hydrology (water quality) resource...

Hydrology (Water Quality) Resource Report

for the Butte Mountain Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration

Project

By: Angie Bell, Forest Geologist, Klamath National Forest;

P. Cavan Maloney and Eric Moser, Hydrologists, TEAMS Enterprise

March 13, 2013

Updated April 25, 2013

Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Overview of Issue Addressed ....................................................................................................................... 1

Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 1

Spatial and Temporal Boundaries ................................................................................................................. 2

Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................... 3

Best Management Practices .......................................................................................................................... 6

Effects of the Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 6

Alternative 1: No Action ........................................................................................................................... 6

Alternative 2.............................................................................................................................................. 7

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................................ 11

Alternative 4............................................................................................................................................ 11

References ................................................................................................................................................... 13

Appendix A: Cumulative Watershed Effects Modeling Results ............................................................... A-1

Appendix B: Compliance with Water Quality Waiver ............................................................................. B-1

Appendix C: Riparian Reserve Maps........................................................................................................ C-1

List of Tables

Table 1: Acres of vegetation management activities in the RR by alternative. ............................................ 9

Table 2: Acres of prescribed fire in RR by alternative. ................................................................................ 9

Table 3: Cumulative percent peak flow increase under current conditions, future actions and the project

alternatives estimated using ERA model and Grant et al. 2008. Changes less than 10% are not

detectable (ND) using this model. ................................................................................................ 10

Table 4: Estimated sediment delivery due to soil loss from the USLE model under current conditions,

future actions and each action alternative. Estimates are in cubic yards per year. Harris Creek is

in the Butte Valley 6th field watershed which was not modeled due to lack of data. ................. A-1

Table 5: Estimated sediment delivery due to landsliding from the GEO model under current conditions,

future actions and each action alternative. Harris Creek is in the Butte Valley 6th field watershed

which was not modeled due to lack of data. ............................................................................... A-1

Table 6: Estimated Equivalent Roaded Area for the ERA model under current conditions, future actions

and each action alternative. Harris Creek is in the Butte Valley 6th field watershed which was not

modeled due to lack of data. ....................................................................................................... A-2

Table 7: USLE cumulative watershed effects risk ratio. The risk ratio includes the estimated sediment

delivery due to soil loss as a result of past, present, reasonably forseeable and proposed actions

for each alternative. Harris Creek is in the Butte Valley 6th field watershed which was not


Table 8: GEO cumulative watershed effects risk ratio. The risk ratio includes the estimated sediment

delivery from landsliding as a result of past, present, reasonably forseeable and proposed actions

for each alternative. Harris Creek is in the Butte Valley 6th field watershed which was not


Table 9: ERA cumulative watershed effects risk ratio. The risk ratio includes the Equivalent Roaded Area

due to past, present, reasonably forseeable and proposed actions for each alternative. Harris

Creek is in the Butte Valley 6th field watershed which was not modeled due to lack of data. ... A-3

Table 10: Acres of activities in the RR by alternative. ............................................................................. B-1

List of Figures

Figure 1: RRs in project area were delineated using the Forest Plan interim widths (PDF WS-1). .............. 5

Figure 2: Alternative 2 Riparian Reserve Project Map ............................................................................... C-1

Figure 3: Alternative 3 Riparian Reserves Project Map ............................................................................. C-2

Figure 4: Alternative 4 Riparian Reserve Project Map ............................................................................... C-3

i

Executive Summary

Analysis Indicators and Methodology

Analysis indicators of the effects of alternatives for hydrology are: (1) sediment from surface erosion and

mass-wasting; (2) stream temperature and shade; and (3) peak flow response measured by conditions

equivalent to the effects of roads (Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA)). Temperature and sediment are

objectives in the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

(Basin Plan) (State of California, 1993). Peak flow is a hydrologic condition that directly affects sediment

delivery and channel condition. Sediment and peak flow are measured as part of Cumulative Watershed

Effects (CWE) modeling discussed in the body of this resource report and displayed in Appendix A.

CWE output is expressed as a risk ratio for use in the analysis. The threshold of concern for the risk ratios

of any of the CWE models is 1.0. Risk ratios at or over 1.0 do not necessarily indicate substantial impacts

to beneficial uses, but do indicate an increased susceptibility to watershed impacts. Stream temperature

and shade are extrapolated from information on canopy cover displayed in the Vegetation resource report,

available on the project website. The interim widths for Riparian Reserves (RRs) from the Klamath

National Forest (KNF) Forest Plan define RRs for this project (see Table 2-1 of the Butte Mountain

Environmental Assessment (EA) for PDFs related to RRs). Information pertaining to effects of the

existing situation on water was gathered from field reviews of current conditions and from the KNF

Monitoring Reports for stream sediment, shade and temperature, available at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/klamath/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stelprdb5312713.

Spatial and Temporal Context

The spatial scales for analysis of effects to water are: (1) site (effects located in the stream channel

adjacent to or nearby the treatments); and (2) watershed (effects detectable in the response reach of a 7th

field watershed). Effects are measured at both of these scales. The spatial analysis area for water includes

four 7th field watersheds. The temporal scale is described as being either short- or long-term in duration.

Short-term effects are usually seen up to 10 years after implementation. Long-term effects persist for

more than 10 years.

Affected Environment

The project is located within the Harris Creek (previously known as Harris-Ikes), Upper Shovel Creek,

Flume Canyon-Shovel Creek and Little Shasta River Headwaters (previously known as Little Shasta

Headwaters) 7th field watersheds. Shovel Creek and Little Shasta River are tributaries to the Klamath

River; Harris Creek drains into Butte Valley which is a closed basin. The State of California has found

that the waters of the Klamath River and its tributaries, which include streams in this project, do not meet

water quality beneficial use standards. The Shasta River is impaired for organic enrichment/low dissolved

oxygen and temperature. Shovel Creek is impaired for organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen nutrients

and temperature. Harris Creek is impaired for nutrients and temperature. Details of the 303 (d) listing of

impaired water bodies can be found at www.swrcb.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdls/.

An analysis of the hillslope processes and unstable lands used to delineate RRs are addressed in the

Geology resource report. The analyses in this Hydrology section and the Hydrology resource report focus

on RRs delineated by stream courses and wet meadows within the Butte Mountain project area. The

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/klamath/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stelprdb5312713

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdls/

ii

desired condition for the wet meadow and streamcourse components of RRs is described in Chapter 1 of

the EA. The current condition of the wet meadow component of RRs in the Butte Mountain project area

has been affected by livestock grazing and fire exclusion. Historically, quaking aspen have been an

important component of wet meadow vegetation communities but the current extent of quaking aspen has

been diminished as addressed in the Vegetation resource report.

The residual effects of past actions at the site-specific scale show some trampling of stream banks from

cattle. Although there are some previously-disturbed sites in the project area, water quality is currently

meeting desired conditions at the 7th field watershed scale based on CWE modeling results. All measures

of sedimentation and peak flow are below the threshold of concern. Steam temperatures in Shovel Creek

and Little Shasta River, the two major tributary streams analyzed in the KNF Stream Temperature

monitoring report (available on the KNF website), exceed stream temperatures usually considered as

supporting beneficial uses (>18 degrees Celsius). These temperatures are due to natural causes as noted in

the Stream Temperature monitoring report.

