Hydrology Report Clear Lake Phase IV Project

Nick J. Semenza Date: December 7, 2015 Prepared by: Nick Semenza, Hydrologist Modoc National Forest

1

Purpose and Need for Action For the complete Purpose and Need for Action, refer to the Clear Lake Sage-Grouse Habitat

Improvement Project – Phase IV Decision Memo.

Affected Environment The proposed project is located approximately one to nine miles south and west of Clear Lake

Reservoir within the Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy management area. The Clear

Lake Phase IV project is located within the Klamath River Basin, Lost River 4th field Watershed;

the Fletcher Creek-Boles Creek, Mowitz Creek-Clear Lake, and Copic Bay 5th field watersheds;

and Lone Pine Butte, Mud Lake-Frontal Clear Lake, Double Head Mountain, Double Head

Lake-Frontal Clear Lake, Boles Creek, Mason Reservoir, Mammoth Springs-Frontal Clear Lake,

and Copic Bay 6th field watersheds. Sixth field watersheds are nested within the larger 5th field

(or HUC5) watersheds. Fifth field watersheds are nested within 4th field watersheds.

Table 1 identifies the characteristics and existing beneficial uses for the effected watersheds.

Beneficial uses for the Lost River watershed are designated by the North Coast Regional Water

Quality Control Board and are listed in the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast

Region (California, 2011).

Table 1: Attributes of the watersheds effected by the Clear Lake Phase IV Project

4th Field Watershed

(Name 8

5th Field Watershed (Name/#)

6th Field Watershed (Name/#)

Stream Class1

Beneficial Uses (Existing) Acres

Lost 18010204

Fletcher Creek- Boles Creek 1801020401

Boles Creek 180102040110

I

Agricultural Supply, Groundwater Recharge, Freshwater Replenishment, Contact and Non-Contact Water Recreation, Commercial and Sport Fishing, Warm Freshwater Habitat, Cold Freshwater Habitat, Wildlife Habitat, Rare/Threatened/or Endangered Species2, Migration of Aquatic Organisms, Spawning

18,625

Mowitz Creek- Clear Lake 1801020403

Mammoth Springs- Frontal Clear Lake 180102040303

Reservoir 10,153

Mud Lake- Frontal Clear Lake 180102040305

Reservoir 30,055

Copic Bay 1801020411

Lone Pine Butte 180102041103

III 33,882

Double Head Mountain 180102041104

III 34,551

Mason Reservoir 180102041108

III 18,822

Copic Bay 180102041109

III 21,417

1 (USDA Forest Service, 1991) 2 Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker

2

Existing Conditions This area is comprised entirely of upland habitat, consisting of a mixture of low sagebrush, big

sagebrush, western juniper, bitterbrush, annual and perennial grasses, and forbs. Sagebrush-

grasslands are the dominant plant communities, but western juniper now occurs at variable

densities throughout the project area and is even co-dominant or dominant in some of these

formerly open sagebrush communities.

Average annual rain fall in the project area is 12-16 inches (PRISM, 2001). The project area is

very dry and all existing stream channels within the project area are ephemeral or intermittent.

All waterbodies within the project area are also ephemeral except for Clear Lake, which is a

reservoir.

In 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) found the sage-grouse to be warranted, but precluded

from federal listing by higher priority listing actions. In the FWS finding, juniper expansion and

infill was recognized as a threat to sage-grouse. The Clear Lake Sage-grouse Working Group

also identified juniper expansion and increased density as the primary cause of loss of useable

habitat for sage-grouse in the Clear Lake Area. The proposed units are within or immediately

adjacent to the Clear Lake Active Management Area (AMA), and are used seasonally by the only

remaining sage-grouse population in the area. The AMA was established in the immediate area

around Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) as the priority area for sage-grouse

population and habitat management until the population is capable of expanding into other

locations.

The actions proposed would incorporate applicable management direction from the Modoc

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Sage Steppe

Ecosystem Restoration Strategy, Endangered Species Act consultation documents, as well as

guidance from Forest Service Region 5 and Forest Service Handbook direction, and other

applicable laws and acts. The proposed action would incorporate management recommendations

identified in the 2010 Conservation Strategy for Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and

Sagebrush Ecosystems within the Devil's Garden/Clear Lake Population Management Unit

(Clear Lake, 2010).

