown dust is observed, disturbed areas will be sprayed with water or

covered with mulch or tarps.

WQ-3. The goal during in-channel work is zero discharge. The following practices have proven

effective in achieving zero discharge and could be used:

Whenever possible, delay activities until flow has ceased or is at lowest flow (Both

creeks are perennial and are expected to have some flow during project implementation);

If flow is present, convey flow around the construction site and discharge in a stable

location;

install a coffer dam below the site to trap sediment and detain any turbid water;

dispose of any sediment from behind the crossings in a stable location; and

remove turbid water by pumping and sprinkling it in a location and manner to allow

infiltration into the soil.

WQ-4. Stop operations when there is a 50 percent or greater predicted chance of precipitation by

the National Weather Service and implement temporary erosion control measures as

needed. Operations will cease until the site is dry enough to resume work and there is no

potential for off-site sediment transport. Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs

will be applied to all disturbed ground during temporary construction delays caused by

inclement weather or other circumstances. Measures applied will vary with conditions,

but are likely to include

Placement of readily available mulch materials (e.g., pine needles, branches, coarse

woody debris) and/or imported mulch materials (e.g., certified weed-free rice straw);

Placement of tarps to cover exposed soil; and

Installation of straw wattles, silt fences, and/or hay bales.

WQ-5. Earthen spoils generated during the construction that are not immediately used would be

temporarily stockpiled in stable staging areas. Straw wattles, silt fences, or hay bales

would be installed around the base of temporary stockpiles if needed, to intercept runoff

and sediment draining from the stockpiles. Tarps will also be kept on hand to cover

spoils in the event of rainfall during the construction interval. If necessary, the stockpiles

will be further stabilized by mulching them with available forest materials or an

appropriate geotextile material.


14

Most excavated material will be used to reconstruct the crossing road or bridge

foundation. Spoils that are not used during construction will be hauled offsite and

deposited in stable areas, i.e. roads or landings, once construction is complete.

WQ-6. If stream is flowing or groundwater is encountered during construction, flow would be

diverted around active construction and disturbed areas. Disturbed surfaces would be

mulched with local or weed-free imported cover or protected with straw wattles, silt

fences, or weed-free straw bales as needed. These areas may also be actively re-vegetated

with appropriate native plant species, using plant materials (i.e., seed, container stock,

transplant plugs, pole cuttings) collected from local sources.

WQ-7. Project vehicles and equipment will be staged, re-fueled, and maintained on previously

used landings or barren areas as shown on figures 4 and 6. Earthmoving equipment will

be clean and free of invasive plant species seeds prior to being moved to the project site.

Fuel and lubricants will not be stored on the project site overnight but will be brought in

daily. A spill and containment kit will be located in the vehicle and equipment staging,

fueling, and maintenance area. The equipment will be inspected daily for leaks.

WQ-8. Wastes and petroleum products used during construction will be collected and removed

from the project site in accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

regulations and federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

standards. Wastes will be disposed of in an appropriate manner.

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the existing crossings at Plum Creek on Forest Road 10NY20A

and on the unnamed stream in Sailor Ravine at Forest Road 12N70 would not be replaced and the

dispersed campsites would remain available for public use.

Environmental Consequences This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and no action alternatives.

Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial cause or

action. Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity,

but would occur in the foreseeable future. Cumulative effects result when the incremental effects

of actions are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless

of what agency or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative effects can result from

individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. Past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are assessed along with the effects of the

Proposed Action to determine whether significant cumulative effects may occur. This analysis is

consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality memo from James L. Connaughton titled

"Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis" dated June 24,

2005, which is incorporated by reference. A list of projects considered in determining cumulative

effects for various resources is noted in the Background section of Chapter 1.