Environmental Effects

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 (no action) will not actively maintain or restore sediment, stream temperature or peak-base

flow. Taking no action will passively maintain water quality within desired reference conditions and

passively restore areas that are recovering from past disturbances.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past and current actions and events are disclosed as part of the existing condition of the

affected environment. Continuing or reasonable foreseeable future actions that may affect water are

modeled in the CWE analysis for this project as noted in the Hydrology resource report (available on the

project website). Adding these effects to the effects of taking no action will not produce substantial

cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4


There will be 92 acres of aspen enhancement treatments by hand, 8 acres of conifer treatments by hand, 6

acres of non-commercial plantation thinning and 28 acres of aspen enhancement treatments using ground-

based equipment in the RRs in all action alternatives as displayed on the maps in Appendix C. There will

be 129 acres of prescribed fire in RRs in Alternative 2, 105 in Alternative 3, and 118 in Alternative 4.

The RR treatments will increase meadow diversity, including grasses, forbs and shrubs by reducing

conifer encroachment. The aspen in the meadow will be increased over the next 50 years. The

intermediate layer of deciduous vegetation will be improved by the increase in successful aspen

regeneration and planting of shrubs if needed. This vegetation will also work to improve the bank stability

of the streams. The ability of RRs to filter sediment will also be improved by the increased herbaceous

and shrubby vegetation. The risk of moderate to high severity wildfire will continue to be low (Fire and

iii

Fuels resource report). The risk of shade loss in RRs will remain the same or decrease as will the risk of

sediment delivery to streams due to moderate to high severity wildfire.

Tree removal and prescribed fire are the two proposed activities that will impact shade in the RRs of the

project. Treatments being implemented by hand thinning will occur in the southern perennial stream

channel in Burnt Camp and in Little Shasta Meadow. The Shasta Meadow treatments will focus on

conifer encroachment within 100 feet of the meadows edge. Conifers >10” DBH will be retained and

shrubby vegetation along the stream channels will not be disturbed by the treatments (PDF WS-11). The

hand treatments will have a neutral effect on shade in this RR. The aspen enhancement treatments for

units in the northern Burnt Camp RR (units 712-906 and 712-906-001) will be implemented, in

consultation with a hydrologist, to not impact the existing stream shade (see PDF WS-11). Conifers

providing shade to the stream will not be removed and areas lacking stream shade will be considered for

willow or other RR shrub planting (PDF WS-53).

Impacts to shade from prescribed fire will be neutral because the loss of shade in RRs will be negligible

from low severity fire that is usually ignited outside the RR boundaries (PDF WS-10). Prescribed burning

will result in very little large tree mortality in the RRs. The impacts to shade along perennial and late

flowing intermittent streams will be neutral at all scales with the implementation of the BMPs and related

PDFs, especially PDF WS-11.

Sediment delivery from new temporary road construction will not be likely since the areas are not

hydrologically connected to the stream systems and no temporary roads will be constructed in RRs. BMP

monitoring in 2011 showed that hydrologic stabilization of temporary roads was effective at preventing

roads from delivering sediment to the streams. The CWE analysis estimates that the sediment delivery

from timber harvest, hand treatments, prescribed fire and tractor piling (for Alternatives 2 and 3) will

increase by less than 4% for the 7th field watersheds. This will be further reduced by the implementation

of PDFs. The increase in sediment delivery to streams from the action alternatives will have a neutral

effect to beneficial uses at all scales.

Channel geomorphology will be impacted at the site scale where heavy equipment crosses stream

channels. The implementation of PDFs will render this impact neutral. As noted above, there is no

construction of new temporary roads or temporary roads on existing roadbeds in the RRs; no new

landings will be constructed in RRs. Peak flows will not be measurably increased by the action

alternatives. The effect on channel geomorphology of the vegetation management activities in action

alternatives will be neutral at all scales.

The adaptive management strategy for range will include relocating water developments (troughs) from

the RR and reducing pressures on aspen regeneration. Channel geomorphology in the northern

intermittent stream in the Burnt Camp area will be improved by the resultant reduced use of the RR by

cattle and aspen regeneration will be enhanced. The RR will passively recover from bank tramping and

channel widening.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include the effects of THP 2-11-037-SIS as a reasonably foreseeable future action. As

noted above, the action alternatives will not impact shade in perennial or late flowing intermittent streams

due to implementation of PDF WS-11. The cumulative impacts to stream temperature and beneficial uses

in Shovel Creek of the action alternatives plus THP 2-11-037-SIS will be neutral at all scales.

iv

The potential for sediment delivery to all stream channels in the project area will be increased by the

action alternatives and the future action (THP 2-1-037-SIS). The risk ratios for all the 7th and 6

th fields are

well under the threshold of concern for the USLE and GEO models considering existing conditions and

future actions as displayed in the Hydrology resource report. The USLE risk ratio is less than 0.61 for all

alternatives. The GEO model is under 0.65 for all alternatives. The model includes harvest, wildfire,

prescribed fire, roads and tractor piling. The landings, temporary roads and grazing will increase the

sediment delivery potential slightly but not enough to push the risk ratio for these watersheds over the

threshold of concern. The impacts to beneficial uses from cumulative effects of sediment delivery at the

site, 7th and 6

th field watershed scales are neutral.

Cumulatively, the future actions and action alternatives do not increase peak flow. The cumulative

impacts to an increase in peak flow are less than 13% at the 7th field scale and 10% at the 6

th field scale.

The changes to peak flow are not detectable in Upper Shovel Creek, and Little Shasta Headwaters. Under

existing conditions the channel geomorphology is functioning to meet associated beneficial uses. The

cumulative impacts to channel geomorphology and beneficial uses are neutral for this alternative.

Compliance with Law, Regulation, Policy and the KNF Forest Plan

Compliance with the Clean Water Act, the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, the Water Quality

Control Plan for the North Coast Region (the Basin Plan), and the Klamath River Total Maximum Daily

Loads is achieved by meeting the conditions of the Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements, Order No.

R1-2010-0029. The Waiver contains 38 general conditions and 18 conditions specific to category B

activities. The conditions of the Waiver include retention of the site-potential natural shade in riparian

reserves, restoration of pre-existing sediment sources, and on-the-ground prescriptions that meet BMPs.

Shade in the perennial or late-flowing intermittent streams will not be impacted by the treatments. All

legacy sediment sources in the project area will be inventoried, prioritized, and treated prior to the

submission of the Waiver application. BMPs and related PDFs displayed in Appendix D of the EA meet

the Waiver requirements for “on-the-ground” prescriptions to mitigate water quality impacts from project

activities. Action alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan standards as displayed in the Forest Plan

Consistency Checklist (available on the project website) including meeting ACS as disclosed in Appendix

E of the EA.

1

Introduction

The focus of this report is on the effects the Butte Mountain Late Successional Reserve Habitat

Restoration Project on the Goosenest Ranger District has on the water quality and beneficial uses of

water. The purpose of the project is to develop and improve Northern Spotted Owl habitat, to enhance

aspen and meadow communities and to re-introduce low and moderate severity fire onto the landscape.

The project includes aspen stand enhancement, natural stand treatments, plantation thinning and

replanting and the use of prescribed fire.

