Hydrology Report Carr-Tucker Water Development Project

Transcription

1 1 Hydrology Report Carr-Tucker Water Development Project /s/christopher Stewart Date: October 3, 2014 Prepared by: Christopher Stewart, Hydrologist Modoc National Forest /s/ Robinson G. Jeffers Date: January 16, 2015 Revised by: Robinson G. Jeffers For the Modoc National Forest, Doublehead Ranger District

2 2 Purpose and Need for Action The main objectives of the additional water projects would be to: Distribute livestock more evenly across pastures for more uniform utilization of forage. Help draw livestock away from sage-grouse concentration areas. Provide additional sources of water for wildlife into the fall period. Provide additional water sources for fire suppression activities. Tucker and Harvey Jones Wells and troughs would be located in the south end of the Tucker Pasture and the west side of the Chandler Pasture, and may help draw livestock away for the eastern borders of these two pastures where it has been shown sage-grouse tend to congregate and nest. Ganskopp (2001) found that cattle elected to remain within about 1.16 KM (.73 miles) from water sources in the northern Great Basin Experimental range which has conditions similar to the Carr and Tucker Allotments. Other research has demonstrated that animals will travel further if forage in the vicinity of available water becomes depleted. It is reasonable to assume that an area up to 2 miles from the new proposed water facilities may be impacted my concentrations of livestock. The purpose of developing stocking rates, cattle will fully use the area of rangeland within one mile of water, with a 50% reduction in use from one to two miles, and no significant use beyond two miles. Also, provided is an estimate of how many cattle would use each of the well developments. In actuality, other water sources present on the allotment that are already being used as reliable water sources will also have livestock present. Therefore, distribution of livestock across each pasture should be more even, resulting in lower concentrations of livestock at any one water location. As the Harvey Jones and Tucker well projects currently have early season water sources in their vicinities, they would result in late season use of these areas that are currently receiving use only in the spring and early summer. For the Red Lake well project, there would be increased livestock use in an area used only lightly at the current time. Wildland fire responders on the Modoc National Forest use lakes, wells, streams and stock ponds that are displayed on the forest public map to determine closest water sources for fire suppression activities. Many of the water sources that show on the forest map are seasonal and do not hold any measurable amounts of water later in the summer months. Due to the recent drought the majority of the ponds and lakes on the forest map have not held any water this calendar year. Additional water for fire suppression is desirable, especially permanent water sources spread-out on the landscape. The proposed wells would give fire responders four additional reliable water sources to assist with during fire suppression operations. Development of structural range improvements to improve distribution of grazing animals is in conformance with the Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1991) and the Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978 which allows for the construction of range improvements to facilitate livestock management after completion of environmental analyses.

3 3 The purpose of extending the pipeline is to provide a dependable source of water in the east side of the Perez pasture to allow for better livestock grazing distribution and utilization across the pasture and allotment. There is a need for adding the water source because currently there are no reliable surface water sources in the east side of the Perez pasture, and livestock distribution and utilization is more concentrated in other areas that supply dependable sources of water. Several species of wildlife in the area would benefit from a more dependable source of water in the area, especially during periods of drought and in the hotter summer and fall months when most surface water is gone. Affected Environment The proposed project is located approximately four to six miles southwest of Clear Lake Reservoir within the Tucker and Carr Grazing Allotments. The Tucker, Harvey Jones, and Red Lake Wells/Perez Pipeline project is located within the Klamath River Basin, Lost River 4 th field Watershed, the Clear Lake and Copic Bay 5 th field watersheds, and the Clear Lake Inflow South and Double Head 6 th field watersheds. Sixth field watersheds are nested within the larger 5 th field (or HUC5) watersheds. Fifth field watersheds are nested within 4 th 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). The proposed new wells would be located within the Northern California Volcanic-Rock Aquifer. This aquifer covers most of the Modoc Plateau and some of the Cascade Mountains in north east California. These aquifers are not distinct, readily identifiable aquifers because they contain water in fractures, volcanic pipes, tuff beds, rubble zones, and interbedded sand layers, primarily in basalts of Miocene age or younger. Areas in which permeable zones are sufficiently large and interconnected to provide a good source of water to wells are usually found only through exploratory drilling because surficial fracturing might not reflect fracturing in the subsurface (Planert 1995). There are very little ground-water dependent resources in the area of the proposed project. There are no springs in the affected watersheds. All channels and waterbodies (in most cases vernal pools, which are not connected to groundwater) are ephemeral. Clear Lake is the only nonephemeral waterbody; this reservoir is fed mostly by surface water from Boles Creek and is located over four miles away from the proposed project area. Table 1: Attributes of the watersheds effected by the Tucker Wells Project 4th Field Watershed (Name/#) 5th Field Watershed (Name/#) 6th Field Watershed (Name/#) Lost River Clear Lake Copic Bay Clear Lake Inflow South (Red Lake Well) Double Head Mountain (Tucker and Stream Beneficial Uses (Existing) Acres Class 1 Reservoir 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 Species 2, 28,785 III Migration of Aquatic Organisms, 35,298 Spawning