An unnamed tributary in the north end of the Chandler unit is a category 4a 303(d) listed

waterbody for dissolved oxygen, pH, and nutrients. The following describes the criteria for a

category 4a waterbody:

Category 4A Criteria (California, 2015):

A water segment where ALL its 303(d) listings are being addressed; and

at least one of those listings is being addressed by a USEPA approved TMDL.

3

Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative:

The No Action Alternative proposes no change from the existing condition. There would be no

juniper removal and wildlife habitat improvement would not be completed.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects of not implementing the proposed action would not result in

impacts to hydrologic resources. There would be no change from the existing condition.

Cumulative Effects

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions include livestock grazing,

maintenance and use of forest service system roads, and forest management throughout the

analysis area. Not implementing the proposed action would have no additional cumulative effect

to hydrologic resources in the area.

Proposed Action Alternative: The actions proposed below would incorporate applicable management direction from the

Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and amendments, Endangered

Species Act consultation documents, as well as applicable direction from Forest Service regional

or Handbook direction, and other applicable laws and acts. The proposed action would

incorporate management recommendations identified in the 2010 Conservation and Recovery

Strategy for Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Ecosystems within the Devil’s Garden/Clear Lake

Population Management Unit.

To meet the Purpose and Need, the following actions are proposed:

Hand fell all juniper trees that do not exhibit old growth characteristics.

Slash burning across approximately 30% of the total treatment area.

Lop slash throughout the project area to a height of 30 inches or less.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed action has the potential to disturb soil and temporarily affect aquatic resources;

Potential soil displacement could cause an effect on watershed condition and aquatic habitat.

Conservation measures incorporated into the project would be implemented to control erosion

and sedimentation. The implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) would avoid or

minimize potential increases in sediment loads to streams during project implementation.

A wide range of activity-specific BMPs are designed to minimize detrimental soil disturbance,

protect water quality, and maintain physical stability and hydrologic connectivity of riparian and

aquatic habitats (see Appendix 1 for a list of applicable BMPs). There is little potential for the

proposed action alternative to adversely affect the geomorphic, hydrologic, or riparian

characteristics and aquatic habitats in affected watersheds. This is due to the low impact of the

4

proposed action (no mechanical activities, i.e. all activities would be conducted by hand) and the

limitations imposed on operations within Streamside Management Zones (SMZs), and use of

activity-specific BMPs.

Cumulative Effects

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions include livestock grazing,

maintenance and use of forest service system roads, and forest management throughout the

analysis area. Implementing the proposed action would have little or no impacts on cumulative

effects to hydrologic resources in the area. This is due to the low impact of the proposed

activities and the lack of surface water in the project area.

Law, Regulation, and Policy applicable to Hydrology Laws, regulation, and policy applicable to managing water quality include the Clean Water Act

and 1991 Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service,

1991) as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service,

2004).

Applicable management requirements and constraints provided by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest

Plan Amendment include:

X Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) goals and objectives

X Riparian Conservation Areas

X Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCO) Analysis standards and guidelines

Critical Aquatic Refuges

Long-term strategy for anadromous fish-producing watersheds

*There are no Critical Aquatic Refuges within or affected by this proposed project, this is not

applicable to this project area.

Long-term strategy for anadromous fish-producing watersheds applies only to the Lassen

National Forest and is therefore not applicable to this project area.

Riparian Conservation Objectives Analysis The RCOs listed in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision were

reviewed for applicability to the project. The need to define riparian conservation areas exists in

the project area. RCOs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 apply to the project, contain standards and guidelines,

and are further reviewed below. These are outlined and explained in the next section.

X RCAs and CARs: Conduct a site specific project area analysis to determine the appropriate

level of management within RCAs or CARs. Determine the type and level of allowable

management activities by assessing how proposed activities measure against the riparian

5

conservation objectives and their associated standards and guidelines. Note: there are no CARs

located within or downstream of this project.

X RCO 1: Ensure that identified beneficial uses for the water body are adequately protected.

Identify the specific beneficial uses for the project area, water quality goals from the Regional

Basin Plan, and the manner in which the standards and guidelines will protect the beneficial uses.

X RCO 2: Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special

aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2)

streams, including in stream flows; (3)hydrologic connectivity both within and between

watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species.

X RCO 3: Ensure a renewable supply of large down logs that: (1) can reach the stream channel

and (2) provide suitable habitat within and adjacent to the RCA.

X RCO 4: Ensure that management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs

and CARs enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic-

and riparian-dependent species.

X RCO 5: Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes,

ponds, bogs, fens and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes needed to

recover or enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas.

X RCO 6: Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain, restore or enhance water

quality and maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for riparian and aquatic species.