This section is organized by resource topic and presents comparative analyses of the effects that

would occur from implementing either the No Action or Proposed Action alternative. The

affected environment, direct and indirect effects, and cumulative effects are addressed separately

for each location. The following reports are incorporated by reference: Wildlife and Aquatics


15

Biological Assessment and Evaluation, which includes the Management Indicator Species Report,

Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment for Sensitive Plants, Hydrology Specialist Report,

and Heritage Resource Report.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Direct and indirect effects of the proposed action are summarized in table 1 below and presented

in detail in the text.

Table 1. Potential Effects of Aquatic Organism Passage Crossing Replacement

Attribute Direct Indirect

Hydrology

Removal of ground cover

leaving areas of exposed

soil immediately adjacent

to stream

Potential for erosion and

sediment deposition to

stream

Slight, short-term decrease

in water quality; increase in

stream sediments with

downstream migration

Fill material being moved

over and adjacent to stream

with potential for

placement of fill in stream

channel

Increased sediment in

channel; change in channel

shape

Slight, short-term increase

in sediments to stream with

downstream migration

Use of mechanical

equipment in and adjacent

to channel with potential

for fuel or fluids to be

discharged to stream

Introduction of

contaminants to stream

Short-term decrease in

water quality downstream

Removal of cover from

stream banks and channel

Increase in water

temperature; decrease in

cover for aquatic organisms

Alteration of aquatic

organism habitat

Removal of existing

crossings and excess fill

material

Streamflow and bedload

transport resume under

more natural channel

configuration

Establishment of natural

habitats and stream

conditions; allows aquatic

organisms access to

additional habitats upstream

Installation of AOP

Crossing

Maintains natural gradient

and channel configuration.

Allows passage of storm

flows and in-channel

sediment.

Establishment of natural

habitats and stream

conditions; allows aquatic

organisms access to

additional habitats upstream

Blocking dispersed

campsites

Soil compaction, stream

bank damage and riparian

vegetation damage cease

Restoration of riparian area;

addition of riparian habitat


Noise and disturbance from

equipment and personnel

Short-term interference

with daily activities; death

or injury of individuals

Short-term changes in

habitat


16

Attribute Direct Indirect

Botany

Ground disturbance

Removal of marginally

suitable sensitive species

habitat; potential increase

of invasive plants

Localized and minor

reduction in sensitive

species; increased

competition with invasive

plants

Change to channel gradient

and bedload

Potential erosion or

inundation of potentially

suitable sensitive species

habitat

Localized and negligible


species suitable habitat

Disturbance of bedrock

outcrop surface

Removal of suitable

sensitive species habitat

Localized and negligible


species suitable habitat

Cultural Resources

Use of heavy equipment Disturbance or destruction

of cultural resources

Increased erosion and

deposition removing or

covering artifacts

Installation of vehicle

barriers

Disturbance or destruction

of cultural resources



covering artifacts

Removal of old crossings

and installation of new

crossings

Displacement of sediment;

removal of cover



covering artifacts

Hydrology

Use of earth moving equipment within and adjacent to stream channels can result in the

introduction of sediments and equipment fluids (fuel, hydraulic fluid) to the stream. Even with

the use of BMPs and design features, this can cause short-term decreases in water quality. These

impacts would be diluted to negligible levels as they travel downstream.

The restricted work areas and the use of design features and BMPs will minimize the potential for

adverse impacts. Streams will be routed around the active work area and erosion control

measures will be taken to prevent introduction of sediments and fluids to streams. New crossing

structures will allow natural stream channel characteristics to re-form, reducing potential for

erosion and water quality degradation, and allowing passage of aquatic organisms.

Removal of the concrete low water crossing at Plum Creek will allow channel substrate, i.e.

sands, gravels, and cobbles, to be mobilized and move downstream through the drainage system

as the natural gradient re-establishes itself. This will result in a mass of channel material moving

and spreading downstream which could result in minor moderate-term increase in stream bottom

sediments downstream of the project site. The excess sediment would spread and disperse as it

migrated downstream and the impacts would diminish with distance and time. This may have

some adverse and beneficial impacts to downstream aquatic organism habitats. Migrating


17

sediments could cover existing habitat resulting in adverse effects. The sediments would also

create habitat in areas scoured to bedrock, thus creating beneficial effects.