4 4 Harvey Jones Wells) 1 FSM 2500, Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker Existing Conditions The Tucker and Carr Allotments are located within the sage steppe ecosystem. These pastures include upland habitat consisting of primarily western juniper, low sagebrush, basin big sagebrush, bitterbrush, and annual and perennial grass and forb species. The average annual precipitation for this area is inches. 300 cow/calf pairs graze on the Tucker Allotment between May 1 and September 30 each year. 550 cow/calf pairs graze the Carr Allotment each year between April 16 and September 30. Additionally, for the Carr Allotment, dry cows may graze these pastures between October 1 and November 15 if the pasture was rested during the regular grazing season. All of the pastures are managed utilizing a deferred rotation grazing system. Water is sparse across these pastures which mainly rely on runoff to supply water to existing stock ponds. On most years, the stock ponds dry up by mid to late summer. There are a few permanent water sources within each pasture to provide water to livestock, wildlife, and for fire suppression: 1) Faine Well provides water to the north end of the Tucker Pasture; 2) The Doublehead Well supplies water to the south end of the Chandler Pasture and the northwest portion of the Doublehead Pasture; 3) Bob s Well supplies water to the east side of the Doublehead Pasture and northwest portion of the Red Lake Pasture; and 4) A well located at Over the Horizon Backscatter site provides water to the west side of the Lone Pine Pasture and the southwest portion of the Doublehead Pasture (this is the existing well that the proposed Perez Pipeline would connect to). In addition, approximately 1.5 miles of the Chandler Pasture of the Tucker Allotment borders Clear Lake where livestock can access water. Livestock generally utilize forage in those areas nearest to the water sources while the rest of the pastures receive very little use. Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative proposes no change from the existing condition. There would be no new wells installed within the Tucker and Carr Allotments. The existing grazing system would persist; grazing would continue to concentrate around existing water sources. Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects of not installing the proposed wells could result in greater potential for negative impacts to hydrologic resources than the proposed action. This is due to cattle still concentrating around existing water sources and not spreading to other areas within the pastures. 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. In the absence of the proposed wells, cattle would be expected to continue to concentrate their use near existing water sources. This has a greater potential for effects within the riparian conservation areas (RCAs) when combined with other activities. This could potentially lead to removing livestock earlier in the season in order to meet utilization standards.

5 5 Proposed Action Alternative: Under the Proposed Action the Forest Service, in cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Modoc County Resource Advisory Committee, and the California Deer Association would implement four water development projects in the affected pastures within the Carr and Tucker Allotments. Specifically, the proposal includes the following elements: The Tucker Well Project. This project proposes to deepen an existing dry well that is currently approximately 650 feet deep. It is anticipated the well would be drilled to an estimated total of 900-1,100 feet. The well would be outfitted with a submersible pump that would be powered by a portable generator. Water from the well would be pumped to troughs at the wells location, and into a 16,000 above ground metal storage tank from where it would be gravity fed into two existing stock ponds and a series of eleven new troughs ( gallons) placed in the Tucker Pasture (Tucker Allotment) and Harvey Jones Pasture (Carr Allotment). The pipeline would be placed on the surface of the ground. The Harvey Jones Project. This project would result in extending a pipeline from the existing Harvey Jones Well that is located on private land to a small stock pond in the Chandler Pasture of the Tucker Allotment. It is also proposed to place up to five troughs ( gallon) in the vicinity of the stock pond to provide clean water to livestock and wildlife. The pipeline would be placed on the surface of the ground. The Red Lake Well Project. This project includes drilling a well with solar equipment to power a submersible pump. The estimated well depth is feet. Water would be pumped into a 5,000-6,000 gallon above ground storage tank and gravity fed to a series of fourteen new troughs ( gallon) within the Doublehead Pasture of the Tucker Allotment and the Lone Pine and Red Lake Pastures of the Carr Allotment. The pipeline would be placed on the surface of the ground. Perez pipeline project. The proposed pipeline extension would be located in the east sides of the West Radar and Perez pastures of the Carr Allotment. The existing pipeline in the West Radar pasture would be extended south approximately 3870 feet. The majority (3470 feet) of the pipeline would be laid in a highly disturbed area of the West Radar pasture along a fence line and road associated with the Over the Horizon Backscatter Radar site. The remainder of the pipeline (400 feet) would extend south into the Perez pasture. The pipeline would be a few inches in diameter, laid on the ground, with troughs installed at the end of the pipeline extension. There would be no change in livestock grazing management (livestock use levels or grazing system) as a result of implementing this project. Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed action alternative has the potential to temporarily affect aquatic resources; primarily, as a result of digging the new proposed wells. These activities have the potential to disturb soil. 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 BMPs would avoid or minimize potential increases in sediment loads to streams during project implementation. Long term benefits to hydrologic resources are expected as a result of the new water sources. This is due to the greater availability of water would allow cattle to lessen their concentration in the areas around current