Riparian Conservation Areas and Critical Aquatic Refuges

Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCAs and CARs:

91. Designate riparian conservation area (RCA) widths as described in Part B of the SNFP ROD

appendix A. The RCA widths displayed in Part B may be adjusted at the project level if a

landscape analysis has been completed and a site-specific RCO analysis demonstrates a need

for different widths.

Stream Side Management Zones are required under Region 5 Water Quality Management

for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices. The authority for

Water Quality Protection Measures or Best Management Practices (BMPs) is section 208

and 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended. The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan

Amendment directs us to meet the goals of the CWA on page 42 of the ROD under

desired conditions. This requires following all applicable BMPs. The following BMPs are

appropriate for SMZ development, filtering, and water quality protection:

Development of SMZs, BMP 1.8;

6

Stream course protection, BMP 1.19,

Previous forest SMZ direction provided the following widths in slope distance in feet.

The values provided in Table 2 are used as a guide. Field conditions including stream

type and project objectives should dictate the streamside management zone widths.

Table 2: SMZ Widths in Feet (Slope Distance)

Stream Class % Side Slope

0-20 21-40 41-60 61+

Class I 100 150 200 250

Class II 75 100 150 175

Class III 50 75 100 125

Class IV 50 50 75 100

SMZs are nested inside RCAs and define an equipment exclusion zone immediately

adjacent to the streamside for creating a filter strip to trap potential sediment. Treatments

in this zone would be dependent on treatment objectives. Objectives for the SMZ portion

of the RCA are maintenance or improvement of riparian values, to provide unobstructed

passage of storm flows, to control sediment and other pollutants entering the stream

course, and to restore the natural course of any stream as soon as practicable when

diversion of the stream has resulted from management activities. Prescribe widths for

RCAs are 300 feet either side for perennial streams, 150 feet for seasonally flowing

streams, and 150 feet for special aquatic features. This area is a zone of closely managed

activities and not a zone of equipment exclusion like SMZs. Project specific SMZs and

RCAs are provided in Table 3. All channels within the Clear Lake Phase IV project are

ephemeral.

Table 3: SMZ and RCA widths (Feet) specific to the Clear Lake Phase IV Project

SMZ Width RCA Width

Waterbodies 100 300

Ephemeral Creeks 50 150

Design Features

92. All proposed activities would be completed by hand falling juniper trees with chainsaws. No

pile burning activities are proposed for this project. Prescribed burning would not directly

ignite material in the RCA. Evaluate new proposed management activities within CAR’s and

RCAs during environmental analysis to determine consistency with the riparian conservation

objectives at the project level and the AMS goals for the landscape. Ensure that appropriate

mitigation measures are enacted to (1) minimize the risk of activity-related sediment entering

7

aquatic systems and (2) minimize impacts to habitat for aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant

and animal species.

All project activities would be conducted by hand, using chainsaws. No pile burning would

occur within RCAs. These proposed activities would be consistent with the RCOs and AMS

landscape goals.

93. Identify existing uses and activities in CAR’s and RCAs during landscape analysis. At the

time of permit re-issuance, evaluate and consider actions needed for consistency with RCO’s.

The project does not include a landscape analysis. However, the proposed actions are

consistent with the RCOs as discussed in this document. All streams will be evaluated and

assigned a RCA and SMZ appropriate for local field conditions. BMP 1.4 provides

documentation of prescribed SMZ widths for the Clear Lake Phase IV Project.

94. As part of project-level analysis, conduct peer reviews for projects that propose ground-

disturbing activities in more than 25 percent of the RCA or more than 15 percent of a CAR.

Ground disturbance by the Clear Lake Phase IV Project is not expected to affect 25 percent

of any RCA within the project area. There are no CARs located within or downstream of this

project.

123. Determine which critical aquatic refuges or areas within critical aquatic refuges are

suitable for mineral withdrawal. Propose these areas for withdrawal from location and entry

under U.S. mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, for a term of 20 years.

This project is not associated with mineral extraction.

124. Approve mining-related plans of operation if measures are implemented that contribute

toward the attainment or maintenance of aquatic management strategy goals.

There is no mineral extraction being proposed for this project.

Riparian Conservation Objective #1 Ensure that identified beneficial uses for the water body are adequately protected. Identify the

specific beneficial uses for the project area, water quality goals from the Regional Basin Plan,

and the manner in which the standards and guidelines will protect the beneficial uses.

Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #1:

95. For waters designated as “Water Quality Limited” (Clean Water Act Section 303(d)),

implement appropriate State mandates for the water body, such as Total Maximum Daily

Load (TMDL) protocols.

The Modoc National Forest has no water bodies identified by the State as “Water Quality

Limited” in or affected by this project area.

8

An unnamed tributary in the north end of the Chandler unit is a category 4a 303(d) listed

waterbody for dissolved oxygen, pH, and nutrients. The following describes the criteria for a

category 4a waterbody:

Category 4A Criteria (California, 2015):

A water segment where ALL its 303(d) listings are being addressed; and

at least one of those listings is being addressed by a USEPA approved TMDL.

Using appropriate BMPs, the proposed action will have no effect on this stream reach.

97. Limit pesticide applications to cases where project level analysis indicates that pesticide

applications are consistent with riparian conservation objectives. Prohibit application of

pesticides to livestock in RCAs and CARs.

The Clear Lake Phase IV project does not propose the use of pesticides. This does not apply.

98. Within 500 feet of known occupied sites for the California red-legged frog, Cascade frog,

Yosemite toad, foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow-legged frog, and northern

leopard frog, design pesticide applications to avoid adverse effects to individuals and their

habitats.

The Clear Lake Phase IV project does not propose the use of pesticides. This does not apply.

99. Prohibit storage of fuels and other toxic materials within RCAs and CARs except at

designated administrative sites. Prohibit refueling within RCAs and CARs unless there are

no other alternatives. Ensure that spill plans are reviewed and up-to-date.

Service and refueling locations of all equipment, in this case chainsaws, would be located

outside of the RCA. These refueling locations would follow forest spill plan direction. The

forest would have a spill plan if the volume of fuel on site exceeds 660 gallons in a single

container or a total storage at the site exceeds 1,320 gallons. It is not expected that any sites

would exceed 660 gallons. If this project exceeds this, the spill plan would include: the types

and amounts of hazardous materials located within the project area, Forest Service approved

locations for hazardous materials storage and fueling/maintenance activities (should be

located outside of the RCAs), methods for containment of hazardous materials in the event of

a spill, and a contingency plan to implement in the event of a spill.

Riparian Conservation Objective #2 Maintain or restore: (1) The geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic

features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams,

including in stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds

to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species.

9

Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #2:

100. Maintain and restore the hydrologic connectivity of streams, meadows, wetlands, and

other special aquatic features by identifying roads and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt

natural surface and subsurface water flow paths. Implement corrective actions where

necessary to restore connectivity.

This project as proposed would not affect the hydrologic connectivity of any streams,

meadows, wetlands, or other special aquatic features.

101. Ensure that culverts or other stream crossings do not create barriers to upstream or

downstream passage for aquatic-dependent species. Locate water-drafting sites to avoid

adverse effects to in stream flows and depletion of pool habitat. Where possible, maintain

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

elevation in meadows, wetlands, and other special aquatic features.

No culverts or other stream crossings are proposed as part of the Clear Lake Phase IV

project.

102. Prior to activities that could adversely affect streams, determine if relevant stream

characteristics are within the range of natural variability. If characteristics are outside the

range of natural variability, implement mitigation measures and short-term restoration

actions needed to prevent further declines or cause an upward trend in conditions. Evaluate

required long-term restoration actions and implement them according to their status among

other restoration needs.

Streams within the project are currently within the range of natural variability, no restoration

needs are necessary.

103. Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines caused by

resource activities (for example, livestock, off-highway vehicles, and dispersed recreation)

from exceeding 20 percent of stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond

shorelines. Disturbance includes bank sloughing, chiseling, trampling, and other means of

exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots. This standard does not apply to developed

recreation sites; sites authorized under Special Use Permits and designated off-highway

vehicle routes.

All proposed Juniper cutting activities would be conducted by hand using chainsaws. No pile

burning is proposed for this project. Prescribed burning would not directly ignite material in

the RCA. This project as proposed would not affect streambanks.

104. In stream reaches occupied by, or identified as “essential habitat” in the conservation

assessment for, the Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout and the Little Kern golden trout,

limit streambank disturbance from livestock to 10 percent of the occupied or “essential

10

habitat” stream reach. (Conservation assessments are described in the record of decision.)

Cooperate with State and Federal agencies to develop streambank disturbance standards for

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Use the regional streambank assessment

protocol. Implement corrective action where disturbance limits have been exceeded.

This project does not include essential habitat. This does not apply.