Overview of Issue Addressed

The three potential water quality effects from the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives analyzed

are: 1) stream temperature, 2) sediment delivery, and 3) channel geomorphology. Temperature and

sediment are objectives in the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Regional Water Quality

Control Board (Basin Plan) (State of California, 1993). All three are highlighted in the Land and Resource

Management Plan (Forest Plan) and ACS objectives. The analysis of these issues determined whether the

expected effects would cause adverse effects to beneficial uses of water. The beneficial uses for the

watersheds are domestic and irrigation water, fish habitat and recreation.

Potential increases in sedimentation were evaluated through the degree of change in CWE-modeled

sediment delivery for accelerated surface soil erosion (USLE model) and mass-wasting (GEO model).

Increased sedimentation was also evaluated by the acres of temporary road, landings and ground-based

equipment operating in stream-course riparian reserves (RRs).

The temperature Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Klamath Basin is expressed in terms of

stream shade. Therefore, this analysis uses effects to stream shade as a proxy for effects to stream

temperature. Stream shade was evaluated by the acres of proposed treatment in stream-course RRs and

extrapolated from the Vegetation resource report.

Altered channel geomorphology was evaluated by the degree of peak flow increase (ERA model). These

three issues are linked since increased sedimentation could alter channel geomorphology which could

increase stream temperature.

Methodology

Several earth science field reviews were conducted by the Forest Watershed Staff between June 2010 and

September 2011. Forest GIS layers and air photos were used for provide quantitative metrics for the

analysis. A preliminary legacy site assessment was completed using air photo analysis, the KNF’s road

sediment source inventory, and notes from field review by Forest Watershed and Engineering Staff. The

results of the preliminary legacy site analysis are in Appendix B (condition 5) of this report. Field review

and finalization of the legacy site inventory will be completed prior to the submission of the North Coast

Water Quality Control Board Non-Point Source Sediment Waiver (Waiver).

Stream shade is estimated from the information in the Vegetation report for this project. Actual shade

measurements were not taken during field reviews. This analysis assumes that canopy cover (as reported

2

in the Vegetation report) and shade are equivalent. A stream is considered a late-flowing intermittent

stream if it has the potential to still have surface flow on July 1st or later. Information pertaining to effects

of the existing situation on water was gathered from field reviews of current conditions and from KNF

Monitoring Reports for stream shade and temperature, available at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/klamath/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stelprdb5312713. The

interim widths for RRs from the KNF Forest Plan define RRs for this project as 300 feet for fish bearing

streams and 150 feet on perennial, non-fish bearing and intermittent streams.

Cumulative effects analysis (CWE models) was conducted by Forest staff and is incorporated in the

effects analysis. Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) modeling was completed for 7th field watersheds

and two 6th field watersheds (See Appendix A). A majority of the 5

th field watersheds and the Meiss Lake

6th field watersheds are privately held. The resulting lack of data prevented the Forest from completing

the CWE modeling on these watersheds. Sediment delivery (yards3/year) to streams from surface soil

erosion was calculated using the Klamath (modified) Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). GEO is a

GIS-based model that estimates potential sediment delivery (yards3/decade) to streams by landslide

processes in a given watershed. The ERA model establishes a cumulative index to reflect the extent of

disturbance. Areas subject to specific management activities (e.g., timber harvest or landing construction)

are assigned a coefficient that reflects the level of ground disturbance. An ERA is equivalent to 1 acre of

well-drained native (dirt) road surface (Bell, 2012).

CWE model results are expressed in risk ratios. Risk ratios are calculated differently for each model, but

interpretation of the results is similar. A low risk ratio indicates a low risk of cumulative watershed

effects. As the risk ratio approaches 1.0, the likelihood of watershed effects increases. The USLE, GEO

and ERA models each evaluate components of soil and sediment impacts and are used by KNF to

quantify cumulative watershed effects related to geologic resources, hydrologic resources, and soils in the

watershed. Risk ratios of 1.0 or greater are taken as “yellow flag indicators” where a cautious approach to

management may be warranted. Watersheds on the Klamath National Forest with risk ratios greater than

1.0 are generally more densely roaded, have sensitive land types such as dormant landslides or granitic

soils, and/or present other factors that lead to a degraded condition (Bell, 2012). The algorithms for

calculating risk ratios for each of the models are summarized in the Summary of Cumulative Watershed

Effects Process Paper (Bell, 2012).

Harvest and roads can increase runoff and impact peak flows in the project area. ERA is harder to

interpret since the equivalent roaded areas in a watershed must be extrapolated into a change in peak flow.

Grant et al. (2008) summarized the results of the effects of forest harvesting and roads on peak flow from

paired watersheds studies. By converting percent ERA into percent equivalent clear-cut acres (ECA) (the

average ERA coefficient for a clear-cut is 4 times smaller than 1 ECA) the current peak flow increase due

to roads and past vegetative disturbances in the project area’s 7th field watersheds can be estimated.

Spatial and Temporal Boundaries

Effects can be beneficial, neutral (effects are not measurable), negative (measurable effects that do not

retard beneficial uses) or adverse (measurable effects that retard beneficial uses). Direct effects are those

occurring at the same time and place as the action. Direct effects are usually short-term, lasting for a few

years. Indirect effects are those occurring at a later time or distance from the action and can be short-term

or long-term. The temporal scale is described as being either short or long-term in duration. Short-term

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/klamath/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stelprdb5312713

3

(direct and indirect) is usually 1 to 3 years, but can be up to 10 years. Long-term (indirect) is any effect

that persists for more than 10 years.

The spatial scales for analysis of effects to water are: (1) site (effects located in the stream channel

adjacent to or nearby the treatments); (2) 7th field watershed (effects detectable in the response reach of a

7th field watershed); and 3) 6

th field watershed. The CWE model was not ran at the 5

th field scale or on

Meiss Lake 6th field because of the lack of data on the private lands which make up a majority of the

watersheds. Effects are measured at all of these scales. The spatial analysis area for water includes four 7th

field watersheds.

Current and future actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis were (See Appendix C of EA for

details):

Black Rock Aspen Restoration Project (Current);

Shovel Project (Current);

Grazing in Ball Mountain Allotment (Current);

THP 2-08-060-SIS (Current); and

THP 2-11-037-SIS (Future).

Desired Conditions

RRs in wet meadows should have grass, forbs, and shrub species with willow, alder and overhanging

grasses providing the shade to the stream. The water table is near the meadow surface with the stream

often meandering through the meadow. Few signs of gullying are apparent. Domestic livestock use

meadows and streamsides, but do not degrade the systems (Forest Plan, pp. 4-106:107). In forested RRs,

the conifers should provide shade. There should be an intermediate layer of deciduous vegetation that

provides a thermal buffering, nutrient cycling and bank stability (Forest Plan, pg. 4-106). Where possible,

manage the conifer vegetation in RRs for a basal area greater than or equal to 250 square feet per acre

(Forest Plan, pg. 4-113). The water quality in streams and lakes meets or exceeds State water quality

requirements. Fine sediment from management activities is not adversely affecting stream channels

(Forest Plan, pg. 4-107).

Affected Environment

The State of California has found that the waters of the Klamath River and its tributaries, which include

the streams in the project area, do not meet water quality beneficial use standards. The Shasta River is

impaired for organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen and temperature. Shovel Creek is impaired for

organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen, nutrients and temperature. Harris Creek is impaired for

nutrients and temperature. Details of the 303 (d) listing of impaired water bodies can be found at

www.swrcb.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdls/.

