Mark Egbert Karen Quidachay Rick Lind, Principal - Susan Britting, Ph.D Barry Callenberger Mike Bryan Dave Thomas Greg Suba Eric Berntsen

Transcription

1 Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District South Fork American River Watershed Stewardship Strategy

2 Acknowledgements This project was made possible by a grant from the California Bay-Delta Authority Ecosystem Restoration Program and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. CALFED Bay Delta Authority. ( National Fish and Wildlife Foundation ( The Stewardship Project resulted in the cooperative efforts and contributions of the South Fork American River Watershed Group, which included the following members: Holly Sheradin (State Water Resources Control Board), Margie Lopez-Read (State Water Resources Control Board), Lori Weber (Regional Water Quality Control Board), James Kimmel (Natural Resources Conservation Service), Chuck Mitchell and Sue Rodman (Eldorado National Forest), Chris Waters and Mike Kirkley (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection), Kevin Roberts and Robert Little (Sierra Pacific Industries), Dave Spiegelberg (El Dorado County Department of Transportation), and the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. Members of the South Fork American River Watershed Group also contributed to the project. Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District (GeorgetownDivideRCD.org)

3 Contributors Mark Egbert is the District Manager for the El Dorado County & Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts. Mr. Egbert served as the principle Project Coordinator for the project involving task development oversight throught the project. Mr. Egbert was responsible for ongoing coordination and collaboration of the South Fork American River Watershed Group, organization development of the Technical Advisory Committee and Water Monitoring Advisory Committee. Karen Quidachay is a Project Manager for Sierra Ecosystem Associates who served as project manager and is the primary author of the Watershed Assessment, Evaluation, and Integration Plan. Ms. Quidachay is an environmental consultant specializing in regulatory compliance and conservation planning. Rick Lind, Principal - Sierra Ecosystem Associates, provided oversight and support for this project. Mr. Lind is the principal of Sierra Ecosystem Associates specializing in California, federal and local environmental regulatory compliance, feasibility evaluations and agency/public consultations. Susan Britting, Ph.D served as the analyst for this project. She designed the spatial analysis, developed tabular data, created maps, and authored sections on vegetation, fire ecology, and methods of analysis. Ms. Britting is a biological consultant who works primarily on habitat conservation and land management policy in foothill and forest environments. Barry Callenberger served as the fire management specialist for the project and the author of the modern fire management strategies section. Mr. Callenberger works as Division Fire Chief for North Tree Fire International specializing in vegetation management and prescribed fire. Mike Bryan, Ph.D provided support and oversight for the Water Quality chapter. Dr. Bryan is the Vice President and Principal Scientist for RBI Inc. Dave Thomas authored the standards and protective measures, water quality data collection efforts, and water quality trends sections of this report. Mr. Thomas has expertise in areas of aquatic toxicity, rapid bioassessment, design of restoration plans for aquatic resources, and the implementation of water quality sampling programs. Greg Suba authored the Water Monitoring Plan and conducted the water quality analysis under Task 5 through collaboration with the Water Monitoring Advisory Committee. Mr. Suba is a water quality monitoring specialist working with several monitoring groups throughout the upper and lower American river watersheds. Eric Berntsen is the Project Coordinator for the El Dorado County & Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts. As a hydrologist and erosion control specialist, Mr. Berntsen authored the Pollution Prevention, Watershed Restoration, and Urban Effects (appendix B) sections of the report.

4 Table of Contents Watershed Assessment Chapters 1-5 Page 1.0 Introduction Background Stewardship Project Summary Stewardship Project Goals and Objectives Project Overview Identification of Priorities Project Benefits Introduction to the Watershed Assessment Limitations of the Watershed Assessment Environmental Setting Introduction Overview of the American River Watershed Overview of the Project Area Flow Patterns Water Movement: Source, Timing, and Volume Jurisdictions Land Uses Land Ownership and Management The Eldorado National Forest The Bureau of Land Management The California Department of Forestry and Fire Sierra Pacific Industries The American River Conservancy Sacramento Metropolitan Utilities District The El Dorado Irrigation District The City of Placerville El Dorado County Natural and Cultural Resources of the South Fork American River Major Transportation Routes Economic Indicators El Dorado County Communities of the South Fork American River Fuels Management Introduction The Ecological Role of Fire Patterns Through Time: Fire Frequency Patterns Across the Landscape: Fire and Vegetation Shrubland Cover Type: Foothill and Montane Chaparral Hardwoods Cover Type: Oak and Grey Pine Woodland i

5 Table of Contents (continued) Conifer Cover Type: Sierran Mixed Conifer, Ponderosa Pine, Ref Fir, and Jeffrey Pine Noxious Weeds Past and Present Fire Management Strategies Fire Management by Native Californians Modern Fire Management Strategies Pre Post Current Suppression Options Fire Hazard Analysis Phase 1: Predicting the Likelihood of Future Fires Phase 2: Predicting the Effects of Future Fires Natural Resources Economic Resources Social Resources Summary of Resource Analysis The Nexus Between Resource Values and Fuel Hazard Water Quality Introduction Standards and Protective Measures Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan) National Toxics Rule (NTR) and California Toxics Rule (CTR) Non-Point Source Pollution Storm Water Programs Water Quality Data Collection Efforts in the Project Area El Dorado Irrigation District Project American River Watershed Sanitary Survey El Dorado County Water Agency Water Program Sacramento Municipal Utilities District City of Placerville The American River Conservancy El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide RCD Eldorado National Forest Water Quality Trends and Data Gaps Erosion Hazard and Risk Assessment Soil Movement and Erosion Analysis Results The Interface Introduction ii

6 Table of Contents (continued) 5.2 The Overlap Priority Sub-Basins Remaining Sub-Basins Application of the Priority Sub-Basins Next Steps Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Methodology Attribute Data for all Sub-basins Participants in the South Fork American River Watershed Group and the Technical Advisory Committee LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Goals and Sub-goals for the South Fork American River Stewardship Project Focus Questions Stream Gages in the Project Area Ownership in the South Fork American River Watershed Historic Fire Return Intervals Compared to 20 th Century Patterns Acres of Specific Cover Types Burned in the Project Area in 20 th Century Percentage of Each Habitat Type Classified As Moderate, High, or Very High Risk Threatened of Endangered Species at Risk in the South Fork American River Watershed Sub-Basins with the Highest Fuel Ranks and Greatest Number of Resource Values Current RWQCB Water Quality Objectives Applicable to the South Fork American River Watershed Constituent Monitored in Hangtown Creek Immediately above and below the City of Placerville s Hangtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Summary of subbasins with highest score for sedimentation iii

7 LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Regional Setting Process Graphic Priority Issues Identified by the South Fork American River Watershed Group Project Area Elevation and Precipitation Stream Gages Comparison of Average Daily Flow from compared to at Stream Gage 2 (see Figure 2.3) on the South Fork near Camino Comparison of Flow Patterns for six Stream Gage Stations in the Project Area for the Year Hourly Water Flow for Four Days in 2002 from Gage 1 on the South Fork American River below Chili Bar Land Ownership Cover Types Distribution of Fire Hazard Selected Biological Values Selected Economic Values Selected Social Values Nexus Between Extreme Fuel Ranks and Resource Values Water Quality Risk Overlap Between Resource Values/High Fuel Rank and Risk of Sedimentation iv

8 Table of Contents Watershed Evaluation Evaluation of Existing Watershed Conditions Chapters Introduction Overview of Task 3 Watershed Evaluation Project Summary Sub-task 3.3 Watershed Evaluation Goals and Objectives CALFED s Primary Objectives and Solution Principles Introduction to the Watershed Evaluation Limitations of the Watershed Evaluation Economic Setting Introduction Economic Trends in the Sierra Nevada North Central Sierra Nevada Economic Trends in El Dorado County Population and Development Trends Labor Major Commodities Key Stakeholders and Potential Partners Introduction The Stakeholders Overview of Jurisdictions Function of Key Stakeholders Federal Agencies State Agencies City and County Agencies Non-Profit Organizations Water Purveyors and Industry Summary Conclusions Next Steps v

9 LIST OF TABLES 6.1 Goals and Sub-goals for the Agency Review Sub-task Agricultural Value By Product Type for 1997, 1998, and Agricultural Value By Product Type for 2000, 2001, and Ownership in the South Fork American River Watershed LIST OF FIGURES 6.0 Project Area Populations of the SFAR+ Communities.7-8 vi

10 Table of Contents Watershed Integration Plan Chapters Page 10.0 Introduction Task Overview Coordinated Resource Management Planning Project Background The Stewardship Project The Watershed Assessment The Watershed Evaluation Overview of Task 4- Draft Integration Plan and Stewardship Strategy Consistency with CALFED s Solution Principles and Primary Objectives Introduction to the Draft Integration Plan and Stewardship Strategy Limitations of the Draft Integration Plan and Stewardship Strategy Synthesis of Priority Sub-Basins and Stakeholder Interests Introduction Methodology Used to Define the Five Focus Areas Selection of Focus Areas Selection of Focus Area Selection of Focus Area Environmental Setting within Focus Areas Focus Area Focus Area Focus Area Focus Area Background Requirements for an Irrigated Lands Waiver (Ag Waiver) Irrigated Lands Waiver and the SFAR Watershed Stewardship Project Irrigated Lands Waiver and El Dorado County Crops Grown, Production Practices, Chemicals Used and Application Methods Focus Area Stewardship Programs and Opportunities Within the Five Focus Areas Political Trends and Funding Opportunities in the priority Focus Areas Introduction Integration Plan Summary Introduction Summary Next Steps vii

11 Table of Contents (continued) Appendix A Appendix B Participants in the Technical Advisory Committee Hydrologic Changes from Urbanization LIST OF TABLES 10.1 Goals and Sub-goals for Task Top Land Uses in Focus Area Top Land Uses in Focus Area Top Land Uses in Focus Area Crops Grown in El Dorado County by Acreage The Top Five Pesticides used in El Dorado County Typical Pests and Pest Control Practices for Apple and Pear Producers in EDC NRCS Recommended Practices Describing Effects on Water Quality Existing Stewardship programs Within the SFAR Watershed Funding Sources Available for Stewardship of the SFAR Watershed LIST OF FIGURES 11.1 Focus Area Focus Area Focus Area Focus Area viii

12 Table of Contents Water Quality Data Analysis Chapters Page 14.0 Introduction Task Overview Water Quality Data Collection and Analysis Methods Project Background Existing Water Quality Data Presented by Priority Sub-basin Big Sailor Creek South Fork Weber Creek Hangtown Creek Indian Creek Iowa Canyon Creek Kelley Creek Long Canyon Creek New York Creek North Fork Weber Creek Shaw Mine Creek Traverse Creek Existing Water Quality Assessment Big Sailor Creek South Fork Weber Creek Hangtown Creek Indian Creek Iowa Canyon Creek Kelley Creek Long Canyon Creek New York Creek North Fork Weber Creek Shaw Mine Creek Traverse Creek Next Phase Addressing the Goals and Objectives of the SFAR Watershed Monitoring Program Identifying water quality issues contributing to current water quality degradation Designing an approach that will address the causes of and provide solutions to water quality problems ix

13 LIST OF TABLES 14.1 Eleven Priority Sub-basins with Crude Score criteria Eleven Priority sub-basins and their tributaries to the South Fork American River SFAR stakeholder groups from whom data was solicited and/or collected Pesticide Snapshot Monitoring Day Results Summary of HCWWTP effluent and receiving water monitoring results for February 2002-January Oct 1989 Iowa Canyon Creek siltation incident report data summary x

14 Table of Contents Watershed Stewardship in Action Chapter 18 Page 18.0 Watershed Stewardship in Action Developing Watershed Advocacy Watershed Education Watershed Awareness Personal Stewardship Professional Training and Engagement Watershed Maintenance and Pollution Prevention EDC General Permit for MS4s Watershed Planning Public Education and Outreach Construction Site and Post-construction Runoff Agricultural Irrigated Lands Waiver Program Sediment Reduction Strategy Fuel Load Reduction Strategy Data Management and Capacity Building Watershed Restoration References Appendix xi

15 SOUTH FORK AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP PROJECT Watershed Assessment February 2003 Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District

16 South Fork American River Watershed Stewardship Project Watershed Assessment February 2003 Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District

17 Chapter 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background The South Fork American River Stewardship Project (Stewardship Project) was designed by the Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District in response to growing concerns for the ecological conditions and sustainability of the South Fork American River watershed. The primary objectives of the Stewardship Project include the protection and improvement of water quality and a reduction of fuel loading to decrease the threat of broad scale catastrophic wildfire. Other benefits include the restoration and protection of riparian and aquatic habitats and mitigation of growth related environmental impacts. Ultimately the project will result in onthe-ground restoration programs such as fire hazard reduction and water quality improvement projects. This Stewardship Project is intended to work in concert with existing programs headed by the land management agencies in the adjacent Placer and Sacramento Counties. The project is also designed to integrate with fire and water quality management strategies developed by the United States Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest the primary landholder in the upper reaches of the watershed. By working with these organizations, the project addresses ecological functioning of the entire upper American River watershed and it confronts some of the watershed's more complex, and far-reaching environmental issues, such as water quality and catastrophic wildfire. Solutions to these issues can only be resolved through broad scale efforts that reach beyond the watershed. Such solutions, however, also have far reaching benefits (e.g. downstream improvements to water quality). Figure 1.1 provides an overview of the region. The Stewardship component is the cornerstone and basis of this project. The project is planned with the understanding that efforts to sustain intact ecosystems will be fruitless without the support of local landowners, ranchers, vineyards, and private timber companies as well as government agencies entrusted with natural resource management of the region. As such, the project is designed to benefit both the natural ecosystems found within the watershed as well as the people who live in the watershed. Accordingly, participation from local businesses, industry, and landowners is invited and encouraged as the project provides a forum where all interested parties can voice their concerns and provide direction and oversight to the project. In September 1999, the Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District received funding from the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program and administrative support from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to implement the South Fork American River Watershed Stewardship Project. CALFED is a cooperative effort of more than 20 state and federal agencies working with local communities to improve the quality and reliability of California's water supplies and to provide funding for habitat restoration. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation offers support for conservation education, habitat protection and restoration, and natural resource management by creating partnerships between the public and private sectors. In addition, the El Dorado County Resource Conservation District has been an active partner in this effort. 1-1

18 County Nevada County Yuba Placer County Sutter County Figure 1.1 South Fork American River Watershed Regional Setting ', 80 (/89 (/49 Lake Tahoe Placer County El Dorado County Auburn ', 80 (/50 Folsom Lake Placerville Alpine County El Dorado County Sacramento Sacramento County El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (/49 The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps. Ama (/88 dor County American River Basin Project Area Miles N

19 1.2 Stewardship Project Summary This section presents an overview of the entire Stewardship Project including detailed descriptions of the six tasks included within the project. This Watershed Assessment (WA) completes the second task of the larger project, which is a three year undertaking. The subsequent section will describe in detail our approach to the Watershed Assessment Stewardship Project Goals and Objectives The main objectives of the Stewardship Project are threefold: 1. Identify and prioritize current watershed issues and resources; 2. Collect and make available data and information regarding these resources, and; 3. Develop a Stewardship Plan that identifies specific projects to improve the condition of the South Fork American River watershed. Table 1.1 outlines the vision, goals, and objectives of the project. This table serves as a wish list for the long-term status of the SFAR watershed. As such, it helps to visualize the potential long-term project benefits Project Overview The project goals and objectives will be accomplished through the implementation of six tasks to be carried out over a three year period. These six tasks can be summarized into three phases of the project the Watershed Assessment (Tasks 1 and 2), the Watershed Evaluation (Task 3) and the Stewardship Plan (Tasks 4, 5 and 6). Figure 1.2 provides a graphic overview of these three phases with a summary of the major accomplishments under each phase of the project. The following paragraphs include detailed descriptions of each component of the project: Task 1 - Project Management and Scoping: The primary goals of Task 1 are the development of a watershed advisory group, stakeholder scoping, and the identification and prioritization of resource issues. This ongoing task also provides administration, leadership, and direction to the project. Task 2 - Watershed Assessment: This report completes Task 2 of the project. Task 2 will produce a Watershed Assessment that will identify priority sub-basins for watershed improvement projects. The primary intent of the Watershed Assessment is to identify where projects are needed. The subsequent tasks will outline ideas for specific types of both simple and complex watershed projects. Task 3 - Watershed Evaluation: Task 3 will produce a Watershed Evaluation by taking the information and results of the Watershed Assessment and placing it into the political/community context. The Watershed Evaluation report will describe the political and social setting of the watershed including projects that other organizations are currently implementing in the watershed. This report will outline potential partners and funding sources to restore the priority sub-basins as identified in the Watershed Assessment. Task 4 - Draft Integration Plan and Stewardship Strategy: This task will produce a Stewardship Plan that describes specific projects to restore the watershed. Task 5 - Watershed Monitoring: This task will result in volunteer monitoring programs. A technical committee will be used to design a volunteer monitoring strategy and coordinate with stakeholder groups, civic organizations, schools and clubs, to enlist volunteer monitoring groups. 1-3

20 Table 1.1 Goals and Sub-goals for the South Fork American River Watershed Stewardship Project Goal 1: Data on current and existing conditions of the SFAR watershed is collected, organized, housed at the local RCD office and made available to the public upon request. Sub-goals The Georgetown Divide RCD maintains an updated library of natural resource data concerning the South Fork American River. The data collected for the project provides a baseline understanding used to focus and guide other watershed restoration activities. Data is utilized by a variety of organizations and individuals including teachers, commercial timber companies, county planners, residents, and other nearby RCDs for all kinds of cooperative grassroots projects. The Georgetown Divide RCD has the funds, space, and equipment to maintain and update the database. Goal 2: Residents of El Dorado County have access to an educational tool to increase their understanding of the SFAR watershed processes and terminology and a forum to voice their concerns. Sub-goals Local landowners in the watershed have ongoing access to information about the watershed and a forum to voice their concerns for natural resources in the SFAR watershed. Participation in the SFAR Watershed Group comes from diverse groups representing a variety of interests. The SFAR Watershed Group is conducted through consensus building and differences of opinion are always discussed politely. Goal 3: There is a substantial reduction in the risk of catastrophic fires in the watershed. Sub-goals All of the sub-basins in the watershed identified as priorities have undergone treatment and the threat of catastrophic wildfire is significantly reduced. Fire is re-introduced into fire dependent vegetation types such as chaparral, ponderosa pine, and mixed-conifer. All landowners in the SFAR watershed understand how to protect their land from fire in an ecologically sound manner and have access to the means to implement fire protection projects. Goal 4: There is substantial improvement to water quality in the South Fork American River watershed. Sub-goals Baseline data is collected for all water quality parameters and data collection points are distributed evenly across the watershed. Data collection efforts are implemented in all identified problem areas of the watershed. Problem roads/culverts are improved and road restoration projects are implemented in an ecologically friendly manner. Unwanted pollution and run-off is reduced to the greatest extent practicable. All landowners in the SFAR watershed understand how to improve run-off and water quality of the SFAR. 1-4

21 South Fork American River Project Planning Process and Timeline Focused on identifying increased risks of: Wildfire Sedimentation Prioritizes areas for further evaluation. Evaluate opportunities to develop programs and projects focusing on reducing the risk of wildfire and sedimentation in the priority areas identified in the Create a plan to implement specific programs and projects selected from those identified in the Watershed Evaluation. Watershed Assessment Watershed Evaluation Stewardship Plan Complete Watershed Assessment by February, 2003 Complete Watershed Evaluation by October, 2003 Complete Stewardship Plan by May, 2004 Figure 1.2 Process Graphic

22 Task 6 - Integrated Watershed Stewardship Strategy: This task will result in a Watershed Stewardship Strategy that will lay out a plan for watershed restoration and conservation. Committees will be formed for each of the major sub-watersheds Identification of Priorities In November 2000, the Georgetown Divide RCD organized the first meeting of the South Fork American River Watershed Group (SFARWG) and the group continues to meet on a monthly basis. Participants represent a wide variety of interests including private landowners, government agencies, and non-profit organizations (Appendix C includes a table showing participants in the SFARWG). This round-table offers a means for all interested citizens to express their concerns for natural resources of the watershed and to provide input into the Stewardship Project. One of the first milestones of the SFARWG was to develop a Mission Statement: To protect and improve the health and condition of the South Fork American River watershed through stewardship and education to a measurable extent. The group also worked to solicit more interest and support for the Stewardship Project through the media and by developing a comprehensive mailing list to improve the diversity of the group and their outreach potential. In the spring of 2001, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed to help augment the efforts of the SFARWG. The TAC acts as a subcommittee of the larger SFAR Watershed Group by reviewing and making recommendations to the larger group. The TAC also assists the SFARWG with outreach, education, and funding opportunities. Includes representatives from different interests in the watershed. Provides updates on the progress of the project at SFARWG meetings. Meetings will be open and everyone is encouraged to attend. Decisions will be based on consensus between the participants. If consensus cannot be reached, the TAC will present the issue to the SFARWG for review. The TAC will operate under the same ground rules as the SFARWG. The identification of Priority Resource Issues and the detailed list of Focus Questions remain two of the most important accomplishments of the SFARWG to date. The issue selection process identified runoff management (water quality) and fuels management as the top two priorities in the watershed. The following paragraphs outline the steps taken to identify these two top priority resource issues. Issue Selection Process: The initial scoping for this process began in November Issue scoping was conducted between March and April 2001 and it listed 29 issues of concern identified by participants in the SFARWG. On June 21, sixteen members of the SFARWG helped prioritize the issue list by identifying the issues of most concern to them in the watershed. After discussing the information collected from the SFARWG participants, the TAC selected water quality and fuel load reduction as the focus of the watershed assessment for the South Fork American River watershed. The TAC wanted to address issues that were within the scope of the Stewardship Project (i.e. issues that can be addressed within the timeframe of the grant). In order to avoid duplication of efforts, the TAC did not consider issues that are being addressed by other groups within the watershed. As stated in the TAC Role & Organization document (2000), the TAC functions under the following guidelines: 1-6

23 Figure 1.3 includes a list of bar graphs showing the order of issues identified by the SFARWG on June 21, After determining the priorities, the SFARWG then came up with a list of questions the group wanted answered as part of this Stewardship Project. Table 1.2 provides a list of the questions developed by the SFARWG. Some of the questions will be addressed in this Watershed Assessment and others will be addressed in the Watershed Evaluation and the Stewardship Plan. However, the questions will be addressed only in the context of fuels management and water quality/sedimentation Potential Benefits This project will identify where specific on-theground projects in the watershed are needed to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire and to improve water quality of the South Fork American River. However, the potential benefits reach beyond the Georgetown Divide and El Dorado County Resource Conservation District (RCD) to outside agencies and organizations. By making the data collected for this project available to, for example, local landowners and commercial timber operations, the project will substantially increase the economic feasibility of fire hazard reduction projects thereby creating a foundation for numerous potential partnerships and costsharing agreements. In addition to the local information, resource management, and community benefits of this project, fuels management and water quality improvement projects will yield benefits to downstream parties and in-stream resources dependent on the water supplies of the SFAR watershed. Water purveyors and all end users of water who are dependent on Folsom Lake, American River, and Sacramento River water supplies, and lower American River recreation and special-status fish species will realize various levels and types of benefits of improved SFAR watershed management efforts. Through improved fire resiliency and water quality, this project will also result in beneficial effects extending beyond El Dorado County. For example, the project has the potential to reduce the threat of higher peak flows and sediment loads potentially caused by catastrophic fires that can block culverts and result in road wash outs and scouring. Richard Kattlemann (1996) discusses the increased risk of sedimentation after catastrophic fire: In general, sediment loads increase markedly after fires, particularly if riparian vegetation was burned. Most of the sediment response seems to be from channels themselves. In the absence of streamside vegetation, soil particles move into the channels from dry-ravel erosion, and the banks become less stable. The USFS (1996) also outlines the potential impacts of large-scale catastrophic fires as follows: High intensity burned areas exhibit characteristics such as loss of riparian area vegetation, loss of organic material within stream channels, development of hydrophobic (water repellant) soils, loss of ground cover and loss of canopy cover. Unlike large-scale catastrophic fires, fuels management and fire restoration projects can pick and choose disturbance areas thereby reducing the threat of catastrophic impacts to more sensitive areas such as riparian zones and areas susceptible to soil erosion. In short, improved fire resiliency in the project area will help protect far away communities by decreasing the chances that a conflagration will erupt leaving the entire upper American River watershed vulnerable to erosion during heavy rains from the movement of sediment and soil washing into drainages and reservoirs. 1-7

24 Figure 1.3 Priority Issues Total votes for each resource issue identified at the South Fork of the American River Watershed Group meeting June 21, 2001 Resource Issue water quality fuel load reduction invasive weeds erosion control roads urban run-off wildlife needs fisheries sedimentation resource issue conflict watershed management water data healthy forests water recreation storm water patterns agricultural conversions T&E species pesticide use recreation development agricultural education mercury contamination groundwater supply social/ cultural interests non-native vegetation epidemics $ for watershed interests natural disasters TMDL Total Votes

25 Table 1.2: Focus Questions Developed by the South Fork American River Watershed Group FIRE A. What are the areas of risk for catastrophic wildfire? 1) What are the fuel conditions in the basin today? 2) What regions in the basin are at high or very high risk of experiencing wildfire? 3) What assets (e.g. human, natural) in the basin are at risk of loss due to wildfire? 4) How does this risk vary across the basin? 5) What are the current strategies for wildfire management? B. What is the fire history of the SFAR watershed? 1) What was pre-settlement fire history? C. What is the relationship between the distribution of noxious weeds and fuel loading in the SFAR watershed? 1) What invasive weed species are critical to fuels management? D. What are the available habitat types and associated wildlife in the SFAR watershed? E. What species live in the SFAR watershed? 1) What is the distribution of these habitat types? Are habitats or species at risk of loss/degradation due to fire risk/hazard or nonpoint source pollution? F. What are the regulatory and incentive based programs that address fuels management and non-point source pollution in the basin today? G. Are there existing planning processes addressing fuel load management in the basin? WATER A. Does water quality in the SFAR watershed meet State Water Resources Control Board Basin Plan standards? 1) What is the water quality trend? B. What are the flow patterns for all the reaches in the SFAR basin? 1) What is the flow trend? C. Are there existing planning processes addressing non-point source pollution in the basin? LAND USE A. What is road density in the SFAR watershed? 1) How is road density distributed within the basin? 2) What is the relationship between roads and streams? 3) What is the relationship between roads, streams, and steep slopes? 4) What is the density and distribution of stream crossings in the basin? B. In what condition are the roads in the basin? C. What problem areas have been identified by other agencies? D. What are the road standards used by the different management agencies in the basin? E. What is population density for the SFAR watershed? 1) How is it distributed? 2) What is the relationship between population/housing density and the reaches in the SFAR basin? F. What is the availability of a land use map? 1) Can the likely impacts of future land use on increased fire hazard/risk or nonpoint source pollution be estimated? G. What role do local, state, and federal agencies play in administering these regulations or programs? ECOLOGY A. What is a healthy forest? 1) What is a healthy oak/pine woodland or chaparral community? 2) What is a healthy riparian community? 3) What ecological processes are important to maintaining healthy plant communities? 4) What role does resilience play in sustaining healthy ecosystems? 5) Are forests/woodlands/shrub/riparian communities healthy in the watershed? 6) What areas in the basin are outside the expected range of variability? 7) Are there rare or uncommon habitat types or species in the basin? RECREATION A. What are the types of recreation, how much and where does it occur in the SFAR watershed? 1) Does recreation contribute to non-point source pollution? 2) Is there a relationship between recreation and ignition of wildfire? 1-9

26 The project will also facilitate numerous watershed restoration activities by providing the necessary background information, management guidelines, project priorities, and environmental data for their implementation. Some of these activities may include baseline water quality data collection efforts and the conservation and monitoring of areas where water quality is thought to be good. 1.3 Introduction to the Watershed Assessment This Watershed Assessment lays the foundation for the next phase of the project - the Watershed Evaluation and it is the starting point for all subsequent project tasks. Ultimately, the information outlined herein will form the basis for the Stewardship Plan which will lead to specific restoration projects. The report is focused on the top two priority resource issues identified by the SFAR Watershed Group and the Technical Advisory Committee: 1. the state of fire hazard and risk and the factors that contribute to increased risk and hazard; and 2. the state of water quality and the factors that contribute to the impairment of water quality due to increased sedimentation. Accordingly, this report describes in detail the physical, commercial, and cultural conditions within the South Fork American River Watershed that contribute to increased fire hazard/risk and increased water quality degradation; however, where relevant, it also addresses other resource issues identified by the group as they relate to fuels and water quality (see Table 1.2 and Figure 1.3). The absence of comprehensive water quality monitoring for the watershed makes it difficult to determine exactly where water quality is degraded. As such, we decided for the second part of the analysis to determine those areas at greatest risk of experiencing water quality impacts resulting from increased sedimentation. Sedimentation was identified as an important issue by the SFARWG and it was one of the parameters that we could address using existing data. There are a number of reasons for this focused approach on water quality and fuels management within the watershed including: 1) the Georgetown RCD determined it will be able to accomplish more by remaining focused and concentrating resources and energy into the two top issue areas; 2) the implementation of restoration projects that provide on-the-ground relief from catastrophic wildfire and improvement to water quality will result in a net long-term benefit to virtually all other resources of the watershed and to the downstream resources and purveyors dependent upon South Fork American River water supplies, and; 3) the concern for catastrophic wildfire and water quality is shared by nearly every group and individuals interested in the watershed. The broad concern for these issue areas makes it easier to form partnerships and pool resources with other agencies and organizations to tackle the problems facing El Dorado County. This Watershed Assessment attempts to answer two critical questions regarding fuel load reduction: 1) Where is the risk? and 2) What is at risk? The assessment also identifies the top sub-basins in the watershed at risk of increased sedimentation. In addition, the report addresses the Focus Questions developed by the SFARWG presented in Table 1.2. As such, the assessment includes discussions of the Flow Patterns (section 2.3.1) and other more general water quality issues as described in sections 4.2 through 4.4. These focus questions are addressed primarily through the use of existing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) that have been developed by local, state and federal resource management agencies. For each issue, the WA evaluates the existing condition of the various sub-basins in the SFAR watershed, assesses the risk or trend in each basin, and prioritizes subbasins identifying which have the greatest 1-10

27 potential to experience adverse effects from wildfire or to water quality. This WA is a compilation and integration of a variety of materials and data that characterize the unique setting within the watershed. The assets are measured through a variety of means including descriptions of current land uses, the economy, recreation, and cultural resources of the area as well as existing data describing the vegetation, slope, aspect, soils, and biological resources located in the watershed. This Watershed Assessment is laid out in four principal sections and three appendices, as follows: Chapter Environmental Setting: This chapter outlines the overall setting of the project including geography, climate, and natural resources found within the project area. Chapter Fuels Management: This chapter describes the fire history and management practices that led to the need for this Stewardship Project. It also prioritizes the sub-basins based on various risk factors. Chapter Water Quality: This chapter outlines water quality standards and protective measures and it identifies likely problem areas and data gaps for water quality. Sub-basins are also prioritized for sedimentation risk based on risk factors. Chapter The Interface: This chapter integrates fuels and water quality issues and identifies the very highest priority subbasins in need of management action and/or restoration projects. It also introduces the Watershed Evaluation. Appendix A: Methodology Appendix B: Attribute Data for all Subbasins Appendix C: Participants in the South Fork American River Watershed Group and the Technical Advisory Committee References 1.4 Limitations of the Watershed Assessment While this Watershed Assessment does provide general descriptions of the natural resources of the South Fork American River watershed, we did not collect any new data. This Watershed Assessment is based solely on existing information and databases produced by others, and it represents a synthesis of this information. As discussed in Appendix A, Methodology, we utilized data generated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire (CDF), for example, and selected, by sub-basin, information about the project area in order to describe more accurately the qualities of the specific project area. However, all of the maps and figures herein were produced using the existing data and mapping. Our reliance on existing data limited this analysis in some key ways. For example, the absence of comprehensive water quality data pertaining to sedimentation for the watershed limited our ability to identify in a relative or absolute sense where water quality is degraded. 1-11

28 Chapter 2.0 Environmental Setting 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes the general environmental conditions of the South Fork American River watershed. Because this is a focused Watershed Assessment, the discussion is limited to topics relevant to the Fuels Management and Water Quality analyses. The chapter begins with an overview of the entire American River watershed followed by a more detailed discussion of the project area. 2.2 Overview of the American River Watershed The American River watershed encompasses over 2,264 square miles with three main forks North, Middle, and South. The American River (American) is one of a dozen major rivers that drain the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. The American is a relatively large watershed situated between the smaller Cosumnes River basin to the south and the Yuba River basin to the north. The headwaters of the North and Middle Forks are located mainly in the Tahoe National Forest and the headwaters of the South Fork are located mainly in the Eldorado National Forest. The Middle Fork marks the dividing line between the Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests in the higher elevations and between Placer and El Dorado Counties in the lower elevations. The elevation of the watershed ranges from about 10,000 feet at the headwaters to about sea level at it s terminus with the Sacramento River. The American is considered a relatively high elevation river compared to other nearby watersheds (El Dorado County 1994). This geographic feature of the watershed has strong implications for water management because much of the precipitation falls as snow in the higher elevations which extends run-off later into the spring and early summer months. From the headwaters, the three forks of the American River descend through steep canyons characterized by pine forests and exposed bed rock. Channels are complex, with substrates dominated by bedrock pools, boulders and cobble. In the middle elevations, the river descends through the steep hill country where stream gradients are reduced, but channels are still complex and dominated by boulder and cobble substrates with frequent bedrock pools. Finally, the river drops into the Central Valley and joins the Sacramento River near downtown Sacramento. The American River is the largest contributor of runoff to the Sacramento River. It produces a runoff volume of 2.8 million acre-feet (MAF) per year, or about one-sixth of the total outflow of the Sacramento River (17.9 MAF) (California Water Atlas 1979). Of the 2.8 MAF, most runoff is produced from the foothill and mountain regions of El Dorado and Placer counties where topographic influences of the Sierra Nevada produce large volumes (well over 40 inches) of rainfall and snowmelt runoff in the higher elevations. The flood cycle of the American and its three forks is regulated by numerous hydroelectric, water supply, and flood control projects. These projects provide electricity and water for the growing Sacramento area and flood control to the downstream urban areas which would otherwise be regularly flooded during the winter months. The lower reaches of the watershed are predominantly urban, which continues to grow with the expanding greater Sacramento area. Rural residential development in the foothills is encroaching primarily along the highway corridors. The Sacramento area including El Dorado and Placer Counties is one of the fastest growing regions in California (Sierra Business Council 1999). This fast-paced growth serves to both complicate and create a greater urgency for water quality and fire management. These issues will be discussed more in the following chapters. 2-1