105. At either the landscape or project-scale, determine if the age class, structural diversity,

composition, and cover of riparian vegetation are within the range of natural variability for

the vegetative community. If conditions are outside the range of natural variability, consider

implementing mitigation and/or restoration actions that will result in an upward trend.

Actions could include restoration of aspen or other riparian vegetation where conifer

encroachment is identified as a problem.

Recent fieldwork shows that the riparian vegetation is within the range of natural variability

at this time. All watercourses and waterbodies within the project area are ephemeral or

intermittent; no riparian vegetation exists within the project area.

106. Cooperate with Federal, Tribal, State and local governments to secure in stream flows

needed to maintain, recover, and restore riparian resources, channel conditions, and aquatic

habitat. Maintain in stream flows to protect aquatic systems to which species are uniquely

adapted. Minimize the effects of stream diversions or other flow modifications from

hydroelectric projects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

This project would not affect stream flows. This does not apply.

107. For exempt hydroelectric facilities on national forest lands, ensure that special use

permit language provides adequate in stream flow requirements to maintain, restore, or

recover favorable ecological conditions for local riparian- and aquatic-dependent species.

There are no hydroelectric facilities in the project area.

Riparian Conservation Objective #3: Ensure a renewable supply of large down logs that: (1) Can reach the stream channel and (2)

provide suitable habitat within and adjacent to the RCA.

Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #3:

108. Determine if the level of coarse large woody debris (CWD) is within the range of natural

variability in terms of frequency and distribution and is sufficient to sustain stream channel

physical complexity and stability. Ensure proposed management activities move conditions

toward the range of natural variability.

Field evaluation indicates that large woody material in stream courses within the Clear Lake

Phase IV project are within the range of natural variability. The Clear Lake Phase IV project

11

would not affect this CWD and no material generated from project activities would be left in

channels.

Riparian Conservation Objective #4: Ensure that management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs and CARs

enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and

riparian-dependent species.

Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #4:

109. Within CARs, in occupied habitat or “essential habitat” as identified in conservation

assessments for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, evaluate the appropriate role,

timing, and extent of prescribed fire. Avoid direct lighting within riparian vegetation;

prescribed fires may back into riparian vegetation areas. Develop mitigation measures to

avoid impacts to these species whenever ground disturbing equipment is used.

The Clear Lake Phase IV Project is not located within or adjacent to any CARs. The Clear

Lake Phase IV Pile burning is not proposed for this project. Prescribed burning would not

directly ignite material in the RCA. This mitigation measure is included within BMP 6.3

Protection of Water Quality from Prescribed Burning Effects. See Appendix 1 for a list of

applicable BMPs.

110. Use screening devices for water drafting pumps. (Fire suppression activities are exempt).

Use pumps with low entry velocity to minimize removal of aquatic species, including juvenile

fish, amphibian egg masses, and tadpoles, from aquatic habitats.

During management activities water drafting may occur to help reduce dust in the project

area or used for fuels management. During project implementation water drafting would

utilize screening devices to protect aquatic species.

111. Design prescribed fire treatments to minimize disturbance of ground cover and riparian

vegetation in RCAs. In burn plans for project areas that include, or are adjacent to RCAs,

identify mitigation measures to minimize the spread of fire into riparian vegetation. In

determining which mitigation measures to adopt, weigh the potential harm of mitigation

measures, for example fire lines, against the risks and benefits of prescribed fire entering

riparian vegetation. Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and

identify those instances where fire suppression or fuel management actions could be

damaging to habitat or long-term function of the riparian community.

Prescribed burning would not directly ignite material in the RCA. Pile burning is not

proposed for this project. BMP 6.3 would be followed to reduce potential effect to soil and

water quality.

12

112. Post-wildfire management activities in RCAs and CARs should emphasize enhancing

native vegetation cover, stabilizing channels by non-structural means, minimizing adverse

effects from the existing road network, and carrying out activities identified in landscape

analyses. Post-wildfire operations shall minimize the exposure of bare soil.

The Clear Lake Phase IV project is not a post-wildfire activity. This does not apply.

113. Allow hazard tree removal within RCAs or CAR’s. Allow mechanical ground disturbing

fuels treatments, salvage harvest, or commercial fuelwood cutting within RCAs or CARs

when the activity is consistent with RCO’s. Utilize low ground pressure equipment,

helicopters, over the snow logging, or other non-ground disturbing actions to operate off of

existing roads when needed to achieve RCO’s. Ensure that existing roads, landings, and skid

trails meet Best Management Practices. Minimize the construction of new skid trails or roads

for access into RCAs for fuel treatments, salvage harvest, commercial fuelwood cutting, or

hazard tree removal.