An analysis of the hillslope processes and unstable lands used to delineate RRs are addressed in the

Geology resource report. There are three distinct riparian reserves in the project area that will be

addressed at the site scale: 1) Harris Creek, 2) Burnt Camp area, and 3) Little Shasta Meadow (Figure 1).

4

The first area is the Harris Creek headwaters, which drains into Butte Valley. Butte Valley is a closed

basin. Harris Creek flows into the valley and disappears into the groundwater system. The two tributaries

in the project area that ultimately converge to form the main stem of Harris Creek begin in the Hole-in-

the-Ground Geologic Special Interest Area. The feature is a volcanic bedrock amphitheater formed

through differential weathering of an extinct volcano. Stream flow in the project area is mainly snow-melt

driven. The east-facing feature is fairly impermeable, so when the snowpack melts all the water is carried

on the surface into the main stem of Harris Creek. The stream reaches in the project area do not flow past

late-spring/early-summer depending on the snowpack. There is a small spring in the northern tributary

that was observed flowing water in late August for about 100 feet down the channel before being lost to

the groundwater system.

The second and third riparian reserves are the streams and meadows in the Burnt Camp Area and the

Little Shasta Meadows. The Burnt Camp area has tributaries to Shovel Creek. Little Shasta Meadow

contributes to the Little Shasta River. The areas are high elevation (6000-6500 feet) and the hydrology is

highly influenced by snowpack variation from year to year. The hydrology for both areas are meadows

punctuated by spring and seeps feeding multiple small intermittent stream channels that eventually funnel

into a main stem channel. About a third of the channels appear to only flow during times of snowmelt.

Historically, there were large aspen stands in and around the meadows providing summer/fall canopy

cover to the stream channels (indicator of the historic range of variability). Air photo interpretation

indicates that there were scattered conifers in the meadow that may have provided some shade to the

stream channel. The aspen stands in these meadows are being encroached by conifers. This encroachment

combine with browsing by ungulates and cattle has reduced aspen regeneration (Vegetation resource

report).

The northern intermittent creek in the Burnt Camp was not flowing surface water during a late July field

visits. The channel had scour and was wet just below the channel substrate. It likely flows into late June

or early July depending on the snowpack, making it a potentially late-flowing intermittent stream. There

is a man-hade watering pond in the RR used for cattle in unit 712-906. The area is grazed, which has

impacted herbaceous and shrubby vegetation; the banks of the channel are unstable and have been

widened in areas. There is little aspen regeneration in the area. The southern perennial creek in the Burnt

Camp has not been as impacted by grazing and has stable banks and stream cover. The aspen stands in the

area are being encroached by conifer, due to fire suppression, which is impacting regeneration.

Downstream, Shovel Creek is not meeting desired conditions for sediment regime. Below the project area

in Shovel Creek fine sediments, mainly from timber harvest on private lands, are high in the stream

channel causing a high amount of gravel embeddedness.

Many of the springs in the Little Shasta Meadow area appear to be intermittent, flowing into the late

summer. The main stem channel that flows through the meadow is perennial. The channel has good

herbaceous and shrubby cover in the project area. The stream banks are stable and no evidence of active

incision in the project area. The stream channel or cover does not appear to be negatively impacted by

grazing. However, the encroachment of conifers into aspen stands along the perimeter of the meadow, due

to fire suppression, has impacted aspen regeneration.

5

Figure 1: RRs in project area were delineated using the Forest Plan interim widths (PDF WS-1).

The four 7th field watersheds in the project area are: 1) Harris Creek, 2) Shovel Creek, 3) Flume Canyon,

and 4) Little Shasta Headwaters. The cumulative watershed effects modeling show that all the watersheds

are under threshold for all models (See Appendix A for CWE results). This means that there is a low risk

of an excess of sediment being delivered to the stream systems via soil erosion or landsliding. The

Equivalent Roaded Area is elevated, with a risk ratio of 0.82, for Flume Canyon- Shovel Creek 7th field

watershed. This is due to private lands harvest in the watershed. No evidence of an increase in peak flows

that impacts channel geomorphology, such as channel scour or bank instability, are seen in air photo

analysis.

6

Steam temperatures in Shovel Creek and Little Shasta River, the two major Klamath River tributary

streams analyzed in the KNF Stream Temperature monitoring report (available on the KNF website),

exceed stream temperatures usually considered as supporting beneficial uses (>18 degrees Celsius). The

stream did not have any shade reduction from human causes in the Stream Temperature monitoring report

(pg. 13). The Upper Shovel Creek and Little Shasta River Headwaters 7th field watersheds surrounding

these streams have a watershed average stream shade of 54% and 63% respectively. These current shade

values are equal to potential shade and no human-caused shade reduction was visible from air photos

according to the report. Because of the naturally high stream temperature and low shade, these streams

have little capacity to assimilate increased solar radiation from management-related shade loss.

Best Management Practices

Best Management Practices (BMPs) were developed to comply with Section 208 of the Clean Water Act.

They are intended to protect water quality from impacts stemming from non-point sources of pollution.

These practices have been applied to forest activities and have been found to be effective in protecting

water quality within the Klamath National Forest. Specifically, effective application of the R-5 USDA

Forest Service BMPs has been found to maintain water quality that is in conformance with the Water

Quality Objectives in the North Coast Region Water Quality Control Board’s (NCRWQCB) Basin Plan.

BMPs are descriptive and need to be paired with prescriptive ‘on-the-ground’ measures or PDFs for

implementation.

In 2011, BMPs were fully implemented at 85% of the sites evaluated and fully effective at 92% of the

sites evaluated (BMP-EP Report, 2011). PDFs intended to minimize impact to water quality from

temporary roads were evaluated on two sites in 2011. Although the PDFs were not implemented well on

one of the roads, there was no sediment delivery noted to the streams during evaluation and the problem

was resolved. One-hundred percent of the Streamside Management Zone BMP was implemented and

effective in preventing sediment delivery to the stream. Landing BMPs that were evaluated all passed

implementation and effectiveness. There were instances of rilling on some of the landings but no

sediment was delivered to the stream.

Effects of the Alternatives

Alternative 1: No Action


Alternative 1 (no action) will not actively maintain or restore sediment, stream temperature or peak-base

flow. Taking no action will passively maintain water quality within desired conditions and continued

passive recovery of areas impacted by past disturbances.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past and current actions and events are disclosed as part of the existing condition of the

affected environment. The CWE model results area summarized in Appendix A of this report. Adding

these effects to the effects of taking no action will not produce significant cumulative effects.

7

Alternative 2

Direct Effects

Direct effects will occur in areas where heavy equipment disturb stream banks or enter the stream

channel. The effects will be disturbance to banks, decreased bank stability and increased potential for

sediment delivery. These direct effects will be limited to designated stream crossings as a result of the

equipment exclusion zones along stream banks (PDF-WS-2). The treatments will remove trees from 134

acres of RR (Table 1) as displayed on the first map in Appendix C. About 111.5 acres of RR are on

perennial or late flowing intermittent stream channels. About 83.5 of these acres are hand treatments

removing trees ranging from 4 to 10 inches DBH (diameter at breast height). Aspen enhancement

treatments using ground-based equipment will remove trees less than 26 inch DBH within 150 feet of

aspen clones in 28 acres of RR along the northern intermittent creek in the Burnt Camp area.