6 6 water sources and spread out to utilize more of the pasture. The proposed new wells and troughs would be located upslope and would not be hydrologically connected to any water course; however these wells would be used to fill some existing stock tanks. It is estimated that a total of between 2.3 and 3.2 acre feet of water would be utilized by livestock on an annual basis. These figures were calculated by multiplying the average number of days of livestock use in the pasture with the new development(s) by the number of livestock would be expected to utilize each pasture (½ the full permitted number), and multiplied again by the estimated gallons used daily by a cow to arrive at a gallons/season figure that was then converted to acre feet. The 2.3 acre feet figure assumes a use of 15 gallons/day/cow while the 3.2 acre feet figure assumes that 20 gallons a day are used by a cow. These use figures are from Filley, (2005). These figures also assume each permittee using their full permitted grazing each year and should be considered a maximum. On some years, such as drought years, the permittees would use only a percentage of their permitted use and water use would be correspondently decline. The proposed wells and tank trough systems would have float valves installed to prevent more this amount of water from being pumped. An additional.17 acre feet would be lost by evaporation from the troughs and ponds each season. This evaporation loss is calculated by assuming a 36 evaporation rate on the live waters (troughs and ponds) based on past observations and experience of current and former Modoc National Forest employees. This rate of evaporation is also supported by the NOAA Technical Report NWS-33 (1982) which estimates a season long evaporation rate of 30 for live water. See Carr/Tucker Water Developments- Estimated Water Use, dated 1/16/15, for detailed calculations of water use and evaporation loss. The proposed wells could potentially have some effect on ground water. However, this effect is expected to be negligible due to the area having very few existing well developments and the minimal amount of water that would be pumped. According to the EPA publication, Water Sense- Indoor Water Use in the United States, a family of 4 can utilize 400 gallons per day or 146,000 gallons per year. Therefore, the total maximum amount of water pumped from the proposed wells would be approximately the same as used annually by only 5-7 families, therefore quite low. A wide range of activity-specific BMP s 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 proposed action and the limitations imposed on operations within Streamside Management Zones (SMZ s), and use of activity-specific BMP s. 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. The effects of this alternative in combination with the other activities on federal and private lands would be an increase in long-term benefits to the watersheds. This is due to the greater availability of water in the pastures would allow cattle to lessen concentrations near existing water sources and to spread to other areas that normal receive less use by cattle.

7 7 Looking at groundwater resources the population in this part of California is sparse, and groundwater use is minimal. The potential for development of the ground-water resource could be much greater (Planert 1995). There are very few wells in the vicinity of the proposed project. There is also very little surface water. There are no springs in the affected watersheds. There are also no fish baring intermittent/perennial streams or waterbodies within four miles of the proposed wells. When combined with other groundwater uses in the affected aquifer, this project as proposed would have little effect on ground water or ground water dependent resources. This is due to the very low density of wells in the area, the small amount of water that would be pumped by these proposed wells, and the distance from potentially affected surface waterbodies, springs, and watercourses. 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 (LRMP) as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. This project as proposed is consistent with all the laws, regulation, and policy applicable to hydrologic resources. 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 do not apply because there would be no activities implemented within RCAs. 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 conservation objectives and their associated standards and guidelines. Note: there are no CARs located within or downstream of this project. 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. 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,