All proposed activities under the Clear Lake Phase IV Project would be conducted by hand

using chainsaws. No mechanical equipment would be used.

114. As appropriate, assess and document aquatic conditions following the Regional Stream

Condition Inventory protocol prior to implementing ground disturbing activities within

suitable habitat for California red-legged frog, Cascades frog, Yosemite toad, foothill and

mountain yellow-legged frogs, and northern leopard frog.

There is no suitable habitat for California red-legged frog, Cascades frog, Yosemite toad,

foothill and mountain yellow-legged frogs, or northern leopard frog within the Clear Lake

Phase IV project area. This does not apply.

115. During fire suppression activities, consider impacts to aquatic- and riparian-dependent

resources. Where possible, locate incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, helispots,

and other centers for incident activities outside of RCAs or CARs. During presuppression

planning, determine guidelines for suppression activities, including avoidance of potential

adverse effects to aquatic- and riparian-dependent species as a goal.

This requirement is not applicable because no fire suppression activities are proposed.

116. Identify roads, trails, OHV trails and staging areas, developed recreation sites, dispersed

campgrounds, special use permits, grazing permits, and day use sites during landscape

analysis. Identify conditions that degrade water quality or habitat for aquatic and riparian-

dependent species. At the project level, evaluate and consider actions to ensure consistency

with standards and guidelines or desired conditions.

The project does not include a landscape analysis. However the proposed actions are

consistent with the RCOs as discussed in this document.

13

Riparian Conservation Objective #5 Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes, ponds, bogs,

fens and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes needed to recover or

enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas.

Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #5:

117. Assess the hydrologic function of meadow habitats and other special aquatic features

during range management analysis. Ensure that characteristics of special features are, at a

minimum, at Proper Functioning Condition, as defined in the appropriate Technical Reports:

(1) “Process for Assessing PFC” TR 1737-9 (1993), “PFC for Lotic Areas” USDI TR 1737-

15 (1998) or (2) “PFC for Lentic Riparian-Wetland Areas” USDI TR 1737-11 (1994).

There are no meadows within the project area.

118. Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affect hydrologic

processes that maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature critical to sustaining

bog and fen ecosystems and plant species that depend on these ecosystems. During project

analysis, survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities as

trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheeled vehicles. Criteria for defining bogs

and fens include, but are not limited to, presence of: (1) sphagnum moss (Spagnum spp.), (2)

mosses belonging to the genus Meessia, and (3) sundew (Drosera spp.) Complete initial

plant inventories of bogs and fens within active grazing allotments prior to re-issuing

permits.

The Clear Lake Phase IV Project would not affect any bogs or fens. This does not apply.

119. Locate new facilities for gathering livestock and pack stock outside of meadows and

riparian conservation areas. During landscape analysis, evaluate and consider relocating

existing livestock facilities outside of meadows and riparian areas (RCA42). Prior to re-

issuing grazing permits, assess the compatibility of livestock management facilities located in

riparian conservation areas with riparian conservation objectives.

This project does not propose any new facilities for gathering livestock. This does not apply.

120. Under season-long grazing: For meadows in early seral status: limit livestock utilization

of grass and grass-like plants to 30 percent (or minimum 6-inch stubble height). For

meadows in late seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a

maximum of 40 percent (or minimum 4-inch stubble height). Determine ecological status on

all key areas monitored for grazing utilization prior to establishing utilization levels. Use

Regional ecological scorecards and range plant list in regional range handbooks to

determine ecological status. Analyze meadow ecological status every 3 to 5 years. If meadow

ecological status is determined to be moving in a downward trend, modify or suspend

grazing. Include ecological status data in a spatially explicit Geographical Information

14

System database. Under intensive grazing systems (such as rest-rotation and deferred

rotation) where meadows are receiving a period of rest, utilization levels can be higher than

the levels described above if the meadow is maintained in late seral status and meadow-

associated species are not being impacted. Degraded meadows (such as those in early seral

status with greater than 10 percent of the meadow area in bare soil and active erosion)

require total rest from grazing until they have recovered and have moved to mid- or late

seral status.

This project area does not include any meadows. This does not apply.

121. Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature

riparian shrubs and no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. Remove livestock from

any area of an allotment when browsing indicates a change in livestock preference from

grazing herbaceous vegetation to browsing woody riparian vegetation.