29 Occasionally large amounts of precipitation fall in the upper reaches of the American watershed as the clouds, blowing east from the Pacific Ocean, lift over the Sierra Nevada causing a rain shadow effect on the eastern slope of the mountain range. On rare occasions snow falls below 2,000 feet elevation, and between 2,000 to 5,000 feet the snow falls do not form significant snowpack. Snowfall is common above 5,000 feet, and is retained into the spring. 2.3 Overview of the Project Area The project area includes the entire 537,166 acres (about 840 square miles) of the South Fork American River watershed. This watershed extends from the headwaters at the Sierra Crest, at about 9,900 feet, downstream to the terminus at the convergence with Folsom Reservoir, maximum elevation 480 feet (see Figure 2.1). The project boundary incorporates 81 subbasins. The boundaries of these sub-basins are delineated by topographic divides such as ridge tops. The project boundary includes all of the tributaries that drain into the South Fork American River and corresponding portion of Folsom Reservoir. The project boundary is based on the California Watershed Map (Calwater version 2.2) which is a set of watershed boundaries meeting standardized delineation criteria. Primary purposes for Calwater 2.2 include but are not limited to mapping, reporting, and statistical analysis of water resources, water supply, water quality, wildlands, agriculture, spoils, forests, rangelands, fish habitat, wildlife habitat, crossreferencing state and federal hydrologic unit or watershed codes and names. More information about these boundaries can be obtained from the State of California Spatial Information Library website. across the Shingle Springs area. Finally, the western project boundary approaches the El Dorado County line and includes portions of the community of El Dorado Hills. The annual average precipitation within the project area varies greatly depending on elevation. In the higher elevations, near the headwaters, annual average precipitation generally ranges between 65 to 75 inches at the Sierra Crest (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 1990). In the middle elevation areas of the watershed, near State Highway 49, precipitation ranges between 35 and 45 inches per year while in the lower elevations, near Folsom Reservoir average precipitation drops to about 22.5 to 27.5 inches per year (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 1990). See Figure 2.2. According to the El Dorado County River Management Plan (2001) approximately 40 percent of the full length of the South Fork above Folsom Reservoir is located above 5,000 feet in elevation. Precipitation often falls as snow in these higher elevations with a maximum accumulation generally occurring about April 1 (El Dorado County 2001). At elevations above 6,000 feet, the winter snowpack persists until the warm weather and spring snowmelt occurs usually from about March to June. This snowpack accumulation prolongs spring run-off later into the early summer months which, in turn helps make the South Fork and it s watershed conducive to large-scale water development projects that require spring run-off later into the summer months when electricity demand and water consumption peaks in California. The northern boundary of the project area is the ridgeline that divides the Middle and the South Forks of the American River watersheds. The eastern project boundary extends to Carson Pass in Alpine County. The southern boundary roughly parallels Iron Mountain Road in the east and Pleasant Valley Road in the west down 2-2

30 Figure 2.1 South Fork American River Watershed Project Area ', 80 Placer County El Dorado County Auburn GREENWOOD GEORGETOWN Lake Tahoe COOL (/89 PILOT HILL GARDEN VALLEY LOTUS COLOMA KELSEY MOSQUITO PHILLIPS MOUNT RALSTON STRAWBERRY LITTLE NORWAY (/50 Sacramento County EL DORADO HILLS El Dorado County CAMERON PARK RESCUE SHINGLE SPRINGS DIAMOND SPRINGS EL DORADO Folsom Lake (/49 PLACERVILLE OAK HILL CAMINO POLLOCK PINES KYBURZ/SILVER FORK (/88 Ama dor County Alpine County Communities Project Area El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps Miles N

31 South Fork American River Watershed Eleveation and Precipitation Auburn 22.5" ', 80 (/ " (/ 50 35" Placerville 45" 55" 65" 65" 75" (/ 88 75" 55" 75" (/ 89 75" 65" The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps. El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts Project Area County boundaries Elevation (feet) >7, Miles N Figure 2.2

32 The major tributaries contributing flow into the South Fork American River include Silver Creek, Rock Creek, and Weber Creek (El Dorado County 1994). Upstream tributaries include Caples Creek, South Fork Silver Creek, and Jones Fork Silver Creek. There are a number of major water development projects within the project area including: El Dorado Irrigation District, El Dorado Project (FERC Project #184) Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD), Upper American River Project (FERC Project #2101) El Dorado Irrigation District, Weber Reservoir (not operational) Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Chili Bar Project (FERC Project #2155) These large-scale water development projects significantly alter the natural flow regime of the river Flow Patterns In 2001, the El Dorado County Department of General Services published the El Dorado County River Management Plan. This River Management Plan (RMP) focused on whitewater recreation on the 20.7-mile segment of the South Fork American River between Chili Bar Dam, near State Highway 193, and Salmon Falls Road, at the upper extent of Folsom Reservoir. The RMP contains detailed descriptions of the major hydroelectric projects located in the project area and their individual contributions to flow patterns in the project area. The following sections provide a summary of the information contained in the RMP supplemented by data relevant to the upper reaches of the watershed above Chili Bar Reservoir Water Movement: Source, Timing, and Volume For over 150 years the South Fork has been the focus of numerous water development projects ranging from mining ditches to dams for domestic water supply and hydroelectric generation. These water development projects have helped sustain local economic activity within the South Fork communities and they have contributed to economic productivity throughout the entire State of California. These projects have also completely changed the river s natural hydrology and flow regime. As mentioned above, the South Fork watershed contains three major water systems that substantially alter the river s natural flow regime - the El Dorado Project, the Upper American River Project, and the Chili Bar Project. According to the El Dorado County River Management Plan, of these three projects the UARP contributes by far the most significant flows to the South Fork from reservoir releases. Although the wet season in the watershed occurs primarily from about November to March or April with scattered showers throughout the rest of the year, the presence of these dams and associated reservoir releases controls the flow patterns creating a more uniform as opposed to seasonal flow pattern. This results in a more sustained high monthly and mean daily flow during the months of August, September and October than would otherwise occur in a natural or unimpaired state (El Dorado County 2001). The results of the managed flow patterns within the South Fork are similar to other watersheds distributed throughout the Sierra Nevada. Richard Kattelmann (1996) summarizes some of the effects of water management in the Sierra Nevada as follows: Few river systems in the range have natural flow regimes over much of their length. In most river basins, this active management of the water itself affects the annual water balance, temporal distribution, flood hydrology, minimum flows, and water quality much more than any human disturbance of the landscape (Centers for Water and Wildland Resources 1996). 2-5

33 Although flow is regulated throughout much of the watershed, the combination of weather patterns and topography continue to result in stream flows that vary to some degree by season with the highest flows typically occurring from April to June (El Dorado County 1994). Rain, snow and reservoir releases are the primary forms of water supporting stream flows in the South Fork American River watershed. The United States Geological Service (USGS) operates five gaging stations that are distributed throughout the upper reaches of the watershed and Pacific Gas and Electric Company maintains one stream gage station just below Chili Bar Reservoir (Figure 2.3). These gages have been in operation for varying lengths of time (Table 2.1). Gage 2, the longest in operation, has a continuous record of average daily flow dating from This lengthy data set allows the comparison of the natural flow patterns prior to the creation of the water diversion and hydroelectric facilities (pre-1950) to the flow regimes of the present (Figure 2.4). The unimpeded flow from the 1920 s has the expected seasonal pattern for this area with flows gradually rising in April to May with the increased run-off from the snow melt and then declining to July with low flows throughout the summer and fall. Occasional spikes in flow occur that likely correspond to storm events. In contrast, the recent flow patterns lack this gradual seasonal shift. Additionally, today s peak flow rates are about 25 percent of the values recorded in the 1920 s. Differences in rates of flow can be attributed to water diversions, the operation of the hydroelectric facilities, and possibly to changes in climate since the 1920 s. Contemporary patterns of flow also can be compared across these six stream gage sites (Figure 2.5). Typical seasonal shifts are absent from the patterns; rather the patterns of flow reflect the system of water management required to deliver peak power to Sacramento County and to comply with the flow conditions stated in their FERC license to address other resource needs, such as biological and social values. Table 2.1 Stream Gages in the Project Area. Map ID Location Date Installed 1 Chili Bar Reservoir November SFAR near Camino October Brush Ck below Brush Ck. Dam October Silver Ck. below Camino Div. Dam Junction Dam October Silver Ck. below Junction Dam Junction Dam October SF Silver Ck. near Ice House October

34 South Fork American River Watershed Stream Gages Auburn ', 80 (/49 (/89 $ $ $ $ $ $ Placerville (/50 (/88 The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps. El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts $ Stream Gages County boundaries Project Area Miles N Figure 2.3

35 Daily Average Average Daily Flow (cfs) D A J O J Month Daily Average Average Daily Flow (cfs) D A J O J Month Figure 2.4 Comparison of Average Daily Flow from Compared to at Stream Gage 2 (see Figure 2.3) on the South Fork American River Near Camino.

36 10000 Daily Flow for 2000 Average Daily Flow (cfs) December-99 March-00 June-00 October-00 January-01 Month Gage 1: SF American River at Chili Bar Gage 3: Brush Creek at Brush Creek Reservoir Gage 5: Silver Creek at Junction Reservoir Gage 2: SF American River at Camino Gage 4: Silver Creek at Camino Reservoir Gage 6: SF Silver at Ice House Figure 2.5 Comparison of Flow Patterns for Six stream Gage Stations in the Project Area. See Figure 2.3 for gage locations.

37 In addition to average daily flows, data on hourly flow rates are available for Gage 1 on the South Fork American River just below Chili Bar Reservoir (Figure 2.6). Hourly flow patterns are highly variable with a given day and vary widely from day to day. The patterns of flow below Chili Bar Dam are the result of the reregulation of flows from the upstream hydroelectric facility (UARP Project) managed by SMUD. The Chili Bar Project and the UARP Project are operated under separate priorities. The primary objective of the UARP Project is to meet current electrical power requirements during peak-load periods whereas the primary purpose of the Chili Bar Project is to reregulate the block releases from [the UARP Project] when it is functioning in peak-type operation (El Dorado County 2001) Jurisdictions The South Fork American River watershed encompasses the entire central region of El Dorado County and with the exception of a small portion of the watershed in Alpine County, the project area is located almost entirely within the boundary of El Dorado County. In addition, all of the portion of the project area that lies in Alpine County is also located within the jurisdiction of the Eldorado National Forest. Because the project area is dominated by El Dorado County this chapter concentrates on discussions concerning this precinct Land Uses The population of El Dorado County has grown rapidly in the past 20 years and much of the development is concentrated in the project area. Compared with the southeast portion of El Dorado County, located in the Cosumnes River watershed, and the Middle Fork of the American River watershed, located directly north of the project area, the SFAR watershed has a higher density of people to land base. The most urbanized areas in El Dorado County are located in the project area. The primary land uses within the project vicinity include high density residential, agriculture, resource production and extraction, open space and industrial, manufacturing, transportation, communications, utilities, commercial, and retail trade, personal and business services, public and quasi-public services, parks and recreation uses Land Ownership and Management The project area includes both private and public lands. The private properties fall under the land use protocols of El Dorado County general plans while the public lands are administered primarily by the Eldorado National Forest. Jurisdictions in the project area are divided almost evenly between these two organizations. Table 2.2 displays a breakdown of the ownerships patterns and jurisdictions in the project area and Figure 2.7 includes a visual overview of these ownership patterns. 2-10

38 Hourly Flow for Four Days in Jan-00 3-Apr-00 3-Jul-00 3-Sep-00 Hourly Flow (cfs) :00 AM 6:00 AM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM 12:00 AM Time of Day Figure 2.6 Hourly Flow for Four Days in 2000 from Gage 1 in the year 2000 on the South Fork American River below Chili Bar. See Figure 2.4 for gage location.

39 South Fork American River Watershed Public Ownership Auburn ', 80 (/ 49 (/ 89 Placerville (/ 50 (/ 88 The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps. El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts Project Area County boundaries Major Public Ownership Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Reclamation State of California US Forest Service Miles N Figure 2.7

40 Table 2.2 Ownership in the South Fork American River Watershed Proportion of Watershed Owner Area (acres) (%) US Forest Service 252, Bureau of Land Management 8, State of California 1, Bureau of Reclamation Private and Other Minor Public Lands 273, TOTAL 537, The following sections introduce the primary land managers and the role of various organizations that influence land management in the project area The Eldorado National Forest The United States Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest (ENF) is one of 18 National Forests located in California. As stated in the USFS website (2001), it is the land ethic of the Forest Service to promote the sustainability of ecosystems by ensuring their health, diversity, and productivity." It is the mission of the Forest Service to achieve quality land management under sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people. Due to its location near the urban centers of Sacramento, Stockton, and Reno, the lands administered by the ENF attract large numbers of recreationists. In addition, the Forest ranks high in tree growth due to extremely productive soils, rainfall, and other environmental conditions. The ENF yields an average tree growth volume of 600 board feet per acre per year, which is relatively high compared with other regions in the Sierra Nevada. This yield has strong implications for fuels management. The Eldorado National Forest also oversees a number of Special Use Permits for rangeland and grazing. four separate Ranger Districts Georgetown, Pacific, Placerville and Amador. Large parts of Georgetown and Placerville and the entire Pacific Ranger District are located in the project area. Balancing the management of timber, wildlife, and recreation resources while striving to protect the public and the nation's resources from the threat of catastrophic fire, presents a monumental task to the ENF. These demands impose challenges to the decision makers of this Forest, including management of the South Fork of the American watershed The Bureau of Land Management The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is an agency within the United States Department of Interior. The agency administers 264 million acres of public lands in the U.S., located primarily in the 12 western states. The BLM "sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations" (BLM, 2000). The BLM has acquired a number of large parcels scattered throughout the South Fork American River watershed. The BLM ranks as the second largest public landowner in the project area. The Eldorado National Forest is divided into 2-13

41 The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) protects the people of California from fires, responds to emergencies, and enhances forest, range, and watershed values (CDF 2000). The CDF is responsible for controlling all wildland vegetation fires on nonfederal lands in the watershed. Beyond wildland fire, CDF regulates commercial timber harvest on private lands, both industrial forestlands as well as non-industrial forestlands (CDF website 2002) Sierra Pacific Industries Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI), with a local mill based in Camino, is California's largest timber company and the second largest private landowner in the United States (Thompson 2000). Sierra Pacific Industries owns over 1.52 million acres of northern California forests. Their high-tech computers, robots, and lasers afforded the company the opportunity to harvest smaller trees and stay productive at a time when most logging companies in California were selling out of the west. SPI is the largest private landowner in the project area (Thompson 2000) American River Conservancy The American River Conservancy is a nonprofit conservation and environmental education center based out of Coloma, California. Since its inception in 1989, the American River Conservancy has worked in cooperation with public and private landowners to protect, through land acquisitions and conservation easements, over 4,000 acres of high quality habitat along the South Fork American River corridor and sensitive habitats located all over El Dorado County. District The Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD) is a customer-owned electric utility that generates, transmits and distributes electric power to Sacramento County and a small portion of Placer County. Serving approximately 1.1 million people in its 900-square mile area, SMUD has provided electricity to its customers for over 50 years. SMUD's Upper American River Project (UARP) dates back to 1957 and consists of 11 reservoirs and eight powerhouses, generating enough energy to power approximately 180,000 homes (SMUD Website 2002) El Dorado Irrigation District The El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) is a public agency providing water and sewer services to customers within its boundaries. The District's contiguous water system spans 215 square miles and is bounded by Sacramento County on the west, the town of Strawberry on the east, El Dorado Hills on the west and Pollock Pines on the east, along the Highway 50 corridor. The EID provides municipal and industrial water (both retail and wholesale), irrigation water, wastewater treatment and reclamation, recreation, and hydroelectric services (El Dorado Irrigation District 2002). EID also owns and operates the El Dorado Project a hydroelectric project located in the upper reaches of the project area. Facilities include Medley Lakes, Echo Lake, Caples Lake, Silver Lake, the El Dorado Canal and it s features, and a diversion dam and the Akin Powerhouse (aka El Dorado Powerhouse) located on the South Fork American River Sacramento Municipal Utility 2-14

42 City of Placerville The City of Placerville is centrally located between Sacramento and South Lake Tahoe and is accessible via State Highway 49 and U.S. Highway 50. Placerville is the County seat and the center of financial, commercial, civic, and Government activity in El Dorado County El Dorado County The County of El Dorado is situated between Placer County to the north and northwest, Sacramento County to the west, and Amador County to the south and southeast. El Dorado County encompasses 1,713 square miles and is bisected by the South Fork American River watershed. El Dorado County has jurisdiction over all non-federal and non-state owned properties in the project area. Through litigation the 1996 El Dorado County General Plan EIR was contested and in 1999 a writ of mandate was filed requiring the County to re-do the environmental analysis. Over the last three years the County Planning Department has been working on a new Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the General Plan which is scheduled for release by the end of March 2003 and, if accepted, the final should be released by the end of 2003 (Peter Maurer, 2003) Natural and Cultural Resources of the South Fork American River The South Fork American River includes extensive natural and cultural resources. These resources attract millions of tourists and recreationsists to El Dorado County thus contributing directly to the economic vitality of the County. This project is designed, in large part, to protect and help ensure the long-term viability of these assets for economic and quality of life objectives. The following sections discuss, in general terms, the natural, cultural, and recreation resources of the SFAR watershed. The discussion lays the foundation for more detailed descriptions addressed in Chapter 3, Fuels Management and Chapter 4, Water Quality of this report. Vegetation and Habitats: The dominant vegetation types within the project boundary include red fir forest, yellow-pine/mixed conifer and chaparral/oak woodland. Red fir forest encompasses the higher elevation areas above 6,000 feet while the yellow pine/mixed conifer belt falls between 2,500 feet and 6,000 feet. The chaparral/oak woodland is in the western portion of the project area between the elevations of 800 feet and 2,500 feet. The project area spans almost 10,000 feet in elevation which results in a variety of environments each represented by distinct vegetative communities and landforms including the transition from foothill to the lower and upper montane habitats. This stark elevation change, combined with the more rural and hence less impacted nature of the project area, results in high species diversity in a relatively small area. Cultural Resources: The cultural legacy of the South Fork American River watershed has helped shape both the small towns and the landscape of the watershed. The project area is famous for some of the most significant events and individuals in the history of the West including the discovery of gold at Coloma in 1848 that triggered the Gold Rush, well known fur trappers such as Kit Carson, and remnants from the cattle and dairy industries dating back to the mid s, the Pony Express, the Mormon Emigrant Trail, and historic Main Street in Placervillle. The cultural resources of the Sierra Nevada, including the SFAR watershed are some of the main assets that attract people to the area. In addition, the cultural resources found in the watershed have contributed to our knowledge and understanding of California prehistory. These resources add to the spirit, ambiance and charm of the small communities located in the watershed, which helps promote tourism. The value of these assets is impossible to measure, but what is more 2-15

43 important is that these resources cannot be replaced once they are destroyed. Archaeological resources, such as prehistoric and historic artifacts, buildings and other cultural objects, are distinctive and unique features of this landscape. Recreation Resources: The climate, majestic scenery, and cultural amenities of the SFAR watershed work in-concert to attract thousands of recreationists every year. Many of the most popular recreation attractions, including numerous hiking and biking trails, are located in the project area. In fact, the lower portion of the South Fork American River is one of the most popular rivers for whitewater rafting in the western United States. In addition, via Highway 50, the project area provides easy recreational access to more than 80 percent of California's alpine ski resorts, mainly in the Lake Tahoe area (Center for Economic Development 1999). The project area s Apple Hill region is a unique and celebrated ranch-marketing area where weekend visitors can purchase a variety of locally produced fruits, vegetables and crafts at over 50 ranches. Growers in the area have used innovative direct marketing approaches to expand agricultural receipts (Sierra Business Council 1997). Apple Hill is often referred to as a "model" for tourism in El Dorado County. A large portion of the recreation activities in the watershed occur within the Eldorado National Forest, with scattered recreation outside the USFS lands. Over 48 percent of project area lands are publicly owned, most of which are managed by the Eldorado National Forest. This National Forest also harbors most of the reservoirs in the project area which offer numerous fishing, boating and camping facilities. The Eldorado National Forest is considered an "urban" forest due to its location within a onehour drive from the metropolitan area of Sacramento with over one million people. The Forest is a popular destination for cross-country skiing, fishing, mountain bike riding, OHV use, and camping. In addition, Desolation Wilderness Area is located in the project area which is one of the most popular designated Wilderness Areas in the Nation. The popularity of this Wilderness is due, in part, to its beauty and easy accessibility from major urban centers at Reno and Sacramento. Large portions of the western half of this Wilderness Area are located in the project area. In addition to recreation sites managed by the Eldorado National Forest there are number of city, county and private parks scattered throughout the project area. The project area is also home to one of the most well known rock climbing sites in the region Lover s Leap. Close to the South Fork and Highway 50 the area contains steep-walled domes of granite that invite world class rockclimbers to the area. Most of these rock climbers stay at the nearby Lover s Leap Campground. Boating occurs along the South Fork American River between Strawberry and Folsom Reservoir and along many of the river s tributaries as well. Most boating occurs below Chili Bar Reservoir, where sufficient boating flows are available nearly all year long as a result of reservoir releases. There are eight distinct whitewater boating runs between Strawberry and Folsom. These runs attract thousands of visitors to the project area on a yearly basis Major Transportation Routes The South Fork American River watershed is mostly rural in character with scattered high density residential areas. With the exception of Highway 50, the area is generally served by two-lane roads, including State Highway 49 and Highway 193 and numerous county, Forest Service, and private roads. These routes provide local access to the Eldorado National Forest, to individual properties and ranches in the watershed, and they connect the project vicinity to Placerville and more distant areas such as the Sacramento area to the west, Auburn to the north, the Lake Tahoe region to the east, and Jackson to the south. The portion of Highway 49 in the project area is eligible as a state designated scenic roadway. It 2-16

44 provides one of the primary access routes to the foothill zone of project area serving north-south traffic throughout the Sierra Nevada foothills. It is a two-lane paved road that dissects the project area connecting Placerville with Auburn. Numerous bed and breakfasts, restaurants, and tourist attractions are scattered along this route, attracting a variety of tourists and recreationists. Other highways in the project area include Highway 193 and 88. Highway 193 is a steep, two lane paved road that drops down into the river canyon before connecting to access roads into Swansboro and winding it s way up to Georgetown. Highway 88 cuts across the higher elevations of the watershed near Caples and Silver Lakes. In addition, there are a variety of county maintained and privately maintained roads in the SFAR watershed and the Eldorado National Forest sustains a network of paved and unpaved roads on Forest lands. The condition of these roads varies widely depending on their location and use Economic Indicators The project area lies almost entirely within El Dorado County, and the economic trends are similar throughout this precinct. Economic data is discussed most often in terms of the greater regions including the County, the Sacramento Area and the Sierra Nevada. Relevant excerpts from all of these larger economic regions are included in this section because the project area is directly tied to these larger economic units. The economic indicators of this region provide insight into some potential threats to water quality via run-off and some of the complications involved with fuels management in the watershed. As such, this section lays the foundation for a more detailed discussion of the relationship between the economic trends in the County and land uses, water quality trends, and the increased threat of fire ignition El Dorado County El Dorado County is one of the fastest growing counties in California. Total population in the county nearly doubled between the 1970 and 1980 census years and then grew by 68 percent between 1980 and 1990 (Information Publications 2002). The current population of 156,299 is expected to increase by over sixty percent reaching 252,900 by the year If development forecast similar to the 1994 county general plan is approved, the county will accommodate an estimated population of 347,177 residents at plan build-out (Sierra Business Council 1999). This fast-paced population increase has profound implications for water quality and catastrophic wildfire. El Dorado County is a part of the North Central Sierra economic center, which is the strongest economic center in the Sierra Nevada region. This region includes Nevada and Placer counties located directly north of El Dorado County. The following excerpt from the Sierra Business Council s Sierra Nevada Wealth Index (1999) describes the economic trends of this region: The North Central Sierra has experienced the most rapid population growth, the highest educational achievement, the most extensive farm land losses, the most dramatic increase in groundwater pumping, the lowest unemployment, and the most robust job growth, particularly in the manufacturing sector and the high-wage service sector. The most urgent and critical challenge for the North Central Sierra region is to find ways to safeguard its natural capital which, over the past two decades, has created and supported the expansion of its social and financial capital. Studies show that 78.2 percent of the population increase in El Dorado County is due to the overall growth of the Sacramento region and that the increase is concentrated in El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park (El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce n.d.a). Evidence suggests that the rate of population growth triggered in the early 1970's is linked to metropolitan expansion in the 2-17

45 Bay Area as well as the Sacramento region (Centers for Water and Wildland Resources 1996; Duane 1999). The fact that an estimated 50 percent of employed residents in El Dorado County are employed outside the county and the Sierra Region further illustrates the economic ties of El Dorado County to the larger nearby metropolitan areas (Duane 1999). The ready access to these metropolitan areas made possible by Highway 50 has also contributed to the diversity of economic enterprises in El Dorado County as compared with other regions in the Sierra Nevada. The drop in local income wages from 48 percent of personal income in 1970 to 35 percent in 1996 also suggests a strong dependence in El Dorado County on the nearby metropolitan areas. This occurred at the same time that commute wages grew from 23 percent to 33 percent of personal income (Sierra Business Council 1999). The major commodities of El Dorado County remain the county's natural resources, including water, timber, forage, and irrigated agriculture. Over the past twenty years these sectors, which are dependent on the county's natural resource base, remained relatively stable throughout the Sierra Nevada. However, other sectors, including retail and services, nearly doubled (Sierra Business Council 1999). Although ranching, timber harvesting, and mining are still an important part of the local economy in El Dorado County, retail and tourism are becoming more important. In the late 1970s due to increasing population growth and personal income, the county began a trend towards economic diversification that continues today. Currently the three primary economic sectors in El Dorado County are trade, services and government. These three sectors account for over 80 percent of all jobs within the county (El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce n.d.a). As a result of population growth there is a strong trend towards goods and services, particularly in the areas of services and retail trade. Services, especially health care services, are experiencing one of the highest rates of employment increases of all industrial growth within the county. However, low wage service jobs grew from 32 percent to 36 percent of all jobs between 1972 and 1996 and this trend remains one of the indicators of economic concern for El Dorado County (Sierra Business Council 1999). The manufacturing segment of El Dorado County is experiencing a transition from predominantly a wood products base to that of a modern technological information base that takes advantage of the county's fiber optics infrastructure (El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce n.d.a). The county has invested $7 million in fiber infrastructure and a number of areas are scheduled for digital subscriber line (DSL) high speed Internet access (Sierra Business Council 1999). By far the largest manufacturing employer in the county is Output Technology Solutions, located in the El Dorado Hills Business Park. Output Technology Solutions currently employs over seven times that of the next largest manufacturing employer in the county, Sierra Pacific Industries. However, since the wood products industry holds the second and third ranks for the largest manufacturing employers in the county, it is clear this industry remains a vital force in the county. The low unemployment rate in El Dorado County, declining from an average of 8 percent in 1993 to 5 percent in 1998, is one of the strongest economic indicators (Sierra Business Council 1999). The current unemployment rate in the county is 4.3 percent (EDC Chamber of Commerce, Personal Communication 2002) which is lower than the California average. Per capita income in the county increased from $24,500 in 1990 to $25,100 in 1996, approaching the California average of $25,900 (Sierra Business Council 1999). Agriculture remains a vital component of the county s economy. The total impact of agriculture in El Dorado County is estimated at $380 million with over $145 million directly related to the wine industry and of this figure Apple Hill, located in the project area, had an 2-18

46 $84 million impact (El Dorado County Dept. of Agriculture 2001). This figure includes important agricultural products such as wines, apple pies, and cider. The amount of land converted into wine grape production increased by 14 percent between 1997 and 1998, another 8 percent between 1998 and 1999, and another 29 percent between 1999 and 2001, adding 491 acres of land dedicated to wine production over the last four years. This segment of the economy is expected to continue to grow as more wine comes into production and as the public becomes increasingly aware of El Dorado County's quality wines (El Dorado County 1998, 1999, and 2001; El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce n.d.a). Tourism is a major component to the economic vitality of El Dorado County. Travel-related expenditures in 1997 totaled $751 million, generating a payroll of $130 million, providing 9,750 jobs, and over $13.9 million in local taxes (El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce n.d.a). According to the Sierra Nevada Wealth Index, recreation and tourism in the Sierra Nevada now constitute the largest single industry in the region; these trends also hold true within El Dorado County Communities of the South Fork American River Although Placerville is the only incorporated city in the project area, a variety of unincorporated small towns with interesting backgrounds are scattered throughout the watershed. Many of these small communities are historic mining and logging towns. The most developed communities in the watershed include Cameron Park, Camino, Coloma, Cool, El Dorado Hills, Garden Valley, Georgetown, Greenwood, Kelsey, Kyburz, Little Norway, Lotus, Mosquito, Mount Ralston, Pilot Hill, Placerville, Pollock Pines, Rescue, Shingle Springs, Silver Fork and Strawberry. The following paragraphs were developed from information obtained at the El Dorado County Economic Development Department - Chamber Of Commerce and their website, the El Dorado County Historic Museum and the El Dorado County Visitors Authority website. These paragraphs provide some background information and general descriptions of the important communities in the project area. Cameron Park: Cameron Park is a relatively new development dating back to the 1950s. Today, Cameron Park reflects a variety of lifestyles. Large properties support cattle ranches while other areas include both medium and high-density residential neighborhoods. The community also includes shopping centers, a country club, a recreational lake and the Airpark Estates airstrip. Camino: At an elevation of approximately 3,000 feet, Camino is well-known for the Apple Hill Farm Trail ranches, orchards and Christmas tree farms. Historically, Camino was a lumber town and is now the site for the Sierra Pacific Industries lumber company. Many locally owned vineyards are located in and around Camino and support award winning wineries such as Boeger, Lava Cap, and Madrona. Coloma: The town of Coloma is the site of the original gold discovery by James Marshall at Sutter s Mill in Coloma grew up almost overnight, from a sawmill with a couple of outbuildings to a bustling western town. Today Coloma consists primarily of Marshall Gold Discovery State Park - a popular tourist attraction off Highway 49. During the summer months, tourists visit Coloma to learn about Gold Rush history. The South Fork American River dissects the town where the whitewater river rafting industry thrives. Cool: Cool is a small rural community located approximately six miles south of Auburn on Highway 49 in El Dorado County. At an elevation of approximately 1550 feet, this small 2-19

47 town includes an old general store, school, public house, blacksmith, carriage shop and post office which have become today's "boardwalk". El Dorado Hills: Located at the west end of El Dorado County, El Dorado Hills borders Sacramento County. Historically, El Dorado Hills was a popular spot for train and stagecoach stops and later became a Pony Express remount station. Today, El Dorado Hills is home to four elementary schools, one junior high and one high school. Residential housing developments, several golf courses, and shopping centers characterize the area. El Dorado Hills is currently governed by a fivemember Community Services District board, which oversees community issues. Garden Valley: Situated between Greenwood and Kelsey, Garden Valley is approximately four miles southwest of Georgetown, three miles east of Coloma and approximately minutes by vehicle north of Placerville. During the Gold Rush era, Garden Valley was a booming mining town with a store and sawmill. Eventually the area became known for it's agriculture and in 1952 the name Garden Valley was chosen when the post office was established. Today, Garden Valley remains a small neighborhood community consisting mainly of rural and low-density residential housing. Georgetown: Georgetown is approximately 2,600 feet in elevation situated in the northeast portion of the project area. Like Coloma, this town was born during the Gold Rush and served as home to thousands of prospectors as they arrived to seek their fortune in the gold fields of the area. It's history is steeped in gold rush lore, in fact, Georgetown used to be called Growlersburg for the huge "growling" gold nugget said to be buried under the town. Georgetown was the center of rich placer and seam diggings. Once known as the Georgetown Dry Diggings, Georgetown had supported up to 5,000 miners. Today, downtown Georgetown looks much as it did long ago with its unique ornate buildings, wide streets and old west ambiance. Greenwood: Greenwood is a rural community located six miles east of Cool along Highway 193 toward Georgetown. Greenwood was founded by John Greenwood, a trapper and guide who was exploring this remote territory as early as Greenwood was once a trading post and eventually grew into a thriving town with several hotels, a variety of stores, saloons, a brewery and a theater. Today, Greenwood is a quiet community consisting mainly of rural residential neighborhoods. Kelsey: Kelsey is situated off Highway 193 between Garden Valley Road, Georgetown, and Coloma. Kelsey was a mining camp during the Gold Rush. As the mines were depleted, an extensive slate belt was discovered in the late 1890s. Known for its slate mine, Kelsey was named "Slatington" and retained this name for nearly 20 years. The slate industry enjoyed success until the introduction of less expensive materials, such as concrete, led to its decline and eventual shutdown. Today, Kelsey remains a rural, friendly community, characterized by open space and large residential properties. Kyburz: Located about 40 miles east of Placerville on Highway 50 and at an elevation of approximately 4,000 feet, Kyburz was established in 1861 by William Orinsby and was first known as Johnson s Station. Later, the town was re-named after Samuel Kyburz, a native of Switzerland, who immigrated to the area in 1846 and was employed by 2-20

48 Captain Sutter. Today, Kyburz remains a small town consisting of summer homes and the Kyburz Crystal Lodge serving the community and travelers en route along Highway 50. Lotus: Lotus is located less than onehalf mile west of Coloma and approximately one mile northwest of Marshall Gold Discovery State Historic Park. This small town features pockets of rural residential housing interspersed with spots of historic significance dating back to the 1850s. Mosquito: Mosquito is located about 10 miles north of Placerville along the Mosquito Road. The Mosquito community is now the center of a semiexclusive, 5,000 acre residential development known as Swansboro Country, complete with its own lake and airport. The well-known suspension bridge, crossing over the South Fork American River midway between Placerville and Mosquito, was built in 1879 and has become a county historical landmark. The bridge still provides one of the primary access routes into this area today. Pilot Hill: Located off Highway 49, four miles south of Cool and 19 miles north of Placerville, Pilot Hill consists mainly of rural residential housing. It also harbors the historic Pilot Hill Lookout, which remains in use by the California Department of Forestry. searched for gold in what was referred to as "Old Dry Diggings" and as the population increased "Old Dry Diggings" became "Old Hangtown, named for the swift and often unfair justice practiced in the town. Eventually, "Old Hangtown" was renamed Placerville, referring to the gold-pan (placer) mining that typically took place there. Pollock Pines: The town of Pollock Pines is located 11 miles east of Placerville, adjacent to Highway 50. Named after is founder, Hiram Robert Pollock, the area is often referred to as "Nature's Wonderland. At approximately 4,200 feet above mean sea level, the coniferous hills and valleys surrounding Pollock Pines offer lakes and myriad mountain trails, used by many tourists each year. Rescue: The town of Rescue `is a residential area located off Green Valley Road between Cameron Park and Shingle Springs. Shingle Springs: Located 30 miles east of Sacramento, Shingle Springs was founded in the 1850's. Today, Shingle Springs is characterized by open space containing large, private parcels and ranches Placerville: The City of Placerville is centrally located between Sacramento and South Lake Tahoe and is accessible via State Highway 49 and U.S. Highway 50. Placerville s treasured heritage is reflected in the historical, nineteenth century architecture of the downtown area. As the County seat, Placerville remains the center of financial, commercial, civic, and Government activity. Historically, prospectors 2-21

49 Silver Fork, Mount Ralston, and Little Norway: All three of these communities are located along the Highway 50 corridor, east of Pollock Pines. With the exception of a few gas stations and rest stops used by travelers on Highway 50, the communities consist of summer homes and residential neighborhoods. Strawberry: Located along Highway 50, approximately 25 miles east of Pollock Pines, the town of Strawberry is nestled beside the well known magnificent granite rock tower known as Lover s Leap. The Old Strawberry Resort was one of the most important way stations along the Sierra Wagon Road during the Gold Rush and was a stopping point for the legendary John A. "Snowshoe" Thompson, during his winter ski trips carrying mail from Placerville to Genoa, Nevada. Today, Strawberry remains a popular stopping point for travelers. 2-22

50 Chapter 3.0 Fuels Management 3.1 Introduction One of the most complex, difficult, and urgent environmental problems in the Western United States is the threat of catastrophic wildfire. The problem gained national attention during an unprecedented wildfire season in the year 2000 that generated some startling statistics as summarized by Todd Wilkinson (2001): More than $1.6 billion was spent by taxpayers to combat 90,000 fires nationwide, double the cost of a typical year. Some 7.5 million acres burned an area equal in size to Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Delaware combined. And at least 860 structures, ranging from beloved homes to outdoor sheds were destroyed primarily in a new frontier known as the wildland-urban interface the fringes of communities, especially in the boom-town West, where more and more houses are creeping into what was until recently wilderness. The western half of the project area exemplifies this new frontier and epitomizes the problems with the wildland-urban interface. As discussed previously, in Section Economic Indicators, the SFAR watershed is located in the middle of the fastest growing region in the Sierra Nevada the North Central Sierra (Sierra Business Council 1999). Urban pockets of medium to high density residential neighborhoods are distributed intermittently throughout the project area and oftentimes these neighborhoods are completely surrounded by native vegetation or wildland. What s more, many of the native plant communities found in the project area are fire adapted and some are even fire dependant, meaning the vegetation needs to burn as part of its reproductive cycle. To add to the complexity of this issue, the threat of catastrophic fires continues to intensify with time as the fuel loads increase with each passing year that the already overgrown vegetation does not burn. President George W. Bush, as part of a pilot project for two sites in California, recently selected a 1,600-acre area in the Eldorado National Forest to address the fuel load threat to the wildland-urban interface. As reported in the December 13, 2002 Mountain Democrat, the pilot project will likely involve a combination of brush and small tree mastication, controlled burning, some logging, and use of herbicides as a demonstration project to reduce fuels loading in the vicinity of Grizzly Flat. Entitled Last Chance, the program was created to develop strategic wildfire defense zones for areas surrounding communities such as Grizzly Flat. This chapter identifies those sub-basins in the SFAR watershed that are most in danger of broad scale catastrophic wildfire and thus most in need of fuels reduction projects. Our assessment of fuel hazard and fire history relies on information developed by Forest Service (USFS) and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). We quantified resource values at risk using information from a variety of county, state and federal data sources. By combining these data sources, we identified the priority sub-basins in need of fuels management projects based on both the distribution of the fuel hazards and the distribution of the resources at-risk. The chapter begins with a brief discussion of the ecological role of fire including descriptions of fire return intervals (FRIs). This is followed by an overview of the cover types found in the project area including non-native invasive weeds and a discussion of how these cover types contribute to fire danger. This section is followed by an overview of the important management strategies that have contributed to fuel loads and the distribution of vegetation. Finally the chapter will provide a risk assessment by answering two primary questions: Where is the risk? And, What is at risk? The chapter concludes with a Priority Areas Map delineating the highest priority sub-basins in the project area. 3-1

51 3.2 The Ecological Role of Fire The Sierra Nevada foothills and the Sierra Nevada are the two ecological subsections that encompass the project area (USDA Forest Service 1994). Fire is a dominant factor in the disturbance regimes of these areas and has been important in the evolution of plant communities. However, due, in part, to the impact of modern day management strategies that try to suppress fires, the ecological function of fire as a disturbance factor has been drastically altered in this landscape. The following sections describe the historical patterns of fire and the role of vegetation types that affect this pattern Patterns Through Time: Fire Frequency The general consensus is that today fires in the Sierra Nevada landscape are less frequent and more severe compared to presettlement patterns (Skinner and Chang 1996). The number of times fire burned an area over a given period of time, or the fire return interval (FRI), has been calculated for several forest types. Estimates of FRIs prior to 1900 have been derived from fire scars of stumps and old trees, whereas estimates for the 20 th century are based on known fires (Table 3.1). As shown in Table 3.1, the FRIs prior to 1900 were substantially less and the occurrence of fire far more frequent compared to the incidence of fire in the 20 th century. As will be discussed later, FRIs during the pre-settlement period were much smaller, due largely to Native American vegetation management practices that resulted in much lower fuel load levels. Each of the forest types presented in Table 3.1 occurs within the project area. See Figure 3.1 Cover Types. In addition, grassland and shrub communities are present in the project area. Because fires in such vegetation types consume all of the plant material, plant fragments such as stumps do not remain. Thus, estimating the historic fire return interval is more difficult. Historic estimates of fire in foothill shrub communities range from 20 to 50 years (McKelvey et al. 1996) and fires in grassland communities tended to be far more frequent than in shrub communities (USDA Forest Service 1997). Table 3.1. Historic Fire Return Intervals Compared to 20 th Century Patterns. Forest Type Fire Return Interval (years) 20 th Century Pre-1900 Blue Oak 78 8 Ponderosa Pine Mixed conifer-pine Mixed conifer-fir Red Fir 1, Based on average of values compiled from numerous studies throughout the Sierra Nevada. Source: McKelvey et al

52 South Fork American River Watershed Cover Types ', /( 80 Auburn /( Placerville /( 50 /( 88 El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts Miles N Figure 3.1 County boundaries Cover Types (CalVeg) Barren Urban Agriculture Grass/Herbs Shrublands Hardwood Conifer-Hardwood Conifer The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps.