Indirect Effects

The project will increase meadow diversity, including grasses, forbs and shrubs by removing encroaching

conifers and reducing grazing impacts in the RRs. The aspen in the meadow will be increased over the

next 50 years. The intermediate layer of deciduous vegetation will be improved by the increase in aspen

and planting of shrubs. The vegetation will also work to improve the bank stability of the streams. The

RRs ability to filter sediment will also be improved by the increased herbaceous and shrubby vegetation.

The fire risk is reduced over the long-term (>10 years) by the fuels treatments (Fire and Fuels resource

report). This lowers the risk of shade loss in RRs and an increase in sediment delivery to streams due to

moderate to high severity fire.

Stream Temperature

Tree removal and prescribed fire are the two proposed activities that have the potential to impact shade in

the RRs of the project. The RR in the Harris Creek headwaters is snowmelt driven and the intermittent

streams are not late flowing. Treatments being implemented by hand thinning will occur in the southern

perennial stream channel in Burnt Camp and in Little Shasta Meadow. The Shasta Meadow treatments

will focus on conifer encroachment within 100 feet of the meadows edge. Conifers >10 inch DBH will be

retained and shrubby vegetation along the stream channels will not be disturbed by the treatments (PDF

WS-11). The hand treatments will have a neutral effect on shade in this RR. The aspen enhancement

treatments for units in Burnt Camp (712-906 and 712-906-001) will result in the reduction of canopy

cover from 66% to 28% outside the RR. The treatments in the RR will be modified, in consultation with a

hydrologist, to not impact the existing stream shade (see PDF WS-11). Conifers contributing to the shade

of the stream will not be removed and areas lacking shade along the stream will be considered for

replanting of willows or other riparian shrub species.

There is 129 acres of prescribed fire in the RR (Table 2). Low to moderate fire behavior will be used in

the prescribed fire treatments. Prescribed fire will be applied to create a mosaic of burned and unburned

patches, leaving between 20 to 70% of the area unburned. The canopy closure, in general, will be reduced

by less than 10% (Fire and Fuels resource report) and the mosaic burn pattern throughout the treatment

area. Impacts to shade from prescribed fire will be neutral because the loss of shade in RRs will be

negligible (since only low severity fire will occur which will result in very little large tree mortality in the

8

RRs). The impacts to shade along perennial and late flowing intermittent streams will be neutral with the

implementation of the PDFs and BMPs.

Immediately after treatment, the basal area in riparian reserves will go from 155 ft2/acre to 98 ft2/acre in

units 712-906 and 712-906-001(including aspen). The basal area is below the MA10-57 Forest Plan

standard and guideline of a basal area of >250 ft2/acre. This is because the RR is not conifer dominated

stream system -- the RR type referred to in the standard and guideline. The RR was historically an open

meadow system with scattered conifers. The treatments take into consideration the historical mix of

conifers and aspen and the resultant basal area.

Sediment Delivery

New temporary road construction and the reopening of temporary roads on existing roadbeds increase the

sediment delivery potential by removing vegetation, compacting soil, and concentrating surface water

onto the hillslopes. Alternative 2 proposes 0.43 miles of new temporary road. The areas where the new

temporary roads are proposed (unit 713-914 and 712-34) are hydrologically disconnected from any

stream channel and will not be a source of sediment delivery to streams. The temporary roads on existing

roadbeds are not in the RR but do have a small potential for delivering sediment to the stream channels.

The potential will be reduced by hydrologic stabilization after use. This impact will be neutral given the

application of the watershed PDFs. Most of the new and existing landings in the project area are not or

will not be hydrologically connected to the stream systems. Delivery of sediment from these landings will

not occur. There are a few locations for potential landings where sediment could be delivered. However,

landings will be shaped for drainage before the end of the operating season to minimize the potential for

sediment delivery to streams. This was an effective measure to prevent sediment delivery to streams in

the 2011 BMP-EP Monitoring report.

The adaptive management strategy proposed and relocation of water sources from the RR to reduce

pressures on aspen regeneration will benefit the RR. Fencing intended to reduce the use of aspen

treatment areas will also preclude cattle from the RRs in a majority of Burnt Camp and Shasta Meadows.

There will be a reduction of sediment delivered to these RRs.

Vegetation management and prescribed fire, both inside and outside RRs, increase sediment delivery to

streams because of the ground disturbance and soil cover loss that results from the disturbance. Tractor

piling increases the area of bare soil in a unit and sediment delivery potential to streams. The CWE

modeling accounts for all of these actions in the estimates of sediment delivery from soil erosion (USLE)

and landsliding (GEO). The estimated increase in sediment delivery from soil erosion due to harvest,

prescribed fire and tractor piling is less than 4% over current conditions in the 7th field watersheds (Table

4). The increased sediment delivered to the streams from an increase in landslide potential is less than 3%

over current conditions in the 7th field watersheds (Table 5). The landslide potential is rarely realized in

this part of the Forest and the potential will only be increased on the short-term (Geology Report). The

PDFs designed to meet harvest BMPs will further reduce the actual sediment delivery as a result of the

project. BMPs were successful in preventing sediment delivery during and after implementation in 2011.

The impacts to stream channels and beneficial uses due to increased sediment delivery will be neutral.

9

Table 1: Acres of vegetation management activities in the RR by alternative

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY ALT. 2 ALT. 3 ALT. 4

Aspen/Meadow Enhancement using hand treatment 5-10% 92 92 92

Commercial Thin Chip <10" DBH 0 0 0

Conifer Stand treatment by hand 5-10% 8 8 8

Non-commercial Plantation Thin 6 6 6

Remove Conifers <26" DBH within 150' of Aspen 28 28

Remove Conifers <30" DBH within 75', <26" DBH within

150' of Aspen

28

Table 2: Acres of prescribed fire in RR by alternative

PRESCRIBED FIRE ALT. 2 ALT. 3 ALT. 4

Evaluate Aspen Prescribed Fire-Spring or

Pile Burn

4 4

Pile Burn 5-10% 92 92 92

Plantation Prescribed Fire(Fall)/Replant 2 2 2

Plantation Replant 4 4 4

Prescribed Fire (Fall) 27 3 16

Prescribed Fire (Spring) 0 0 4

Channel Geomorphology

Vegetation management and temporary road use can impact peak flows in stream channels. This is caused

by reduced infiltration due to soil compaction, loss of intercepting vegetation and loss of soil cover.

Increases in peak flows can lead to degraded channels, loss of beneficial substrate and bank instability.

The proposed activities in Alternative 2 will not measurably increase peak flows in the 7th or 6

th field

watersheds (Table 3) and the effects to channel geomorphology and beneficial uses are neutral.

None of the temporary roads (new or on existing roadbeds) are within the RR. No new landings will be

constructed in the RR. These activities will not impact the geomorphology of the channels in the project

area.

The adaptive management strategy proposed and relocation of water sources from the RR to reduce

pressures on aspen regeneration will benefit the RR. Fencing intended to reduce the use of aspen

treatment areas will also preclude cattle from the RRs. Channel geomorphology in the northern

intermittent stream in the Burnt Camp area will be improved by fencing and the resultant reduced use of

the RR by cattle.