This project does not include changes to livestock grazing. This does not apply.

Riparian Conservation Objective #6: Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain, restore, or enhance water quality and

maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for riparian and aquatic species.

Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #6:

122. Recommend restoration practices in (1) areas with compaction in excess of soil quality

standards, (2) areas with lowered water tables, or (3) areas that are either actively down

cutting or that have historic gullies. Identify other management practices, for example, road

building, recreational use, grazing, and timber harvests that may be contributing to the

observed degradation.

The Clear Lake Phase IV Project area does not have areas with compaction in excess of soil

quality standards, areas with lowered water tables, or areas that area actively down cutting or

that have historic gullies. No restoration activities are proposed, other than the thinning of

Juniper.

15

Works Cited California Water Quality Control Board. (2011). Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast

Region. North Coast Region, Santa Rosa.

California Water Quality Control Board. (2015). Category 4a 2012 California List of Water

Quality Limited Segments. Retrieved 11 13, 2015, from California Water Quality Control

Board, North Coast Region:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdls/303d/140313/cat

egory4a_report.shtml

Clear Lake Sage Grouse Working Group. (2010). Conservation strategy for Sage grouse

(centrocercus urophasianus) And sagebrush ecosystems Within the devil’s garden / clear

lake Population management unit.

USDA Forest Service. (1991). Land and Resource Management Plan. Modoc National Forest.

Alturas: Modoc National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. (2000). Water Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in

California, Best Management Practices.

USDA Forest Service. (2004). Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision. U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA).

USDA Forest Service. (2008). Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy. Alturas: Modoc

National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. (2012). National Best Management Practices for Water Quality

Management on National Forest System Lands.

16

Appendix 1

Best Management Practices

Forest management and associated road building in the steep rugged terrain of forested

mountains has long been recognized as sources of non-point water quality pollution. Non-point

pollution is not, by definition, controllable through conventional treatment means. It is controlled

by containing the pollutant at its source, thereby precluding delivery to surface water. Sections

208 and 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act, as amended, acknowledge land treatment measures

as being an effective means of controlling non-point sources of water pollution and emphasize

their development.

Working cooperatively with the California State Water Quality Control Board, the Forest Service

developed and documented non-point pollution control measures applicable to National Forest

System lands. These measures were termed "Best Management Practices" (BMPs). BMP control

measures are designed to accommodate site specific conditions. They are tailor-made to account

for the complexity and physical and biological variability of the natural environment. The

implementation of BMP is the performance standard against which the success of the Forest

Service’s non-point pollution water quality management efforts is judged.

The Clean Water Act provided the initial test of effectiveness of the Forest Service non-point

pollution control measures where it required the evaluation of the practices by the regulatory

agencies (State Board and EPA) and the certification and approval of the practices as the "BEST"

measures for control. Another test of BMP effectiveness is the capability to custom fit them to a

site-specific condition where non-point pollution potential exists. The Forest Service BMPs are

flexible in that they are tailor-made to account for diverse combinations of physical and

biological environmental circumstances. A final test of the effectiveness of the Forest Service

BMP is their demonstrated ability to protect the beneficial uses of the surface waters in the State.

Best Management Practices, as described in this document have been effective in protecting

beneficial uses within the affected watersheds. These practices have been applied in other

projects within the Modoc National Forest. Where proper implementation has occurred there

have not been any substantive adverse impacts to cold water fisheries habitat conditions or

primary contact recreation (etc.) use of the surface waters. The practices specified herein are

expected to be equally effective in maintaining the identified beneficial uses.

The following management requirements are designed to address the watershed management

concerns. Most are BMPs from the Forest Service publication "Water Quality Management for

National Forest System Lands in California" (USDA Forest Service, 2000). BMPs from the

Forest Service publication “National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management

on National Forest System Lands” were also addressed in this section (USDA Forest Service,

2012). However, the national BMPs are only listed if they are applicable to the project, but are

not previously covered by the regional/state BMP guidelines. All applicable water quality BMPs

17

shall be implemented. The implementation phase of the BMPs occur when a project is

completed, but before the winter season. BMP monitoring of the project is done one year later

after the project experiences one rainy season. A list of BMPs used within the Clear Lake Phase

IV project is as follows along with a brief summary of what each entails:

Mechanical Treatments

1.1 Planning Process

The objective of this practice is to incorporate water quality and hydrologic consideration into

the planning process. This document constitutes the incorporation of water quality and

hydrologic consideration into the planning process.