The natural movement of stream channel sediments through these stream reaches will allow the

stream to regain a more natural channel configuration and allow the passage of aquatic

organisms. These are long term, local, beneficial impacts of the proposed action.

Implementation of the proposed action in a single location in separate drainages is a small step

toward improving several aspects of the condition class of each drainage, including aquatic

organism passage and returning channel configuration and sediment transport to more natural

conditions. Implementation of additional AOP crossings would result in improvements in

additional locations within drainages.

Botany

There are no occurrences known in the project area that would be impacted by project activities,

hence there would be no direct impacts to mountain lady’s slipper, saw-toothed lewisia, Sierra

blue grass, or veined water lichen.

Indirect impacts to mountain lady’s slipper, saw-toothed lewisia, Sierra blue grass, and veined

water lichen would be attributed to alterations of potentially suitable habitat, and are discussed

below.

At Plum Creek there will be substantial ground disturbance at the sites where the existing

crossing structure would be removed. The impact to suitable habitat for mountain lady’s slipper

and Sierra blue grass would be the removal of marginally suitable habitat and the potential for

increases in invasive plant species. This impact would be very localized and minor. Removal of

the crossing barrier would result in the bed load migrating to areas downstream and possibly

changing the current channel course (Gail Bakker, personal communication, 2013). This could

result in inundation of potentially suitable habitat for mountain lady’s slipper and Sierra blue

grass. This impact would be localized and negligible.

At Sailor Ravine two existing culvert pipes would be removed and the road grade would be

lowered. There will likely be some bed load and minor changes in stream structure directly

downstream of the crossing when this occurs. This would impact potentially suitable habitat for

the veined water lichen by either eliminating or creating habitat. There is suitable habitat for both

Sierra blue grass and mountain lady’s slipper on the roads and banks of the stream that will be

disturbed during project activities. This disturbance could impact these species by creating

suitable habitat for invasive species and/or eliminating elements of the habitat that render it

suitable. This impact would be very short term, localized and negligible to minor. The rock

outcrops at Sailor Ravine that provide suitable habitat could be disturbed by personnel working in

the vicinity, or climbing on the rocks, which could result in minor losses of suitable habitat for

saw-toothed lewisia. This impact would be localized and negligible to minor.

Vegetation within both project areas is composed primarily of native species in the mixed conifer

and riparian vegetation types, although there is the presence of some nonnative species. Riparian

habitat is considered to have increased vulnerability to invasion (D’Antonio et al. 2004). The

project area’s riparian habitat combined with presence of roads makes the current habitat highly

vulnerable to invasion. This vulnerability is tempered with the high canopy covers throughout

areas adjacent to roads and stream crossings which greatly reduces the suitability of the habitat

for nonnative invasive plants. There is a moderate risk for invasion based on habitat vulnerability,

as the areas that are vulnerable are highly localized.


18

Indirect effects could occur from bed load in the stream shifting during high water events to

downstream areas. This would have similar impacts as it could both create areas of fresh

disturbance and bare soil where invasive plants could become established, and could result in

distributing nonnative invasive plant propagules downstream. This impact is likely already

occurring as Himalayan blackberry, bull thistle, oxeye daisy, and woolly mullein are already in

close proximity to the stream channel and are likely dispersing downstream, so the project would

result in a negligible increase in this risk.

The occurrence of perennial pepperweed along Road 10N20 has the potential of being transported

to the project area. This risk is determined to be very low to low due to two factors. The first is

that the occurrence is receiving ongoing treatment by forest staff (M. Brown, personal

communication, 2012). The second is that the occurrence is in a ditch about ¼ of a mile beyond

where project activities would occur where it is unlikely that project associated vectors would

park or walk.