8 8 including in stream flows; (3)hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species. 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. 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. 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. 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: 1. 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 (BMP s) 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 BMP s. The following BMP s are appropriate for SMZ development, filtering, and water quality protection: Development of SMZ s, BMP 1.8; Stream course protection, BMP 1.19, Previous forest SMZ direction provided the following widths in slope distance in feet. The values provided in table 5 are used as a guide. Field conditions including stream type and project objectives should dictate the streamside management zone widths. Table 5: SMZ Widths in Feet (Slope Distance) Stream Class % Side Slope Class I Class II Class III Class IV SMZ s are nested inside RCA s and define an equipment exclusion zone immediately adjacent to the streamside for the purpose of 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

9 9 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 SMZ s. Project specific SMZs and RCOs are provided in table 6. Table 6: SMZ and RCA widths (Feet) specific to the Wells Project 6 th SMZ RCA Seeps, Bogs, and Field Watershed Name Width Width Springs Double Head Mountain Non N/A Clear Lake Inflow South None N/A Meadows None N/A None N/A Design Features All proposed activities would be completed outside of RCAs of any natural waterbodies or streamcourses. Pipes would be installed by hand with no earthwork (pipes would be layed on the surface) in some existing man made stock tanks. No ground disturbing activities would occur in these locations. The Perez Pipeline would have some clean gravel placed on top of it as it crosses one roadbed. The entire Perez portion of the project is not located within any RCA or SMZ. No treatments would be implemented within natural waterbody/stream course RCAs or SMZs. 2. Evaluate new proposed management activities within CAR s and RCA s 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 aquatic systems and (2) minimize impacts to habitat for aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant and animal species. No management activities would take place within RCAs, this is not applicable. 3. Identify existing uses and activities in CAR s and RCA s 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 Wells Project. 4. As part of project-level analysis, conduct peer reviews for projects that propose grounddisturbing activities in more than 25 percent of the RCA or more than 15 percent of a CAR. Ground disturbance by the Wells Project is not expected to affect any RCA. There are no CARs located within or downstream of this project. 5. 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. 6. 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.

10 10 Literature Cited California State Water Quality Control Board. May Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region. North Coast Region. Filley, Shelby. August How Much Water Does a Cow Need? Oregon State University Extension Office. Roseburg, Oregon. Jeffers, Rob Evaporation Losses Calculations. Personal . NOAA Technical Report NWS 33 Evaporation Atlas for the Contiguous 48 United States Washington, D.C. June 1982 U. S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service Planert, Michael and John S. Williams US Geological Survey. Ground Water Atlas of the United States, California, Nevada. Publication HA 730-B. Washington D.C. USDA Forest Service FSM Classification of Streams. USDA Forest Service Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, California. USDA Forest Service Water Quality Management for Forest Systems Lands in California Best Management Practices. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, California.

11 USDA Forest Service National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Washington Office. Washington D.C. 11

12 12 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, 2011). 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 shall be implemented. The implementation phase of the BMPs occur after 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 Tucker, Harvey Jones, and Red Lake Wells/Perez Pipeline project is as follows along with a brief summary of what each entails: 1.1 Planning Process

13 13 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. 1.4 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 in the project area have been mapped and are displayed on figure 1. These stream courses are to be protected under BMPs 1.8 and 1.19; 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 same BMPs. Note there are no known springs within the project area. Figure 1: Stream Courses in the Tucker Wells Project Area T u c k e r, H a r v e y J o n e s, a n d R e d L a k e W e l l s - P e r e z P i p e l i n e P r o j e c t : W a t e r s h e d M a p!a D o u b l e H e a d M o u n t a i n C l e a r L a k e I n f l o w S o u t h !A!A!A Proposed Wells!C!C!C!C Proposed Perez Trough Proposed Perez Pipeline Ephemeral Streams q 0 Miles CS 10/2/2014 G Intermittent Streams Springs Waterbodies 6th Field Watersheds 1.5 Limiting Operating Period of Project Activities The objective of this practice is to ensure that operations, including, erosion control work and so forth, are completed in a timely manner, within the time specified. Operations should be scheduled and conducted to minimize erosion and sedimentation when ground conditions are such that excessive rutting and soil compaction would not occur. May 15 to October 15 are the normal operating periods for this project. Operations could be authorized outside of the normal operating period pending field verification of ground conditions. Soil moisture conditions need to be appropriate in order to reduce the effects of operating in wet conditions.