53 Table 3.2 Acres of Specific Cover Types Burned in the Project Area During the 20 th Century. Cover Type Area in Basin (acres) Area Burned Since 1916 (acres) Portion of Cover Type Burned (%) Urban 6, Agriculture 3, Barren 20,959 1, Grass/Herbs 36,320 5, Shrublands 40,193 13, Hardwoods 67,396 15, Conifer-Hardwoods 69,990 19, Conifer 285,111 65, TOTAL 523, , Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Approximately 120,653 acres (about 23 percent of the project area), have burned since 1916 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2002). These fires were fairly evenly distributed between shrubland, hardwood, conifer-hardwood, and conifer cover types. Given that historically nearly all of the forest types in the project area had FRIs ranging from 8 to 26 years (Table 3.1) and that less than 23 percent of the project area has burned in the past 90 years (Table 3.2), it is evident that the function of fire as a disturbance factor has been drastically altered in the project area. The comparison of Tables 3.1 and 3.2 demonstrates the startling difference between the historic patterns of fire frequency and the fire frequency over the last century. This comparison suggests that fuel loading is much more dense today than it was one-hundred years ago and hence the threat of catastrophic and intense fire is also much greater. At the same time, we are experiencing a steady influx of people and homes into this area which means we have more to lose Patterns Across the Landscape: Fire and Vegetation Most of the plant communities within the project area are considered fire-adapted. McKelvey (1996) further describes the role of fire in the Sierra Nevada: Because fire was so prevalent in the centuries before Euro-American settlement (presettlement), many common plants exhibit specific fireadapted traits such as thick bark and fire-stimulated flowering, sprouting, seed release and/or germination (Chang 1996). In addition, fire affected the dynamics of biomass accumulation and nutrient cycling, and generated vegetation mosaics at a variety of spatial scales (Chang 1996). Because fire influenced the dynamics of nearly all ecological processes, reduction of the influence of fire through 20 th century fire suppression efforts in these ecosystems has had widespread (though not yet completely understood) effects. Depending on the type of plant community, its age or stage in development, and its topographic location, the effects of fire vary widely. In the sections below, we describe the effects of historic fire on the specific plant communities within the watershed and compare this with the likely effects were wildfire to occur today Shrublands Cover Type: Foothill and Montane Chaparral About 40,193 acres of the SFAR watershed are dominated by chaparral, a shrub community made up of evergreen, woody shrubs generally with tough, thick leaves. Regardless of whether chaparral occurs in the foothill or montane regions, it is generally highly flammable 3-4

54 (Skinner and Chang 1996). Wildfires in chaparral communities often are stand replacing events. This means that the fires burn sufficiently hot to consume all of the plant material above ground. Plants in the chaparral communities have developed numerous adaptations for survival and re-growth following fire. Sprouting from the underground rootstock and the stimulation of seed germination from fire are examples of such adaptations. In the past, frequent fire in chaparral communities led to fragmentation and clumpiness of the vegetation cover (Chang 1996). Generally, where plant cover is broken up and discontinuous in chaparral landscapes, fires are characterized as medium-sized, burning at varied intensities (Minnich 1983). Infrequent fire has led to dense and continuous stands of chaparral which burn in a very different pattern. Because the fuels are continuous, those fires that escape can lead to enormous high-intensity conflagrations and result in landscapes that are even more spatially continuous (Chang 1996). Fires in the chaparral habitats today generally are larger, less scattered (Radtke et al. 1981), and more uniform than those in presettlement times Hardwoods Cover Type: Oak and Grey Pine Woodland Numerous species of oaks and grey pine dominate the woodlands in the foothill zone. A small amount of oak woodland also extends up into higher elevations along riparian areas. In total, woodlands where hardwoods (i.e. oaks) are the dominate tree species cover about 67,396 acres in the watershed. Historically, fires in these woodlands were frequent, with low to moderate intensities and occasional high intensity areas (Skinner and Chang 1996). The type of understory in these woodlands strongly influences the intensity of the burn. Understories dominated by grass and herbaceous plants tend to burn less intensely than understories where shrubs dominate. In the past, perennial plants dominated the herbaceous understory. Today, shorter lived annuals primarily introduced grasses -- dominate the understory. The historic predominance of perennials may have narrowed the season of burning, whereas [today] the annuals may promote an earlier onset to the burning season because they dry and cure earlier than the perennials (Skinner and Chang 1996) Conifer Cover Type: Sierran Mixed- Conifer, Ponderosa Pine, Red Fir, and Jeffrey Pine The conifer cover type occupies about 285,111 acres of the watershed (Table 3.2) and is composed of several forest types that vary largely with elevation. Sierran mixed-conifer and ponderosa forest types primarily occur in the lower montane (3,000 to 5,000 feet) with small portions extending down into the foothill zone and up into the upper montane zone. These habitats are often characterized as having a historic regime of frequent fires that were low to moderate severity (Kilgore 1973). Exceptions to this have been noted where topographic position, vegetation, and other site factors led to more severe fires (Chang 1996) and a great deal of variation in fire intensity and effect has been noted among similar sites, even within a single fire (Stephenson et al. 1991). Historically, few fires exceeded 10,000 acres in size, whereas such large fires are now more common in the central-western Sierra including the Eldorado National Forest (Erman and Jones 1996). In recent times, the average yearly acreage burned is probably not greater than was burned historically; however, the severity and average size of each burn is greater than in the past. Red fir and Jeffrey pine are found primarily in the upper reaches of the SFAR watershed above 6,000 feet. Historically, fire in these habitat types was likely more variable through time and across the landscape and supported fewer fires compared to the lower montane zone. This variability is likely a result of a number of factors, such as heavy snow packs that can linger late into the year, influencing the fire probability; patterns of soils and exposed rock; and compact litter beds (Chang 1996) that restrict air movement through the fuels and often 3-5

55 fail to carry the fire. Because fewer fires occurred in this zone naturally and fire suppression efforts were not initiated until the 1930s, the absence of fire has had less of an effect on the vegetative structure here than on forests in the lower montane zone (Chang 1996) Noxious Weeds Many of the native grassland plant communities that were once found throughout the project area have been severely altered and oftentimes entirely replaced by non-native and unwanted introduced plants species known as noxious weeds. The local problem gained public attention through the establishment of the El Dorado County Noxious Weed Group (NWMG) which began in 1998 as a coordinated approach to identify sites, develop responses and educate the public in more effectively reducing or eliminating noxious weed infestations (EDC Website 2002). Because noxious weeds often thrive in disturbed areas, fuels reduction projects should take precautions to prevent the establishment of new populations. This relationship will be discussed further in the Stewardship Plan. 3.3 Past and Present Fire Management Strategies This section examines the role of humans in the management of fire over time. As outlined in Skinner and Chang 1996, ethnographic accounts show humans have altered the landscape through burning practices and other hunting strategies for as long as humans have lived in the Sierra Nevada. However, although it is well established that Native Californians influenced the landscape to some extent through fire management strategies, the intensity of human interference with the natural fire regime has never been greater than within the last 100 years. Moreover, the Native Californian influence was most likely due to burning practices and the deliberate introduction of low-intensity fires. A practice, that arguably, may have enhanced the productivity and health of some vegetation types (Skinner and Chang 1996). In contrast, the goal for most of the last 150 years has emphasized keeping wildland fires as small and inexpensive as possible (Husari and McKelvey 1996). This fire suppression policy has had startling effects on the FRIs throughout the Sierra Nevada (see Table 3.1) including the vegetation and landscape within the project area. Only now are we beginning to understand the important role fire plays in the ecology of this region and only now are we beginning to find ways to re-introduce fire into the natural systems of this region. This section begins with a brief overview of Native Californian burning practices followed by the more recent fire policies of the last 150 years. These policies are beginning to change to expand the role of fire in the Sierra Nevada to include planned prescribed fire and planned natural fires (Husari and McKelvey 1996) Fire Management by Native Californians Artifacts and materials from the surrounding area indicate that people have been living in the general project area for at least 7,000 years (Eldorado National Forest, 1996). The project area was occupied by two different Native American ethnographic groups. The Nisenan Maidu occupied the lower reaches of the project area and both the Washo and the Nisenan Maidu probably used the upper elevations as a travel corridor and locale to harvest acorns (Eldorado National Forest, 1996). Until recently, many westerners saw the role of Native Americans, including the Nisenan Maidu and the Washo, in the management of the landscape as hands-off and it was thought that the landscape was unmodified by the Native people who inhabited this region. The following discussion of Native American s use of fire presents a different concept of this role. A role in which, while the primary goals may have been different from modern-day techniques, the use of controlled burning was one of the most critical management strategies employed by the native people of this region. 3-6

56 This idea is based on the book Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Californians by Thomas C. Blackburn and Kat Anderson In this book the authors argue that California was a landscape not unmodified by the native peoples but rather it was carefully managed by knowledgeable people to provide them with food, clothing, shelter, fuels, and tools. This notion is summarized by Henry T. Lewis (1993): There seems to be little question that Indians across the United States used fire as a land-management tool.the California Indians probably molded the Sierra landscape with fire for more than 3,000 years. Recent evidence supports the idea that as long as people have used a given area or an ecosystem they most likely have also manipulated it. The Eldorado National Forest summarized this concept as part of the Whale Rock Forest Health Multi-Resource Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (1996) proposed in the upper reaches of the South Fork American River watershed: Native Americans in California frequently set fire to areas to increase forage (particularly for deer) and improve game habitat; to facilitate travel and hunting; to drive game; to clear areas around habitation to watch for dangerous animals (grizzly, mountain lion) and strangers; to improve wild seed crops (particularly annuals and grasses) and maintain populations of edible bulbs; corms and tubers (such as brodiaea, onion and yampah); to improve certain characteristics of plants used in basketry; to maintain or enhance the distribution of oaks; to kill insects and pests; and to maintain springs and surface waters (Anderson 1992a, 1992b,1993,1994; Lewis 1973; Macleery 1994; Matson 1972; McCarthy 1993; Mellars 1976; Wickstrom 1987; Shipek 1993; Williams 1993). It is difficult to say for certain how this use of controlled burning influenced the distribution of vegetation and fuel conditions in the watershed today but it is likely that vegetation, at least in some areas, is different than it would have been without the influence of humans for the past 7,000 years. According to the Eldorado National Forest (1996) the indigenous use of controlled burns: Created a more open landscape with less underbrush and a more even spacing between trees. Shade intolerant species would have been favored over those that are shade tolerant, such that pine would increase at the expense of incense cedar and fir (Johnston n.d.). Black oak stands would have been more extensive, as would some populations of grasses and annuals used as staple plant foods. More surface waters might have been available and springs and seeps more reliable. The concept of Native Americans as land managers and the use of control burning and consequent ecological impacts continues to be explored by Anthropologist and Fire Ecologists. Most likely earlier peoples probably influenced the landscape to a greater extent than was previously thought; however, no group has caused such drastic changes as the Euroamericans (Gruell, 2001). This influence is discussed in more detail in the following section Modern Fire Management Strategies Prior to 1850, fire was the major force in the Sierra Nevada which shaped the vegetation on a landscape level. Until the discovery of gold and the arrival of European settlers most wildfires were caused by lightning or Native American burning practices. These fires were, for the most part, frequent and of low intensity. Then during the latter part of the 19 th century, the influx of 3-7

57 more and more settlers brought many changes to California and with these changes came a new management of wildfire. The following section outlines some of the major events that shaped modern fire management strategies. The section begins with a discussion of pre-1900 fire suppression tactics followed by a discussion of post-1900 management prescriptions. Finally we discuss some of the more recent changes in our understanding of the role of fire on an ecosystem level as well as a discussion of current management strategies Pre-1900 Before fire suppression occurred in the early 1900's there were more annual fires but they were generally of low severity and the stayed on the ground. Both Native Americans and the early settlers understood that fire would clear the vegetation and favor the growth of certain vegetation species. These groups generally took very few wildfire suppression actions unless it threatened their homes or property. By the early 1880 s people began to call for a halt to man caused forest fires and reckless grazing (Cermak 1988). By the late 1880 s a new land ethic began to emerge throughout the west calling for protection of watersheds. By the late 1880 s the reformers achieved some success with the establishment of Yosemite Valley as a National Park. During the first years of the park, fire protection as well as other resources protection duties were performed by the US Army. On March 3, 1891 President Benjamin Harrison signed into law the General Land Law Revision Act. This Act provided for the protection of the nation s natural resources and the establishment of the Forest Reserves, which were the catalysts for the National Forests. However little was provided in the form of personnel or funding for fire suppression. As such, though the concern over wildfires and the need for forest protection was acknowledged in the General Land Law Revision Act, it did not provide the means to accomplish the stated objectives Post-1900 The steady expansion of the population in the Western United States at the turn of the century also brought an increase in both the number of human caused wildfires and the number of homes and property requiring protection from wildfire. In 1901 efforts were made to tackle the problems of human caused wildfires and the Forest Reserve Manual became the guiding document for managing the federal Forest Reserves. Included in the manual was some advice on the relative difficulty of fighting fire; however, during this initial stage in the efforts towards wildfire suppression, fire control was still accomplished by only a few men. On March 18, 1905 the California Forest Protection Act was signed by the Governor. This Act provided for a state Board of Forestry, a State Forester, fire districts, voluntary fire wardens, cooperation with counties, fire patrols during periods of high fire danger, and it also required that citizens fight wildfire when necessary. This Act allowed for fire protection within counties but it did not provide enough personnel or money for forest fire control on state and private lands until 1925 (Cermak 1988). On the Federal side, in 1905 the Forest Reserves were transferred to the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service was created headed by Gifford Pinchot. Heightened concerns for fire in the forests of the west have always increased with major wildfire events and the great conflagrations of 1894 in the lake states and the 1902 fires in the Pacific Northwest helped create an attitude of great concern for the Forest Service leaders. The concern for the destructive force of fire became ever present in the policies developed by this new agency. As such, fuels treatment and fuel break construction began to take place in areas all over Northern California. But still the agency simply did not have the resources to stop all the wildfires. 3-8

58 The catastrophic fire season of 1910, one of the worst fire seasons on record, occurred in the west. The Idaho fires that year took the lives of 85 people and destroyed two and a half million acres. The 1910 fire season put fire control firmly into high gear. Fire control became the watch word and that was the intent of the Forest Service, to control wildfires. In a conference in California in 1921 the U.S. Forest Service developed its primary objectives for fire control and made fire control its priority mission. One of the most important objectives developed at that conference was the 10 AM Rule. The rules objective simply stated was to insure that all wildfires should be controlled by 10 AM the day following the fire start. Until recently that rule was still Forest Service Policy. On April 13, 1927 the Governor of California signed legislation which created the Department of Natural Resources. This Department included a Division of Forestry responsible for fire control. But Fire Control policies in California truly came of age during the Great Depression. Two events helped shape fire management strategies of the 1930 s. First, one of the largest fires on record, the Matilija Fire located near Santa Barbara, California burned an astounding 219,254 acres. Secondly the Great Depression gave rise to the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) thus providing the means to improve fire control using this readily available pool of men. The CCC improved suppression access by building roads and by implementing fuels projects. Throughout most of the 20 th century Fire Control and Fire Suppression dominated most of the fire management policies. But things changed quickly with the fire season of 1994 which brought the National Fire Plan and an emphasis on fuels and fire use. The following section outlines some of the more recent strategies and changes in policies Current Suppression Options As discussed in the previous sections, fire regime studies in the Sierra Nevada suggest that forest ecosystems are outside their historical range of variability in regards to both fire frequency/severity and associated stand structures (Skinner and Chang, 1996). This is primarily the result of fire exclusion due to suppression efforts described above. Ironically, the very efforts to protect communities from wildfire have actually resulted in an increased threat of large catastrophic fire. Today s suppression efforts in the watershed fall into three responsibility areas: 1. State Responsibility Areas (SRA); 2. Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) and; 3. Federal Responsibility Areas (FRA), such as lands managed by the U. S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) has responsibility for protecting the SRA land and some of the federal land through an agreement with the responsible federal agency. Fire suppression efforts on all national forest lands fall under the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service. Under agreement between the USFS and CDF each may provide protection for the other s land inside the agreed upon protection boundaries. LRA land falls under the protection of local fire protection district. The two primary wildland fire protection agencies within the South Fork American River watershed are the USFS which protects approximately 60 percent of the watershed and CDF which protects approximately 40 percent of the watershed. Both agencies have similar initial attack strategies, those strategies are intended to keep all fires to a minimal size. The initial attack success rate in the watershed is very high and only about one percent of the fires escape initial attack. Most of those that escape initial attack are located in the steep terrain and heavy fuels in the schrublands and mixed conifer zones. Fire response is based on a cooperative effort between the local fire protection districts, CDF, and the USFS. The wildland fire suppression options of both CDF and the USFS are to conduct wildland fire actions in a timely, effective, and efficient manner with a high regard for public and 3-9

59 firefighter safety. However, the USFS has some options that allow them to take appropriate suppression actions to meet resource management objectives if those objectives do not affect private property or human lives. Options include developing plans for specific areas that may be allowed to burn when environmental conditions suggest that burning could be beneficial. These are called fire use areas. The Eldorado National Forest has not identified any fire use areas, and at present all parts of the watershed are full suppression areas (Eldorado National Forest 2002). The National Fire Plan also calls for a coordinated effort between the federal, state, and local fire protection agencies to reduce the fuel hazards around communities first. It directs the federal land management agencies to do whatever they can to bring the forest back into a condition that would allow fire to play its natural role in the ecosystem. Today s fire suppression activities in the watershed are complicated and involve numerous agencies and each of those agencies has its own set of policies and procedures to follow in the event of a wildfire. But all of them put the protection of life and property as their primary objective and bring all the available resources to bear when suppressing wildfires. 3.4 Fire Hazard Analysis The following section outlines the steps we took to identify those sub-basins most likely to lose high value resources (human and biological) to wildfire. The discussion includes an overview of two phases to this analysis. In Phase 1, existing data on fuel hazard and fire occurrences was assembled. Phase 2 included an assessment of the natural and economic resources that are at risk of being lost to catastrophic fire. The following discussion includes a summary of the fuel hazard analysis completed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire (CDF) for the project area and outlines the conditions and the resources in the watershed. Section 3.5 Conclusions presents the results of this analysis and Appendix A Methodology describes in detail the methods used in this analysis Phase 1: Predicting the Likelihood of Future Fires We began by compiling a GIS database of existing fire studies in the project area. Most of the fire analyses in the project area were conducted by the two primary fire management agencies in the watershed - CDF and the US Forest Service (USFS). We obtained data for Alpine, Amador, and El Dorado counties from CDF that showed the distribution of fuel ranks across the landscape. We also obtained data form the USFS on fire hazard (i.e. a measure of existing fuels) and fire risk (i.e. the likelihood of an ignition) for a portion of the project area. After reviewing each of these data sets we decided to use the CDF data which covers all jurisdictions as opposed to the Forest Service which only covers the area above about 3,000 feet elevation. The intensity and extent of a given wildfire depends on weather, topographic position, vegetation, and the level of fuels present. Given that a wildfire is ignited and that weather conditions support the uncontrolled expansion of a fire, the CDF fuel rank maps identify and prioritize those areas most at risk of catastrophic wildfire. The CDF fuel rank maps show the distribution of the fire hazard across the landscape by ranking the hazard into one of four classes: 1. No Fuels; 2. Moderate Fuels; 3. High Fuels; and 4. Very High Fuels. These risk classes provide a relative ranking of the degree of hazard that exists if a wildfire was initiated. However, the risk classes do not indicate where wildfires are likely to be initiated. We took this CDF database and further categorized it by selecting those sub-basins in our project area with the highest percentage (ranked 50 th percentile) of land (in acres) ranked as High or Very High Fuels. Figure 3.2 shows both the distribution of the four rank categories (by color) and the distribution of those subbasins with the highest percentage of acres of High or Very High Fuels (heavy black outline). 3-10

60 The largest area within the Very High fuel rank class occurs in the foothill zone between about 400 feet and 2,000 feet elevation. Not surprisingly, the upper montane zone has the greatest proportion in the moderate category with some areas ranked as No Fuels due to rock outcroppings in the high Sierra. The middle elevations have a combination of Moderate Fuels and High or Very High fuel ranks. The distribution of hazard also varies by cover type (Table 3.3). Urban, agricultural, and barren areas reflect the lowest levels of fire hazard, whereas fuel ranks in shrublands, hardwoods, conifer hardwoods, and conifer types is substantially higher. The percentage of cover type in each fuel rank class varies depending on the zone in which it is located. For example, the majority of the conifer habitats in the foothill zone, such as ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer below 2,500 feet elevation, are classified as High hazard. This is in contrast to these same habitats in the lower and upper montane zones where most of this habitat type is classified as Very High hazard. These differences in fuel rank reflect the topographic locations of the different habitat types in the different zones. In the foothill zone, conifer types such as ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitats are located primarily on cooler north-facing slopes. The conifer habitat types in the upper zones occupy both the cooler northfacing slopes and the hot, dry south-facing slopes. Drier fuel conditions on south-facing slopes lead to a greater fire hazard. Understanding the distribution of fuels and hence the fuel hazard is an important first step, but because so much of the project area has High to Very High fuel ranks and because resources are limited to improve those fuel conditions, it is important to prioritize those areas most in-need of fuel improvement projects. We identified the distribution of valuable resources in the project area as a way of further prioritizing the need for fuels management projects. Table 3.3 Percentage of each Habitat Type Classified as Moderate, High, or Very High Fuel Rank. Area in Basin Moderate High Fuels Very High Fuels Cover Type (acres) Non-Fuels Fuels (acres) (acres) (acres) Urban 6,314 1,247 1,723 2, Agriculture 3,165 1, , Barren 20,959 18,583 1,088 1, Grass/Herbs 36,320 1,837 11,023 21,664 1,799 Shrublands 40, ,602 26,032 11,627 Hardwoods 67,396 1,832 4,579 47,879 13,117 Conifer-Hardwoods 69, ,003 32,434 23,678 Conifer 285,111 1, ,342 67,683 61,191 TOTAL 523,134 27, , , ,873 Source: California Department of Forestry

61 South Fork American River Watershed Distribution of Fuel Hazard Auburn 1 ', 80 (/ Placerville (/50 (/89 (/88 The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps. El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts County boundaries Fuels - 50th percentile and above Fuel Hazard Non-fuel Moderate High Very High Miles N Figure 3.2

62 3.4.2 Phase 2: Predicting the Effects of Future Fires This section describes the important natural, economic and social resources in the watershed and attempts to answer the question - what is at risk? In other words, what is the distribution of valuable resources in the watershed? We began our analysis by identifying twelve resource categories of importance in the watershed ranging from the presence of federal and State listed endangered species to the density of structures valued over $5,000. It is important to note that each of these resource values was considered of equal importance in this analysis and weighted evenly (see Appendix A, Methodology for further discussion). One crucial step in the identification of the important resources included a consultation meeting with the Technical Advisory Committee. On October 24, 2002 we met with key participants and agencies to gain outside input into our approach. Participants included: Ray Griffiths, Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District; Mike Taylor, Forest Botanist, Eldorado National Forest; Ellsworth Rose, Stakeholder; Connie Zelinsky, Board of Supervisors assistant to Penny Humphreys; Bill Frost, UC Cooperative Extension; Kevin Roberts, Sierra Pacific Industries; Mike Kirkley, CDF; Jennifer Boyd, USFS, Eldorado National Forest; Dave Spiegelberg, El Dorado Co. Dept. of Transportation; Jeff Novak; El Dorado Co. Parks; Holly Sheradin, SWRCB Citizen Monitoring Program; Lori Webber, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB); Bonnie Bagwell, Placer County Resource Conservation District; Rich Gresham, Placer Co. Resource Conservation District; Tony Valdes, USFS, Eldorado National Forest; Jim Kimmel, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). During this meeting we outlined our analysis process including the identification of important resources. We also received valuable input and support from these organizations. The twelve resource values selected for this analysis represent fairly evenly the elements of biological, financial and social assets in the watershed that are at risk of being destroyed by fire. These resource values are further described in the following paragraphs Natural Resources The South Fork American River watershed supports a wide variety of natural resources that are at risk of loss due to an excessive build-up of flammable material. As mentioned previously, wildfires today are often more severe than those of pre-settlement times (McKelvey et al. 1996). High intensity fires not only remove all of the vegetation, but can affect soil properties on the surface and at some depth. Depending on the severity of the fire, substantial portions of the litter and duff component of the soil can be lost. In fact, large and severe fires can lead to longterm and broad-scale ecological impacts that effect habitats for virtually all organisms dependant on the ecosystem. Although the potential impacts of large, uncontrolled burns can have devastating effects to all wildlife, plant and riparian zones, we limited this discussion to four categories including those sub-basins with: federal and State listed threatened or endangered species; important habitat for the Pine Hill plants; critical habitat designated for California red-legged frog and; high stream density (75 th percentile). These resources are described in the following paragraphs. Resource Value 1 Federal and State Listed Species We limited this analysis to plant or animal species that have been listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal or State endangered species acts and those that were actually sighted in the project area. Survey efforts for listed species in the SFAR watershed have focused on areas regulated by federal or state environmental laws. As such, our information on the location of these species 3-13

63 is largely limited to those areas undergoing development of some other land management activity. Thus, the database we are drawing from is considered to be project driven since few entries are related to casual observations. In effect, this biases the known location of sensitive species to those locations where projects have been implemented. Presently, within the basin, there are six known locations of plant species listed as threatened or endangered under the California or Federal Endangered Species Act. See Table 3.4 for a summary of the species and Figure 3.3 for their locations in the project area. Resource Value 2 Recovery Plan for the Pine Hill Plants The Pine Hill area, north of Highway 50 near Cameron Park to Salmon Falls, supports a unique assemblage of plant species associated with the gabbro soils in this area. Several of the plant species are for the most part only found in El Dorado County. This rarity combined with the threats to the persistence of these species and their habitats resulting from development in the Cameron Park area led in 1996 to the federal listing of five of the eight rare species known to this area. Table 3.4. Threatened or Endangered Species at Risk in the South Fork American River Watershed. State Name Sites 1 Primary Habitat Federal List List Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 Lake margins and rivers for nesting and wintering. Threatened Endangered Willow Flycatcher 2 Large thickets of low, dense willows None Endangered Empidonax traillii on edges of wet meadows, ponds or backwaters. California Wolverine 3 Found in a variety of high elevation Species of Threatened Gulo gulo luteus habitats. concern Sierra Nevada Red Fox Vulpes vulpes nector 1 Found in a variety of habitats from wety meadows to forested areas. Species of concern Threatened El Dorado Bedstraw 7 Cismontane woodland and chaparral. Endangered Rare Galium californicum ssp. sierrae Layne's Ragwort Senecio laynae Pine Hill Ceanothus Ceanothus roderickii Pine Hill Flannelbush Fremontodendron decumbens Restricted to gabbroic soils. 24 Cismontane woodland and chaparral. Restricted to gabbroic soils and serpentine. 11 Cismontane woodland and chaparral. Restricted to gabbroic soils. 7 Cismontane woodland and chaparral. Restricted to gabbroic soils and serpentine. Threatened Rare Endangered Rare Endangered Rare Stebbin's Morning Glory Calystegia stebbinsii 7 Cismontane woodland and chaparral. Endangered Endangered Source: California Natural Diversity Database Sites refers to the number of records reported for this species in the California Natural Diversity Database. For animal species, only one individual was noted for each site. For plant species, anywhere from 10 to >2,000 individuals were noted for a given site. 3-14

64 South Fork American River Watershed Selected Biological Values Auburn ', 80 (/49 Ñ # $ (/89 Ñ Ñ Ñ ÑÑ Ñ Ñ Ñ Ñ Ñ Ñ ÑÑ Ñ Ñ ÑÑ Ñ Ñ Ñ ÑÑ Ñ (/50 Ñ Placerville Ñ $ # $ $ # (/88 Project Area The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) County boundaries make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD Occurrences of Listed Species shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential BALD EAGLE damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data # WILLOW FLYCATCHER or maps. CALIFORNIA WOLVERINE $ SIERRA NEVADA RED FOX EL DORADO BEDSTRAW LAYNE'S RAGWORT PINE HILL CEANOTHUS PINE HILL FLANNELBUSH Ñ STEBBINS'S MORNING-GLORY El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Oak Corridors Old Forest Reserves Resource Conservation Districts Miles Recovery Plan for California Red-Legged Frog Recovery Plan for the Pine Hill Plants N Figure 3.3

65 The Federal Endangered Species Act mandates the preparation of recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not contribute to their conservation. The objectives of such plans are to ensure the long-term persistence of the species in question and to ultimately see them down-listed from Endangered to threatened and/or de-listed. A recovery plan was completed for the Pine Hill plants in 2002 that includes the creation of reserves as well as other tasks such as additional research, monitoring and active management (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). The majority of these reserves are in the South Fork American River watershed and cover about 4,214 acres in the project area. See Figure 3.3 for locations of the reserves. The chaparral and woodland community in which these species live is a fire-adapted community and can benefit from fire at the right frequency and intensity. As noted previously, the chaparral and woodland communities in the foothill area historically burned at frequent intervals. In this century, little of this area has burned, and the chaparral has in many places grown uniformly tall and thick not the preferred habitat conditions for the rare plant species which favor periodic disturbance from low intensity fire. Given the conditions of the chaparral, large catastrophic fires would be detrimental to the rare species and habitat. Resource Value 3 Recovery Plan for California Red-Legged Frog California red-legged frog, once widely distributed in California, now inhabits less than 30 percent of its former range (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). This frog inhabits quiet pools of streams, marshes, and occasionally ponds. Because of the extreme reduction in range of this species and the continuing threats to its persistence from introduced predators, development, and other land disturbing activities, California red-legged frog was listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act in A recovery plan was drafted for this species in January In the recovery plan, habitat in portions of the Weber Creek sub-basin were identified as important to the conservation of this species. This area covers about 23,248 acres in the project area. See Figure 3.3 for locations of the reserves. Resource Value 4 Stream Density The project area supports over 1,147 miles of perennial and intermittent streams. Based on studies elsewhere in the Sierra Nevada (Kondolf et al. 1996), several hundred miles of ephemeral streams are expected to occur in the watershed as well. The watershed's topography is varied and, as a result, the stream gradients are also quite variable. The stream network in the project area not only provides for the movement of water through the system, but also facilitates the movement of aquatic and terrestrial species. Catastrophic fire can destroy riparian zones and disrupt the way water moves through this network. Fire can also affect the microclimate of the streamside environment. Such changes can have direct effects on the character of the stream network. For these reasons, we included those sub-basins with the highest stream density as important resources at risk of loss from large-scale fires. There are thirty-two sub-basins in the project area with stream densities over 1.5 miles per acre. Resource Value 5 Oak Corridors In the western portion of the project area, hardwoods (i.e. oak woodlands) are a dominant cover type. The increasing fragmentation of oak woodlands has been of concern to many (Centers for Water and Wildland Protection 1996). In El Dorado County, the Oak Woodland Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed in 1996 to develop measures to implement the oak woodland protection policy contained in the county general plan. The Oak Woodland TAC also examined the existing and potential future level of fragmentation of woodlands in the county. Upon review of existing information on the distribution of oak woodlands in the county and projections of potential fragmentation, the committee 3-16