Design features, including removal of existing patches of nonnative invasive plant species, use of

weed-free fill or rock material, and mulching or revegetating disturbed areas with native plant

species will minimize the risk of introducing or encouraging the spread of invasive plant species.

Cultural Resources

Potential direct effects to cultural resources at the Plum Creek crossing include subsurface ground

disturbance as a result of the operation of heavy equipment while removing the existing crossing

structure and installation of the new structure. There is potential for similar direct effects where

natural barriers will be installed along road 10NY20 in the Plum Creek APE. Ground disturbance

and compaction will also occur at the staging area. A large amount of ground disturbance and

compaction will occur in each of the staging areas at both project locations.

The removal of the existing crossing at Plum Creek will likely cause some erosion, which could

potentially result in future indirect effects such as the displacement of cultural resources from the

stream bank and/or the deposition of sediment and debris within cultural resource sites

downstream.

Finally, there is the potential for direct effects from ground disturbance and the displacement of

artifacts or features within cultural resource sites as a result of harvesting and dragging boulders,

logs, or other materials to be used as natural barriers or as habitat elements when implementing

the project. Prehistoric and historic-era cultural resource sites within the Plum Creek APE are at

risk from the activities described above, and protection measures are required for those sites that

are considered to be at-risk based on their location and National Register status.

Standard Resource Protection Measures of the Sierra Nevada Programmatic Agreement (USDA

FS, 1996) will be applied in order to ensure protection of at-risk cultural resources under the

proposed action. Four at-risk sites in the Plum Creek APE will be flagged for avoidance prior to

project implementation. Flagged areas will be avoided during all phases of the project, unless an

archaeologist is present to monitor work and provide authorization for certain activities within

these areas. Flagging shall be removed after the project is completed. In addition, future

monitoring will occur at two of the sites to determine whether indirect effects, such as the

displacement of cultural resources, are occurring as a result of long-term erosion and/or changes

in stream behavior. By following the above recommendations and using the design criteria, there

will be no effect to cultural resources from implementing this project.


19

There are no cultural resources in the vicinity of the Sailor Ravine Forest Road 12N70 so there

will be no direct or indirect effects.


Potential direct effects to Foothill Yellow-legged Frog and Western Pond Turtles include crushing

of individuals by heavy equipment, and disturbance due to the presence of personnel and

equipment which can lead to temporary displacement of individuals. Most frogs and turtles will

move away from disturbance activities even if it is the presence of a person in the area. The risk

of direct effects occurring will be decreased due to a design feature which requires both sites to be

cleared of sensitive aquatic species by a qualified biologist prior to project activities. If any

individuals are found, they will be moved to a location away from project activities. During

project activities, if a sensitive aquatic species is found, it will also be moved away from the site

to a safe location.

Indirect effects may include changes in habitat within the crossing area. The area of impact is

small and areas up and downstream from the site will not be altered. Sedimentation resulting from

project activities may also affect frogs in the area, but the impact will be short term. In addition,

project activities are expected to begin in mid to late September which is when the water flows

are typically at the lowest. This will minimize the amount of sediment flowing downstream

during project activities. In both cases, the overall change will result in improved conditions for

frogs and turtles to move upstream and downstream in the drainage.

Environmental protection measures (BMPs) listed in the hydrology report for this project (USFS

2011) will provide additional protection to aquatic species. As the crossings are replaced, habitat

elements will be re-created including the planting of native vegetation and the placement of logs,

boulders and step pools as guided by a fisheries biologist or hydrologist. This will also help to re-

create a natural stream gradient which will allow frogs and turtles to move upstream and

downstream through the area.

The proposed project at Plum Creek may directly affect spotted owls due to noise disturbance

resulting from the presence of personnel and the use of heavy equipment. A limited operating

period prohibiting the use of heavy equipment in the Plum Creek area will be in effect from

March 1 through August 15 for spotted owls associated with owl PAC ELD 0046. The LOP

applies to PACs located within 0.25 mile from the project area and will minimize impacts to owls

during the breeding season.