14 14 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 SMZ s are to provide for unobstructed passage of stormflows, control sediment and other pollutants from entering streamcourses, and restore the natural course of any stream as soon as practicable, where diversion of the stream has resulted from management activities. Forest strategy 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 SMZ s. The streamcourses mapped (figure 1) on the Project Area Map provides information for development of watercourse protection maps. No ground disturbing activities would occur in SMZs or RCAs Table 2: Streamside Management Zones (SMZ) widths by Stream Class Stream Class % Side Slope Class I Class II Class III Class IV Maintenance and Operations The objective of this practice is to ensure water-quality protection by providing adequate and appropriate maintenance and by controlling operations. This practice should maintain excavated material and construction areas in a manner which provides for water quality protection by minimizing rutting, side-casting, and blockage of drainage facilities all of which can cause erosion and sedimentation and deteriorating watershed conditions. Figure 1 displays the project areas identified under the Tucker Wells/Perez Pipeline Project. Erosion control measures would be implemented on all proposed construction areas. Erosion control measures could include, but are not limited to cross ditches and cross drains (water bars and rolling dips) and straw waddles. Cross drains must be spaced according to the distances in table 3, maintained in a functioning condition, and placed in locations where drainage would naturally occur (i.e., swales). All soils within the project area have a moderate soil erosion hazard rating.

15 15 Table 3: Cross Drain Requirements (Spacing in Feet) Erosion Hazard Rating % Slope Low Moderate High Very High Water Source Development and Utilization The objective of this practice is to supply water for range while maintaining existing water quality. The three proposed new wells would be installed at: Tucker Well: Sections 25 and 26, T46N, R6E, MDBM Harvey Jones Well: Section 12, T45N, R6E and Sections 6 and 7, T45N, R7E, MDBM Red Lake Well: Section 12, T45N, R7E, MDBM The proposed wells would be located upslope and not located within or hydrologically connected to any drainage (outside of SMZs). All material removed to install the wells would not be located within any SMZs. This material would be stabilized on site by Waterbars, ditches, or straw waddles, or this material would moved off site to a stable location. BMPEP form E16 would be utilized to evaluate implementation on those areas identified for water source development. 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 would be located on landings or roads and would be located outside of SMZs. 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. BMPEP form E12 would be utilized to evaluate implementation on those areas that meet the requirements for servicing and refueling of equipment Erosion Control Plan The objective of this practice is to effectively limit and mitigate erosion and sedimentation from ground-disturbing activities. This BMP has exemptions from requiring an erosion control plan if the project would affect less than 50 square feet in a riparian area and less than 10,000 square feet in a non-riparian area. The Tucker Wells Project falls under this criteria and is therefore exempted from needing a formal erosion control plan. However, all activities would be completed when conditions are dry. All excavated material would be stabilized on site or moved to a stable location. BMP Protection of Wetlands & 8.3 Rangeland Improvements

16 16 The objective of these BMP s are to repair degraded watershed conditions and improve water quality, soil stability, and safeguard water quality potentially affected by livestock grazing. Implementation of these BMP s would occur through rangeland improvements identified in the Grazing Permit, AMP, and/or Annual Operating Instructions. The proposed wells would be rangeland improvements. Establishment and proper maintenance of these proposed facilities would be identified and implemented in the grazing permit, AMP, and/or annual operating instructions for the affect range allotments. 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. BMP 8.1- Range Analysis and Planning The objective of this BMP is to safeguard water quality potentially affected by livestock grazing activities, by preparing allotment management plans that includes measures to protect resource values such as water quality. This BMP would be implemented through the completion of this NEPA process. This project is currently being conducted to analyze the wells as rangeland improvements and their existing and desired conditions to help safeguard water quality and other resource values. BMP Grazing Permit System The objective of these BMP s is to safeguard water quality potentially affected by livestock grazing activities by monitoring and enforcing standards and recognizing rangeland improvement needs that protect water quality. Implementation of this BMP is providing provisions in grazing permits in the project area which include direction to protect water quality. These provisions include systems to move cattle around so they do not over graze one location. This would be implemented by installing the proposed wells and water systems. The proposed wells, pipelines and troughs would provide permanent sources of water for livestock and would facilitate improved livestock distribution. This would reduce concentration of use in sensitive areas within the allotments.

17 17 Errata: April 30, 2014 The original report did not include calculations for additional water needed as a result of evaporation. Water evaporation losses were calculated for and added to the pumping calculations on page 5. All analysis and references to wild horses has been removed. This was included by mistake; there are no wild horses within the allotments affected by this project. Errata: October 3, 2014 Analysis was added for the Perez Pipeline and associated water troughs Analysis of water usage by wildlife was added