1.2 Unit Design

The objective of this practice is to ensure that unit design would secure favorable conditions of

water quality and quantity while maintaining desirable stream channel characteristics and

watershed conditions. No mechanical activities would take place under this project. All activities

would occur by hand using chainsaws. No pile burning activities would take place within 300

feet of any waterbody and 150 feet from any channel (all pile burning would occur outside of

RCAs).

1.4 Use of Area Maps and /or Project Maps for Designating Water Quality Protection

Needs

The objective of this practice is to ensure recognition and protection of areas related to water

quality protection delineation on project maps. All stream courses, waterbodies, springs, and

meadows in the project area have been mapped and are displayed on Figure 1. These stream

courses are to be protected during project implementation. Additionally any other stream courses

or wet areas not identified on the project area map and identified during operation are to be

protected under the project. Note: there are no known springs or meadows within the Clear Lake

Phase IV project area.

18

Figure 1: Stream Courses in the Clear Lake Phase IV Project Area

1.8, 1.19 Streamside Management Zone Designation, Streamcourse and Aquatic

Protection

The objectives of these measures are to designate a zone along riparian areas, streams, and

wetlands that would minimize potential for adverse effects from adjacent management activities.

Management activities in these zones are designated to improve habitat for riparian dependent

species. Additionally, objectives of SMZs are to provide for unobstructed passage of stormflows,

control sediment and other pollutants from entering streamcourses, and restore the natural course

19

of any stream as soon as practicable, where diversion of the stream has resulted from

management activities.

Forest Plan provides direction to maintain or improve conditions for riparian dependent

resources. Riparian dependent resources are those natural resources that owe their existence to

the presence of surface or groundwater.

All streamcourses would be protected and assigned SMZs. The streamcourses mapped (Figure 1)

on the Project Area Map provides information for development of watercourse protection.

Any material resulting from project activities causing obstruction of stormflows would be

removed.

All channels, springs, meadows, and waterbodies have a designated SMZ. Note: there are no

known springs or meadows within the project area.

Ephemeral drainages would have a minimum SMZs of 50 feet and waterbodies would have a

minimum SMZs of 100 feet based on field investigations. Table 4below provides a summary

of SMZ by Stream Class.

Table 4: Streamside Management Zones (SMZ) widths by Stream Class

Stream Class % Side Slope

0-20 21-40 41-60 61+

Class I 100 150 200 250

Class II 75 100 150 175

Class III 50 75 100 125

Class IV 50 50 75 100

SMZs are nested inside RCAs and define an equipment exclusion zone immediately

adjacent to the streamside for creating a filter strip to trap potential sediment. Treatments

in this zone would be dependent on treatment objectives. Objectives for the SMZ portion

of the RCA are maintenance or improvement of riparian values, to provide unobstructed

passage of storm flows, to control sediment and other pollutants entering the stream

course, and to restore the natural course of any stream as soon as practicable when

diversion of the stream has resulted from management activities. Prescribe widths for

RCAs are 300 feet either side for perennial streams, 150 feet for seasonally flowing

streams, and 150 feet for special aquatic features. This area is a zone of closely managed

activities and not a zone of equipment exclusion like SMZs. Project specific SMZs and

RCOs are provided in Table 5. All channels within the Clear Lake Phase IV project are

ephemeral or intermittent.

Table 5: SMZ and RCA widths (in feet) specific to the Clear Lake Phase IV Project

SMZ Width RCA Width

20

Waterbodies 100 300

Ephemeral Streams 50 150

Design Features

All these proposed activities would be completed by hand using chainsaws. No pile

burning activities would be implemented within RCAs.

2.9 Equipment Refueling and Servicing

The objective of this practice is to prevent pollutants such as fuels, lubricants, bitumens and

other harmful materials from being discharged into or near rivers, streams and impoundments, or

into natural or man-made channels. Service and refueling locations of all equipment, in this case

chainsaws would occur outside of the SMZs and RCAs.

7.8 Cumulative Watershed Effects

The objective of this practice is to protect the identified beneficial uses of water from the

combined effects of multiple management activities when individually may not create

unacceptable effects but collectively may result in degraded water quality conditions. See the

Cumulative Watershed Effects discussion in the Environmental Consequences section of this

report.

Veg A Ground-Based Skidding and Harvesting

The objective of this practice is to evaluate BMPs employed to protect water, aquatic, and

riparian resources applied to ground-based skidding and harvesting.