10

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include the effects of THP 2-11-037-SIS. This is the only future federal, State, tribal,

local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area at the time of analysis. Past

and current activities in the watersheds are included in the affected environment analysis.

The THP has no treatments in RRs and will not impact shade along the stream channels. This alternative

will not impact shade in perennial or late flowing intermittent streams. The cumulative impacts to stream

temperature and beneficial uses in Shovel Creek will be neutral at all scales.

The potential for sediment delivery to all stream channels in the project area will be increased by the

alternative and the future action (THP 2-1-037-SIS). The CWE model risk ratio is a relative index that

allows the impacts to be interpreted and compared to one another. The threshold of concern for the risk

ratios is 1.0. This indicates that the watershed has a limited capacity to absorb disturbance due to past,

present and future actions. The risk ratios for all the 7th and 6

th fields are well under the threshold of

concern for the USLE and GEO models considering existing conditions and future actions (Table 7 and

Table 8). The model includes harvest, wildfire, prescribed fire, roads and tractor piling. The model did not

include landings or grazing. The landings and temporary roads will increase the sediment delivery

potential slightly but not enough to push the risk ratio for these watersheds over the threshold of concern.

Grazing does increase sediment delivery. However, the adaptive management activities in Alternative 2

will minimize the potential especially in the Burnt Camp area. The impacts to beneficial uses from

cumulative effects of sediment delivery at the site, 7th and 6

th field watershed scales will be minimal.

There will be no increase in peak flow at the site scale, 7th or 6

th field watershed scale. At the site scale

any cumulative increase to peak flow would come from impacts upstream of the project area. Since the

RRs in the project are the headwaters of the watersheds, there are cumulative impacts at the site scale. At

the watershed scales, the ERA is a proxy for impacts to peak flows. Grant et al. (2008) illustrated that

ERA can be interpreted into increased peak flow. The results of this analysis are in Table 3. Impacts of

less than 10% increase in peak flow were not considered measureable in the study and are considered as

such here. Cumulatively, the future actions and alternative do not increase peak flow. The cumulative

impacts to an increase in peak flow are less than 13% at the 7th field scale and 10% at the 6

th field scale.

The changes to peak flow are not detectable in Upper Shovel Creek, and Little Shasta Headwaters. Under

existing conditions the channel geomorphology is functioning to meet beneficial uses. The cumulative

impacts to channel geomorphology and beneficial uses are neutral for this alternative.

Table 3: Cumulative percent peak flow increase under current conditions, future actions and the project alternatives estimated using ERA model and Grant et al. 2008. Changes less than 10% are not detectable (ND) using this model

Drainages Current

Condition

Current+

Future Actions

Current+

Future+ Alt.2

Current+

Future+ Alt.3

Current+

Future+ Alt.4 Harris Creek 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

Upper Shovel Creek ND ND ND ND ND

Flume Canyon-Shovel

Creek 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%

Little Shasta Headwaters ND ND ND ND ND

Shovel Creek 6th field 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

Upper Little Shasta River

6th field 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

11

Compliance with Law, Policy and Regulation

Compliance with the Clean Water Act, the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, the Water Quality

Control Plan for the North Coast Region (the Basin Plan), and the Klamath River Total Maximum Daily

Loads is achieved by meeting the conditions of the Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements, Order No.

R1-2010-0029. The Waiver contains 38 general conditions and 18 conditions specific to category B

activities. The conditions of the Waiver include retention of the site-potential natural shade in riparian

reserves, restoration of pre-existing sediment sources, and on-the-ground prescriptions that meet BMPs.

Shade in the perennial or late-flowing intermittent streams will not be impacted by the treatments. All

legacy sediment sources in the project area will be inventoried, prioritized, and treated prior to the

submission of the Waiver application. On-the-ground prescriptions are located in Table 2-1 of the EA.

The alternative is also consistent with the Forest Plan and ACS objectives (See Appendix E of EA).

Alternative 3


The direct and indirect effects to shade are the same as in Alternative 2. The modification of the treatment

prescription to include the removal of trees up to 30 inch DBH will not impact the analysis because there

are no trees greater than 26 inch DBH in units 712-906 and 712-906-001 (Vegetation report).

The activities that increase the potential for sediment delivery to streams are nearly identical to

Alternative 2 as displayed on the second map in Appendix C.. There are only 105 acres of prescribed

burning in RRs in this alternative. The reduction from Alternative 2 is in the acres of fall burning. This

has a minimal reduction in the sediment delivery potential (Table 2). The modifications to upslope

activities in Upper Shovel Creek increased the CWE estimated sediment delivery. These differences

between the alternatives lead to an increase in soil erosion and landsliding by 10% and 5% respectively in

Upper Shovel Creek in Alternative 3. The impacts of sediment delivery for Alternative 3 remain neutral

to beneficial uses.

The direct and indirect effects to channel geomorphology remain the same as in Alternative 3. The

adaptive management and relocation of water sources from the RR in the Burnt Camp Area will reduce

the use of RR by cattle and improve aspen regeneration.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are similar to Alternative 2. The risk ratios and estimated

increase in peak flow are the same for all watersheds.


Same as for Alternative 2

Alternative 4


The direct and indirect effects to shade are the same as in Alternative 2.

The harvest activities are similar to Alternative 2, except there is no tractor piling or new road

construction in Alternative 4 as displayed on the third map in Appendix C. There are 118 acres of

12

prescribed burning in RRs in this alternative. The reduction from Alternative 2 is in the acres of fall

burning (Table 2). The exclusion of tractor piling and new temporary road construction reduced the

estimated sediment delivery by the CWE model from Alternative 2. The estimated sediment delivery

from soil erosion is 35%, 11% and 25% less for Harris Creek, Upper Shovel Creek, and Little Shasta

Headwaters respectively (Table 4). The reduction in sediment delivered by landsliding was reduced by

20% and 4% for Harris Creek and Little Shasta Headwater 7th

field watersheds respectively. The impacts

of sediment delivery for Alternative 4 are the smallest of the alternatives (Table 5) and will be neutral to

beneficial uses.

The direct and indirect effects to channel geomorphology remain the same as in Alternative 3. The

adaptive management and relocation of water sources from the RR in the Burnt Camp Area will reduce

the use of RR by cattle and improve aspen regeneration.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects for Alternative 4 are similar to Alternative 2. The risk ratios and estimated

increase in peak flow are the same for all watersheds.


Same as for Alternative 2

13

References

Bell, A. 2012. Summary of Cumulative Watershed Effects Process. Klamath National Forest.

Grant, G.E.; Lewis, S.L.; Swanson, F.J.; Cissel, J.H.; McDonnell, J.J. 2008. Effects of forest

practices on peak flows and consequent channel response: a state-of-science report for

western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-760. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76 p.

State of California (1993). Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Regional Water

Quality Control Board (Basin Plan) retrieved from

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan.

shtml on February 14, 2013.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan.shtml

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan.shtml

A-1

Appendix A: Cumulative Watershed Effects Modeling Results

Table 4: Estimated sediment delivery due to soil loss (yd3/year) from the USLE model under current conditions, future actions and each action alternative.