The proposed project may directly affect spotted owls due to noise disturbance resulting from the

presence of personnel and the use of heavy equipment. A limited operating period prohibiting the

use of heavy equipment in the Plum Creek area will be in effect from March 1 through August 15

for spotted owls associated with owl PAC ELD 0046. The LOP applies to PACs located within

0.25 mile from the project area and will minimize impacts to owls during the breeding season.

There are no direct effects expected to occur to any of the bat species. There will be no removal

or alteration of roosting habitat; minimal alteration of foraging habitat; and all activity will occur

during the day when bats are roosting.

Foraging habitat will be altered during project activities and over time it will be restored. After

the crossing is removed and replaced, habitat elements will be placed in the drainage and native

vegetation will be planted. This will reduce the amount of time it will take for vegetation to

become established. Changes in the vegetative structure will affect the distribution of insects in


20

the area. This in turn will alter foraging conditions and possibly foraging behavior for bats. Since

the project will remove less than 0.1 acre of riparian and upland habitat at each crossing site,

substantial impacts to individuals of these species would be unlikely to result from any alteration

or displacement of foraging activities due to the project.

Proposed Action Cumulative Effects The ENF established Threshold of Concern (TOC) values for specific watersheds, and

documented an assessment of watershed condition based on comparing the watershed disturbance

level measured by the ERA methodology (Elder 2008, Haskins 1986, Seidelman 1990). The ERA

methodology is an accounting tool that documents past actions and converts the different

disturbance types to “equivalent road acres” for comparison and tracking disturbance levels using

a common unit of measure. The ERA method can be used to evaluate and compare proposed

future actions by predicting the added level of disturbance that would result from project

implementation.

The most recent watershed analysis conducted by the ENF for the affected watersheds was

performed in 2004 and gave a TOC range of 10 to 12 for the watersheds containing each project

area. The more conservative TOC of 10 was selected to calculate the cumulative impacts for the

Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine project area HUC 7 drainages.

There are a number of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the analysis area

as well as a relatively high road density and extensive areas of private lands. The private lands

are subject to repeated timber harvests which contribute to disturbances. Cumulative effects from

timber harvest, fuels treatments, and road maintenance projects would be unchanged under the

Proposed Action Alternative.

The ERA analysis indicates that the Plum Creek drainage is in Class 1, low disturbance level.

Based on observations of Plum Creek during the field visit and on NAIP imagery, the ERA for

this drainage appears low due to the large percentage of private lands which are harvested at

regular intervals.

During crossing removal and installation, the proposed action would disturb less than 0.1 acre,

which is less than one tenth of one percent of the drainage area. This is too small an area to have

significant cumulative impacts to the drainages as a whole. The ERA analysis shows that

implementing the proposed action in the Plum Creek drainage could increase the cumulative

impact risk from 0.31 to 0.32, which does not change the overall disturbance level.

The ERA analysis for the Whaler Creek drainage indicates that it is in Class 3, high disturbance

level, likely due to extensive timber harvest on private lands and the presence of many miles of

roads. The crossing replacement would result in disturbance to less than 0.1 acre which is a

negligible increase in the ERA for this drainage. Implementing the proposed action in the Whaler

Creek drainage does not change the cumulative impact risk, which remains at 1.10.

The proposed project when added to all of the types of activities that have occurred or may occur

in the future will not result in a cumulative effect for any of the aquatic or terrestrial wildlife

species analyzed in this document.

The Botanist has determined that the proposed action, when added to other types of activities that

have occurred or may occur in the future will not result in a cumulative effect for Listed Species,

Candidate Species, Sensitive Species, or other species known to occur or having suitable habitat


21

within the project areas. The anticipated non-native plant species response to the proposed action

is a low potential for introducing and spreading nonnative invasive plants.

The implementation of this project in addition to all of the types of activities that have occurred

or may occur in the future will not result in a cumulative effect to cultural resources.