66 concluded that connectivity of woodlands from north to south was an important value to preserve and that it was at risk from future development. The committee identified several areas as important to maintaining connectivity north to south. Approximately 37,414 acres in the project area are considered important to the connectivity of oak woodlands. These were included in the values at risk analysis and are referred to as Oak Corridors. See Figure 3.3 for locations of the Oak Corridors. Resource Value 6 Old Forest Reserves Past logging and fire suppression have resulted in dramatic changes in the structure of Sierra Nevada forests (Franklin and Fites-Kaufmann 1996). In particular, old growth forests are far less abundant than in presettlement times. Approximately 15 percent of the latesuccessional old-growth forest habitat remains in the Sierra Nevada today, whereas an estimated 45 to 67 percent of the landscape was in this condition in the past (Franklin and Fites- Kaufmann 1996, Beardsley et al. 1998). Although in general old growth forests have evolved with numerous adaptations to fire, catastrophic wildfires today are often much larger and more intense than what would have occurred under the natural range of variability. For these reasons, we included this forest type as one of the important resource values as risk of loss from uncontrolled burns. We used the Old Forest Emphasis Areas that were designated in the recent forest plan amendment for Sierra Nevada national forests as a basis for the Old Forest Reserves in this analysis. This reserve system was based on an inventory of late-successional old growth (LSOG) forests on national forest lands completed in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (Centers for Water and Wildland Resources 1996) as well as additional inventories completed since that time. Areas were included in the reserve system based on their high LSOG value, with additional moderate to lower quality areas added to create reserve units exceeding about 20,000 acres in size. Approximately 147,174 acres of Old Forest Reserve occur within the project area. See Figure 3.3 for locations of the Old Forest Reserves Economic Resources The significant economic resources at-risk of loss due to catastrophic wildfire include timber, agricultural lands, structures and public utilities. Each of these resources is discussed below. Resource Value 7 - Timberlands The conifer forests of the SFAR watershed have attracted loggers for as long as logging has occurred in California. This is due, in part, to the highly productive soils, accessibility, and other conditions suitable for timber harvest in this region of the Sierra Nevada. Approximately 105,657 acres are zoned Timber Production Zones (TPZ) in the project area (Figure 3.4), the majority of which are located above 3,000 feet. This is about 69 percent of the total land area designated TPZ in El Dorado County. In the year 2001 timber harvested by-products grossed $23,692,400 (El Dorado County Dept of Agriculture 2001). Although this figure declined substantially from the previous year (down 16 percent), it still represents over 57 percent of the gross crop value of $49.2 million in El Dorado County (El Dorado County Dept of Agriculture 2001). This industry remains a vital economic force in the county. Commercial timber operations harvest a variety of conifer species in the South Fork American River watershed including ponderosa pine, jeffrey pine, sugar pine, white fir, incense cedar and red fir. We identified the TPZ designation on private lands and the tree plantation on USFS lands as important resources at risk of loss due to catastrophic fire. Those sub-basins with the highest density (75 th percentile) of timberlands were selected as the highest priority. 3-17

67 South Fork American River Watershed Selected Economic Values Auburn ', 80 (/49 (/89 Placerville (/50 (/88 The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps. El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts Project Area County boundaries Important Agricultural Areas Parcels with structural value $5,000 or greater Timber Production Areas Miles N Figure 3.4

68 Resource Value 8 - Agricultural Lands Agricultural production remains a significant component of the county s economy totaling $380 million in As stated in the 2001 El Dorado County Crop Report: "Other agricultural production, excluding timber value, actually increased 6% in 2001 when compared to the 2000 figures. Important agricultural commodities in the project area include wine grapes, apples, Christmas trees, and livestock. In addition, tourism is a major component to the economic vitality of El Dorado County and this industry is directly tied to small farms - many of which are located in the project area. Agricultural production in the Apple Hill region totaled $84 million which was 22 percent of the total agricultural production in 2001 and 58 percent of the wine industry production that same year (El Dorado County 2001). We identified important agricultural regions in the project area based on designated Agricultural Preserves (AGP) from the El Dorado County land use database and designated Agricultural Soils (i.e. prime, statewide, regional, local) identified by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. We refer to these lands as Important Agricultural Areas, and they total about 46,293 acres in the project area (Figure 3.4). For this study, those sub-basins with the highest density of agricultural lands were selected as the highest priority under this category. Resource Value 9 - Structure Density Whenever a catastrophic fire strikes, it is the loss of structures that always catches the most attention. According to Jerilyn Levi of the U.S. Forest Service, the overwhelming loss of homes and other property during the fires of 2000 seared the urgent need for proactive fire management into the consciousness of Americans (as quoted in TNC 2000). The 2000 fire season also resulted in unprecedented commitment from Congress to protect communities, watersheds, and species at-risk, and will make fire management a top federal environmental priority for years to come (TNC 2000). The SFAR watershed includes all or portions of 21 Community Regions and Rural Centers as described in the General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR 1994) with numerous unincorporated, low-density, rural residential areas scattered throughout the project area. Of course, all of the structures located in the watershed are important and valuable resources that require protection from fire; however, for the purposes of this analysis we identified those sub-basins with the highest density (75 th percentile) of structures valued over $5,000. Parcels that have structures valued at $5,000 or more cover about 90,212 acres of the project area (Figure 3.4). Resource Value 10 - Public Utilities Public utility infrastructure in the SFAR watershed includes energy, water, wastewater, transportation, and communication facilities. Utility features that are located underground (e.g., pipelines) or are impervious to fire (e.g., roadways) are not subject to the same risk or damage as buildings (e.g., hydroelectric plants) or linear features (e.g., water conveyance flumes or high voltage power lines) that are located in or traverse steep, heavily forested terrain. And whereas a high-intensity fire may have shortterm impacts on an isolated hydroelectric plant, impacts to domestic water and energy supplies from damage to wooden water conveyance facilities or high voltage power lines can have longer-term and substantially greater economic and social impacts. The potential for direct impacts to domestic water supply and wastewater treatment plants from fire is generally considered to be low because such facilities are generally located in more developed areas of SFAR basin communities. However, the costs of water and wastewater treatment can be greatly affected by catastrophic fires because of the impacts of fire on water quality and associated water treatment costs to achieve water quality standards. This issue regarding the relationship between water quality and public utility water treatment will be further discussed in Chapter 4.0, Water Quality. 3-19

69 Therefore, above-ground, linear features are considered to be the most at-risk public utility facilities due to wildland fire. Either short-term or long-term outages could have substantial social and economic impacts to local and regional communities. Such above-ground features would include wooden water supply conveyance flumes and high voltage transmission or sub-transmission (69 kv and above) lines, especially those that are radial, single direction feeds to communities or delivery paths from power supply sources (e.g., hydroelectric plants). Facilities that are located in areas with high fire hazard represent significant concerns for the reliability of water and power service to communities. For the purposes of this analysis, we selected those sub-basins with the presence of utilities, power lines, and water delivery ditches. Utilities included numerous power houses and ditches associated with the Upper American River Project (Sacramento Municipal Utility District), the El Dorado Project (El Dorado Irrigation District), and Chili Bar Reservoir (Pacific Gas and Electric), and the Cold Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant. Power lines were limited to the major structures in the project area and included the line running north up toward Volcanoville, the two lines running along Highway 50 ending at the Chili Bar Powerhouse outside for Placerville and the El Dorado Power House above Slab Reservoir, respectively; and the line running from the Folsom area east to Union Valley Reservoir. Irrigation ditches included were a part of the Georgetown Divide system, Weber Creek system, and the Sly Park aqueduct Social Resources Recreation, historic and scenic resources can be considered as both natural and economic assets of the SFAR watershed. In fact, all of the resources identified for this analysis are interconnected in a complex relationship but recreation, historic and scenic resources are especially intertwined with the other resource categories. For example, scenic resources help create an inviting atmosphere that sets the stage for tourism which is an economic resource and, at the same time, protection of scenic resources also creates open space providing habitat for various wildlife species. Similarly, recreation resources draw numerous tourists to the project area and this resource is, more often than not, dependent on the natural resource base of the project area. Recreation resources also help provide a forum for environmental education which can lead to incentives for natural resource protection. Protection of historic resources is also tourist based and invariably results in benefits to natural resources. Finally, recreational scenic and historic values contribute to the fabric of local communities and are at the heart of why many people live here. Because these resource values contribute the quality of life in the project area, we refer to them as Social Resources. Resource Value 11 - Developed Recreation and Major Historic Sites The project area stretches from the eastern boundary of Sacramento County near Folsom Reservoir to the high country of the Sierra Nevada. As mentioned in Chapter 2.0, developed recreation sites are distributed throughout the project area ranging from campgrounds to community parks. Other significant developed recreation resources include river rafting put-ins and take-outs, rock climbing sites, and ski resorts. The SFAR watershed has a rich cultural background as the place where gold was first discovered in 1848 and historic structures and remnants of this mining era are evident throughout the watershed. In addition, the project area has a wealth of pre-historic resources harboring some of the most significant village sites in El Dorado County. These links to the past offer important data to the scientific community that serve to increase our understanding of the regions pre-history as well as modern history. They also add to the charm of the project area and attract tourists to the area. While these resources are significant, they are also considered sensitive and full disclosure of locations is strictly prohibited. However, there are a number of well-known and developed major cultural resource sites in the project 3-20

70 area. For this analysis we identified three areas with major cultural resource sites that could be at-risk of destruction due to uncontrolled fire. These include Marshall Gold Discovery Park, Gold Bug Park, and historic Main Street in Placerville. For the purposes of this analysis, we selected those sub-basins with the presence of developed recreation resources and major historic sites (Figure 3.5). This resulted in the selection of 30 sub-basins with such sites. Refer to Appendix A for a list of the recreational and historic sites included in the analysis. Resource Value 12 - Scenic Roads and River Corridors Scenic or Aesthetic Resources refer to those qualities of a landscape that are aesthetically pleasing to a viewer (El Dorado County 1994). As mentioned previously, the majestic scenery and open spaces in the SFAR watershed attract millions of tourists to the area while simultaneously providing important wildlife habitat. In fact, due to the steep topography of the area, scenic resources are so prevalent they are often taken for granted as part of the landscape throughout most of El Dorado County. Catastrophic wildfire can severely impact the quality of these resources for many generations and for this reason we included these resources as important resources at-risk. For purposes of this analysis, we defined those sub-basins with significant scenic resources as those with portions of roadways or river corridors having official scenic designations. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been so designated. The official designations were obtained from three sources: 1. the 1994 El Dorado County General Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR); 2. the El Dorado County River Management Plan, South Fork of the American River adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1984 and updated in 2001 and; 3. the Caltrans State Scenic Highways website (2002). According to the El Dorado County DEIR (1994) there is one designated Scenic Highway in the project area - U.S. Highway 50 from about Forni Road east to the Sierra Crest. In addition, State Route 49 is eligible for designation where it traverses the project area. According to the Caltrans website all of Highway 88 where it traverses the SFAR watershed and all of Highway 193 in the project area are designated scenic routes. There are also a number of County roadways in the project area adopted under the previous El Dorado County Scenic Highways Element as local County Scenic Roadways including: Green Valley Road, North Canyon Road, Carson Road, Georgetown Road (Highway 193 between Cool and Georgetown), Wentworth Springs Road, and Icehouse Road. In addition to scenic roads, the 1994 El Dorado County DEIR describes the South Fork American River as a Scenic River Corridor stating that the Management Plan for the South Fork of the American River provides overall guidance for the long-term use of the river and adjacent riparian lands. The protection of the environmental quality of the river and the maintenance of its values are listed as two of the important goals of the management plan. Twenty-five sub-basins had these scenic values including about 20 miles of scenic waterway and about 169 miles of scenic roads (Figure 3.5) Summary of Resource Analysis For the final step in the resource values analysis, we summed the total number of high ranking resource values in each of the 81 sub-basins. This resulted in a distribution of scores between 1 and 8, with twelve sub-basins having scores greater than or equal to 6 (Appendix B). 3-21

71 South Fork American River Watershed Selected Social Values Auburn ', 80 (/49 $ (/89 $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ (/50 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Placerville (/88 The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps. El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts County boundaries $ Major Historic Sites Neighborhood and Community Parks Forest Service Developed Recreation Scenic Roads Scenic Waterway Project Area Miles N Figure 3.5

72 3.5 The Nexus Between Resource Values and Fuel Hazard The final step in this analysis was to integrate the results from the fuel hazard assessment with the identified resource values. The results from the fuel hazard assessment in Phase 1 (i.e. the top forty sub-basins with the highest fuel ranks) were overlaid onto the final results from Phase 2, the Resource Value assessment. Figure 3.6 displays these combined data sets. The crosshatched areas (black) indicate the basins ranked in the top 50 th percentile or greater with High and Very High fuel hazards. The shades of green represent the number of resource values present in a basin with the darkest colors corresponding to the greatest number of values. With one exception (sub-basin 38) all of the subbasins that ranked six or greater for resource values also fell within the basins that ranked highest for fuel hazard. We identified 11 subbasins as first priorities for this assessment. These sub-basins are: 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 75, 76, 78, 79, and 81. The values contributing to their selection are displayed in Table 3.5. Resource Values for all sub-basins are displayed in Appendix B. Nearly all the basins selected as priorities contain Important Agricultural Areas, Areas with Structures Valued over $5,000, and Utilities. Over half of the sub-basins also contained Oak Corridors, Scenic Roads and Waterways, and Recreational/Major Historic Sites. Five of the sub-basins also ranked for Stream Density and habitat for California redlegged frog. 3-23

73 South Fork American River Watershed Nexus Between Extreme Fuel Ranks and Resource Values Auburn 1 ', (/ (/ Placerville (/ (/ 88 The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps. El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts County boundaries Fuels - 50th percentile rank and above Other Project Sub-Basins Resource Values Miles N Figure 3.6

74 Chapter 4.0 Water Quality 4.1 Introduction Water is linked to virtually all other natural and economic resources in the Sierra Nevada and the most contentious disputes in the region often involve water as a primary or secondary concern. In fact, of all the natural resourcebased revenues in the Sierra Nevada, water is identified as the most valuable commodity (Centers for Water and Wildland Resources 1996). What s more, of all the issues surrounding water, water quality remains one of the most critical in the Sierra Nevada due to the dependence of all life forms, including human, on both its reliability and its condition. Similar to issues associated with catastrophic fire, the South Fork American River watershed illustrates many of the water quality concerns facing the entire Sierra Nevada. The South Fork American River has all the components that make water quality a complex and critical issue. The 537,166 acre watershed contains over fifteen reservoirs distributed across the landscape from the headwaters downstream to Folsom Reservoir located at the river s terminus. Most of these reservoirs are associated with hydroelectric production but some are used for domestic water supply and agricultural purposes as well. In addition, numerous water rights are held by public agencies and individual landowners that rely greatly on the river and it s tributaries especially during the summer months. To add to the complexity of these issues, the watershed is located in the fastest growing and wealthiest region of the Sierra Nevada the North Central Sierra Nevada (Sierra Business Council 1999) and the most urbanized portions of El Dorado County are located in the project area. The increasing urbanization of the watershed leads to stronger dependence on domestic water supply, increased demands for the production of food and power, increased demands for sewage and septic systems, and it creates more urban run-off one of the primary sources of water pollution. According the El Dorado County River Management Plan (2001) other sources affecting water quality of the South Fork include: timber operations/road construction mining agricultural runoff industrial facilities boating bike trails rafting other recreation-related disturbances The potential cumulative impact of these trends and developments underscores the need for a sound understanding of the baseline characteristics of all the water quality parameters in the watershed. Indeed, the complexity and importance of water quality issues in the SFAR watershed far exceeds this analysis. Many water quality studies are underway as a part of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydroelectric project re-licensing, reconstruction of the El Dorado Hydroelectric Project, and the City of Placerville s water quality investigation for its wastewater treatment plant. In addition, the water purveyors of the American River basin that treat wastewater (including El Dorado Irrigation District and Placer County Water Agency) are participating in a sanitary survey of the basin that is updated every five years. The survey is being performed in accordance with the California Surface Water Treatment Rule to evaluate watershed contaminant sources, source water quality, treatment plant capabilities, and treated water quality to assess the ability of an agency to meet drinking water quality standards (Archibald and Wallberg Consultants 1998). The American River Conservancy is surveying benthic macroinvertebrates, habitat quality and biophysical parameters to better understand the baseline characteristics of several tributaries to the South Fork American River. The purpose of their work is to gather baseline data on these tributaries, characterize the qualities of the least disturbed reaches in the area, and assess the 4-1

75 effect of water diversions on stream quality. Furthermore, the El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) facilitate two volunteer stream water quality monitoring programs in the SFAR watershed as part of its mission to promote responsible natural resource stewardship and the USFS is conducting ongoing water quality monitoring of the upper watershed. We approached this analysis with a preliminary understanding of these and other water quality studies currently underway in the watershed and, as such, we directed our focus towards complementing these studies while simultaneously identifying information gaps where they exist. This project focused on characterizing: 1) stakeholder water quality concerns; 2) the parties collecting water quality data within the project area; 3) locations of ongoing water quality monitoring and parameter-specific data being collected; 4) potential geographic and/or constituent-specific data gaps; and 5) complementing these studies by providing watershed-level assessment(s) for one or more specified water quality parameters. The following paragraphs describe our approach to defining the water quality component of this analysis. Our analysis includes two parts. First, we completed a review of existing water quality data. This data will be included in the Watershed Evaluation. The focus of the review was primarily on sedimentation-related parameters (e.g., turbidity) in accordance with the direction of the SFAR Technical Advisory Committee (see Appendix C). As can be seen from the discussion in the following sections, however, existing data is limited to a few points in the project area and comprehensive data does not exist for the basin. The data is further limited for data related to sedimentation. Given the absence of more comprehensive water quality data pertaining to sedimentation for the watershed, it is difficult for us to identify in a relative or absolute sense where water quality is degraded. In light of this, we decided for the second part of the analysis to determine those areas at greatest risk of experiencing water quality impacts, and more specifically the likelihood of experiencing increased sedimentation. Sedimentation was defined by the SFARWG as one of top ten highest priorities in the watershed and it was one of the parameters that we could address with our existing data. We assumed for the analysis that areas undergoing the human-induced land disturbance (e.g. development, road building) were the most likely to be at risk of sedimentation as well as being activities that we can most likely influence and manage. Lastly, we identified several information gaps that when filled will improve our ability to manage impacts to water quality in the project area. This chapter prioritizes by sub-basin those areas at-risk of increased sedimentation that could benefit from additional studies. The chapter begins by describing the overall regulatory standards and protective measures set in place to protect water quality, followed by an assessment of completed and ongoing water quality studies and data collection efforts currently taking place in the watershed that provide information specific to sedimentation. Next, we outline some important information gaps that when filled would improve our ability to understand sedimentation and related water quality parameters in the watershed. Finally, the analysis focuses on identifying sub-basins as priorities that would benefit from additional programs and projects focused on erosion and sediment control measures for improving water quality. 4.2 Standards and Protective Measures Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan) The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) has defined nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, based on the major watersheds within the State. The SWRCB and nine RWQCBs are the principal State agencies with regulatory responsibility for coordination 4-2

76 and control of water quality. Each of the RWQCBs has developed and maintains a Basin Plan, which establishes the beneficial uses for water bodies within its respective geographic boundaries. These beneficial uses combined with legally-adopted criteria (or objectives ) and the State s anti-degradation policies together comprise water quality standards for each of the nine basins. The South Fork American River lies entirely within the boundaries and jurisdiction of the Central Valley Region, which is Region #5 of the 9 geographic regions defined by the SWRCB. State water quality standards for the Central Valley Region are defined in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan), Fourth Edition (RWQCB 1998). The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Section et seq.) establishes the requirement to adopt and revise State policies for water quality control. Basin Plans adopted by the RWQCBs must conform to these policies. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act defines water quality objectives as "...the limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of water or the prevention of nuisance within a specific area" (Water Code Section 13050(h)). It also requires the RWQCBs to establish water quality objectives, while acknowledging that it is possible for water quality to be changed to some degree without unreasonably affecting beneficial uses. In establishing water quality objectives, the Regional Water Board must consider, among other things, the following factors: past, present, and probable future beneficial uses; environmental characteristics of the hydrographic unit under consideration, including the quality of water available thereto; water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all factors which affect water quality in the area; economic considerations; the need for developing housing within the region; and the need to develop and use recycled water. (Water Code Section 13241) The primary goals of water quality planning, as stated in the Basin Plan, include the protection and enhancement of existing and potential beneficial uses for a given watershed. California State law establishes beneficial uses of its waters as those that may be protected against quality degradation and that may include, but are not limited to, domestic, municipal, agricultural and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves (Water Code Section (f)). The following existing or potential beneficial uses have been designated for the South Fork American River, from the source to Placerville. municipal and domestic water supply hydropower generation water contact recreation and noncontact water recreation warm and cold freshwater habitat cold spawning and early life stage development of fish, and wildlife habitat. For this reach of the South Fork American River, the warm freshwater habitat has been designated as a potential beneficial use, with all other beneficial uses listed above designated as existing uses. The following existing beneficial uses have been designated for the South Fork American River from Placerville to Folsom Lake. municipal and domestic water supply agricultural irrigation hydropower generation water contact recreation and noncontact water recreation warm and cold freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat. 4-3

77 In general, the beneficial uses specifically identified for a particular water body also apply to the tributaries of that water body. Water Quality Parameters Associated with Increased Sedimentation. The objectives established in the Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan primarily apply to conventional constituents, including sediment load. The RWQCB water quality objectives for color, dissolved oxygen (DO), total dissolved solids (TDS), sediment load, settleable material, suspended material, and turbidity for the South Fork American River are provided in Table 4.1. These constituents may be indicators of sedimentation (i.e., TDS, sediment load, settlable material, suspended material, turbidity) or be affected by changes in sedimentation load (i.e., color, DO). In addition, the Basin Plan contains quantitative surface water objectives for fecal coliform bacteria, biostimulatory substances, floating material, oil and grease, ph, pesticides, radioactivity, salinity, tastes and odors, temperature, and toxicity. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations specifies Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for domestic and municipal use, including drinking water standards. These provisions are incorporated by reference into the Basin Plan. However, the RWQCB may impose limits more stringent than the MCLs in an effort to further protect beneficial uses. When standards are not met and deemed to be impairing beneficial uses, the RWQCB would identify the water body on the States (303(d) (i.e. impaired water body) list. The State conducts Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies to address such water quality impairments. Table 4.1. Current RWQCB Water Quality Objectives Applicable to the South Fork American River Watershed (RWQCB 1998). Constituent Water Quality Objectives Color Water shall be free of discoloration that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses Dissolved oxygen (DO) The DO concentration shall not be reduced below 7.0 mg/l at any time Total dissolved solids The TDS concentration shall not exceed 125 mg/l (90 percentile) in (TDS) the South Fork American River from the source to Folsom Lake Sediment The suspended sediment load and suspended sediment discharge rate of surface waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses Settleable material Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses Suspended material Waters shall not contain suspended material in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses Turbidity Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Increases in turbidity attributable to controllable water quality factors shall not exceed the following limits: Where natural turbidity is between 0 and 5 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs), increases shall not exceed 1 NTU Where natural turbidity is between 5 and 50 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 20 percent Where natural turbidity is between 50 and 100 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 10 NTUs Where natural turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 10 percent 4-4

78 4.2.2 National Toxics Rule (NTR) and California Toxics Rule (CTR) Standards In 1992, pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. EPA promulgated the National Toxics Rule (NTR) to establish numeric standards for priority toxic pollutants for California. The NTR established water quality standards for 42 pollutants not covered, at that time, under California's statewide water quality regulations. As a result of a court-ordered revocation of California's statewide water quality control plan in September 1994, the U.S. EPA initiated efforts to promulgate additional water quality standards for California. In May 2000, the U.S. EPA issued the California Toxics Rule (CTR) that promulgated numeric standards for priority pollutants not included in the NTR. The CTR documentation (FR , May 18, 2000) carried forward the previously promulgated standards of the NTR, thereby providing a single document listing California s fully adopted and applicable water quality standards for priority toxic pollutants Non-Point Source Program Sedimentation in streams is largely a non-point source (NPS) pollution problem. The purpose of the SWRCB s Non-Point Source Program Plan is to improve the State's ability to effectively manage NPS pollution and conform to the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and the federal Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) of The vision of the NPS Program is to reduce and prevent NPS pollution to the benefit of California s surface and ground waters. The goals of the NPS are to: 1) improve water quality monitoring, management practices (MPs) and reporting, 2) target program activities through local stewardship and site-specific MPs, 3) coordinate NPS pollution control with public and private partners in all aspects of the NPS program, 4) provide financial and technical assistance and education related to NPS pollution control, land use management, and watershed management, and 5) implement management measures to ensure the protection and restoration of the State s water resources Storm Water Programs Storm water pollution, a significant source of stream sedimentation, is controlled by the Clean Water Act amendments of The amendments authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to expand the National Pollutant Discharge Eliminated System (NPDES) program to cover storm water discharges. The State of California has an approved EPA NPDES permitting program. Storm water runoff in El Dorado County is regulated by the Central Valley RWQCB. In addition, El Dorado County has developed storm water pollution prevention guidelines for its residents. These guidelines are available on the County s website ( In an effort to reduce the potential for sediments and associated pollutants from entering streams as a result of construction activity, the State has also developed storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs) for its CalTrans, Construction, Industrial, and Municipal Programs. Copies of these BMPs are available through the SWRCB website ( 4.3 Water Quality Data Collection Efforts in the Project Area The following section outlines the ongoing water quality data collection efforts in the project area El Dorado Irrigation District Project 184 The El Dorado Hydroelectric Project, FERC (Project 184) is a 21-megawatt (MW) project located on the SFAR in El Dorado, Alpine, and Amador counties. Project

79 consists of four storage reservoirs, the El Dorado Diversion Dam, water conveyance facilities, a forebay, penstock, a powerhouse, and seven small diversions. These diversions are located on Carpenter Creek, No-Name Creek, Alder Creek, Mill Creek, Bull Creek, Ogilby Creek, and Esmeralda Creek, all tributaries to the South Fork American River. In support of the FERC re-licensing process for Project 184, the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) contracted with ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP) to conduct assessments of the aquatic resources of the SFAR, including assessments of water quality and studies of benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) communities. The water quality report was not available at the time this report was prepared; however, the BMI reports are available from the EID Project 184 website ( ml). The BMI community assessment was performed using the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (CSBP) developed by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The CSBP is a methodology for assessing water quality impairment via numerical indices (i.e., metrics ) based on the BMI community composition and typically includes measurements of such water quality parameters as water temperature, specific conductance (EC), dissolved oxygen (DO), and ph. On another aspect of Project 184, EID has been monitoring water quality at several locations on the SFAR and its tributaries (e.g., Alder, Mill and Bull creeks) in compliance with Clean Water Act and associated permit requirements during reconstruction of the El Dorado Diversion Dam and construction of a new 2-mile tunnel between Mill and Bull creeks. Numerous parameters are being monitored, including background water quality levels, on nearly a daily basis. The monitoring program is to ensure that existing water quality conditions are not degraded by construction activities. This data is available through EID American River Watershed Sanitary Survey Water purveyors are required by the California Department of Health Services (DHS) and the U.S. EPA to monitor treated and untreated (source) drinking water and prepare an Annual Water Quality Report. EID monitors the quality of its source waters, which includes the SFAR. It also periodically conducts watershed sanitary surveys. These water quality monitoring efforts collectively provide data for more than 200 constituents. The results of these monitoring surveys are published every five years in Source Water Assessment Reports. The most recent report, entitled: American River Watershed Sanitary Survey (Archibald and Wallberg Consultants, Inc. 1998), was published in In addition, a report titled: Sanitary Watershed Survey for Reservoir One, Reservoir A, and Outingdale Water Treatment Facilities was published by EID in 1998 (EID 1998), with an update published in February 2001 (EID 2001). These reports are available from EID Headquarters and the El Dorado County Reference Library in Placerville El Dorado County Water Agency Water Program Historic water quality data collected by the El Dorado County Water Agency and EID prior to 1979 was summarized in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) entitled: Draft El Dorado County Water Agency Water Program and El Dorado Project Draft Environmental Impact Report for the El Dorado Irrigation District Service Area (Water Program), which was prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. (1992) for El Dorado County Water Agency. This DEIR summarized values for 18 constituents, including DO, water temperature, ph, EC, total dissolved solids (TDS), hardness, and turbidity at four locations in the SFAR and in Alder Creek and Weber Creek. 4-6

80 4.3.3 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) owns and operates the Upper American River Project (UARP), a hydroelectric facility located on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. The UARP lies primarily within El Dorado County within lands of the Eldorado National Forest. The project is a large hydroelectric development composed of several reservoirs and powerhouses located primarily within the American River basin. The current FERC license for the UARP expires in In support of the FERC re-licensing process, SMUD has initiated a water quality assessment of water bodies affected by the UARP. The water bodies to be sampled are the Rubicon Reservoir, Rockbound Lake, Buck Island, Loon Lake, Gerle Creek, Rob s Peak Reservoir, Union Valley Reservoir, Icehouse Reservoir, Junction Reservoir, Camino Reservoir, Rush Creek Reservoir, Slab Creek Reservoir, Chili Bar Reservoir, and most tributaries to these reservoirs. This one-year assessment was initiated in October 2002, terminates in fall 2003, and consists of four seasonal sampling phases: first rain (October 2002), spring run-off (spring 2003), summer low-flow (September 2003), and fall reservoir turnover (fall 2003). The water quality parameters to be measured for this assessment include a variety of conventional constituents (e.g., temperature, ph, EC, and turbidity), metals, and organics. The report for this survey is anticipated to be available from SMUD in The report for this survey is anticipated to be available from SMUD in City of Placerville The City of Placerville operates the Hangtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (HCWWTP), which provides service to the City and adjacent areas. This facility discharges treated effluent into Hangtown Creek, which is tributary to Weber Creek, which flows into the SFAR. The HCWWTP is required under its NPDES permit (Order No ; NPDES CA ) to monitor Hangtown Creek at sites R-1 (100 feet upstream of the point of discharge) and R-2 (1320 feet downstream of the point of discharge) for the water quality parameters and sampling frequencies listed in Table 4.2. In addition, the permit requires observations of floating or suspended material, discoloration, bottom deposits, aquatic life, films, sheens, coatings, fungi, slime, objectionable growths, and potential nuisance conditions to be reported. In addition to the NPDES permit s routine receiving water monitoring requirements (Table 4.2), the RWQCB has required the City to perform an effluent and receiving water quality assessment pursuant to California Water Code Section 13267, as directed in Section 1.2 of the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries (SWRCB 2000), also referred to as the Statewide Implementation Plan (SIP). The primary objective of this monitoring study is to determine whether the HCWWTP discharge has CTR/NTR constituents and/or non-priority organics/metals in concentrations that may cause, have the potential to cause, or significantly contribute to excursions in the receiving waters above the current State Table 4.2. Constituents Monitored in Hangtown Creek Immediately Above and Below the City of Placerville s Hangtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Constituent Units Sampling Frequency Dissolved Oxygen mg/l Twice weekly ph Number Twice weekly Turbidity NTU Twice weekly Temperature F ( C) Twice weekly Electrical Conductivity (@25 C) µmhos/cm Twice weekly Fecal Coliform Organisms MPN/100 ml Monthly Radionuclides pci/l Annually 4-7

81 numeric/narrative standards (i.e., Basin Plan objectives) or federal water quality criteria (i.e., CTR/NTR criteria). This survey will compile effluent and receiving water data on over 180 constituents, including priority toxic pollutants, organophosphate pesticides, drinking water constituents, and conventional constituents, such as EC, ph and hardness. This monitoring study was initiated in February 2002 and will terminate in January The City of Placerville will issue its final report for this study to the RWQCB by March The American River Conservancy The American River Conservancy (ARC) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote biodiversity within the American River watershed through protection and enhancement of natural habitats, and to promote environmental stewardship through education. The ARC acquires critical wildlife and plant habitat through land purchases or donations and monitors the water quality of streams through sampling of the benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) communities. In spring 2000, the ARC began a BMI monitoring program in four American River tributaries: Hastings Creek, Greenwood Creek, Dutch Creek, and Weber Creek. This analysis was performed using the CSBP. In accordance with the CSBP, water quality data were collected in each of the four streams for water temperature, EC, ph, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity between May 2000 and May 2001 (American River Conservancy, unpublished data). The results of the study can be obtained from the American River Conservancy. The ARC is currently conducting additional studies on tributaries in the region with a report available in El Dorado County & Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) facilitate two water quality monitoring programs in the SFAR and several tributaries. The RCD has worked with many local agencies and schools to develop a Watershed Education Summit (WES), a stream monitoring program designed to educate students about the principles and methods of watershed management. Through this program, approximately 40 students from local high schools collect water quality data for a variety of conventional constituents (i.e., DO, ph, EC, temperature, turbidity, nitrate, phosphorous, and alkalinity) in Wench Creek, South Fork Rubicon, Jones Fork and Silver Creek. The RCD also coordinates a volunteer-based effort to monitor an organophosphate (OP) pesticide, diazinon, total coliform bacteria, and E. coli levels at seven locations within the SFAR watershed: 1) Hangtown Creek at Hwy 50 and Canal Street, 2) Hangtown Creek at Debbie Court, 3) South Fork of the American River near the Gold Discovery Site State Park, 4) Meadowbrook Creek near Garden Valley, 5) New York Creek in El Dorado Hills, 6) Weber Creek near Green Valley Road, and 7) Ringold Creek at Woodland Drive. Furthermore, this monitoring program utilizes the California Stream and Shore Walk Visual Assessment protocol to document and characterize the water quality and habitat conditions for 100-m segments of each these streams Eldorado National Forest For the last three years, the Eldorado National Forest has been working with students from local schools to conduct stream monitoring studies along three tributaries to the South Fork American River Jones Fork Silver Creek, Big Silver Creek, and Wench Creek. Students work alongside fishery biologists and hydrologists to collect data on these creeks thereby assisting scientists with developing management 4-8

82 decisions for the aquatic resources of the watershed. 4.4 Water Quality Trends and Data Gaps The water quality monitoring studies/programs discussed above constitute the majority of water quality monitoring efforts that are currently ongoing within the project area, and collectively define current baseline water quality throughout the watershed. Although not completed as part of this Watershed Assessment, a comprehensive, GIS-based compilation of the water quality data collected from these efforts will be completed as part of Task 3, the Watershed Evaluation. This will provide a watershed-level characterization of current water quality and geographic, constituent-specific trends within the watershed. Such an effort will effectively identify both geographic and constituent-specific data gaps, which could then be targeted by future monitoring projects. A preliminary review of available data summaries and conclusions reported in the above-cited study reports provides some bigpicture insights into current water quality conditions within the project area. Overall, the results of the assessments listed above indicate that water quality throughout the SFAR watershed is generally very good. Turbidity, TDS, and EC, indicators of sedimentation load, typically reach peak levels during fall and spring in response to rain runoff and snow melt throughout the SFAR watershed. However, the above-cited studies reported that levels of these water quality parameters were generally low throughout the SFAR watershed. More detailed information on the results of these analyses will be included in the Watershed Evaluation. The Water Program (Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1992) reports elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the SFAR that probably originated from several hundred septic tanks located adjacent to the river. Furthermore, the results of the RCD volunteer monitoring program indicate that E. coli levels were highest in Hangtown Creek, among the three streams sampled. The results provide an indication that Hangtown Creek may have seasonally elevated levels of bacteria and thus warrant a priority for future bacterial monitoring. Although water quality parameters were collected for the Project 184 and Water Program BMI assessments, these data are one-time measurements used for comparison of studyspecific sites and thus may not provide a temporally or spatially representative characterization of the water body. Nevertheless, the BMI metrics calculated from the BMI community compositions of each water body sampled do provide insight to its water quality condition. The results of the Project 184 BMI study generally indicate that the water quality is good, although additional data from 2000 still need to be analyzed. The results of the ARC BMI assessment has indicated that Weber Creek is the stream most affected by water quality, among the four water bodies surveyed in their study, as demonstrated by its higher proportion of pollution tolerant BMI taxa, lower abundance of pollution intolerant taxa, and lower species diversity. Furthermore, the higher numbers of BMI taxa classified as filterercollectors (i.e., organisms that obtain their food by filtering particles from the water column) relative to gatherer-collectors (i.e., organisms that gather food particles from the stream substrate) in Weber Creek may be indicative of an excessive suspended sediment load (Merritt and Cummins 1996). It should be noted that under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories and authorized tribes are required to develop a list of water quality-limited segments of water bodies, including those impacted by sedimentation. The water bodies on the list (commonly referred to as the 303(d) list ) do not meet state water quality standards, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. For California, the law requires that the SRWCB and RWQCBs establish priority rankings for water bodies that are 303(d)-listed, and develop action plans, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), to improve water quality in an effort to achieve standards. 4-9