Estimates are in cubic yards per year. Harris Creek is in the Butte Valley 6th

field watershed which was not modeled due to lack of data.

Drainages Background Current Future Action Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt.4

Harris Creek 19.2 44.3 0 0.87 0.87 0.57

Upper Shovel Creek 24.2 55.8 0 1.31 1.45 1.16

Flume Canyon-Shovel Creek 26.3 88.1 1.81 0.81 0.81 0.81

Little Shasta Headwaters 32.4 87.6 0 3.54 3.54 2.66

Shovel Creek 6th field 104.7 291.8 1.81 2.10 2.26 2.0

Upper Little Shasta River 6th field 147.2 387.3 0 3.54 3.54 2.66

Table 5: Estimated sediment delivery (yd3/decade) due to landsliding from the GEO model under current conditions, future actions and each action

alternative. Harris Creek is in the Butte Valley 6th

field watershed which was not modeled due to lack of data.

Drainages Background Current Future Action Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt.4

Harris Creek 4,869 9,687 0 220 220 174

Upper Shovel Creek 5,119 5,894 0 73 77 73

Flume Canyon-Shovel Creek 3,775 8,401 28 241 241 241

Little Shasta Headwaters 3,544 6,119 0 74 78 71

Shovel Creek 6th field 27,846 38,031 28 315 318 315

Upper Little Shasta River 6th field 12,515 26,413 0 74 77 71

A-2

Table 6: Estimated Equivalent Roaded Area for the ERA model under current conditions, future actions and each action alternative. Harris Creek is in the Butte Valley 6

th field watershed which was not modeled due to lack of data.

Drainages Acres

Threshold of

Concern (%

watershed)

Current Future Action Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt.4

Harris Creek 5,036 12.0% 235.1 0 28.0 32.1 20.6

Upper Shovel Creek 6,821 10.5% 205.1 0 62.1 63.8 59.6

Flume Canyon-Shovel Creek 9,002 10.5% 776.0 35.9 29.1 29.1 29.1

Little Shasta Headwaters 6,621 11.0% 210.2 0 69.1 68.8 54.0

Shovel Creek 6th field 33,034 10.4% 1,901.9 35.9 91.2 92.9 88.7

Upper Little Shasta River 6th field 30,289 11.1% 1,677.8 0 69.1 68.8 54.0

Table 7: USLE cumulative watershed effects risk ratio. The risk ratio includes the estimated sediment delivery due to soil loss as a result of past, present, reasonably foreseeable and proposed actions for each alternative. Harris Creek is in the Butte Valley 6

th field watershed which was not modeled due to lack

of data.

Drainages Current Risk ratio Alt. 2 Cumulative

Risk Ratio

Alt. 3 Cumulative

Risk Ratio

Alt. 4 Cumulative

Risk Ratio

Harris Creek 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.33

Upper Shovel Creek 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.34

Flume Canyon-Shovel Creek 0.59 0.61 0.61 0.61

Little Shasta Headwaters 0.43 0.45 0.45 0.45

Shovel Creek 6th field 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.46

Upper Little Shasta River 6th field 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41

A-3

Table 8: GEO cumulative watershed effects risk ratio. The risk ratio includes the estimated sediment delivery from landsliding as a result of past, present, reasonably foreseeable and proposed actions for each alternative. Harris Creek is in the Butte Valley 6

th field watershed which was not modeled due to lack

of data.


Risk Ratio

Alt. 3 Cumulative

Risk Ratio

Alt. 4 Cumulative

Risk Ratio

Harris Creek 0.49 0.52 0.52 0.51






Table 9: ERA cumulative watershed effects risk ratio. The risk ratio includes the Equivalent Roaded Area due to past, present, reasonably foreseeable and proposed actions for each alternative. Harris Creek is in the Butte Valley 6

th field watershed which was not modeled due to lack of data.


Risk Ratio

Alt. 3 Cumulative

Risk Ratio

Alt. 4 Cumulative

Risk Ratio

Harris Creek 0.39 0.44 0.44 0.42






B-1

Appendix B: Compliance with Water Quality Waiver

This appendix describes the project’s compliance with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control

Board Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Non-point Source Discharge Order No. R1-2010-

0029 (Waiver). Waiver compliance, including legacy site survey and remediation, retention of shade in

RR and project design features constitutes compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Basin Plan and the

Total Maximum Daily Load standards. The Forest Service must seek coverage under the waiver before

proceeding with timber harvest activities.

Activities in Riparian Reserves

The project is on the Goosenest Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest. The project area is within

the Harris Creek (18010205030602), Upper Shovel Creek (18010203030101), Flume Canyon-Shovel

Creek (1801020630102) and the Little Shasta Headwaters (18010209030101) 7th field watersheds. The

acres of each activity in RR are summarized in Table 10. Descriptions of actions can be found in Chapter

2 of the EA.

Table 10: Acres of activities in the RR by alternative

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY ALT. 2 ALT. 3 ALT. 4

Aspen/Meadow Enhancement using hand treatment 5-10% 92 92 92

Commercial Thin Chip <10" DBH 0 0 0

Conifer Stand treatment by hand 5-10% 8 8 8

Non-commercial Plantation Thin 6 6 6

Removal of Conifers from Aspen Meadows using ground-based

equipment 28 28 28

Prescribed Fire 129 105 118

The RR is 300 feet on fish-bearing perennial streams and 150 feet on non-fish bearing perennial streams,

intermittent streams and meadows. No new temporary roads or landings will be constructed in RRs. The

inner 100 feet of fish-bearing streams and 50 feet of non-fish bearing streams and intermittent streams

will be equipment exclusion zone. Only hazard trees will be felled inside the equipment exclusion zone.

Such trees will be cut or girdled by hand. In some cases, trees will be cut and left to create natural barriers

to exclude ungulates from browsing aspen regeneration. Ground-based equipment is generally limited to

35% slopes.

Tree removal and prescribed fire are the two proposed activities that will impact shade in the RRs of the

project. The treatments in the RR will be modified, in consultation with a hydrologist, to not impact the

existing stream shade (see PDF WS-11). There is 129 acres of prescribed fire in the RR (Table 2). The

loss of shade in RRs will be negligible since only low severity fire will occur; resulting very little large

tree mortality in the RRs. The impacts to shade along perennial and late flowing intermittent streams will

be neutral with the implementation of the PDFs and BMPs.

B-2

Description of Compliance with Waiver Terms for Category B Activities

Condition 1) An Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) has completed their evaluation of the project. The multi-

disciplinary resource team consisted of a Hydrologist, Fisheries Biologist, Geologist, and a

Soil Scientist. The team also included specialists in silviculture, botany, archaeology,

wildlife, scenery, air quality, and fuels. Reports were prepared for each watershed discipline.

All action alternatives included on-the-ground prescriptions (Project Design Features) that

are needed to implement the Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual (See Table 2-1 and

Appendix E of EA).

Condition 2) The USFS will submit a complete application for the Waiver.

Condition 3) The BMPs, associated on-the-ground prescriptions, as well as wet weather operating

standards are incorporated into the proposed action of the Butte LSR Project (see Proposed

Action in EA). These will be included in and enforced by the contract provision and a copy

of the Waiver will be provided to the contractor. Contractors are subject to comply with all

contract specifications and will be monitored on-site by the USFS.