The proposed project when added to all of the types of activities that have occurred or may occur

in the future will not result in an adverse cumulative effect for any of the affected resources and

will actually provide minor long-term beneficial cumulative effects to hydrology and aquatic

resources. In the long term, the beneficial impacts from the proposed action would actually

improve the condition of the drainages in the vicinity of the crossings, although not enough to

change the disturbance level or condition class.

No Action Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The Plum Creek crossing would continue to block passage of fish and other aquatic organisms,

affecting the fishery upstream and downstream of the crossing. Upstream aggradation and

downstream degradation would continue.

The dispersed campsites off Forest Road 10NY20 would continue to be used resulting in on-

going vegetation damage and soil compaction within the SMZ for Plum Creek.

The Sailor Ravine crossing would continue to block aquatic organism passage resulting in

reduced habitat for fish and other aquatic life. Upstream aggradation and downstream

degradation would continue.

The disturbance levels for the two HUC 7 drainages would remain the same under the no action

alternative. There would be no increase in cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife,

botany, non-native plant species, and cultural resources.

Agencies and Persons Consulted During scoping, the Forest Service sent 74 letters to affected private individuals and agencies in

the general project areas. The Forest Service received responses from the following during the

development of this environmental assessment:

United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria

Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc.

Trout Unlimited, Eldorado Chapter

Federal, State, and Local Agencies: No formal or informal consultation with the USFWS has been conducted since no threatened,

endangered or candidate species would be affected by project activities.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region


22

Tribes The Forest Service consulted with United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria to

coordinate having a tribal representative present during flagging and project implementation.

Others Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc.


23

References

Bakker, Gail, Hydrologist. USDA Forest Service, Adaptive Management Services Enterprise

Team, Nevada City. Communication in person, January 9, 2013.

Bakker, Gail. January 2013. Hydrology Specialist Report: Aquatic Organism Passage

Crossing Replacement at Two Locations. Hydrology specialist report.

California Stormwater Quality Association (CSQA). 2009. Stormwater Best

Management Practice Handbook: New Development and Redevelopment. Available online at: https://www.casqa.org/store/products/tabid/154/p-5-new-

development-redevelopment-handbook.aspx

D’Antonio, Carla, Eric Berlow, and Karen Haubensak. 2004. Invasive exotic plant species in

Sierra Nevada ecosystems. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. PSW-GTR-

193.

Elder, Don. November 2008. Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis, Shasta-Trinity

National Forest: Quantitative Models for Surface Erosion, Mass-wasting and

ERA/TOC. ACT2 Enterprise Team, USDA Forest Service.

Haskins, Donald M. November 1986. A Management Model for Evaluating Cumulative

Watershed Effects. Presented at the California Watershed Management Conference,

West Sacramento, California.

Seidelman, Paul J. February 1981. Methodology for Evaluating Cumulative Watershed

Impacts. R-5 Watershed Management, process paper.

Sue, Teresa. January 22, 2013. Eldorado National Forest Biological Assessment and

Evaluation for the Aquatic Organism Passage Project on Plum Creek and Sailor

Ravine. Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife specialist report.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 1988. Eldorado National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 1996. Programmatic Agreement

among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, the California State

Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic properties

managed by the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada, California.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). November 2005. National Inventory

and Assessment Procedure for Identifying Barriers to Aquatic Organism Passage at

Road-Stream Crossings. National Technology and Development Program.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). February 2010. Sierra Nevada Forest

Plan Amendment: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. R5-MB-

213. Pacific Southwest Region.

https://www.casqa.org/store/products/tabid/154/p-5-new-development-redevelopment-handbook.aspx

https://www.casqa.org/store/products/tabid/154/p-5-new-development-redevelopment-handbook.aspx


24

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). December 2011. Soil and Water

Conservation Handbook. R5 RSH 2509.22, Chapter 10. Pacific Southwest Region.