83 Because new water quality data collected within the project area are continually becoming available, ongoing comprehensive evaluations of project area water quality data, and actions to improve water quality where necessary, need to occur to update our knowledge of water quality throughout the watershed. Nevertheless, at this time, the RWQCB s current 303(d) list does not include any water bodies within the project area. This means that, based on available data, the RWQCB has not identified any constituents that fail to meet State water quality standards within the project area, that cannot be remedied by best practicable treatment technologies applied to point sources of pollution. Other data gaps noted during this assessment include: 1. Mapping of culverts and stormwater drainages 2. Assessment of the health and quality of riparian vegetation 3. Integrated, basin-wide data on water quality 4. Profile of baseline sediment movement in the watershed The following section addresses some of the issues involving sediment movement in the watershed. 4.5 Erosion Hazard and Risk Assessment This section identifies sub-basins with the greatest potential to experience adverse water quality effects associated with sedimentation. The section begins with a brief overview of soil movement and erosion followed by descriptions of our analysis process and results Soil Movement and Erosion Soil erosion is a process that occurs naturally within the watershed s ecosystem. The process of erosion moves mass and nutrients throughout the system, thereby enriching downstream reaches and floodplains. However, excessive land disturbance (e.g., poorly designed roads in unsuitable areas, high-density impervious cover) or catastrophic events (e.g., flooding, intense wildfire, or landslide) can lead to conditions where the volume and timing of sediment movement have substantial adverse effects on aquatic systems or water quality. In addition to strict physical effects of excess sediments entering water bodies, eroded soils often carry adsorbed contaminants from roadways, pesticides from agricultural lands, and pathogens from both urban and agricultural areas. The following section examines six attributes of watershed sub-basins that can increase the likelihood of high-volume sediment movement and associated water quality degradation. As explained previously, the results of this analysis will be used to prioritize sub-basins within the project area most in need of detailed evaluation, monitoring, and possibly restoration with respect to erosion and sedimentation in the project area Analysis We began the analysis by quantifying the potential for risk through the systematic assessment of six features or attributes including: 1. Sensitive Soils; 2. Road Density; 3. Road Density within Stream Buffers; 4. Impervious Cover; 5. Road Density on Steep Slopes; 6. Structure Density and; 7. Fuels. Each of these attributes taken separately can contribute to increased risk for sedimentation but the combination of these features reveals those areas most at risk. Furthermore, this risk intensifies in a given area as the number of the attributes located in a given area increases. For six of those categories we selected basins ranking at the 75 th percentile or greater as the highest priority areas and for the 7 th (Fuels), similar to chapter 3, we selected those fuels that ranked at the 50 th percentile or greater. For example, in the Sensitive Soils category, the top 25 percent of sub-basins with the highest number of acres rated high or very high in the Erosion Hazard Rating or Highly Erodible Land Rating were selected as the highest priority. Each time the individual sub-basin fell into the 4-10

84 highest rank as described above it received a score of one. The following sections describe in more detail the six attributes selected for this analysis. Category 1 - Sensitive Soils Two erosion hazard rating systems were used for this analysis. The USFS applies an Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR) and assigns areas as high or very high and generally covers lands within the national forest. The NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for El Dorado Area, California classifies soil as Highly Erodible Land (HEL) and covers the lands below about 3,500 feet in the county. Under each of these rating systems, erosion hazard is assigned to a given soil type based on specific properties (i.e. permeability, slope, etc.) and likely rates of precipitation. Although the HER and HEL systems are not identical in their formulations, the general location of HEL and very high EHR lands generally coincides where the data sets overlap in the region east of Georgetown. In those areas where the erosion hazard is very high and there is little to no vegetative cover, accelerated erosion is expected to occur in most years (Eldorado National Forest 1984). This condition is exacerbated in years when the storm occurrence is above average or in places where intense fire has burned most of the vegetative cover. Erosion control in these areas is essential in order to prevent accelerated erosion. In this analysis those areas with the highest density (75 th percentile) of very high erosion rating or highly erodible lands were considered the greatest priority. Category 2 - Road Density The distribution and density of roads has been linked directly to increased sedimentation. The Summary Report of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources 1996) states: Excessive sediment yield into streams remains a widespread water quality problem in the Sierra Nevada. The main sources of sediments are roads of poor design, location, construction, and maintenance and riparian areas that have been devegetated by logging, fire, grazing, mining, and construction. These problems remain despite attempts at correction. Future population growth will dramatically increase the potential for significant sedimentation problems unless effective mitigation occurs. Road information from El Dorado County, the US Forest Service and the US Geological Survey was used to create a combined road map of the project area. Due to an absence of mapped data, an unknown number of private roads, including driveways, in the western portion of the county are likely omitted from this analysis. In spite of this omission, the road system in the project area is extensive, and for the most part road density increases in and near community areas. For this analysis, those subbasins with road densities ranked at the 75 th percentile and above were selected as the highest priority areas. Not surprisingly, the lower foothill elevation of the watershed rated the highest for road density. Category 3 - Road Density in Stream Buffers Roads have also been cited as a primary factor contributing to the decline of riparian status and aquatic systems in the Sierra Nevada (Centers for Water and Wildland Resources 1996). The closer roads are to streams, the greater the risk that there will be disruption to the stream course from road crossings, sediment movement, or alteration in vegetation. To assess the potential for impacts of roads on streams, we determined the density of roads within 500 feet of a stream. For this analysis, those sub-basins with road densities near streams ranking at the 75 th percentile and above were selected as the highest priority areas. Category 4 - Impervious Cover The impervious cover refers to the infiltration rate of a given area. For example, lands covered with asphalt allow no infiltration while other soils with high porosity allow for high infiltration or percolation. In general, areas with 4-11

85 high densities of impervious cover (i.e. lots of asphalt) are at an increased risk of sedimentation (Center for Watershed Protection 1998). This is due, in part, to the reduced ability for rainfall and snowmelt to infiltrate the ground. This can then lead to increased volumes of water moving at high speed thereby creating an increased risk of erosion. However, this issue is complicated by the fact that some soils in the county, by their very nature, have poor infiltration. As such, the contribution of sedimentation that results from impervious coverage can be a relative and not a fixed factor depending on the soil quality. For example, the development of impervious coverage (i.e. asphalting) over soils that otherwise would have high infiltration rates results in a greater net impact than asphalting over soils with already low infiltration rates. Thus, without taking soil condition into account, it is possible to overestimate the impact that impervious cover may have on runoff quality. To address this, we calculated impervious cover in two different ways. First, we used the county zoning map and estimates of impervious cover suggested in Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook (Center for Watershed Protection) to calculate the degree of impervious cover in each sub-basin. Because this calculation relies upon the zoning map which includes area not yet developed, there is likely an over estimate of the imperious cover for a given basin. Nonetheless it remains a reasonable relative estimate of disturbance. We were able to complete this evaluation for all 81 sub-basins in the project area. The second method takes into account the type of soils on which the zoned activity takes place and creates a relative index or impervious factor of the effect activities have on the land as moderated by soil type. Due to the limitations of the soil data, this second analysis was completed for only 27 of the 81 sub-basins in the project area. For more detailed descriptions of this methodology see Appendix A. In summary, for this water quality risk analysis, three statistics are reported that deal with estimating impervious areas: acres of impervious area, percent impervious area, and the impervious factor. In creating the final crude score, a given basin was assigned a score of one, two or three if the estimates ranked at the 75 th percentile or greater. This was done to avoid over counting this estimate in the final crude score. Category 5 - Road Density on Steep Slopes For the soil types in the project area, as with most places, erosion hazard increases as slope increases (Eldorado National Forest 1984). Slopes in the project area range from 0 to over 85 percent. Not surprisingly, the steepest slopes are located in the river canyons. The location of roads on steep slopes exacerbates the soil hazard and erodibility of these areas. Given the erosion hazard ratings for soils in the project area, road density concerns are the greatest in areas where slope exceeds 35 percent. In this analysis, those sub-basins with the highest density (at or above the 75 th percentile rank) of roads on slopes greater than 35 percent were given a crude score of one. Category 6 Structure Density The density of structures valued at greater than $5,000 on parcels 5 acres or less was used as another index of disturbance in the each subbasin. This is related in some ways to impervious cover, but in this case focuses only on areas where structures exist today as opposed to the impervious cover estimates that relied only upon zoning maps. In this analysis, those sub-basins with the highest density (at or above the 75 th percentile rank) of structures valued over $5,000 were given a crude score of one. Category 7 Fuel ranks at 50 th percentile or greater At the TAC in November 2002, we discussed the link between sediment delivery to streams and fire resilient watersheds. Areas high in the watershed that experience catastrophic fire can affect water quality in downstream reaches (Kattelmann 1996). In recognition of the importance of considering the potential for catastrophic fire when evaluating the risk to water quality, we included the presence of fuels 4-12

86 ranked at 50 th percentile and greater in the crude score for water quality risk. Summary of Analysis Process For each sub-basin, attributes that met the ranking criteria were then identified. The number of attributes meeting the ranking criteria was totaled for each sub-basin. The following section outlines the results of this analysis Results The water quality risk analysis produced eleven sub-basins with an initial risk score of five or greater. Figure 4.1 shows the distribution of the initial rankings for each sub-basin and Table 4.3 identifies the attributes for basins having an initial score or five or greater. Appendix B contains data on all of the sub-basins in the watershed. As displayed in Figure 4.1, all of the sub-basins that ranked highest are located in the foothill zone of the watershed. This is not surprising considering that the highest density of roads, structures, and impervious cover are located in the lower reaches of the watershed, near communities and urban development. All eleven sub-basins having an initial score of five or greater ranked high for Road Density, Impervious Cover, Structure Density and Fuels. However at least one other attribute (i.e., Road Density in Stream Buffer, Steep Slopes or Sensitive Soils) had to come into play for the sub-basins to achieve an initial ranking of five or greater. In most cases, Road Density in Stream Buffers was the second most commonly identified factor that contributed to the score (Table 4.3). In other words, for the eleven sub-basins having scores of five or greater,, eight of them also ranked under Road Density in Stream Buffers (i.e. sub-basins 1, 8, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 81). Five of the eleven sub-basins ranked high for Sensitive Soils as the fifth factor (i.e. subbasins 8, 10, 21, 22 and 72) and only two of the eleven sub-basins achieved a score of six (i.e. sub-basins 8 and 72). In both of these cases the sub-basins ranked high for both Road Density in Stream Buffers and Sensitive Soils. None of the eleven sub-basins ranked high under Road Density on Steep Slopes. However, five sub-basins that did not rank highest for risk of sedimentation alone including sub-basins 20, 42, 46, 50 and 56 ranked high for both Roads on Steep Slopes and Sensitive Soils (see Appendix B for data on all sub-basins). For these attributes alone, it may be valuable to explore opportunities to implement programs and projects in these sub-basins. Lastly, although most of the sub-basins in the upper watershed scored at or below three, their connection to the management of water quality in downstream sub-basins remains important. By including the sub-basins that ranked in the top 50 th percentile for high and very high fuel rankings, it was our intent to draw attention to these sub-basins when developing management programs and projects in the future. In the next chapter, we take additional steps to integrate the analysis of water quality risk with our assessment of resources at risk from catastrophic fire. 4-13

87 South Fork American River Watershed Water Quality Risk Auburn 1 ', (/ (/ Placerville (/ (/88 The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps. El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts County boundaries Sfar water quality risk with 50th percentile for fuels.shp Miles N Figure 4.1

88 Table 4.3 Summary of Sub-Basins with Highest Score for Sedimentation* Basin # Area (acres) Sensitive Soils (%) Sensitive Soils - total Area (acres) Road Density (mi/mi^2) Road Density in Stream Buffer (mi/mi^2) Impervious Area (acres) Impervious Area (%) Impervious Factor Roads on Slopes 35% and Greater (miles) Area of parcels 5 acres or less with structure of $5,000 value or greater Watershed Name New York Creek X 5 Big Sailor Creek X 6 Traverse Creek X 5 Iowa Canyon X 5 Long Canyon X 5 South Fork Webber X Creek North Fork Webber X Creek Hangtown Creek X 5 Shaw Mine Mill X 5 Indian Creek X 5 Kelley Creek X 5 *Highlighted values were those that ranked at the selected percentile rank. Fuels ranked above 50 th percentile Final Crude Score 4-15

89 Chapter 5.0 The Interface Between Catastrophic Wildfire and Water Quality 5.1 Introduction The previous two chapters address the threat of catastrophic wildfire and water quality hazards as two distinct issues with little overlap. These chapters describe our analysis process for prioritizing lands in need of restoration projects by first evaluating the threat of catastrophic wildfire followed by a separate analysis of the risk of sedimentation. However, while catastrophic wildfire and sedimentation are in many ways discrete problems, the two are also interconnected in a complicated relationship. In addition, the economic resources to treat these environmental problems are limited. For these reasons, it makes sense to further prioritize treatment areas by also examining areas where stewardship projects can work conjunctively to gain the most benefit. In this chapter we examine those sub-basins that emerged as priorities for both the threat of catastrophic wildfire and the threat of increased sedimentation. We also lay the foundation for the next phase of the project the Watershed Evaluation. The chapter begins with descriptions of those sub-basins ranked as the highest priorities for both catastrophic wildfire and the risk of sedimentation including information about the attributes that resulted in the selection of these sub-basins. This section is followed by a discussion of the Next Steps including an introduction to the Watershed Evaluation. 5.2 The Overlap Priority Sub-basins Six of the eighty-one sub-basins in the project area ranked as the highest priorities for resource values at risk from catastrophic wildfire and the risk of sedimentation. Figure 5.1 provides a visual map displaying the location of these subbasins in green. Each of the six sub-basins selected as priorities have unique sets of attributes and resource values that, in combination, resulted in a high ranking. Still, some general themes emerge with traits that all or most of the sub-basins hold in common. Shared traits for all six sub-basins include characteristics related to urbanization such as high density of Structures Valued over $5,000, high densities of Impervious Coverage, and Road Density in the sub-basin. In a similar trend towards urban areas, five of the six subbasins include the presence of Utilities (with the exception of Indian Creek, #78) and another five of the six sub-basins ranked for the presence of Scenic Roads and Waterways (with the exception of Traverse Creek, #10). Still another five of the six sub-basins ranked for the presence of Recreational or Major Historic Sites (again with the exception of Indian Creek, #78). Although these shared traits reflect commonalities found in most urban areas of the watershed, none of these six sub-basins have the exact same combination of characteristics that resulted in their selection. In other words, the other non-urban attributes varied widely between sub-basins. The following paragraphs describe each of the six sub-basins that emerged as priorities for both the risk of catastrophic wildfire and water quality elucidating the unique sets of characteristics and resource values that favor them as the highest priority areas for treatment. As mentioned above, all six of these priority sub-basins have the more urban traits in common. As such, the following discussion 5-1

90 South Fork American River Basin Overlap Between Resource Values/High Fuel Rank and Risk of Sedimentation Auburn ', 80 (/ (/ Placerville 75 (/50 (/88 The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps. El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts County boundaries Priority Sub-Basins Other Project Sub-Basins Miles N Figure 5.1

91 emphasizes those traits or combination of traits that make the sub-basin unique among the six priority areas. New York Creek (#1): This sub-basin ranked high for Road Density in Stream Buffers under the sedimentation risk analysis and it ranked high for Listed Species Occurrences and Oak Corridors under the wildfire risk analysis. Big Sailor Creek (#8): This sub-basin ranked high for both Sensitive Soils and Road Density in Stream Buffers under the sedimentation risk analysis and Listed Species Occurrences and Important Agricultural Areas under the wildfire risk analysis. Traverse Creek (#10): This sub-basin ranked high for Sensitive Soils under the sedimentation risk analysis and it ranked high for Listed Species Occurrences, Stream Density, and Important Agricultural Areas under the wildfire risk analysis. Hangtown Creek (#75): Given that this subbasin includes the City of Placerville, it is not surprising that it ranked very high for the urban features and but it also ranked under Road Density in Stream Buffers under the sedimentation risk analysis and it ranked high for Critical Red-Legged Frog Habitat, Oak Corridors and Important Agricultural Areas under the wildfire risk analysis. Indian Creek (#78): This sub-basin ranked high under Road Density in Stream Buffers for the sedimentation risk analysis and it ranked high for Critical Red-Legged Frog Habitat, Stream Density, Oak Corridors and Important Agricultural Areas under the wildfire risk analysis. Kelley Creek (#81): This sub-basin ranked high under Road Density in Stream Buffers for the sedimentation risk analysis and it ranked the very highest for all the resources at risk under the wildfire risk analysis with a crude total value score of 8. It ranked especially high for Listed Species Occurrences and it includes the Pine Hill Recovery Plan, and high acreage of both Oak Corridors and Important Agricultural Areas Remaining Sub-Basins As can be seen from a close review of the attributes gathered for each sub-basin, many of the sub-basins not identified as priorities in these sections may still merit attention and prioritization. As mentioned at the end of chapter 4, several of the upstream watersheds while not ranking high for both fuels management and water quality, are still important when considering these factors individually. Similarly, several sub-basins ranked high for Roads on Steep Slopes and Sensitive Soils yet they were not identified as the highest priority in this analysis. This information as well as all the attributes for the 81 sub-basins will be available for further evaluation. Future evaluations may result in a shifting of priorities from those presented here Application of the Priority Sub- Basins As described in chapter 1, this analysis will ultimately be used to design specific projects and direct funding towards the most severe trouble-spots in the watershed, including areas where there is the potential for a problem to develop. The knowledge acquired through this analysis concerning the threats, trends and characteristics of each sub-basin can lead to ideas about the types of projects needed to improve the overall condition of each sub-basin and, collectively, the entire watershed. Further analysis and ideas for specific projects to improve the condition of these sub-basins will be examined as part of Task 4 the Stewardship Plan. However, these complex environmental problems can not be resolved by one agency working alone but rather they require joint and cooperative programs administered by a group of agencies and individual landowners. The following section describes the next steps for this project which will involve an examination of the political landscape of the watershed. 5-3

92 5.3 Next Steps A successful stewardship project requires both a well developed assessment of those areas most in-need of restoration and community support and interagency cooperation. This kind of collaboration calls for an understanding of, not only the environmental characteristics, but also the political setting of each sub-basin. Each of the six sub-basins described above contains unique environmental qualities and unique cultures, communities and political environments. In the next phase of the Stewardship Project, Phase 3 the Watershed Evaluation, we examine the political environment of the priority sub-basins by answering the question: Where is the interest? The Watershed Evaluation will outline those agencies currently working towards stewardship within the priority subbasins and it will describe in detail the projects currently underway to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and improve and protect water quality. Through this next phase of the analysis we will gain a better understanding of how this project can complement existing programs in the watershed and which types of projects are likely to gain the community support needed for their implementation. The benefits of this project are to determine how other projects currently underway can facilitate the implementation of watershed-wide restoration activities identified under the scope of this project throughout the project area. The Watershed Evaluation will result in a foundation for more effective communication and partnership development regarding watershedwide resource issues. 5-4

93 SOUTH FORK AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP PROJECT Evaluation of Existing Watershed Conditions October 2003 Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District

94 SOUTH FORK AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP PROJECT Evaluation of Existing Watershed Conditions October 2003 Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District

95 Chapter 6.0 Introduction 6.1 Overview of Task 3- Watershed Evaluation This report, i.e. the Evaluation of Existing Watershed Conditions (Watershed Evaluation), completes sub-task 3.3 of the South Fork American River Watershed Stewardship Project (Stewardship Project). The primary objectives of the Stewardship Project include improvement of water quality and the reduction of fuel loads within the South Fork American River (SFAR) watershed. Water quality and fuel load management were identified by the South Fork American River Watershed Group (Watershed Group) as the most important resource issues facing stakeholders in the watershed and as the focus of the Stewardship Project. Water quality and fuel load management, however, are extremely complex environmental issues. We approached these issues with the understanding that, to be effective, the Stewardship Project must work in-concert with the existing economy and programs found in the watershed. By working closely with the community and by incorporating specific methods designed to better understand the needs and objectives of the various stakeholders in the watershed, we believe we can reduce conflicts among stakeholders. This approach of the Watershed Evaluation phase of the Stewardship Project is consistent with the CALFED objectives because it takes a basin-wide, comprehensive approach to help improve watershed management. This strategy also takes into consideration the community setting of the watershed thereby addressing the institutional, social and economic issues of the watershed in an integrated manner. In this report, we attempt to provide a starting point for assessing future investment in the watershed based on the economic needs and trends of the area and interests of the larger stewardship community. We believe measurable improvements towards stewardship of the watershed will stem from a well planned, community based approach that includes two key components: Component 1. A sound scientific understanding of the physical and biological conditions of the watershed and; Component 2. Effective communication and coordination with other agencies and potential partners currently working towards similar stewardship goals in the watershed. The Watershed Assessment (WA), completed in February 2003, describes the methodology and results of a detailed analysis of the physical, commercial, and cultural conditions within the SFAR watershed that contribute to increased fire hazard/risk and increased water quality degradation. Through a detailed analysis, the Watershed Assessment described the potential for each of the eighty-one subbasins in the SFAR watershed to experience adverse impacts from wildfire or sedimentation. The Watershed Assessment placed a high priority for stewardship action on those sub-basins with the greatest potential to experience adverse impacts. The Watershed Assessment represents an important step towards accomplishing Component 1. In the Watershed Evaluation (WE), we focus on Component 2, first by identifying and interviewing key stakeholders, and then by examining the economic and political setting of the watershed. The results obtained in the Watershed Evaluation accomplish an important step towards our goal of improving communication and coordination with all the major stakeholders in the watershed. The Watershed Evaluation provides an important opportunity for us to 6-1

96 identify and better understand the goals and objectives of key stakeholders working in the watershed and it provides an opportunity for us to inform them about our work towards stewardship in the watershed. This approach is in step with the CALFED Watershed Program which promotes collaboration and integration among watershed efforts (CALFED Bay-Delta Program 2000). In summary, the Watershed Assessment (Task 2) prioritized those sub-basins with high risk factors for fire and poor water quality and this Task 3 the Watershed Evaluation, i.e. this report, examines the economic setting of the watershed and it defines those areas where there is the most political/community support to improve those resources. Ultimately, these two phases of the project will be used jointly to design a Stewardship Plan for the watershed which will assist the Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District s (RCD) efforts to secure funding and further organize efforts to improve the environmental conditions of the watershed. This chapter begins with an overview of the Stewardship Project followed by more detailed descriptions of the goals and objectives of the Watershed Evaluation, an outline of this report, and a statement of the limitations and obstacles encountered during this phase of the Stewardship Project. 6.2 Project Summary The Stewardship Project was first initiated by the RCD in September 1999, when the RCD received approval for funding from the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program. More detailed descriptions of the background and goals of the Stewardship Project can be found in Chapter 1.0 of the Watershed Assessment. The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of the Stewardship Project. As part of the Stewardship Project, the RCD has completed numerous milestones including the coordination of monthly meetings with the South Fork American River Watershed Group (SFARWG) and quarterly meetings with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The SFARWG participants include stakeholders representing wide interests in the watershed ranging from individual landowners and non-profit organizations to county, state and federal government agencies. The TAC consists of a smaller group of stakeholders with technical expertise to advise and guide the Stewardship Project regarding methodology and technical matters. Both the SFARWG and the TAC continue to provide invaluable guidance and direction to all phases of the Stewardship Project and without their support this Stewardship Project will not succeed. Appendix A includes a detailed list of Watershed Group and TAC participants. The Stewardship Project is organized into six tasks described below: Task 1 - Project Management and Scoping: Task 1 includes ongoing administration and the coordination of monthly meetings with the SFARWG. Task 2 - Watershed Assessment: As introduced above, the Watershed Assessment placed a high priority for action on subbasins with the greatest potential to be adversely affected by sedimentation or wildfire. This previous task resulted in the selection of six highest priority sub-basins and 22 high priority sub-basins for stewardship projects. The six highest priority sub-basins include New York Creek, Big Sailor Creek, Traverse Creek, Hangtown Creek, Indian Creek, and Kelley Creek. Task 3 - Watershed Evaluation (including this report): Task 3 is divided into three sub-tasks: Sub-task 3.1. Work Plan, completed in September 2002; Sub-task 3.2. Agency Interviews and Agency Review 6-3

97 Summary Report (Summary Report) and; Sub-task 3.3. Watershed Evaluation report. Task 3 answers the question: Where is the interest? This is accomplished in two phases: 1. By conducting in-person interviews with key stakeholders as a means of identifying and documenting their concerns for the watershed in their own words (sub-task 3.2) and; 2. Through an examination of the political context of the watershed to better determine how the Stewardship Project fits in with the existing political landscape (sub-task 3.3). This task is described further in the following section. Task 4 - Draft Integration Plan and Stewardship Strategy: The primary objective of Task 4 - the Stewardship Plan is to develop a strategic plan for restoration of the watershed. Both elements of Task 4 - the Integration Plan and the Stewardship Strategy, will build on the results of the two previous phases, the Watershed Assessment and the Watershed Evaluation, by synthesizing the results of each separate report. This integration and analysis of the environmental and political settings will then be used to design a Stewardship Strategy by identifying data gaps, potential projects, and partnerships for stewardship of the watershed. The Stewardship Strategy is designed to improve communication between agencies, coordinate stewardship efforts, and maximize partnership potential. This phase of the project will promote a better understanding of the natural conditions of the watershed and how these conditions are influenced by institutional and/or social conditions, priorities and objectives. Task 5 - Watershed Monitoring: Task 5 - the Watershed Monitoring Program (WMP) will implement stewardship programs building on the results of previous tasks. The WMP will also work in conjunction with current monitoring programs within the SFAR watershed by facilitating the coordination between these programs in order to address the water quality goals of the Stewardship Strategy. The WMP will include the recruitment, training, and coordination of SFAR residents and stakeholders interested in participating in both short (single-day) and long-term (monthly) monitoring projects, and the development of a manual of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for water quality data collection and management that can supplement the RCD s Quality Assurance Protection Plan (QAPP) and can be used to standardize volunteer training protocols. A subcommittee of water quality specialists will help guide and advise the management of this program. Task 6 - Integrated Watershed Stewardship Strategy: The final Task 6 will summarize the results of the previous phases of the Stewardship Project by producing a Watershed Stewardship Plan for subsequent phases to develop an implementation plan, monitoring and assessment plan. 6.3 Sub-task 3.3 Watershed Evaluation Goals and Objectives The previous sub-task 3.2 included interviews with over 20 organizations and the results of these interviews provide a general overview of who is doing what to manage the watershed s water quality and to protect the watershed from catastrophic wildfire. Sub-task 3.2 documented interviews with each of the agencies (provided in a 3-ring binder) with a summary report of the priority interest areas. The Agency Review Summary Report introduces ideas about how our analysis, performed in the Watershed Assessment, overlaps with each organization s interests. In this report, sub-task 3.3 the Watershed Evaluation, we explore further those concepts introduced in sub-task 3.2 and we identify the political setting of the watershed as it relates to water quality and fuels management issues. 6-4

98 This report begins to integrate the analysis of Task 2 - the Watershed Assessment, including knowledge gained regarding the natural processes of the watershed, into the context of the economic and political setting of the watershed. It builds on Task 2 - the Watershed Assessment and sub-task 3.2 the Agency Review Summary Report by providing a brief overview of the historical and political context of the watershed and then by further describing key stakeholders introduced in this report. This Watershed Evaluation examines the goals and objectives of various stakeholders currently working towards improved water quality and fuel management thus setting the stage for the next phase of the project the Integration Plan which will outline our goals and strategies for a Watershed Stewardship Plan based on both the environmental and the political landscapes. In this report we attempt to answer, in general terms, the following questions: 1. What is the political/economic setting of the watershed? 2. Who are the available partners? 3. Is there local interest and support for the Stewardship Project? Table 1.1 outlines the objectives of this report. Table 6.1 Goals and Sub-goals for the Agency Review Subtask 3.3 Goal 1: Develop a general outline of the political/economic landscape of the SFAR watershed. Sub-goals Identify key economic and demographic characteristics of the watershed that relate to water quality and fuels management issues. Describe, in general terms, how these factors have changed over time resulting in the need for stewardship of the watershed today. Where possible, describe how these factors influence current water quality and fuels management strategies. Goal 2: Show the distribution of existing conservation efforts and organizations working within the watershed. Sub-goals Further describe the goals and objectives of the major stakeholders, building on subtask 3.2. Begin to identify shared goals and overlap of target areas. Goal 3: Maximize public awareness and public involvement and further develop the foundation for potential partnerships. Sub-goals Identify the important channels of communication (i.e. newspapers, watershed groups, newsletters) used by the agencies and stakeholders to communicate with the people they serve (this information will be used to develop a public awareness strategy for the Watershed Stewardship Plan). Identify specific project ideas that could be further explored in Task 4 (continue filling out project data sheets to include with the sub-task 3.2 report). Continue developing a list of proposed water quality and fuels management projects needing funding in the watershed. 6-5

99 6.4 CALFED s Primary Objectives and Solution Principles As outlined in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Watershed Program Plan (2000), two of CALFED s four Primary Objectives include improvements to: 1. Ecosystem Quality. This will be achieved by taking the needed actions to begin recovery of ecosystem health by reducing or eliminating factors that degrade habitat, impair ecological functions, or reduce population size or health of species and; 2. Water Quality. CALFED will undertake actions to reduce or eliminate parameters that degrade water quality at its source (emphasis added). This Stewardship Project aims to improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats and ecological functions of the watershed through improved water quality and reduced risk of catastrophic wildfire. Improved fuel load management will reduce catastrophic wildfire, which degrades habitats and impairs ecological functions and water quality in the watershed. In addition, this Stewardship Project includes the headwaters and upper reaches of the South Fork American River, which is a major tributary to the lower American River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. As such, this project will help improve and ensure good water quality for the many human, natural resource, and economic downstream uses. 6.5 Introduction to the Watershed Evaluation This report is laid out in three principal sections and one appendix, as follows: Chapter Economic Setting: This chapter outlines the key economic indicators and demographics that are important to the development of a stewardship strategy for the SFAR watershed. Chapter 8.0 Key Stakeholders and Potential Partners: This chapter lists each of the key stakeholders introduced in sub-task 3.2 and it describes their involvement with water quality, fuels management or both in the SFAR watershed. Information for this section is based on in-person interviews conducted during sub-task 3.2, various agency reports, and website data. Each description outlines the channels of communication used by the agencies that could complement our goals for increased public and/or agency involvement. A better understanding of the channels of communication will be especially useful towards the goals of Task 5 the Watershed Monitoring Program. Chapter Summary: This chapter summarizes the political setting of the watershed and lays the foundation for Task 4 - the Integration Plan and Stewardship Strategy. 6.6 Limitations of the Watershed Evaluation Similar to the Watershed Assessment, the Watershed Evaluation is a compilation and integration of a variety of materials and data; for the Watershed Evaluation, the focus is on the unique political setting within the SFAR watershed. While this report does provide general descriptions of the political setting of the Sierra Nevada and the South Fork American River watershed, we did not collect any new data. Oftentimes economic data is displayed for countywide areas or sometimes it is divided into smaller economic units (i.e. Apple Hill) but it is not 6-6

100 divided into watershed units. As such, we were limited to presenting economic data for the entire El Dorado County region as opposed to economic data specific to the SFAR watershed. The Stakeholders discussion of the Watershed Evaluation is based on brief (one hour) in-person interviews and existing information and reports. This report presents a synthesis of this information, and our discussion and conclusions rely on input from project participants. The initial list of stakeholders included in Chapter 8 represents those that are land managers or participants in the SFAR Watershed Group. This list is considered a first-level examination of the stakeholders and additional stakeholders will be contacted for input and included in the Stewardship Project as necessary as we design a more in-depth review at the subwatershed level. This report provides a first-level look at the political setting and it is designed to illustrate overall economic trends that relate to water quality and fuels management. Subsequent stages of the Stewardship Project will identify and evaluate the full range of specific projects and programs to sustain the natural resources and the economy of this watershed. 6-7

101 Chapter 7.0 The Economic Setting 7.1 Introduction In the Sierra Nevada and in the South Fork American River watershed, our economic prosperity has been fueled, to a large extent, by our seemingly plentiful supply of natural resources. This idea is underscored in the following excerpt from the Sierra Business Council s (SBC) Sierra Nevada Wealth Index, Sierra Business Council (SBC, 1996): The Sierra Nevada region is wealthy and we have a precious opportunity to build that wealth. As we work to expand our wealth and protect our home, we must act with confidence and foresight to safeguard and enhance the extraordinary natural advantages which are the source of our prosperity. These natural advantages include our quality of life the rural character of the region, access to wildlands, and the landscape surrounding [our] communities (SBC 1999). Our economy is strongly dependent on recreation, tourism, retirees, and small business owners who choose to vacation, live and work in El Dorado County because of the natural beauty found here. In this chapter we attempt to identify the critical economic trends within the greater Sierra Nevada region and within El Dorado County that need to be considered as we develop a watershed Stewardship Plan and, more specifically, as we develop ideas for water quality and fuels management projects. A sound understanding of the economic activity within the watershed helps to develop insights into the fundamental concerns of those who live and work there. This type of awareness of the community s economic resources fosters stewardship participation and advocacy by demonstrating respect and concern for the local economy. Trends such as population, employment, the location and types of businesses, and the revenue produced in a given area are some of the measures of economic productivity. These trends provide insight into the overall prosperity of the region and they constitute one of the primary indicators of the relationship between human society and the environment. Similarly, the economic activity of a given region also provides insight into some potential threats to the natural environment as well as possible solutions to these problems. For example, increasing population trends and densities can cause more people to live within the urbanwildland interface which can, in turn, create a need for fuels management. It is essential that priorities for water quality and fuels management projects consider population trends in the watershed. Finally, as discussed in the Watershed Assessment, the South Fork American River (SFAR) watershed is situated almost entirely within El Dorado County; however, the socioeconomic environment is not similarly confined. The economic environment extends well beyond the county and state boundaries. Nevertheless, while this interrelationship with the larger community cannot be ignored, the following discussion is limited primarily to El Dorado County. It is assumed that the relationships of the SFAR watershed to this local community have the strongest direct impact on economic activities in the project area. This chapter begins with background information concerning economic productivity of the larger Sierra Nevada region. This regional discussion is based on information from the Sierra Business Council and the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). This discussion is followed with more local descriptions of economic and population trends in El Dorado County, 7-1