Condition 4) There are three elements to the CWE model used by the Klamath NF: surface erosion and

sediment delivery (Universal Soil Loss Equation, or USLE); landsliding, or sediment

delivery from mass wasting (GEO); and overall disturbance as measured by “equivalent

roaded acres” (ERA). The USLE Model is an index of predicted sediment delivery for the

first year following project completion. The GEO Model estimates sediment delivery for the

first decade after project completion. The ERA Model provides an accounting system for

tracking disturbances that affect watershed processes. This report discusses the results of

modeling the effects of project activities on these three elements. Prior to project

implementation, none of the 7th field watersheds was over threshold of concern for surface

soil erosion (USLE), mass-wasting (GEO), or equivalent roaded acres/threshold of concern

(ERA/TOC). Under all action alternatives, all the watersheds were under the threshold of

concern for the CWE models. No additional action was needed to reduce CWEs.

Condition 5) A watershed restoration plan has not been prepared for the project area. A preliminary

legacy site review has been completed. Field reviews, air photo analysis and the Forest’s

Road Sediment Source Inventory (RSSI) were used to identify potential legacy sites in need

of remediation in the project area. Legacy sites are areas that have the potential to delivery

sediment to a stream channel that are human-caused or human exacerbated and will respond

to reasonable mitigation.

In the preliminary review, the only non-road related legacy site inventoried in the project

units was the cattle trampling along the RR in Unit 712-906 and 712-906-001. The action

alternatives include reduction in use of the area by cattle. This is accomplished by moving a

water development out of the RR and into an adjacent pasture. Alternatives 2 and 4 include

fencing that will preclude cattle from the RR and Alternative 3 will use adaptive

management to minimize impacts to aspen regeneration. These actions, while not directly

intended to address the legacy site, will allow the RR to passively restore bank stability and

re-vegetate.

B-3

The RSSI had three points of diversion potential on 45N05 and 9 points on 46N06. Field

review in fall of 2012 showed that dips have been installed or other measures taken in these

locations. Mostly like as a result of private lands harvest in the area.

A field reviewed, final legacy site inventory will be completed by a hydrologist prior to the

Waiver application.

Condition 6) The Proposed Action includes on-the-ground prescriptions, defined as Project Design

Features in the NEPA documents, provided by the watershed specialists specifically to

reduce the water quality impacts. The inclusions of the on-the-ground prescriptions as part

of the proposed action ensures that they will be implemented via contract clauses (where

appropriate) and on-site monitoring for compliance with contract provisions (see Condition

3).

A crosswalk between BMPs and PDFs is in Appendix E of the Butte Mountain LSR Habitat

Restoration project EA. All PDF’s in the BMP/PDF crosswalk are incorporated into project

planning or the proposed action and alternatives (see PDF section of EA). The crosswalk,

while not in the format of a checklist, is intended to act as a checklist would. It will be the

communication tool between Forest Watershed Staff and project implementers. The

crosswalk will be converted into a checklist by simply changing the format for use during

project implementation.

Condition 7) On-site monitoring of on-the-ground prescriptions, via checklists, crosswalks and other

tools, will be done by the project inspector to ensure that all BMPs are being met during

implementation. Site conditions will be re-evaluated to ensure BMPs are being met.

Additionally, the Klamath National Forest Sediment and Temperature Monitoring Plan and

Quality Assurance Plan further address the monitoring needs of the waver. The completed

Checklist and/or crosswalks will be submitted with the Notice of Completion.

Condition 8) The Project is proposed to take place during the Normal Operating Season (NOS) that is

defined as April 15 to October 15 and in dry periods outside the NOS with Line Officer

approval. Activities will be restricted during periods of wet weather during the NOS (BMP

1.5, 7.7). When there is a 30% chance of rain in the next 24 hours, the TSA will be on site

to insure that winterization or erosion control procedures are implemented in a timely

fashion and to initiate shutdown or resume operations. Operations will not resume until

suitable weather, soil, and forecast conditions exist (BMP 1.5).

Condition 9) Any situations that results in a significant discharge, identified by the BMP Checklist, will

be reported to the Forest Hydrologist and forwarded to the Regional Water Board within 10

days.

Condition 10) There are on-the-ground prescriptions in the EA report that minimize sediment discharges

into streams, including buffers along perennial/ephemeral streams and burn pile placement

(See Activities in Riparian Reserves above and Appendix E of EA).

Condition 11-13) Grazing conditions, and are not applicable to this project.

B-4

Condition 14) Complying with Waver requirements, USFS shall manage and maintain designated

riparian zones to ensure retention of adequate vegetative cover that results in natural shade

conditions within 170 feet slope distance on each side of perennial streams, and 100 feet

slope distance on each side of intermittent streams. Sediment discharge using Soil Erosion

Hazard Rating, Soil Compaction Risk Rating, and Forest Soil Disturbance Rating are

addressed in the Soils Specialist report. CWE, USLE, and GEO effects are shown in the

Fisheries and Hydrology reports. All specialists’ reports designate BMPs and on-the-ground

prescription.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) were developed to comply with Section 208 of the

Clean Water Act. They are intended to protect water quality from impacts stemming from

non-point sources of pollution. These practices have been applied to forest activities and

have been found to be effective in protecting water quality within the Klamath National

Forest. Specifically, effective application of the R-5 USDA Forest Service BMPs has been

found to maintain water quality that is in conformance with the Water Quality Objectives in

the North Coast Region Water Quality Control Board’s (NCRWQCB) Basin Plan. BMPs are

descriptive and need to be paired with prescriptive ‘on-the-ground’ measures or PDFs for

implementation.

In 2011, BMPs were fully implemented at 85% of the sites evaluated and fully effective at

92% of the sites evaluated (BMP-EP Report, 2011). PDFs intended to minimize impact to

water quality from temporary roads were evaluated on two sites in 2011. Although the PDFs

were not implemented well on one of the roads, there was no sediment delivery noted to the

streams during evaluation. One-hundred percent of the Streamside Management Zone BMP

was implemented and effective in preventing sediment delivery to the stream. Landing

BMPs that were evaluated all passed implementation and effectiveness. There were

instances of rilling on some of the landings but no sediment was delivered to the stream.

Condition 15) The North Coast Water Quality Control Board was sent a scoping letter in August 2011.

The letter outlined the location of the project and the proposed action. The letter responding

to scoping received on date outlined analysis and monitoring needs which is addressed in

specialist reports (Hydrology, Fisheries, Soils) and on-the-ground prescriptions. The CWE

analysis used the risk ratio of 1 as a threshold of concern as is established on the KNF. There

are over 50 on-the-ground prescriptions intended to limit impacts to water quality (See

Appendix E of EA and PDF section of EA).

Condition 16) This project is not in a Key Watershed.

Condition 17) There was no additional analysis identified during scoping needed for temporary road

construction.

Condition 18) A Notice of Completion will be sent to the Regional Water Board that states all conditions,

monitoring and reporting was completed and conditions of the waver have been met.

C-1

Appendix C: Riparian Reserve Maps

Figure 2: Alternative 2 Riparian Reserve Project Map

C-2

Figure 3: Alternative 3 Riparian Reserves Project Map

C-3

Figure 4: Alternative 4 Riparian Reserve Project Map

hydrology (water quality) resource...

Documents