102 based primarily on information obtained from the El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce and the Sierra Business Council. 7.2 Economic Trends in the Sierra Nevada The following excerpt from the Sierra Business Council s Sierra Nevada Resource Investment Needs Assessment (2002) summarizes some of the most significant economic contributions offered by this region: provides 60 percent of California's water supply, which generates $1.3 billion a year in direct resource commodity value plus additional revenues from value-added downstream uses, such as California's annual $32 billion agriculture industry; delivers one-third to one-half of California's annual timber supply; supports a rapidly growing tourism industry that began with the designation of some of the first major National and State Parks in America, including Yosemite National Park and Calaveras Big Trees. The Sierra is under enormous pressures for change. The Sierra Nevada is subject to some of the largest "drivers of change : of any rural region in the United States. These "drivers" will have far-reaching effects on the environment, economy and society of the region. They include: Population growth: The Sierra is the third fastest growing region in California. Population grew between 1970 and 1990 by 130 percent. Sierra population is projected to triple between 1990 and Recreational visits: Because of easy access to the Sierra from nearby metropolitan areas in California and Nevada, the region has experienced a surge in recreational visits. Recreational visit days numbered 29 million in 1989, nearly 39 million in 1995 and are now approaching 50 million in the new century. Changing land uses; Because of rapid population growth and larger lot sizes, human settlement is affecting a larger part of the region. According to a high growth scenario prepared by the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, the amount of land affected by such settlement could increase from 1,741 square miles (in 1990) to 6,846 square miles or nearly half the private land in the region. Shifting economy: The Sierra's economy is changing rapidly from a resource-based economy to one increasingly dominated by urban migrants and retirees The North Central Sierra Nevada El Dorado County is a part of one of the strongest economic centers in the Sierra Nevada, the North Central Sierra. This region includes Nevada and Placer counties located directly north of El Dorado County. The following excerpt from the Sierra Nevada Wealth Index (1999) describes the economic trends of this region: The North Central Sierra has experienced the most rapid population growth, the highest educational achievement, the most extensive farm land losses, the most dramatic increase in groundwater pumping, the lowest unemployment, and the most robust job growth, 7-2

103 particularly in the manufacturing sector and the high-wage service sector. The most urgent and critical challenge for the North Central region is to find ways to safeguard its natural capital which, over the past two decades, has created and supported the expansion of its social and financial capital. Other important trends in the North Central Sierra include over twice as many retirees (population over 65), a higher rate of school achievement, a high rate of volunteerism, and a higher rate of voter participation than the California average (SBC 1999). These trends point to a population base that is older and more likely to be involved and care about community issues than in other parts of the State (SBC 1999). The more alarming trends in the North Central Sierra Nevada involve changes in our use of Natural Capital. The North Central Sierra Nevada experienced a net loss of Important Farmland and Williamson Act acres far exceeding losses in other parts of the Sierra Nevada (SBC 1999). This trend points to a tendency to convert farmland into developed parcels resulting in more residents heading into the urban wildland interface. Urbanization can also result in an increase in roads, driveways and urban runoff in areas that were previously thought of as wildland or open space. 7.3 Economic Trends in El Dorado County The South Fork American River (SFAR) watershed is located within one of the fastest growing regions of the Sierra Nevada. The fast rate of population growth in the watershed often places more people within areas known as the urban-wildland interface This tendency towards development in formerly rural regions puts more people at risk and could result in more economic losses in the event of a large catastrophic wildfire. As with most of the rest of the Sierra Nevada region, El Dorado County is expected to grow at a much faster rate than the rest of California placing great challenges on our leaders to protect our natural resources and economic prosperity (SBC 1999). The SFAR watershed makes up most of the entire northern half of El Dorado County. The highest densities of population and most of the economic activity in the county occurs in this watershed. While this section describes trends in the entire county including parts of the Cosumnes River watershed and the Tahoe Basin, it is assumed that economic trends in the larger county region are fairly representative of the smaller SFAR watershed. Much of this section expands on section of the South Fork American River Watershed Stewardship Project - Watershed Assessment (February 2003). However, information from this section has been updated, added to or deleted to provide more detail about certain areas of interest especially as they relate to water quality and fuels management. The population trends section, for example, was substantially changed to add more information from the 2000 census Population and Development Trends According to the El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce, the year 2000 population in El Dorado County reached 156,299 persons. This represents an increase of 112,190 persons or a 354 percent increase since Studies show that 78.2 percent of the population increase since 1980 in El Dorado County is due to the overall growth of the Sacramento region and that the increase is concentrated in El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park (El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce n.d.a). All of the major residential communities in El Dorado County are located within the SFAR watershed. These communities 7-3

104 include El Dorado Hills, Cameron Park, and Shingle Springs which serve as suburban areas to the booming Sacramento metropolitan region (El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce n.d.a) and Placerville, Camino, Pollock Pines, Georgetown, and Coloma. The population increase trend in the western part of the county along the Highway 50 corridor is expected to continue. The City of Placerville is the only incorporated city in the SFAR watershed. Still, with a population of about 9,610 it represents only six percent of the total county population. The City of Placerville is governed and managed by a separate set of goals and zoning ordinances from the rest of the county. Over 78 percent of the county residents live in unincorporated areas outside the city limits of Placerville and South Lake Tahoe (El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce n.d.a). This results in a relatively large portion of the county s population residing under a single governmental entity - namely the county government. This trend makes the policies and plans outlined in the El Dorado County General Plan significant to a large portion of the land base. Populations of the SFAR Communities 14,549 9,610 4,888 4,728 2, Cameron Park El Dorado Hills Georgetown Placerville Pollock Pines Shingle Springs Source: El Dorado County Census 2000, El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce Labor The labor force of El Dorado County has grown steadily since the 1970 s from 30,350 in 1975 to 79,600 in April 1999 an increase of 162 percent (El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce n.d.a). Per capita income in the county increased from $24,500 in 1990 to $25,100 in 1996, approaching the California average of $25,900 (SBC 1999). The low unemployment rate in El Dorado County, declining from an average of 8 percent in 1993 to 5 percent in 1998, is one of the strongest economic indicators (SBC 1999). The current unemployment rate in the county is 4.3 percent (EDC Chamber of Commerce, personal communication, 2002) which remains lower than the California average. The indicators of concern, however, show an increase in low wage service jobs, a decline in personal income, and a dependence on construction jobs (making up 10 percent of jobs in the county) which is a volatile employment sector (SBC 1999). Evidence suggests that the rate of population growth triggered in the early 1970's is linked to metropolitan expansion in the Bay Area as well as the Sacramento region (Centers for Water and Wildland Resources 1996; Duane 7-4

105 1999). The fact that an estimated 50 percent of employed residents in El Dorado County are employed outside El Dorado County and the Sierra Region further illustrates the economic ties of El Dorado County to the larger nearby metropolitan areas (Duane 1999) Major Commodities The major commodities of El Dorado County remain the county's natural resources, including water, timber, forage, and irrigated agriculture. Over the past twenty years these sectors, which are dependent on the county's natural resource base, remained relatively stable throughout the Sierra Nevada. However, other sectors, including retail and services, nearly doubled (El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce n.d.a). Although ranching, timber harvesting, and mining are still an important part of the local economy in El Dorado County, retail and tourism are becoming more and more important. In the late 1970s due to increasing population growth and personal income, the county began a trend towards economic diversification that continues today. Currently the three primary economic sectors in El Dorado County are trade, services and government. These three sectors account for over 80 percent of all jobs within the county (El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce n.d.a). As a result of population growth, there is a strong trend towards goods and services, particularly in the areas of services and retail trade. Services, especially health care services, are experiencing one of the highest rates of employment increases of all industrial growth within the county (El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce n.d.a). However, low wage service jobs grew from 32 percent to 36 percent of all jobs between 1972 and 1996 and this trend remains one of the indicators of economic concern for El Dorado County (SBC 1999). Tourism is a major component of the economic vitality of El Dorado County and this industry is, to a large extent, dependent on the scenic quality of our landscape. Travel-related expenditures in 1997 totaled $705 million, generating a payroll of $120 million, providing 9,850 jobs, and over $12 million in local taxes (El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce n.d.a). According to the Sierra Nevada Wealth Index (1999), recreation and tourism in the Sierra Nevada now constitute the largest single industry in the region. Agriculture remains a vital component of the county s economy. The El Dorado County gross crop value for 2002 was $48.2 million, a 2% decrease from the 2001 values (EDC 2002). As stated in the 2002 El Dorado County Crop Report: "Other agricultural production, excluding timber value, actually increased 4% in 2002 when compared with the 2001 figures. This was due to the strong sales of fruits and nuts that increased approximately 11% over 2001 values. This increase was due to increased sales of the following commodities: Pears, apples, peaches, wine grapes, walnuts and Christmas trees. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 list the top three agricultural crops in El Dorado County and their value over the last six years. 7-5

106 Table 7.1: Agricultural Value by Product Type, 1997, 1998 and 1999 Product 1997 Value ($) 1998 Value ($) 1999 Value ($) Timber Harvested and 27,087,800 27,698,800 31,761,000 Byproducts Fruits and Nuts Grapes* 12,346,900 3,798,100 8,659,000 3,155,400 8,311,600 3,880,200 Livestock 3,081,200 2,656,400 3,225,300 *Figures included in Fruits and Nuts Sources: El Dorado County Department of Agriculture 1997, 1998, and Table 7.2: Agricultural Value by Product Type, 2000, 2001 and 2002 Product 2000 Value ($) 2001 Value ($) 2002 Value ($) Timber Harvested and 28,229,200 23,692,400 21,693,600 Byproducts Fruits and Nuts Grapes* 10,690,800 4,059,600 11,636,700 4,317,300 12,957,900 4,680,000 Livestock 3,999,100 4,253,200 4,265,500 *Figures included in Fruits and Nuts Sources: El Dorado County Department of Agriculture 2000, 2001and According to the 2002 Crop Report, the impact of agriculture on El Dorado County s economy totaled approximately $391 million. The 2002 Crop Report also states that reported wine grape acreage was over This is the largest amount of land utilized for wine grape production in El Dorado County since the early 1900 s. This segment of the economy is expected to continue to grow as more wine comes into production and as the public becomes increasingly aware of El Dorado County's quality wines (El Dorado County 1999; El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce n.d.a). The Apple Hill region, located in the SFAR watershed, contributed $84 million to El Dorado County s economy in 2002 (EDC 2002). The City of Placerville meets the criteria making it a designated Financial Hardship Community by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). This designation can be critical to qualifying for certain types of funding such as the CALFED/SWRCB s Watershed Protection Programs and Watershed Programs for Propositions 13 and 50. The Proposition 13 Request for Concept Proposals (RFP, Attachment 3) issued in March 2003, provides a good example of the significance that comes from this type of designation. The RFP states, Approximately $15.8 million of the $44.9 million available for Watershed Protection and CALFED Watershed Programs from Proposition 13 must be awarded to communities with a financial hardship. In other words, 35 percent of the funding under this grant program is targeted for communities with financial hardship. 7-6

107 This SWRCB designation is based on the 2000 census data and it applies to small communities with a median household income which is less than 80 percent of the statewide median household income. According to the SWRCB (March 2003) this designation applies to watersheds encompassing small communities with a financial hardship including: 1) A municipality with a population of 10,000 persons or less, with financial hardship as determined by the State Water Resources Control Board. 2) A rural county, with a financial hardship as determined by the board; or 3) A reasonably isolated and divisible segment of a larger municipality where the population of the segment is 10,000 persons or less, with a financial hardship as determined by the SWRCB. Other unincorporated areas that meet this criterion may apply to the SWRCB for this designation if they provide adequate basis for the calculation of median household income. In the SFAR watershed, for example, it is possible that this designation could apply to unincorporated communities outside the City of Placerville such as Georgetown, Pollock Pines, and Camino. However, the application must include a map with sufficient geographic detail to define the boundaries of the small community, and the number of people in the community. Additional information must also be available on request such as list of properties, the number of households, and income and/or property values of the community. 7-7

108 Chapter 8.0 Key Stakeholders and Potential Partners 8.1 Introduction As with all watersheds in the Sierra Nevada, the political environment and management of the South Fork American River (SFAR) watershed has changed dramatically over the last century. The local, regional and national evolution of ideas concerning economic development, environmental problems and regulations, the various shifts in population and political priorities/interests, and changing policies concerning water regulation and catastrophic wildfire have all influenced the political setting of the watershed today. What s more, our society now recognizes that the political, economic, and natural environments are intertwined in a complex relationship, which is illustrated by the fact that our economic development in the Sierra Nevada is strongly tied to, and dependent on, our natural resource base (SBC 1999). In many ways, the political landscape of the SFAR watershed, in terms of the environment, is representative of similar scenarios throughout the entire western slope of the Sierra Nevada. The SFAR watershed harbors three medium to large-scale hydroelectric projects with water associated conveyance systems (SMUD, EID, and PG&E) all of which are at various stages of relicensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Numerous water rights are claimed throughout the entire watershed and almost half the land base (49 percent) is owned and managed by government entities, mostly the United States Forest Service properties distributed within the upper portion of the watershed. In addition, the watershed s natural resources including timber, grazing and agriculture remain important sectors of the local economy. However, unlike the majority of western slope watersheds in the Sierra Nevada, the close proximity to the City of Sacramento (only 25 minute drive from El Dorado Hills to downtown Sacramento), the Bay Area, and Reno has resulted in a massive influx of people through development, tourism, and recreation especially over the last ten years. The rapidly growing population in nearby communities, such as El Dorado Hills and Folsom, puts great demands on recreation resources found in the SFAR watershed. For example, Desolation Wilderness, located in the higher elevations of the SFAR watershed, is one of the most heavily used wilderness areas of its size (USFS 1998). The Eldorado National Forest estimates Recreation Visitor Days (RVD equates to 12 hours of visitor use) in Desolation Wilderness will increase from 2 million in 1994 to 2.75 million by a 37.5 percent increase since 1994 (USFS 1998). Furthermore, the SFAR is the most popular river for commercial outfitters in the Western United States with approximately 100,000 to 140,000 visitors annually riding the river (Bureau of Land Management 2003). Not surprisingly, these sometimes opposing and strong demands have created a somewhat contentious political climate as government agencies struggle to keep pace with the increasing population living and recreating in the SFAR watershed. These demands also pose challenges to land management agencies in the struggle to maintain water quality and prevent catastrophic wildfire. It is easy for the increasing population pressure, for example, to outpace the ability of the agencies to collect water quality data or to educate new residents about fuel load management. However, while it is important to take notice and consider the unique challenges facing land managers working in the watershed, each one of the issues related to the political landscape is extremely complex requiring more time and detail than is available to address all issues of this Stewardship Project. Our analysis includes two phases - first, we identified key stakeholders and potential partners working towards stewardship of the resources, i.e. 8-1

109 water quality and fuel load management, and then we explore how the various stakeholders function in their role towards stewardship of these resources. Our primary objective is to better understand how this Stewardship Project can most effectively work with the needs, goals, objectives, and concerns of the larger stewardship community. This goal is accomplished through in-person interviews with over 20 organizations working in the watershed (sub-task 3.2) and, in this chapter, we examine in more detail the various roles and missions of these organizations as they relate to water quality and fuels management. This chapter includes descriptions of the primary stakeholders working towards improved water quality, fuels management or both in the SFAR watershed. Most of the information for these agencies was obtained from agency websites, reports, brochures, and in-person interviews. Where possible, the paragraph descriptions note the channels of communication utilized by these organizations (e.g. newsletters, newspaper advertisements, and websites) to reach out to the public. This information will be used throughout the subsequent phases of the Stewardship Project to help us inform and receive feed-back from citizens and landowners. 8.2 The Stakeholders Overview of Jurisdictions As noted in the Watershed Assessment (Section 8.1), jurisdictions in the project area are divided almost evenly between private and public lands. Most of the land in the upper watershed is managed by the Eldorado National Forest (ENF), while the properties in the lower elevations of the watershed fall under the land use protocols of El Dorado County or the City of Placerville. More detailed discussions of land uses and jurisdictions are found in Chapter 2, sections and of the Watershed Assessment. Table 8.1 displays a breakdown of the ownership patterns and jurisdictions in the project area. Table 8.1 Ownership in the South Fork American River Watershed Proportion of Watershed Owner Area (acres) (%) US Forest Service 252, Bureau of Land Management 8, State of California 1, Bureau of Reclamation Private and Other Minor Public Lands 273, TOTAL 537, Source: El Dorado County Watershed Stewardship Project: Watershed Assessment Function of Key Stakeholders The following paragraphs describe some of the primary functions of key stakeholders as described in their mission statements, land management plans, strategic plans or other documents. This list of stakeholders is organized alphabetically into federal, state, county or non-profit organizations. The agencies listed here are limited to those that own and manage large portions of the SFAR watershed and/or those that have participated in the SFAR Watershed Group 8-2

110 and have expressed interest in the stewardship efforts of the Georgetown Divide RCD. This list is also limited to those working to safeguard water quality and improve fuels management in the SFAR watershed. The paragraphs also include some discussion of specific projects that relate to the goals and objectives of this Stewardship Project. As stated above, the information for this section was obtained from in-person interviews, websites, brochures, and reports Federal Agencies Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The BLM takes a "big picture" or ecosystem approach to land management ( This style of management is aimed at promoting biological diversity (nature's variety of life forms and processes) and sustainable development (the long-term use of natural resources without damaging the environment). This "big picture" type of management is consistent with the BLM's mandate under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which requires the agency to manage in a way that accommodates many uses of the land -- such as fishing, camping, hiking, boating, grazing, timber harvesting and mining. Within the SFAR watershed, stemming from the recognition of the recreational values of the watershed, the BLM began acquiring private property along the South Fork American River that would benefit the public. According to our estimates, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 8,570 acres of public lands in the South Fork American River watershed ranking as the second largest public landowner in the project area (RCD Watershed Assessment, 2003). Of this number 4,164 acres is located along the river (BLM 2003). In March 2003, the BLM produced the South Fork American River Draft Management Plan (Management Plan). This plan outlines the General Management Directions, and it provides an Environmental Assessment and impacts analysis of seven distinct Planning Units within the SFAR watershed. The Management Plan discusses water quality issues and fire management and prevention within these seven planning units. The Management Plan relies on the County s River Management Plan to guide it s decisions and analysis for water quality. Action 13 of Appendix F, however, discloses the BLM s decision to actively manage the buildup of fuels with the intent of protecting private homes and property and natural resources. This decision was made for five of the seven planning units including Miners Cabin, Parcel C, Dave Moore, Greenwood Creek, and Norton Ravine. In addition, the BLM's goals for Fuels Management treatment in the Pine Hill planning unit states: "Currently no fuels management treatments are planned for this area. However this does not preclude the future possibilities of preparing and executing treatments along parts of the river corridor. Before any treatments in this area it would require meeting and working with local homeowners and community groups such as local fire safe councils as well as the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection". The BLM s recent decision to manage fuels build-up with the majority of their planning units provides a great opportunity for partnership under this Stewardship Project. Channels of Communication Although conflicts between different groups of land users are inevitable, the BLM tries to reduce these conflicts by encouraging 8-3

111 groups to resolve their differences through negotiation rather than litigation. The BLM also tries to achieve consensus by soliciting advice from all affected parties or "stakeholders" -- such as ranchers, environmentalists and recreationists -- before making any major land-management decisions. This strategy requires numerous public outreach meetings and other forms of consultation with affected landowners. Extensive publications on the website NEPA related public involvement and outreach programs Annual report on the Management Plan to be presented to the local community at a public meeting Bureau of Reclamation (BR) The Bureau of Reclamation (BR) is an agency within the United States Department of Interior which owns and operates Folsom Lake Reservoir and portions of the New York Creek sub-basin of the SFAR watershed. In cooperation with California State Parks, they also manage the land surrounding Folsom Lake. Folsom Lake is the most popular multi-use year round unit in the California State Park System ( Recreation facilities at the 18,000-acre park, which is administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, include 50 miles of trails for hiking and horseback riding, picnicking, fishing, swimming, boating, water skiing and camping ( The BR is currently developing a Resource Management Plan for the Folsom Lake area. The BR has expressed strong interest in partnering with the RCD to implement stewardship programs on BR lands in the New York Creek sub-basin. Channels of Communication The American River Operations Group is the primary method utilized by the Bureau of Reclamation to communicate with the public in the SFAR watershed. Organization website Eldorado National Forest (ENF) The United States Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest (ENF) is the largest land owner, managing 46.9 percent of properties distributed mainly in the upper reaches of the SFAR watershed. The ENF administers numerous fuels management, timber and recreation projects and it oversees a number of Special Use Permits for hydro-electric projects, ski resorts, rangeland and grazing. Due to its location near the urban centers of Sacramento, Stockton, and Reno, the lands administered by the ENF attract large numbers of recreationists. The ENF Land Management Plan, known as the Framework, puts strong emphasis on species protection and fuels management in urban-interface areas. In compliance with the Framework's goals and objectives, the ENF conducted an in-depth Landscape Analysis of the Slab Creek-Chili Bar Watershed which helped identify priority areas for fuels management projects within this project area. In coordination with numerous partners, including neighborhood groups, this program is focused on reducing fuel loads within and beyond the National Forest boundary. This program will also result in large benefits for long-term water quality protection through the reduction of the scope and intensity of wildfires in the future (Lubetkin, personal communication, 2003, sub-task 3.2 binder). Priority areas identified for potential water quality projects in the watershed include the Rock Creek Road Improvement Project and issues associated with roads and other 8-4

112 disturbance areas in the flood plains of the SFAR. Channels of Communication Organizational website Numerous educational brochures NEPA related communication/documentation with the public regarding specific projects Eldorado National Forest Interpretive Association (ENFIA) and associated publications State Agencies California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) protects the people of California from fires, responds to emergencies, and enhances forest, range, and watershed values (CDF website data, 2003). The CDF is responsible for controlling all wildland vegetation fires on non-federal lands in the SFAR watershed. Beyond wildland fire, CDF regulates commercial timber harvest on private lands, both industrial forestlands as well as nonindustrial forestlands (CDF website data, 2003). The CDF is divided into smaller "units" where planning at the county level occurs. The Amador-El Dorado Unit manages the SFAR watershed under direction provided by the Fire Management Plan. The Unit and County reports outline the individual projects proposed and funding needed for projects within the SFAR watershed. The sub-task 3.2 binder contains a copy of a recent Unit and County Report for the Amador-El Dorado Unit that outlines numerous projects proposed within the SFAR watershed. The majority of these projects are targeted for fuels reduction in the urban-wildland interface. Strong potential exists for CDF as a partner for fuels reduction projects in the SFAR watershed and CDF requires an analysis of sedimentation as part of their THP planning process. Channels of Communication Organizational website City and County Agencies City of Placerville As stated in Chapter 7, the City of Placerville is the only municipality in the South Fork American River watershed and it is situated within Hangtown Creek subbasin, a priority sub-basin as described in the Watershed Assessment. The central location of the city makes it the hub for many nearby destinations and activities in El Dorado County and it serves as the County seat and the center of financial, commercial, civic and government activity (City of Placerville, 2003). The historic nineteenth century architecture of the Main Street district attracts numerous tourists and it provides the setting for community events including parades and celebrations sponsored by the Placerville Downtown Association. The City is directed by its own set of ordinances and building codes set forth in The City Code as directed by the City Planning Commission (City Planning Department, personal communication, 2003). The Housing Element of the City Code was recently updated and will be submitted to the City Planning Commission for approval around the end of this year (City Planning Department, personal communication, 2003). The City of Placerville is currently involved with a number of projects that relate to the watershed management objectives for this Stewardship Project. The City s Hangtown 8-5

113 Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (Plant), for example, is mandated to comply with State and Federal water quality regulations to improve the quality of its treated water (effluent) which is discharged into Hangtown Creek (City of Placerville website data, 2003). Improvements are needed to bring the Plant into compliance with increasingly stringent State and Federal effluent discharge requirements (City of Placerville website data, 2003). This Stewardship Project could assist and support with efforts identified by the City of Placerville to help educate residents on water quality issues in Hangtown Creek. Other related projects include the U.S. Highway 50 Operational Improvements Project (Highway 50 expansion) and the development of the Hangtown Creek Master Plan. Channels of Communication Organizational website Placerville Downtown Association Events Calendar and website Series of public meetings related to the Hangtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant El Dorado County, General Overview As stated previously, almost the entire SFAR watershed is situated within El Dorado County. The County government seat is located in the incorporated City of Placerville, but the majority of residents live in unincorporated areas. As such, the county government has jurisdiction over large portions of the SFAR watershed including all unincorporated, non-federal and non-state owned properties in the project area. Through litigation, the 1996 El Dorado County General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was contested and in 1999 a writ of mandate was filed requiring the County to re-do the environmental analysis. In April 2003, the County released the Draft General Plan with four alternatives. The final General Plan is scheduled for release by the end of 2003 (Maurer, personal communication, 2003). At this point it is uncertain how or if the General Plan goals and policies will affect management of water quality and fuels management in the SFAR watershed. The following paragraphs describe individual departments and their activities within the project area. El Dorado County, Department of Agriculture In 1998, the El Dorado County Department of Agriculture helped form the Noxious Weed Management Group (NWMG). The purpose of this group is to coordinate activities necessary for the prevention and control of noxious weeds in El Dorado County. The emphasis of the activities is focused on the exclusion, detection, eradication, and suppression of noxious weeds (NWMG, n.d.a.). The NWMG works to educate residents in the control of Yellow Starthistle, Tall Whitetop, Scotch Broom, Dalmation Toadflax and the Spotted Knapweed. Some of these weeds are highly flammable and can contribute to the threat of catastrophic wildfire and sedimentation in the SFAR watershed. Scotch Broom, for example, invades wildland habitats and increases the risk of wildfires (NWMG, 2001). Other weeds, such as Tall Whitetop, currently threaten water quality and wildlife habitats in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Efforts along Highway 50 in the SFAR watershed are currently underway to keep this weed out of the lower reaches of El Dorado County. According to the NWMG 2001 Annual Report, over 25 organizations and landowners have been actively involved in planning and implementing projects in El 8-6

114 Dorado County. The Strategic Plan (see sub-task 3.2 binder) designed by the NWMG, outlines their specific project ideas and priority areas within the SFAR watershed. Numerous opportunities exist for potential partnerships with this organization which will be discussed as part of the Integration Plan and Stewardship Strategy (Task 4). Channels of Communication Organizational website Numerous educational brochures El Dorado County, Department of Parks and Recreation In November 2001, the El Dorado County Department of General Services completed the El Dorado County River Management Plan (RMP). The RMP updates the 1988 El Dorado County River Management Plan through County Ordinance 4365 and it establishes a set of operational rules for commercial and private boaters navigating the South Fork of the American River between Chili Bar Dam and Salmon Falls Road in El Dorado County (EDC, 2001). Section 2.3 of the RMP examines the existing water quality in the project area and it defines the major source of water quality degradation as existing sources of fecal coliform that flow into the river throughout the South Fork s watershed (EDC 2001). The presence of this bacterium is used as an indicator that other harmful pathogens associated with fecal wastes may be present (EDC 2001). According to the RMP, the contamination of the SFAR most likely stems from other sources including animal waste and defective septic tank leach field sewage disposal and not from rafting activities. Most notably, the RMP states that the data also indicated that many sources of contamination are upstream of the project area. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region (Basin Plan) establishes the water quality criteria for the SFAR. According to the RMP, the water quality parameters established by the Basin Plan and other regulations could be affected by increased river use (EDC 2001). The results of the RMP, combined with the ever-increasing popularity of the South Fork American River considered by many as one of the finest recreation resources in the state (BLM 2003), illustrates the need to conduct more water quality studies in the SFAR watershed especially upstream of Chili Bar Dam. Channels of Communication Organizational website Numerous educational brochures (i.e. information on boat dispersion techniques and river etiquette) Pre-season outfitter meetings Post-season meetings to summarize the year s river management character El Dorado County Farm Bureau The California Farm Bureau Federation, first organized in 1919, is California's largest farm organization with more than 95,000 member families in 53 county Farm Bureaus. It is a voluntary, nongovernmental, nonpartisan organization of farm and ranch families seeking solutions to the problems that affect their lives, both socially and economically (Farm Bureau website data, 2003). The Farm Bureau is organized on a county, state, and national basis with the county serving as the nucleus of the organization (Farm Bureau website data, 2003). The policies and programs of the El Dorado County (EDC) Farm Bureau are developed 8-7

115 from grassroots recommendations originating at the community farm and ranch families level. The group is dedicated to protecting the productive economic and social viability of farmers (Farm Bureau website data, 2003). One concern of the EDC Farm Bureau involves recent changes in water quality monitoring regulations known as Ag Irrigation Conditional Waivers which require agricultural users to apply to participate under a waiver program or for wastewater discharge permits just as is required of industrial users. These regulatory changes will require increased public outreach and educational programs. The EDC Farm Bureau would like to participate in a county Agricultural Irrigation Subwatershed Group that will help agriculturalist comply with the Ag Waiver requirements. The strong dependence on timber in EDC (rated the largest crop) also results in Fuels Management issues rated as a top concern for the organization (Zentner, personal communication, 2003). The Farm Bureau is not currently implementing or directly involved with fuels reduction programs but is very involved with lobbying efforts concerning regulations and legislation that impact fuel load management. Channels of Communication El Dorado County Farm Bureau quarterly newsletter the Ag Advocate Press Releases and Flyers California Country Television Show aired weekly to all major metropolitan markets in the state Weekly "Ag Alert" Publication (most widely read agricultural publication) California Country Magazine published six times per year California Agricultural Directory Organizational website El Dorado County, Natural Resources Conservation Service For almost 70 years the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has been working with private land owners conserving their soil, water, and other natural resources (NRCS website data, 2003). The NRCS provides advice to local policymakers and technical assistance based on sound science suited to a customer's specific needs. Most work is done with local partners including local conservation districts serving almost every county in the nation (NRCS website data, 2003). The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is an important component of the El Dorado County NRCS. EQIP is a voluntary program that provides technical, educational and financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner (NRCS website data, 2003). Funding for EQIP comes from the Commodity Credit Corporation and the program is authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (Farm Bill) funding of According to the Farm Bill 2002 Fact Sheet, EQIP priorities include: Reduction of non-point source pollution; Reduction of emissions; Reduction in soil erosion and sedimentation from unacceptable levels on agricultural lands and; Promotion of at-risk species habitat conservation This year, the EDC NRCS received 36 applications from private landowners to implement projects under the EQIP program (Kimmel, personal communication, 2003). Eleven of these projects have been funded using manpower and available funding sources. 8-8

116 Numerous other programs and grants are offered by the NRCS that relate to the objectives and goals of this Stewardship Project including the National Natural Resources Conservation Foundation, Conservation Security Program, and the Farmland Protection Program. These programs will be discussed more in Task 4. Channels of Communication Organization website University of California Cooperative Extension, El Dorado County The El Dorado County Office of the University of California Cooperative Extension is part of a nationwide system that provides informal, off-campus, education opportunities in a variety of program areas including Agriculture, Home Economics, Natural Resources, and Community Development. According to their website, the goal is to promote sound management and conservation of the region s natural resources, through research, educational activities, and good working relationships with a broad range of people. The main clientele are private landowners, resource management professionals working on private, State and federal lands and conservation organizations. Local programs include Master Gardners, a voluntary educational organization designed to provide horticultural and technical assistance to farmers and landowners; Master Food Preservers, specializing in training and teaching the art and science of safe home food preservation with optimum quality and; the 4-H Program for Youth, providing a unique learning environment for youth to explore their interests, test their abilities, and develop a sense of community. homes and creating water quality plans for small landowners and ranches. Channels of Communication Quarterly Newsletter Numerous educational materials distributed to residents and community leaders Mailing lists Newspapers articles (Sacramento Bee (Calendar Section) and Mountain Democrat Organization website: WWW El Dorado County Water Agency In June 2003, the El Dorado County Water Agency issued the Draft Water Resources Development and Management Plan (Plan). This Plan outlines the historic water use, existing water supply, projected water demands, projected water supply needs, environmental constraints, and public outreach as part of the water supply and demand planning process for El Dorado County. A countywide water demand forecast is based on the land use forecasts developed in conjunction with the current General Plan/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process. Environmental issues discussed in the Plan include riparian zones, special-status plants, and special status wildlife. Opportunities for partnership could be developed with this organization to improve water quality and and enhance riparian communities in the SFAR watershed. Channels of Communication Organizational website This organization expressed strong interest in partnering with the RCD on a variety of projects including helping create defensible spaces for homeowners to protect their 8-9

117 Non-Profit Organizations American River Conservancy (ARC) The American River Conservancy is a nonprofit organization of volunteers and professionals dedicated to the protection of native fisheries, plant and animal communities, scenic vistas, cultural heritage, and recreational lands within the American and Cosumnes watersheds (ARC, n.d.a). The ARC is actively involved with stewardship programs in the community including stream monitoring, native plant restoration, natural resource inventories, and community clean-ups. The American River Conservancy has one of the strongest environmental volunteer bases in El Dorado County and their staff includes a part-time volunteer coordinator. The ARC s priority conservation efforts are driven by the organization s Strategic Plan for with an emphasis in the SFAR watershed towards preservation of the SFAR viewshed, the establishment of a trail corridor between Folsom and Coloma, and preserving water quality and fisheries habitats (Suba, personal communication, 2003). As stated in the May 4, 2003 interview (see sub-task 3.2 binder), the main interest of the ARC in the management of catastrophic wildfire, concerns the protection of rare and endangered species as part of the planning and management for specific project areas. The ARC is also interested in ecological restoration and the re-introduction of fire for ecological benefits. The Pine Hill Ecological Preserve and Urban Fuel Management Project, for example, is designed for two purposes ecological restoration and fire protection for an urban community (SBC 2002). The ARC is currently implementing a project to collect baseline water quality data in local tributaries of the SFAR (see subtask 3.2 binder for more details). In 2001, the ARC received a grant to monitor water quality in the Sierra Nevada foothill streams. One of the primary goals of the grant is to facilitate the exchange of stream monitoring information among groups monitoring the foothill streams within five counties including Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Amador and Calaveras (Greg Suba, personal communication, 2003, see subtask 3.2 binder). Other related projects include on-going environmental education and public outreach programs. Channels of Communication The American River Conservancy utilizes a number of methods to communicate with their members and the public, these include: Quarterly newsletter called The Current sent to members Various program guides and brochures listings with upcoming events Advertisements in newspapers and local publications for upcoming events Organization website Community Pride Community Pride is a non-profit community based organization focused on quality of life issues and implementing community projects in the City of Placerville. The organization identified storm water filtration, erosion control, reducing impervious cover, shading, refuse clean-up and re-vegetation with native creekside plants along Hangtown Creek as priority projects for the Hangtown Creek sub-basin near the City of Placerville. This organization expressed strong interest in partnering with the RCD to implement various stewardship projects in the watershed. Community pride is currently participating in the development of the Hangtown Creek Master Plan. 8-10

118 El Dorado County Fire Safe Council (FSC) The El Dorado County Fire Safe Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization dedicated to the protection of people and property in El Dorado County from catastrophic wildfire. The overall mission of California's' Fire Safe Councils is to "preserve California's natural and manmade resources by mobilizing all Californians to make their homes, neighborhoods, and communities fire safe" (Fire Safe Council website data, 2003). The Fire Safe Council first formed in 1993 as a means for members to "speak with one voice about fire safety" (Fire Safe Council website data, 2003). The FSC works to educate the public, evaluate legislation, and empower grassroots organizations to spearhead fire safety programs (Fire Safe Council website data, 2003). Channels of Communication Distribution of education materials to industry leaders and their constituents Organizational website High Sierra Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D Council) As stated on their website, the High Sierra Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Area includes five counties: Sierra, Yuba, Nevada, Placer and El Dorado (excluding the Lake Tahoe Basin). The High Sierra RC&D program was first conceived in 1974 as a means of addressing the area's high unemployment rate, excessive erosion and sedimentation problems, and improving management and development of natural resources. The RC&D Council relies upon partnerships to identify and accomplish projects including Watershed Councils and Coordinated Resource Management Plans (CRMPs). Partners include California Rangeland Trust, American Farmland Trust, Local Land Trusts, BLM, local counties, and Fire Safe Councils. On June 18, 1999 the RC&D Council adopted a revised Area Plan that outlines the Objectives, Goals, and Strategies for the organization (see sub-task 3.2 binder). One of the primary goals is to "reduce erosion in disturbed areas and the resulting sedimentation of water courses" (RC&D Revised Area Plan, n.d.a.). The strategy to accomplish this goal includes providing technical/financial assistance to existing Watershed Councils and CRMPs. Specific projects headed by the RC&D Council related to this Stewardship Project include: Finnon Lake Fuels Reduction Demonstration Project: This program is designed to educate residents in the Mosquito/Swansboro areas about fuel load reduction and fire safe landscaping. Volcanoeville Community Fire Safe Plan and Fuels Reduction Project: This project developed a fuels reduction and fire safe plan that identified a number of community priorities including shaded fuel breaks, roadside fuels treatments, staging areas to assist in evacuation and firefighting access, improved emergency communications, and improved visibility and access along Volcanoe Road. Partners included the USFS, Bear State Property Owners Associations, Georgetown Fire District, UC Cooperative Extension, Volcanoeville residents, and El Dorado County. Channels of Communication Distribution of education materials to community groups, neighborhoods, industry leaders and their constituents Organization website

119 Water Purveyors and Industry El Dorado Irrigation District The El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) is a public agency providing water and sewer services to customers within the majority of El Dorado County including the City of Placerville. EID provides water supplies to municipal and industrial water (both retail and wholesale), irrigation water, wastewater treatment and reclamation, recreation, and hydroelectric services (El Dorado Irrigation District 2002). EID also owns and operates the El Dorado Project a hydroelectric project located in the upper reaches of the project area. Sources of EID s water supply include several high elevation reservoirs, tributaries to the SFAR, and Folsom Reservoir. EID also provides tertiary and treated recycled water service to El Dorado Hills residents and commercial (e.g., golf courses) customers. As a water purveyor, EID is required to maintain high standards for water quality. EID is participating with several American River water purveyors on a broad watershed-wide sanitary survey on an ongoing basis. The organization expressed strong interest in partnering with the RCD to conduct water quality and fuels management projects at Weber Reservoir within the project area, and at Sly Park Reservoir, outside the SFAR watershed. EID would also like to implement water quality studies in the upper SFAR watershed near the small community of Strawberry and other individual neighborhoods in EDC. In recent years, a rapidly growing population and more stringent requirements for wastewater treatment have caused EID to begin plans for reservoir upgrades and expansions of its wastewater treatment plants on Deer Creek and Carson Creek in the SFAR watershed. Channels of Communication Organizational website Press releases/flyers Numerous educational brochures NEPA/CEQA related communication/documentation with the public regarding specific projects Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) is a customer-owned electric utility that generates, transmits and distributes electric power to Sacramento County and a small portion of Placer County. SMUD's Upper American River Project (UARP) is an existing hydroelectric project that dates back to 1957 and consists of 11 reservoirs and eight powerhouses, located on the South Fork American River and its tributaries and the Rubicon River and its tributaries (SMUD website data, 2003). SMUD expressed interest in partnering with the RCD on fuels management projects to protect facilities, especially transmission lines, that traverse natural and wildland areas of the SFAR watershed. SMUD will examine a myriad of water quality issues as part of the ongoing relicensing process. Of high interest to SMUD are sedimentation of reservoirs; flushing flows of bypassed stream reaches; and sediment movement through the Silver Fork drainage. Joint investigations of these issues could be performed and partnerships for monitoring and improvement projects could be implemented through an existing Joint Benefits Group of which the County is already a participant. Channels of Communication SMUD initiated relicensing of the UARP in May of 2001 by formally submitting an 8-12

120 Alternative Licensing Process (ALP) application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC, see Scoping Document 1 in sub-task 3.2 binder for more details). This process includes "broad public participation and open, efficient sharing of information, including the development of a Hydro Relicensing Internet site" (Website data, 2003). Organizational website Numerous educational brochures NEPA/CEQA related communication/documentation with the public regarding specific projects Sierra Pacific Industries Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI), with a local mill based in Camino, is California's largest timber company and the largest private landowner in the SFAR watershed. Sierra Pacific Industries expressed interest in teaming with the RCD to implement road improvement projects such as culvert replacements designed to reduce sedimentation. An existing program with the USFS addresses maintenance and improvements of joint use roads. As discussed in sub-task 3.2, SPI s stewardship priorities could include areas where there are primary access roads and where SPI is a major landowner. Channels of Communication Forestry journals and publications Organizational website Educational brochures NEPA related communication/documentation with the public regarding specific projects 8-13

121 Chapter 9.0 Summary 9.1 Conclusions The Watershed Evaluation examined the political setting of the SFAR watershed through a discussion of economic productivity in El Dorado County and a discussion of the primary stakeholders and their interests in the watershed. The following paragraphs describe how the issues discussed in the previous chapters integrate with the goals and objectives of the Stewardship Project. As discussed in Chapter 7, the economic productivity in El Dorado County, hence in the SFAR watershed, is diversifying and shifting from a direct reliance on natural resources as the main the source of wealth to one that is also dependent on services and trade (El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce, n.d.a.). This diversification is occurring throughout the Sierra Nevada and is fueled by new technologies, transportation networks, and the rise of the travel and tourism industries (SBC 1999). However, while these evolving industries may not be directly tied to the natural resource base in the same way as agriculture, timber, grazing and mining, they still rely on natural resources such as the scenic landscape, habitat value and quality of life found in this area (SBC 1999 and 2002). What s more, the sustenance of these types of commodities, which are critical to tourism and recreation, requires reliable sources of clean water and protection from the potentially devastating effects of catastrophic wildfire. Adverse economic impacts from catastrophic wildfire, for example, can include both direct losses in property value and indirect effects resulting from the degradation of the natural resource base (e.g., water quality and timber), scenic landscape and general attractiveness of the area discouraging tourism and recreation. This Stewardship Project will benefit the local economy by safeguarding natural resources, scenic viewsheds, and riparian corridors from catastrophic wildfire and by facilitating improvements and the long-term reliability of a clean water supply for the economy and other beneficial uses. Chapter 3 discussed the primary interests, relating to water quality and fuel load management, of selected stakeholders in the watershed that have expressed similar stewardship goals and objectives to complement this Stewardship Project. As the Stewardship Project progresses to specific sub-basins, additional stakeholders will be contacted as necessary. Information for Chapter 3 was based on in-person interviews, agency management plans and other relevant documents referred to us by the agencies. As outlined in Chapter 3, numerous opportunities and a high level of interest was expressed by nearly all the stakeholders interviewed. This interest could lead to partnerships and cost-share agreements with other agencies having similar objectives and stewardship goals in the watershed. The following section outlines how this information can be used in conjunction with the environmental data base and results of the Watershed Assessment. 9.2 Next Steps The next phase of the Stewardship Project, the Draft Integration Plan/Watershed Stewardship Strategy (Task 4), will build on the results of the two previous phases, the Watershed Assessment and the Watershed Evaluation, by synthesizing the results of each separate report. This next phase of the project will promote a better understanding of the natural conditions of the watershed and how these conditions are influenced by institutional and/or political conditions, priorities and objectives. This integration and analysis of the environmental and political settings will then be used to design a Stewardship Strategy by identifying the gaps or areas most in need of funding. 9-1

122 These steps will provide the information that is necessary to design a Stewardship Program that is affordable, effective and supported by the stakeholders. The Draft Integration Plan/Watershed Stewardship Strategy will be conducted in three phases: 1) Establish the overlap between priority sub-basins outlined in the Watershed Assessment and the political interest discussed in the Watershed Evaluation; 2) Where overlap exists, discuss the political trends (Where is funding now going?) and how additional support can further facilitate the accomplishment of CALFED goals and objectives, and; 3) Outline the gaps (social, community, educational, and environmental), in other words, establish how this Stewardship Project can complement the existing political momentum by addressing those water quality and fuels management issues that should be addressed but are not currently being addressed by other organizations. Ultimately, the Integration Plan/Stewardship Strategy will provide the foundation for specific projects and components of an Integrated Watershed Stewardship Strategy (Task 6). The Integrated Watershed Stewardship Strategy will be designed to improve communication between agencies, coordinate stewardship efforts, and maximize partnership potential for the benefit of water quality and fuel load management in the watershed. 9-2

123 SOUTH FORK AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP PROJECT Draft Integration Plan and Watershed Stewardship Strategy April 2004 Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District

124 SOUTH FORK AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP PROJECT Draft Integration Plan and Watershed Stewardship Strategy April 2004 Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District

125 Chapter 10.0 Introduction 10.1 Task Overview The Draft Integration Plan and Watershed Stewardship Strategy (Draft Stewardship Strategy), completes Task 4 of the South Fork American River Watershed Stewardship Project (Stewardship Project). The Stewardship Project includes six tasks designed to improve the ecological function of the South Fork American River (SFAR) watershed by addressing the issues and possible solutions for improving water quality and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The long-term goal of the Stewardship Project is to develop a comprehensive stewardship plan that will help restore ecological health and improve water management for downstream beneficial uses of the San Francisco Bay Delta system as well as the local watershed. Both components of this report, the Draft Integration Plan/Watershed Stewardship Strategy, build on the analysis of two previous phases of the Stewardship Project, Tasks 2 and 3, by synthesizing the results of each separate report. Task 2, the Watershed Assessment (February 2003), examined the environmental characteristics, such as biological and physical ecosystem elements, of the SFAR watershed and it prioritized sub-basins for potential stewardship projects based on the risk of experiencing adverse impacts. Task 3, the Watershed Evaluation (October 2003), outlined the political, economic and cultural characteristics of the SFAR watershed. This report integrates the results of these two previous tasks and it provides a foundation for designing the final Integrated Watershed Stewardship Strategy (Task 6 of the Stewardship Project). The Integrated Watershed Stewardship Strategy will prioritize stewardship needs based on the environmental conditions of the watershed, consideration of available data, and stakeholder interests. We begin with an overview of the Stewardship Project, followed by more detailed descriptions of our approach to Task 4, including the goals and objectives for this report and how these objectives meet the goals of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, and we conclude with a statement of the limitations and obstacles encountered during this phase of the Stewardship Project Coordinated Resource Management Planning This Stewardship Project incorporates the guidelines and methods of the Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP) process. The CRMP watershed planning process originated in California in the 1960 s under the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now known as the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). It was designed as a means to address the many problems which arose as increasing demands for natural resources and their byproducts resulted in intensified conflicts between interest groups and individuals. These conflicts eventually led to an agreement between NRCS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the agencies sanctioned the multi-stakeholders CRMP process (California CRMP, Council History & Structure, CA CRMP Council, ). Today there are hundreds of local CRMPtype groups dealing with issues of soil erosion and sedimentation, fuel load management, noxious weed management, creek/stream/river restoration, stewardship education, endangered species habitat protection and enhancement, watershed management, non-point source pollution and much more. At least 20 CRMPs are currently active in the Sierra Nevada (Sierra Business Council 2000). The cornerstone of the CRMP organization is local participation and collaboration. Resolutions are reached at the local level and decisions are reached by consensus of local participants. Once 10-1

126 consensus is reached, the CRMP plans are implemented through appropriate agreements among participating individuals and agencies (Resources Agency and SWRCB April 15, 2002) Project Background This section introduces the Stewardship Project and it summarizes the results of the Watershed Assessment (Task 2) and the Watershed Evaluation (Task 3). More detailed discussions of the Stewardship Project approach, goals and objectives can be found in chapter 1.0 of the Watershed Assessment and section 6.2 of the Watershed Evaluation The Stewardship Project The Stewardship Project was first initiated by the RCD in September 1999 when it received funding from the CALFED Bay- Delta Program (CALFED). In conjunction with CALFED s Solution Principles, each step of the Stewardship Project is designed to improve communication and collaboration between agencies, coordinate stewardship efforts, and maximize partnership potential. Participants at the monthly meetings of the South Fork American River Watershed Group (SFARWG) help guide all aspects of the Stewardship Project, including the project focus on water quality and fuel load management. The SFARWG is open to the public and participants include all of the major stakeholders in the watershed ranging from landowners to local, State and federal agencies. In addition to the SFARWG, the Georgetown Divide RCD also coordinates quarterly meetings with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC consists of a smaller group of stakeholders with technical expertise to advise and guide the Stewardship Project regarding methodology and technical matters. Both the SFARWG and the TAC offer critical and invaluable guidance and support to all phases of the Stewardship Project. Appendix A includes a detailed list of SFARWG and TAC participants as well as a list of members of the recently formed Watershed Monitoring Advisory Committee (WMAC) which provides technical advice towards the efforts of Task 5 the Watershed Monitoring Plan The Watershed Assessment The Watershed Assessment (WA, Task 2) prioritized those sub-basins with high risk factors for catastrophic wildfire and sedimentation. The WA describes the methodology and results of a detailed analysis of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics within the SFAR watershed that contribute to increased fire hazard/risk and increased water quality degradation. The Watershed Assessment prioritized the eighty-one sub-basins in the SFAR watershed based on the risk of experiencing adverse impacts from both catastrophic wildfire and sedimentation. The Watershed Assessment placed a high priority for stewardship action on those subbasins with the greatest risk to experience adverse impacts The Watershed Evaluation The Watershed Evaluation (WE, Task 3) examined the economic setting and cultural setting of the watershed and it described those areas where there is the most political/community support to implement stewardship projects in the watershed. This was accomplished through a review of agency reports and websites and through interviews with key stakeholders to determine their interests and needs in terms of stewardship. This approach accomplished an important step towards improving communication and coordination with all the major stakeholders in the watershed and it provided an opportunity to both identify and better understand the goals and objectives of key stakeholders working 10-2

127 in the watershed. The information gained during these interviews will be used to design a mix of stewardship programs that are suited to the needs and objectives of the stakeholders currently working in the watershed. This approach is consistent with the CALFED Watershed Program which promotes collaboration and integration among watershed efforts (CALFED Bay- Delta Program 2000) and it establishes a Watershed Baseline by gathering basic information about stakeholders and human and economic resources as described in Step 1 of Chapter 3 Crafting a Watershed Plan in the Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook (Center for Watershed Protection 1998) Overview of Task 4 Draft Integration Plan and Stewardship Strategy This report sets the foundation for a strategic plan for stewardship that prioritizes areas for stewardship projects based on both the environmental conditions of the SFAR watershed and the needs/interests of the stakeholders. This stewardship strategy will assist the Georgetown Divide RCD in their efforts to create new and reinforce existing collaborative stewardship programs in the watershed. It also provides a reference of existing funding programs to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and improve and protect water quality of the watershed. This report also incorporates a detailed discussion of Focus Area 4, as described in Chapter 2 of this report, which was designed in response to recent agricultural non-point run-off regulations set forth by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board). In order to assist the El Dorado County Agricultural Watershed Group and farmers with irrigated lands, the goals and objectives of the Stewardship Project have been expanded to address, more specifically, agricultural issues within the SFAR watershed. Focus Area 5 was designed in response to a request by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to allow for flexibility of the Stewardship Project by including a Focus Area without sub-basin boundaries. The criteria for inclusion in this Focus Area will involve community interest, partnership potential, and economic interests equal with the environmental concerns of the watershed. Task 4 is divided into three sub-tasks which are incorporated into this report including: Sub-task Develop Draft Integration Plan This sub-task examines how the priority sub-basins identified in the Watershed Assessment (Task 2) line up with the stakeholder interests examined in the Watershed Evaluation (Task 3). This subtask will synthesize the results within the following five Focus Areas : Focus Area 1: Six priority sub-basins established for both fuels management and water quality. Focus Area 2: The remaining five of the eleven priority sub-basins established for fuels. Focus Area 3: The remaining five of the eleven priority sub-basins established for water quality. Focus Area 4: Those sub-basins identified as priority areas for stewardship and water quality monitoring developed in response to the issues stemming from the requirements of the Regional Board for a Conditional Agricultural Waiver. Focus Area 5: Other sub-basins with characteristics that warrant further evaluation based on other important considerations (e.g., sub-basins outside the priority areas that ranked high for sensitive soils and roads on steep slopes and/or areas identified as possibly having mercury contamination). 10-3

128 Sub-task Develop Draft Stewardship Strategy The primary objective of the Draft Stewardship Strategy is to develop the foundation for a strategic plan for restoration of the watershed which will be expanded and finalized as part of Task 6 (Integrated Watershed Stewardship Strategy). This subtask examines existing programs and funding and the need for additional programs and funding in the five Focus Areas. This information will be used to further prioritize our Focus Areas and define specific project ideas based on the environmental needs of the sub-basins and the priorities identified and described by the stakeholders. Sub-task Draft Integrated Watershed Stewardship Strategy This sub-task will compile the data and information obtained as part of the previous two sub-tasks into a report with a similar format as the Watershed Assessment (Task 2) and the Watershed Evaluation (Task 3). In this report we attempt to answer, in general terms, the following questions: 1. How do the environmental needs of the watershed, established in Task 2, correlate with the stakeholder interests in the watershed, identified as part of Task 3? 2. What are the major grant administering organizations in the watershed? What is the trend among grant administering organizations? Where is funding now going? 3. What are some ideas and where is further investment justified for specific projects in the five Focus Areas? Table 10.1 outlines the objectives (Goals and Sub-goals) of this report. Table 10.1 Goals and Sub-goals for Task 4 Goal 1: Synthesize the environmental conditions of the watershed with the political/economic landscape of the SFAR watershed. Sub-goals Identify key Focus Areas based on an analysis of data collected during previous Task assignments. Identify the gaps and shared goals of stakeholders currently working within the Focus Areas. Describe, in general terms, how this information will help design a more effective strategy of stewardship for the watershed. Goal 2: Identify the current momentum among grant administering organizations. Sub-goals List the major grant administering organizations currently providing funds in the Focus Areas to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and adverse water quality. Identify the funding gaps. Goal 3: Begin to formulate specific, on-the-ground, stewardship projects. Sub-goals Identify specific project ideas and areas that could be further explored in Task 6. Provide the foundation for Task 6, the final Integrated Watershed Stewardship Strategy. Continue developing a list of proposed water quality and fuels management projects needing funding in the watershed (continue filling out project data sheets to include with the sub-task 3.2 report). 10-4

129 10.5 Consistency with CALFED s Solution Principles and Primary Objectives The design and methods of this Stewardship Project closely follow the guidelines and principles as described in CALFED Bay- Delta Program Watershed Program (Watershed Program Plan, July 2000). This section provides quotes from CALFED s Solution Principles and six Primary Objectives followed by a discussion of how these principles and objectives helped guide the design and methods of this Stewardship Project. CALFED Solution Principles The Watershed Program Plan outlines six Solution Principles that guide the evaluation process for proposed projects and provide an overall measure of acceptability. These principles include: Reduce conflicts in the system Solutions will reduce major conflicts among beneficial uses of water. Be equitable Solutions will focus on solving problems in all problem areas. Improvements for some problems will not be made without corresponding improvements for other problems. Be affordable Solutions will be implementable and maintainable within the foreseeable resources of the Program and stakeholders. Be durable Solutions will have political and economic staying power and will sustain the resources they were designed to protect and enhance. Be implementable Solutions will have broad public acceptance and legal feasibility, and will be timely and relatively simple to implement compared with other alternatives. Result in no significant redirected impacts Solutions will not solve problems in the Bay-Delta system by redirecting significant negative impacts, when viewed in their entirety, within the Bay-Delta to other regions of California. All of the components of this Stewardship Project are consistent with the Solution Principles outlined above. The entire project, including Task 4, is directed and approved by participants in the SFAR Watershed Group (SFARWG) and the Technical Advisory Committees (TAC). At each step of the Stewardship Project, we have presented our approach and received constructive criticism from the SFARWG and the TAC. This has helped reduce conflicts and it has helped ensure that our solutions are indeed what the residents and land managers agree is needed to improve watershed health. Moreover, the results outlined in this report are based largely on input received from stakeholders regarding their interests and needs in the watershed and the report is based on both the economic and environmental risk factors. A major goal of the Stewardship Project, for example, is to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire which threatens both the economic and ecologic functions of the watershed. It is our intention to design a Stewardship Strategy that maximizes long-term public support in an efficient and straight forward manner. This effort to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire in the SFAR watershed comes at a critical time in terms of public awareness and commitment to this issue. In October 2003, a series of catastrophic wildfires spread throughout southern California destroying hundreds of homes and thousands of acres of wildlife habitat. As a result of this event, the entire Nation became more focused on the need to manage the landscape to reduce the destructive potential of wildfire near residential areas. Closer to home, within El Dorado County, two large-scale catastrophic wildfires including the Cleveland Fire (26,000 acres), located in the upper reaches of the SFAR watershed, and the Star Fire (approximately 10-5

130 8,000 acres), located along the Middle Fork American River, consumed nearly every inch of vegetation inside the fires leaving the landscape void of almost all trees or any living organism. In the lower reaches of the watershed, in the mid s, a series of small-scale arson-related fires in the community of Kelsey terrified residents and destroyed a number of homes in this area. These and other recent fires point to a need for collaborative planning to enhance and protect both residents and wildlife habitats from the destructive force of uncontrolled burns and the associated mudflows and increased sedimentation that can result from large-scale catastrophic wildfires. In addition to local benefits, safeguarding the SFAR watershed from the threat of largescale uncontrolled burns also offers increased protection to downstream users and purveyors of the Sierra water supply, and it can prevent associated water quality problems that result from accelerated erosion and increased run-off. The following section further describes how this Stewardship Project complements the goals and objectives outlined in the CALFED Watershed Program Plan. Integration with the CALFED Primary Objectives This section outlines the six Primary Objectives of the CALFED Watershed Program Plan. Each of the six objectives is quoted below followed by a brief description of how this Stewardship Project fulfills the corresponding objective. CALFED Primary Objective 1 Facilitate and improve coordination, Collaboration, and assistance among government agencies, other organizations, and local watershed groups. A broad array of government programs, non-governmental organization efforts, and local initiatives focus on Watershed Stewardship. The Watershed Program will encourage and support collaboration among these diverse interests to enhance and restore watershed functions in the Bay-Delta system. How does this Stewardship Project fulfill CALFED Primary Objective 1? The South Fork American River Watershed Group (SFARWG) is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders who meet on a monthly basis to provide input and guidance to the Stewardship Project. Our focus on water quality and catastrophic wildfire/fuels management stems from the interests of these stakeholders. Each step of the Stewardship Project is guided by and based on input received from the SFARWG. CALFED Primary Objective 2 Develop watershed monitoring and assessment protocols. Adaptive management is possible only when an adequate feedback loop is available to assess assumptions, decisions, and projects based on their outcomes. Effective monitoring programs that are based on sound science and that include a wide range of participants will help improve decisionmaking processes for enhancing watershed health. How does this Stewardship Project fulfill CALFED Primary Objective 2? In accordance with CALFED Primary Objective 2, Task 5 Watershed Monitoring will compile existing baseline characteristics of the water quality in the SFAR watershed, it will identify data collection needs and it will outline the water quality monitoring protocols for a volunteer monitoring program. In addition, monitoring efforts will be identified as an integral part of any specific project proposals that stem from this Stewardship Project. 10-6

131 CALFED Primary Objective 3 Support education and outreach. An important component of CALFED is sharing and disseminating information gathered through the implementation phase. The education and outreach element of the Watershed Program will facilitate information exchange, provide opportunities to build or increase local involvement in watershed activities, and augment local resource conservation education programs. The enhanced information exchange will better inform public dialogue and will improve watershed management decisions at all levels. How does this Stewardship Project fulfill CALFED Primary Objective 3? Public education is an integral part of all six tasks in the Stewardship Project. The SFARWG provides a forum to listen to landowners and stakeholders in the watershed and it provides an opportunity to educate the public on water quality issues in El Dorado County. In addition, the Georgetown Divide RCD works closely with the El Dorado County Office of Education including Junior High and High School teachers and with the El Dorado County Department of Agriculture to perform public outreach and to educate students and citizens on numerous environmental issues. Finally, all of the data collected at each phase of this Stewardship Project is available for public use and agency personnel and landowners are encouraged to use data collected as part of this project as they see fit. CALFED Primary Objective 4 Integrate the Watershed Program with other CALFED program elements. Program integrate with these other activities to effectively leverage the knowledge, energy, and funds available to meet the goals and objectives of CALFED. How does this Stewardship Project fulfill CALFED Primary Objective 4? Whenever possible, we have worked closely with neighboring Districts including Placer County RCD and downstream beneficial users, such as the Bureau of Reclamation, to coordinate closely with their efforts. In addition, our regular communication and partnerships with agencies such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, the United States Forest Service and the California Department of Forestry and Fire have helped ensure a broad and regional beneficial effect of the Stewardship Project. The Watershed Evaluation (Task 3), for example, included an assessment of stakeholder interests in the SFAR watershed which helped establish partnership potential throughout the county and with our neighbors. In addition, Chapter 12 of this report includes a table that outlines the funding opportunities available to address stewardship of the watershed. This table will be used to organize our efforts towards integrating funding opportunities with neighboring counties. CALFED Primary Objective 5 Define the relationship between watershed processes and the goals and objectives of CALFED. The function of a watershed is comprised of many physical, biological, and social processes. The Watershed Program will seek to define those processes that are most significant in achieving the goals and objectives of CALFED. The CALFED program elements promote many activities that improve conditions in the greater watershed of the BAY-DELTA system. It is important that the Watershed 10-7

132 How does this Stewardship Project fulfill CALFED Primary Objective 5? We believe that improved ecological functions of the upper watersheds, that feed the Bay-Delta System, are critical to downstream ecosystem functions. If the upper watersheds do not remain intact, there is little hope for downstream ecology. Moreover, while the Sierra Nevada watersheds are not currently subject to the same development pressures as downstream watersheds, in Sacramento Valley for example, it is critical that we establish baseline water quality characteristics as soon as possible. The water quality research efforts accomplished as part of this Stewardship Project show, for example, that little data has been collected on the tributaries to the South Fork American River (see Task 5 Water Quality Monitoring report). In the absence of this baseline data and information about the SFAR tributaries, we may not recognize a potential water quality problem until it becomes serious. The focus of the Stewardship Project on sedimentation, which is both an indicator of water quality and a potential conductor of pollutants, serves as an example of how this Stewardship Project addresses the significant physical and biological processes in the watershed. This Stewardship Project also recognizes that the more local landowners are informed and involved with planning for water quality and fuels management programs, the more likely they will be to manage their lands using principles such as Best Management Practices. The SFAR Watershed Group provides the setting to encourage landowner participation and education. These are two examples which demonstrate how this Stewardship Project takes into consideration and seeks to define both the physical/biological as well as the significant social processes that effect watershed functions. By addressing both sedimentation and landowner participation, the Stewardship Project will result in better quality of downstream flows. Finally, the threat of catastrophic wildfire is a regional issue and reducing this threat has regional benefits. With this understanding in mind, this entire Stewardship Project is designed to improve ecological functions in the SFAR watershed to the greatest extent possible for the benefit of the largest area possible. CALFED Primary Objective 6 Implement a strategy that will ensure support and long-term sustainability of local watershed activities. To effectively manage a watershed for optimum health, a long-term commitment to manage and monitor is necessary. To this end, the Watershed Program will seek to secure long-term support to promote sustainability of the watersheds of the Bay- Delta system. How does this Stewardship Project fulfill CALFED Primary Objective 6? The results of this Stewardship Project show strong interest and support from local stakeholders in the project goals and there is consensus that our primary Focus Areas as defined in Chapter 11 of this report make sense as the first sub-basins to begin improving watershed conditions. The stakeholders agree, we all want good water quality and we all want to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire in our county and beyond. Support for the Stewardship Project is demonstrated by the consistent attendance of a wide variety of stakeholders in our SFARWG meetings. Our long-term goal is to design a stewardship program that will receive support from our partners and interested stakeholders for years to come. This Stewardship Project is designed with the understanding that improved ecological functioning of the SFAR watershed will be the result of a steadfast community effort. To address this issue, Task 3, the Watershed Evaluation, included in-person interviews 10-8

133 with over 20 stakeholders in the watershed. This effort was designed to elicit informal discussions about the concerns of potential stewardship partners. This Stewardship Project will contribute to and build on those efforts already underway by other stakeholders to achieve similar goals and where necessary, for example, in the New York Creek sub-basin, this Stewardship Project will initiate a long-term effort to understand and improve this sub-basin. Through this Stewardship Project, the Georgetown RCD will provide strong leadership to improve ecological conditions of the SFAR watershed. Sometimes the stewardship efforts will be headed by the Georgetown Divide RCD and other times the RCD will provide support to partners already leading stewardship efforts in the watershed. Under either scenario, the longterm efficacy of the Stewardship Project will be sustained by the entire stewardship community Introduction to Draft Integration Plan and Stewardship Strategy This report is laid out in four principal sections and two appendices, as follows: Chapter Synthesis of Priority Sub-basins and Stakeholder Interests: This chapter will address the topics for sub-task 4.1 (Draft Integration Plan) by describing our methodology to define five Focus Areas in the SFAR watershed and by outlining the recent past (last 5 years), ongoing, and planned water quality and fuels management projects in each of the five Focus Areas. It will be based primarily on data obtained during Task 3 (Watershed Evaluation) with additional information concerning the Regional Board s Conditional Agricultural Waiver Program. Chapter 12.0 Political Trends and Funding Gaps in the Priority Focus Areas: This chapter will address sub-task 4.2 (Draft Stewardship Strategy) by identifying the trends among grant administering organizations, it will describe where the funding is now going and it will provide the background to identify where the funding gaps exist. Chapter 13.0 Integration Plan Summary and Next Steps: This final chapter will summarize the previous chapters and it will present some ideas about how this stewardship project can best complement existing programs in the watershed. It will also provide some suggestions about what appear to be the most promising opportunities and collaborations thus setting the stage for Task 6 (Integrated Watershed Stewardship Strategy). Appendix A - Participants in the South Fork American River Watershed Group and the Technical Advisory Committee. Appendix B - Urbanization Hydrologic Changes from 10.7Limitations of the Draft Integration Plan and Stewardship Strategy As with both the Watershed Assessment and the Watershed Evaluation, this report is a compilation and integration of a variety of existing and new materials and data that characterize the unique environmental and political setting within the SFAR watershed. This report presents a synthesis of information and data gathered during previous phases of the project. Our discussion and conclusions rely heavily on input from project participants, which include the SFARWG, TAC, and the

134 stakeholders individually interviewed for the Watershed Evaluation. This report provides a first-level look at specific on-the-ground project ideas. Subsequent stages of the Stewardship Project, namely Task 6, will identify and evaluate the full range of specific projects and programs to help strengthen, sustain, and enhance the diversity of the natural resources and interdependent economy of this watershed

135 Chapter 11.0 Synthesis of Priority Sub- Basins and Stakeholder Interests 11.1 Introduction This chapter completes sub-task 4.1 of the Stewardship Project the Draft Integration Plan. It outlines five Focus Areas established as priority areas for stewardship within the South Fork American River (SFAR) watershed and it describes the past, ongoing and planned water quality and fuels management projects within each of these Focus Areas. The selection of the five Focus Areas is based on data generated as part of the Watershed Assessment which, as stated in Chapter 1 of this report, prioritized those sub-basins most at-risk of catastrophic wildfire and sedimentation. Descriptions of the existing stewardship projects within the Focus Areas are derived from the Watershed Evaluation, which included in-person interviews with over 20 organizations currently working in the watershed and research into various websites and reports to assess stakeholder interest. The participation and long-term interest of stakeholders are critical to this Stewardship Project. In accordance with our goals for the project and the CALFED objectives, the guidance and input received from participants in the South Fork American River Watershed Group was a principle component for this chapter. This chapter addresses three fundamental questions concerning stewardship of the SFAR watershed: 1. Where are the priority Focus Areas for stewardship based on data collected in Task 2, the Watershed Assessment? And; what are the environmental conditions and characteristics of these areas? 2. How do the environmental conditions of the watershed integrate with the stakeholder interests, identified as part of Task 3, the Watershed Evaluation? 3. Are there ongoing programs in the Focus Areas that address water quality and fuels management? If so, what and where are these programs? Through the process of addressing the questions outlined above, the stewardship needs for the watershed begin to unfold. Task 6 will build on this effort by defining, more specifically, the stewardship goals and objectives for each Focus Area and the types of stewardship projects that could facilitate improved ecological functioning of the watershed Methodology Used to Define the Five Focus Areas The South Fork American River watershed encompasses about 537,166 acres or 840 square miles with 81 sub-basins established by the California Watershed Map (Calwater 2.2). In order to contend with the large area of the watershed, Tasks 2 and 3 of this Stewardship Project prioritized, by subbasin, those areas most at-risk and thus most in-need of stewardship. This process resulted in the selection of 21 sub-basins or about 25 percent of the SFAR watershed, considered the highest priority for stewardship projects. These priority areas are termed Focus Areas and are described as follows: Focus Area 1: The top six priority subbasins established for both fuels and water quality: New York Creek, Big Sailor Creek, Traverse Creek, Hangtown Creek, Indian Creek, and Kelly Creek. Focus Area 2: The remaining five of the eleven priority sub-basins established for fuels: Burnt Shanty Creek, White Rock Creek, Table Rock, Ringold Creek and Cold Springs Creek. 11-1

136 Focus Area 3: The remaining five of the eleven priority sub-basins established for water quality: Iowa Canyon, Long Canyon, South Fork Webber Creek, North Fork Webber Creek, and Shaw Mine Hill. The following Focus Areas 4 and 5 were designed in response to community interests and partnership potential. Focus Area 4, for example, incorporates specific information related to agricultural run-off and water quality thus providing the foundation to assist the El Dorado County Agricultural Watershed Group in obtaining a Conditional Agricultural Waiver from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Focus Area 5 is designed in response to requests set forth by the SFARWG in order to allow flexibility in the Stewardship Project and to address the needs in the watershed as they arise. A large catastrophic wildfire in the watershed, for example, could change our priority interest areas for stewardship and Focus Area 5 allows the flexibility to respond to changes in the watershed based on community interests. Focus Area 4: This Focus Area includes those sub-basins with irrigated agricultural crops that will be addressed by the El Dorado County Agricultural Watershed Group under the Conditional Waiver Program. There are five sub-basins with irrigated agriculture in the SFAR watershed including three that are incorporated into Focus Areas 1 through 3: Hangtown Creek (Focus Area 1), Cold Springs Creek (Focus Area 2) and Iowa Canyon (Focus Area 3). Two additional sub-basins, Redbird Creek and Kelsey Canyon, are unique to Focus Area 4. Focus Area 5: Other sub-basins with characteristics that warrant further valuation (e.g., sub-basins that address Important Agricultural Areas, Sensitive Soils, Roads on Steep Slopes) and sub-basins that meet the criteria for inclusion based on community interest and partnership potential. The locations of each of these Focus Areas are depicted on Figures 11.1 through 11.4 Focus Area Maps Selection of Focus Areas 1 through 3 Chapters 3 and 4 and Appendix A of the Watershed Assessment provide detailed descriptions of our methodology and approach that resulted in the selection of the priority sub-basins listed under Focus Areas 1, 2 and 3 as described above. These methodologies were presented to and approved by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in November The following paragraphs briefly summarize this analysis and point out certain elements of our methodology that are relevant to the selection of the first three Focus Areas. The wildfire risk analysis first characterized all 81 sub-basins in the SFAR watershed in terms of the fuel hazard rating, based on the California Department of Forestry and Fire (CDF) database. The sub-basins were then characterized according to the Resource Values they harbor which are at-risk of loss from catastrophic wildfire. The combination of a high Fuel Hazard rating, meaning a high percentage of acreage rated High or Very High Fuel hazard, with a high number of resources at risk resulted in the selection of the sub-basin as a priority area. The 12 Resource Values included in the wildfire risk analysis were weighted equally in this analysis and are listed below. Resources At-Risk of Loss Due to Catastrophic Wildfire Resource Value (RV) RV 1 - Federal and State Listed Species Occurrences RV 2 - Pine Hill Recovery Plan 11-2

137 RV 3 - Critical Red-Legged Frog Habitat (acres) RV 4 - Stream Density (miles/acre) RV 5 - Oak Corridors RV 6 - Old Forest Reserves (acres) RV 7 - Timber Production Areas (acres) RV 8 - Important Agricultural Areas (acres) RV 9 - Structure Density (Area with Structures Valued over $5,000 (acres)) RV 10 - Public Utilities RV 11 - Scenic Roads and Waterways RV 12 - Recreation/Major Historic The sedimentation risk analysis analyzed the 81 sub-basins in terms of various Categories (or attributes) that put these sub-basins at increased risk of experiencing sedimentation. These Categories are described in more detail in Chapter 4 of the Watershed Assessment and are listed below. Attributes Resulting in Increased Risk of Sedimentation Category 1 - Category 2 - Category 3 - Category 4 - Category 5 - Category 6 - Category 7 - Sensitive Soils (percent and total area) Road Density (miles/square mile) Road Density in Stream Buffers (miles/mile square) Impervious Cover (area, percent, factor) Road Density on Steep Slopes (35% and greater (miles)) Structure Density (area of parcels 5 acres or less with structures valued $5,000 or greater) Fuel ranks at 50 th percentile or greater In both the wildfire and sedimentation risk analyses, the attributes listed above were either ranked according to an assigned percentile ranking system or according to the presence of the resource. Under the percentile ranking system, those sub-basins that ranked in the highest percentile for various characteristics were assigned a score of one. The Hangtown Creek sub-basin, for example, ranked in the 75 th percentile for Road Density (miles/mile square) and, as such, it was given a score of 1 for this attribute in the sedimentation risk analysis. For some resources, such as Public Utilities or Listed Species, the mere presence of these attributes in the sub-basin resulted in an assigned score of 1. Under this system, each of the attributes listed above was comparably weighted. The scores were then summed up first for fuel hazard ranking combined with resource values and then for risk of sedimentation. Those sub-basins with a total score of 6-8 ranked as the highest priority for sub-basins under the catastrophic wildfire risk analysis and those sub-basins with a score of 5 or 6 ranked as the highest priority sub-basins for sedimentation risk. This approach presented a bias towards subbasins with urban characteristics, especially under the sedimentation risk analysis. In fact, 8 of the 19 attributes listed above are more likely to be concentrated in urban or developed areas. Structure Density, for example, which was selected for both the wildfire and sedimentation risk analyses, is always associated with urban development as are other attributes such as Public Utilities, Road Density, Road Density in Stream Buffers, Impervious Cover, and Road Density on Steep Slopes. As a result, this analysis was more likely to select densely populated sub-basins as priority areas for stewardship projects. However, while this methodology admittedly presents a bias towards more developed sub-basins, especially under the sedimentation risk analysis, this ranking method was endorsed by the TAC and incorporates sub-basins at risk for other water quality parameters in addition to sedimentation. This is important because, although our study initially focused on sedimentation under the water quality evaluation, the stakeholder survey, undertaken as part of Task 3, revealed strong 11-3

138 concerns and stakeholder interest for other water quality parameters as well. In other words, some of the Categories in the sedimentation ranking system apply to water quality parameters other than sedimentation. For example, a sub-basin, such as Hangtown Creek, which ranked in the highest percentile for Impervious Cover (e.g. asphalt), Structure Density, and a high Density of Roads in Stream Buffers, could indicate an increased risk for adverse impacts associated with road runoff and hydrologic changes from urbanization. Appendix B provides detailed descriptions of the increased risk to water quality as a result of urbanization Selection of Focus Area 4 Focus Area 4 is designed to address the recent agricultural discharge regulations set forth by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board). In order to assist the El Dorado County Agricultural Watershed Group and farmers with irrigated lands, the goals and objectives of the Stewardship Project have been expanded to incorporate, more specifically, agricultural issues within the SFAR watershed. Recent regulations allow agricultural dischargers to obtain a Conditional Waiver to comply with Waste Discharge Requirements. Once a Coalition Group has formed the group must perform the following tasks to comply with the requirements: Share and implement best management practices to address water quality problems Conduct water quality monitoring of rivers and creeks Apply for grants Work cooperatively toward improving water quality Report to the Regional Board The water quality objectives set forth in this Stewardship Project complement the goals outlined by the Regional Board to implement Best Management Practices and conduct water quality monitoring. Focus Area 4 is designed to address this issue by providing a foundation for further development of the tasks required under the Conditional Agricultural Waiver Program within El Dorado County Selection of Focus Area 5 Finally, as mentioned above, Hangtown Creek sub-basin ranked among the priority sub-basins and is included in Focus Area 1. However, not all the sub-basins that ranked in the highest percentile for various attributes or the combination of water quality attributes were selected as a priority. Focus Area 5 provides a means to address this issue by capturing those sub-basins that did not rank as top priorities but which have a combination of ranking attributes which, based on current watershed planning efforts being conducted by the United States Forest Service, California Department of Forestry and Fire, Sierra Pacific Industries and El Dorado County (see Task 3 - Watershed Evaluation binder), still warrant further attention for potential stewardship projects. Focus Area 5 allows for flexibility within the Stewardship Project by incorporating other non-physical environment considerations such as economics, fundraising, partnership potential, and community interest into the stewardship design. In this way, Focus Area 5 expands to areas outside the first five Focus Areas and permits the design of stewardship projects where other factors may warrant attention within the SFAR watershed. The criteria for stewardship projects in this Focus Area will still be based on the physical attributes of the sub-basins as listed in Appendix B of the Watershed Assessment, but it remains more flexible 11-4

139 within the boundaries and it considers such criteria as stakeholder interests, partnership potential and community needs equally with environmental conditions. The following section describes the environmental characteristics within each of the five Focus Areas Environmental Setting within Focus Areas 1 though Focus Area 1 This Focus Area consists of 41,105 acres divided into six sub-basins that ranked at highest risk for both catastrophic wildfire and sedimentation. Three of the six subbasins in this Focus Area, New York Creek, Kelley Creek, and Hangtown Creek, are located north of the Highway 50 corridor and are among the most densely populated areas in El Dorado County. New York Creek sub-basin includes large portions of the fast growing neighborhoods and commercial districts of El Dorado Hills, Kelly Creek includes the neighborhoods of Shingle Springs and the Hangtown Creek sub-basin includes portions of the City of Placerville, which is one of only two incorporated cities in El Dorado County (the other being South Lake Tahoe). These more developed areas with relatively high population densities often contain the highest density of roads, the largest percentage of acreage in lowmedium density residential housing, and the highest amount of commercial zoning. Figure 11.1 shows the location of the six sub-basins included in Focus Area 1. The outer edges of these communities often abut areas with natural vegetation creating what is known as the urban-wildland interface. What s more, large portions of the three sub-basins mentioned above including New York Creek, Kelley Creek and Hangtown Creek, ranked at High and Very High risk for fuel hazard. In other words, these more densely populated subbasins with high percentages of residential and commercial structures and important natural resources also contain fuel loading that poses a great risk of wildfire. Water quality risks can also become elevated within urban areas as a result of road run-off, the presence of wastewater treatment facilities, and increased impervious cover in developed areas. Appendix B provides detailed descriptions of the risk urbanization poses to water quality and hydrologic function in the watershed. The following paragraphs provide a general overview of Focus Area 1. Development Trends and Land Uses Focus Area 1 is the fastest growing and most urbanized of the five Focus Areas. Two of the strongest commercial centers in El Dorado County are located in this Focus Area including the City of Placerville and El Dorado Hills. The top five current land uses in this Focus Area are outlined in Table

140 South Fork American River Watershed Focus Area 1 Auburn 1 ', (/ (/ Placerville (/ (/88 The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps. El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts County boundaries Focus Area 1 Sub-basins Big Sailor Creek Hangtown Creek Indian Creek Kelley Creek New York Creek Traverse Creek Miles N Figure 2.1

141 Table 11.1 Top Land Uses in Focus Area 1 Land Use Code Land Use Focus Area 1 (acres) Focus Area 1 % of total 39 RURAL RES AC. 1 SINGLE FAMILY UNIT RURAL RES. LAND 20+ MINOR NON RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS 57 VAC RURAL RES LAND AC. 1 UNIT SINGLE FAM. RES. <=2.5 AC.(INCLUDING MANUFACTURED HOMES) 40 RURAL RES. 20+ AC. 1 RES. UNIT UNASSIGNED Approximately 94.3 percent of the landscape in Focus Area 1 is privately owned. The remaining 5.7 percent in public ownership consists of 2.2 percent BLM lands and 3.0 percent U.S. Forest Service. A small portion (0.6%) of Focus Area 1 is under jurisdiction of the State of California. Some of the largest parcels in this Focus Area are owned by BLM providing a good opportunity for partnerships to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire and improve fuel loads. Modified Fire Ecology and High Fire Risk As discussed in the Watershed Assessment (Chapter 3), fire is a critical process that has helped shape the ecosystems found in the foothill life zone, including all of the subbasins in Focus Area 1. Human intervention and fire suppression over the last 100 years have modified the natural fire ecology of this region creating unnaturally high fuel loads and fire risks. About 63 percent of the land base in Focus Area 1 is rated High fuel hazard and an additional 20 percent is rated Very High fuel hazard. There is a strong ecological need for the re-introduction of low intensity fires and the reduction of fuel loads in this area. In addition, because Focus Area 1 includes the largest percentage of high density residential and commercial land uses it is likely that this Focus Area harbors the largest areas in the SFAR watershed characterized as the urban-wildland interface. The high fuel hazard ratings which abut developed landscapes create a strong need for fuel reduction programs because of the risk to life and property but, at the same, reducing fuel loads in these areas can be challenging due to the lack of public awareness and fuel load reduction project advocacy. The following paragraphs describe the environmental setting and characteristics of each sub-basin included in Focus Area 1. Information for this section is derived from tables 3.5 and 4.3 of the Watershed Assessment. New York Creek: This sub-basin is located in the lowest reaches of the watershed adjacent to and east of Folsom Reservoir. It includes the area along El Dorado Hills Boulevard starting about one mile north of Highway 50 up to the South Fork American River and about a four mile stretch of Green Valley Road. New York Creek is one of the most populated sub-basins in the watershed second only to Hangtown Creek in terms of the density of structures, impervious cover, and density of roads. The land base of New York Creek sub-basin contains 73 percent rated High and Very High for fuel hazard and 8 percent rated Very High fuel hazard. What s more, this sub-basin has a high number of acres (2,519) listed as important Oak Corridors by the El Dorado County Oak Woodland Technical Advisory Committee (1996, see Chapter 3 of the Watershed Assessment) and it contains three sightings of Listed Species. In other words, there is a high threat of 11-7

142 catastrophic wildfire in this sub-basin and, at the same time, the sub-basin harbors many valuable economic and natural resources that could be lost in a large uncontrolled fire. This sub-basin also ranked high for Road Density in Stream Buffers under the sedimentation risk analysis and it ranked high for many of the urban attributes such as Road Density, Road Density in Stream Buffers, Impervious Cover, Structure Density. Big Sailor Creek: This sub-basin is located in the northern part of the foothill zone and it incorporates large portions of the community of Garden Valley. It ranked as the top sub-basin in the watershed for the percentage of High and Very High Fuels with an alarming score of 94 percent. It also ranked in the top three for Important Agricultural Areas (3,631 acres) and it ranked for Listed Species Occurrences, Structure Density, Public Utilities, Scenic Roads and Waterways and Recreation/Major Historic in the wildfire risk analysis. Under the sedimentation risk analysis, this sub-basin had a final crude score of 6 out of 7 ranking in the highest percentile for all the urban attributes, such as Road Density, Road Density in Stream Buffers, Impervious Cover, and Structure Density, and it ranked high for Sensitive Soils and Fuel Hazard. Traverse Creek: This sub-basin includes the residential neighborhoods south of Georgetown and Buckeye. It is the most rural of the sub-basins included in Focus Area 1 with only 618 acres rated as Area of Parcels 5 acres of less with structure of $5,000 or more. This sub-basin includes 77 percent acreage rated High and Very High Fuels and it ranked for Listed Species Occurrences, Stream Density, and Important Agricultural Areas under the wildfire risk analysis. Under the sedimentation risk analysis it ranked in the highest percentile for all the urban attributes, such as Road Density, Impervious Cover, Structure Density, and it ranked high for Fuel Hazard and Sensitive Soils. Hangtown Creek: This sub-basin includes the City of Placerville, and as such, it ranked very high for urban features such as Structure Density, Road Density, Impervious Area, and Road Density in Stream Buffers under the sedimentation risk analysis and it ranked high for Critical Red- Legged Frog Habitat, Oak Corridors and Important Agricultural Areas under the wildfire risk analysis. Hangtown Creek sub-basin also contains an alarming 81 percent rated High and Very High for Fuel Hazard and a 14 percent rated Very High Fuel Hazard. Indian Creek: This sub-basin includes the residential neighborhoods between Shingle Springs and Placerville and an approximately two mile section of Green Valley Road. It ranked high under Road Density in Stream Buffers for the sedimentation risk analysis and it ranked high for Critical Red-Legged Frog Habitat, Stream Density, Oak Corridors and Important Agricultural Areas under the wildfire risk analysis. Kelley Creek: This sub-basin includes portions of Shingle Springs and the residential neighborhoods along Green Valley Road. Over 87 percent of the subbasin rated High and Very High for Fuels. It ranked the very highest of all sub-basins in Focus Area 1 for all the resources at risk under the wildfire risk analysis with a crude total value score of 8. This sub-basin has the highest number of Listed Species Occurrences (15) and it includes the Pine Hill Recovery Plan. It also includes the highest percentage of acreage of Oak Corridors (5,937 acres). It also ranked for Important Agricultural Areas. Under the sedimentation risk analysis this sub-basin ranked high for many of the urban attributes (Road Density, Impervious Cover, Structure Density) and it 11-8

143 ranked high for Fuel Hazard and Road Density in Stream Buffers Focus Area 2 This Focus Area includes the five sub-basins that ranked at highest risk for catastrophic wildfire only: Burnt Shanty Creek, White Rock Creek, Table Rock, Ringold Creek and Cold Springs Creek. Figure 11.2 shows the location of the five sub-basins included in Focus Area 2. Development Trends and Land Uses The sub-basins that make up Focus Area 2 are located mainly on the perimeter of more developed areas. The Focus Area contains no major urban centers but large numbers of residential districts and neighborhoods. The top five current land uses in Focus Area 2 are outlined in Table Table 11.2 Top Land Uses in Focus Area 2 Land Use Code Land Use Focus Area 2 (acres) FA 2 % of total 55 UNASSIGNED RURAL RES AC. 1 SINGLE FAMILY UNIT RURAL RES. LAND 20+ MINOR NON RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT 54 TIMBER PRESERVE ZONING - ACTIVE RURAL RES LAND AC. 1 UNIT RURAL RES. 20+ AC. 1 RES. UNIT Public and Private Ownership Nearly 80 percent of the landscape in Focus Area 2 is privately owned. The remaining 20 percent in public ownership consists primarily of USFS lands (14.5%) and BLM lands (5.8%). As with Focus Area 1, some of the largest parcels in this zone are owned by the USFS and BLM providing a good opportunity for partnerships to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire and improve fuel loads. Modified Fire Ecology and High Fire Risk The majority, or about 77 percent of the landscape in Focus Area 2, is rated High to Very High fuel hazard. As discussed under Focus Area 1, there is a strong ecological need for the re-introduction of low intensity fires and the reduction of fuel loads in this area. The following paragraphs describe the environmental setting and characteristics of each sub-basin in Focus Area 2. Burnt Shanty Creek: This sub-basin includes Clark Mountain and an approximately 5 mile stretch of the South Fork American River which dissects this sub-basin southeast of Pilot Hill. It rated 92 percent High and Very High Fuels and it tied Kelly Creek sub-basin for the highest crude score of resources at risk of loss due to catastrophic wildfire with a crude score of 8. This sub-basin includes portions of the Pine Hill Recovery Plan, it harbors a number of Listed Species, and it includes valuable Oak Corridors. It also ranked high for Stream Density, Important Agricultural Areas, Structure Density, and Public Utilities. The significance of Scenic Roads and Waterways is a critical attribute of this subbasin. Thousands of tourists, from all over 11-9

144 South Fork American River Watershed Focus Area 2 Auburn 1 ', (/ (/ Placerville (/ (/88 The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps. El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts County boundaries Focus Area 1 Sub-basins Big Sailor Creek Hangtown Creek Indian Creek Kelley Creek New York Creek Traverse Creek Miles N Figure 2.2

145 the world, river raft through the approximately 5 mile stretch of the SFAR within this sub-basin. As described in the River Management Plan (El Dorado County 2002), this recreation activity reinforces the need to protect the scenic quality of the subbasin as an important visual and economic resource in El Dorado County. White Rock Creek: This sub-basin contains the steep walled canyons along the South Fork American River north of Placerville and east of Chile Bar. It ranked high for Critical Red Legged Frog Habitat (35 acres), Stream Density, Important Agricultural Areas, Structure Density, Public Utilities and Scenic Roads and Waterways. Table Rock: This is the only sub-basin in Focus Areas 1-3, located in the lower montane zone of the watershed within the Eldorado National Forest. It is situated north of Ice House Reservoir and east of Union Valley Reservoir and it includes a section of Jones Fork Creek. The sub-basin can be accessed by Ice House Road which cuts through it s western perimeter. The sub-basin is composed of properties owned and managed by Sierra Pacific Industries as well as the National Forest. This sub-basin is the only one of the 11 ranking in the highest percentile under the wildfire risk analysis to include Old Forest Reserves and Timber Production as resources at risk. Approximately 1,502 acres rated High and Very High Fuels and 1,731 acres rated Very High Fuels. It ranked for Stream Density, Public Utilities (SMUD facilities), Scenic Roads and Waterways, and Recreation resources at risk as well. Ringold Creek: This sub-basin includes the northern portion of Diamond Springs down to Missouri Flat road where it intersects Highway 50. It was rated 90 percent High and Very High Fuels. It ranked for Listed Species Occurrences and it contains the largest portion by far of Critical Red-legged Frog Habitat (7,116 acres). It also ranked for Oak Corridors, Public Utilities, Scenic Roads and Waterways, and Recreation resources at risk as well. Cold Springs Creek: This sub-basin includes the neighborhoods south of Gold Hill and a 4 mile section of Webber Creek. The sub-basin rated 84 percent High and Very High Fuels. It ranked for Listed Species Occurrences and it contains 16 acres of Critical Red Legged Frog Habitat and 3,884 acres of Oak Corridor. It also ranked for Important Agricultural Areas, Structure Density, Public Utilities, Scenic Roads and Waterways, and Recreation resources at risk as well Focus Area 3 Development Trends and Land Uses The sub-basins that make up Focus Area 3 are located mainly on the perimeter of more developed areas. The top five current land uses in Focus Area 3 are outlined in Table

146 Table 11.3 Top Land Uses in Focus Area 3 Land Use Code Land Use Focus Area 3 (acres) FA 3 % of total 39 RURAL RES AC. 1 SINGLE FAMILY UNIT UNASSIGNED RURAL RES LAND AC. 1 UNIT RURAL RES. LAND 20+ MINOR NON-RES IMPROVEMENT RURAL RES. 20+ AC. 1 RES. UNIT SINGLE FAM. RES. <=2.5 AC.(INCLUDING MANUFACTURED HOMES Public and Private Ownership About 86 percent of the landscape in Focus Area 3 is privately owned. The remaining 14 percent is in public ownership and consists primarily of USFS lands distributed on the eastern boundaries of the sub-basins. Modified Fire Ecology and High Fire Risk Although Focus Area 3 includes those subbasins that ranked for sedimentation risk only, it still includes a large percent (81%) of the landscape rated High to Very High fuel hazard. The following paragraphs describe the environmental setting and characteristics of each sub-basin in Focus Area 3. This Focus Area includes the five sub-basins that ranked at highest risk for sedimentation only: Iowa Canyon, Long Canyon, South Fork Webber Creek, North Fork Webber Creek, and Shaw Mine Hill. With the exception of Shaw Mine Hill, all of the subbasins are located in close proximity to one another in the vicinity of Camino. The following paragraphs describe the environmental setting and characteristics of each sub-basin. Figure 11.3 shows the location of the five sub-basins included in Focus Area 3. Iowa Canyon: This sub-basin is located adjacent to and northeast of Camino and north of Highway 50. It includes many of the neighborhoods in the Apple Hill District. It ranked high for percentage of Sensitive Soils, Road Density, Road Density in Stream Buffers, Impervious Cover, Structure Density and Fuel Hazard. Long Canyon: This relatively small subbasin (2,871 acres) is situated southeast of Slab Creek Reservoir, north of Iowa Canyon sub-basin, and northwest of Pollock Pines. It includes the north and south forks of Long Canyon and many neighborhoods in the Pollock Pines and Apple Hill Districts. It ranked high for percentage of Sensitive Soils (72.7 percent), Road Density, Impervious Area, Structure Density and Fuel Hazard. South Fork Webber Creek: This subbasin is situated north of Pleasant Valley and south of Camino. It tied with Big Sailor Creek with the highest crude score of 6 ranking in the highest percentile for Sensitive Soils, Road Density, Road Density in Stream Buffer, Impervious Area, Structure Density and Fuel Hazard. North Fork Webber Creek: This subbasin includes the residential neighborhoods south of south of Camino and west of Pollock Pines. It ranked third highest for Road Density and it ranked high for Road Density in Stream Buffer, Impervious Cover, Structure Density and Fuel Hazard. Shaw Mine Hill: Highway 50 dissects this sub-basin east of Shingle Springs. It also includes the residential neighborhoods 11-12

147 South Fork American River Watershed Focus Area 3 Auburn 1 ', (/ (/ Placerville (/ (/88 The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps. El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts County boundaries Focus Area 1 Sub-basins Big Sailor Creek Hangtown Creek Indian Creek Kelley Creek New York Creek Traverse Creek Miles N Figure 2.3

148 surrounding the community of El Dorado. It ranked high for Road Density, Road Density in Stream Buffer, Impervious Cover, Structure Density and Fuel Hazard Focus Area 4 Focus Area 4 was designed in response to recent regulatory changes affecting farmers and growers with irrigated agriculture throughout the Central Valley and those counties that are part of the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition (Sacramento Valley Coalition) including El Dorado County. These changes in regulations require all growers and farmers with irrigated lands that have excess irrigation to comply with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Regional Board) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) which could include filing a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD). In July 2003, the Central Valley Regional Board adopted the Conditional Waiver Program for farmers with irrigated lands allowing counties to elect to join a Coalition Group approved by the Central Valley Regional Board as a means to comply with the regulations. The Conditional Waiver Program was then upheld by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in January This stage is part of a larger process focused on building the capacity of local groups, engaging with individual Dischargers, and starting data collection, all of which will be part of the longer term program (Central Valley Regional Board October 2003). As described in a memo from the Central Valley Regional Board dated March 1, 2004, the Conditional Waiver Program allows growers with irrigated lands that have irrigation wastewater that can degrade surface water quality to select from three options to obtain regulatory coverage under the Water Code: Elect to join a Coalition Group approved by the Central Valley Regional Board; File an Individual Discharger Conditional Waiver; or File a Report of Waste Discharge for the purpose of receiving Waste Discharge Requirements, if appropriate Of these three options, joining a Coalition Group is described as the simplest and most economical way to comply with the [new] requirements (Irrigated Lands Waiver Brochure Central Valley Regional Board No Date). The Sacramento Valley Coalition is comprised of agricultural and waterfowl interests from all over the Central Valley. This larger Coalition is headed by the Northern California Water Association (NCWA) and Ducks Unlimited who together represent more than seventy agricultural districts and numerous agricultural interests and counties within the Sacramento River Basin. El Dorado County has elected to join the Sacramento Valley Coalition as a subwatershed and is thereby providing a means for small farmers with irrigated lands to obtain a Conditional Waiver permit by joining a Coalition Group. As a means of organizing this effort, stakeholders within El Dorado County are in the process of forming the El Dorado County Agricultural Watershed Group. Current participation includes a variety of organizations including the El Dorado County Farm Bureau, El Dorado County Department of Agriculture, El Dorado County U.C. Cooperative Extension, Natural Resources Conservation Service, The El Dorado County Resource Conservation District, the Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District, Apple Hill Growers Association and numerous other agencies with interest in water quality and agriculture. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been developed and entered into by El Dorado County 11-14

149 Department of Agriculture, El Dorado County U.C. Cooperative Extension, El Dorado County Resource Conservation District, Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District, Apple Hill Growers Association, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Amador-El Dorado- Sacramento Cattlemen s Association, El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, California Department of Food and Agriculture, El Dorado County Farm Bureau, High Sierra Resource Conservation and Development Council, El Dorado County Water Agency, El Dorado Irrigation District, and Georgetown Divide Public Utility District. As described in the MOU, the purpose of this group is to establish a communitybased stewardship program within the boundaries of El Dorado County and the parties are committed to scientifically based watershed management for the El Dorado County watersheds and will foster further collaboration to meet the objectives of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section Water Code et seq). This group will work together to implement Best Management Practices, provide public education programs, and perform community outreach. The South Fork American River Watershed Group (SFARWG), which directs the South Fork American River Watershed Stewardship Project (Stewardship Project), is in a useful position to assist the El Dorado County Agricultural Watershed Group (EDC Agricultural Group) and hence farmers with irrigated lands in obtaining an Irrigated Lands Waiver (a.k.a. Agricultural Waiver, Conditional Waiver, Ag Waiver) under the Conditional Waiver Program. Many of the goals and objectives of the Stewardship Project, such as protection of water quality and improved water quality monitoring, also meet the objectives of the EDC Agricultural Group and the requirements for a Conditional Waiver. The Georgetown Divide and El Dorado County Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) remain strong advocates for small farmers and many programs headed by the RCD assist farmers while protecting natural resources. Assisting small farmers with meeting the requirements for a Conditional Waiver complements the larger goals of the RCD as well as the specific goals of the Stewardship Project. Recently, the El Dorado County Agricultural Watershed Group approached the RCD to discuss how the SFAR Watershed Stewardship Project could assist with implementing Best Management Practices, community outreach and public education to improve water quality. The SFARWG is in a unique position in the county to quickly mobilize and assist farmers with irrigated lands in obtaining an Irrigated Lands Waiver (Ag Waiver) by partnering with the EDC Agricultural Group and the Sacramento Valley Coalition to achieve common goals for water quality. The following paragraphs provide the background documentation needed to broaden the objectives of the Stewardship Project and address the requirements for an Irrigated Lands Waiver through participation with the EDC Agricultural Group. The discussion is divided into five sections labeled through as described below: Section provides background information about the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and their role in managing water quality issues including the recent adoption of the Regional Board s Resolution No. R concerning Conditional Waivers for irrigated lands (Ag Waivers). Section summarizes the irrigated lands waivers and compliance requirements. Section discusses how the criteria for an Irrigated Lands Waiver conforms to the goals and objectives of the South Fork 11-15

150 American River Watershed Stewardship Project and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Section outlines specific environmental documentation concerning irrigated agriculture in El Dorado County including maps showing the distribution of irrigated lands, information on crops grown in the watershed, an inventory of management practices and descriptions of known programs addressing water quality issues associated with discharges from irrigated lands. Because agricultural discharge and irrigated lands were not addressed explicitly as part of the Watershed Assessment (Task 2) or the Watershed Evaluation (Task 3), this section provides similar environmental documentation as described in Tasks 2 and 3 for catastrophic wildfire and sedimentation. In this way, the Conditional Waiver Program, as outlined in this section (Focus Area 5) will be designed to fit in with the overall organization of the Stewardship Project and priority sub-basins will be defined for this issue based on the distribution of irrigated lands. The information contained in this and the following section was also required for submittal to the Regional Board by April 1, 2004 as part of the formation of a Coalition Group. Section provides a summary of those programs already set in place to address water quality and irrigation in El Dorado County. This Stewardship Project will seek to build-on and use the knowledge and experience gained from implementing these programs wherever possible Background The Central Valley Regional Board has regulatory responsibility for implementing water quality objectives and protecting beneficial uses of water throughout the Central Valley. The agency s regulatory responsibility includes evaluating and coordinating the management of non-point source discharges from irrigated lands for near-term and long-term water quality protection. One of the primary means of regulating discharges is through the issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements which, under the California Water Code, requires that anyone discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect water quality must file a report of waste discharge (Irrigated Lands News October 2003). These discharge requirements apply to irrigation return flows and storm water runoff from agricultural lands (Central Valley Regional Board October 2003). Discharges from irrigated lands include surface water discharges, operational spills, subsurface drainage and stormwater runoff and irrigated lands include nurseries and managed wetlands as well as most land used in production agriculture (Central Valley Regional Board 2003). The requirements for a WDR may be waived by the Central Valley Regional Board for a specific type of discharge where such a waiver is not against the public interest (Central Valley Regional Board 2003). In 1982 the Central Valley Regional Board adopted Resolution No Waiving Waste Discharge Requirements for Specific Types of Discharge (Central Valley Regional Board 2003). These waivers applied to irrigation return flows and storm water runoff from agricultural lands. Although the waivers were conditional, the verification of compliance with the conditional waivers was not conducted and, as such, most agricultural dischargers were assumed to meet the requirements of the conditional waiver and indeed, many farmers may not have even realized that the waivers were, in fact, conditional. Everything changed in 1999 when Senate Bill 390 was adopted which modified that section of the California Water Code that authorized waivers of WDRs for agricultural discharges. This change forced a sunset on the waivers for agricultural discharges by 11-16

151 January 1, 2003 and it placed a limit on the duration of the waivers not to exceed five years. Since passage of Senate Bill 390 in 1999, the State Board has been debating the problem and the solution for agricultural dischargers and in the fall of 2002 the State Board determined that this was primarily a Central Valley issue (Central Valley Regional Board October 2003). This placed the issue in the hands of the Central Valley Regional Board who, in turn, directed staff to consider comments and questions, and synthesize this input into key issues, to analyze these issues, and provide options and recommendations that could address them (Central Valley Regional Board October 2003). This process eventually led to the Regional Board s adoption of Resolution No. R which included two Conditional Waivers for agricultural dischargers (Irrigated Lands Waiver aka Ag Waiver), the first applies to Coalition Groups formed on behalf of individual dischargers and the second is for Individual Dischargers. This Resolution is considered the first or interim step in an evolving irrigated lands program providing the foundation for a 10-year program. This stage is part of a larger process focused on building the capacity of local groups, engaging with individual Dischargers, and starting data collection, all of which will be part of the longer term program (Central Valley Regional Board October 2003). The following section describes the specific requirements for an Irrigated Lands Waiver and the purpose of a Coalition Group formed on behalf of agricultural dischargers. This discussion also addresses how this issue affects El Dorado County agriculture in particular Requirements for Irrigated Lands Waivers (Agricultural Waivers) As mentioned above, El Dorado County is part of the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition and, as such, the county falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Board. The Central Valley Regional Board has designed three options for agricultural dischargers to receive an Irrigated Lands Waiver in compliance with Resolution No. R These requirements are summarized in a brochure entitled Irrigated Lands Waiver produced by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (No Date). Option 1 allows agricultural dischargers to join a coalition group and comply with the coalition group waiver. This option requires that agricultural dischargers join a Coalition Group approved by the Regional Board and operate under the terms and conditions of the Coalition Group conditional waiver. The intention of the coalition group waiver is to require owners and operators of irrigated lands to manage their operations so they do not cause or contribute to surface water pollution. The conditions of the waiver require that the Coalition Group perform the following tasks: Share and implement best management practices to address water quality problems Conduct water quality monitoring of rivers and creeks Apply for grants Work cooperatively toward improving water quality Report to the Regional Board Once formed, the coalition group, on behalf of it s members, must submit a Notice of Intent to the Regional Board. Upon acceptance of the NOI, the Regional Board will issue a Notice of Applicability that the coalition group waiver covers the coalition group and it s participants

152 Irrigated Lands Waiver and the South Fork American River Watershed Stewardship Project Coalition Groups may include representatives from farm bureaus, county agricultural commissioners, RCD s, the NRCS, farm advisors, and water agencies. As planned, the El Dorado County Agricultural Watershed Group will be participating with the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition as a sub watershed member to implement the requirements for an Irrigated Lands Waiver. The El Dorado County Agricultural Watershed Group is trying to pull together resources and agencies to form a sub watershed coalition group approved by the Central Valley Regional Board. Partners in the coalition group will sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and will meet regularly to achieve the goals for improved water quality in El Dorado County. As mentioned above, in February 2004, the RCD was approached by the El Dorado County Agricultural Watershed Group to discuss the recent agricultural discharge regulations set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) and the Central Valley Regional Board. In order to assist the EDC Agricultural Watershed Group and farmers with irrigated lands, the goals and objectives of the Stewardship Project have been expanded to address, more specifically, agricultural issues within the SFAR watershed. We believe the inclusion of agricultural discharge in this Stewardship Project is appropriate for a number of reasons as outlined below: 1. The Regional Board s objectives for an Irrigated Lands Waiver are consistent with the RCD s goals to develop a better understanding of base line water quality characteristics in the SFAR watershed and to protect water quality through specific stewardship projects (e.g. implement best management practices). In addition, the priority issues in the SFAR watershed, as defined by the South Fork American River Watershed Group (SFARWG) included storm water patterns, agricultural conversions, pesticide use, and agricultural education among the top resource issues of concern (see Table 1.2 in the Watershed Assessment RCD 2003). 2. The Stewardship Project s focus on sedimentation as a critical issue for water quality is also in line with the goals and objectives outlined by the Regional Board to avoid pollution of rivers, streams and creeks by pesticides, fertilizers, sediment, and other pollutants (Irrigated Lands Waiver Brochure CVRWQCB ND). Because sediment can be a conductor of pollutants, increased risk of sediment discharge can be an indicator of potential water quality risk for other parameters as well. 3. By assisting the EDC Agricultural Watershed Group in addressing stewardship of irrigated lands through the development of a coalition group and by helping growers meet the requirements for an Irrigated Lands Waiver, this Stewardship Project is demonstrating conformity to CALFED s goals for collaboration among stakeholders. The Stewardship Project is also helping to improve communication between and reduce potential conflicts among beneficial users such as instream users (e.g. recreationists, wildlife) and agriculture. Improved stewardship of agricultural lands (e.g. incentives to implement best management practices) will also result in improvements to all downstream users. 4. Farmers and the EDC Agricultural Watershed Group are important stakeholders in the SFAR watershed. By including irrigated lands in the Stewardship Project and by helping the El Dorado County Agricultural 11-18

153 Watershed Group to meet the requirements for an Irrigated Lands Waiver, the Stewardship Project can provide direct assistance to small farmers while maintaining long-term goals for improved water quality throughout the watershed Irrigated Lands Waivers (Agricultural Waivers) and El Dorado County As mentioned above, the irrigated lands issue was not addressed as part of previous tasks for this Stewardship Project including the Watershed Assessment (Tasks 2) and the Watershed Evaluation (Task 3), although the Stewardship Project s focus on sedimentation indirectly addresses agriculture as well as other land uses not specifically targeted in the analysis to date. As such, this section is designed to directly address irrigated agriculture in El Dorado County. Figure 11.4 shows the distribution of drainages in the SFAR watershed based on Ducks Unlimited HSA name watershed data Crops Grown, Production Practices, Chemicals Used/Application Practices Crops Grown El Dorado County agricultural producers grow a wide diversity of crops on a small amount of acreage using limited resources. A total of 3,847 acres of fruit and nut crops were reported in the 2002 El Dorado County Crop Report, the majority of that acreage, 2,127 acres, is planted in wine grapes, the leading commodity in the county. Most producers, other than the wine grape growers, are small farmers growing a variety of crops which they direct market. The local agricultural economy is based on valueadded products from apples ( Apple Hill is the major agritourism area in El Dorado County) and the marketing season is lengthened by the addition of stone fruits in spring and Christmas trees in the fall. Typical farm size is 5-15 acres. Apples follow winegrapes as the second leading crop in acreage with a total of 835 acres reported in 2002, followed by pears (366 acres), walnuts (253 acres), and stone fruits: cherries, peaches and plums (266 acres). Although not reported as acreage in the Crop Report, there are an estimated 500 acres of Christmas trees grown in the county and harvested at Choose and Cut farms (Rapetti, personal communication)

154 South Fork American River Watershed Focus Area 4 Auburn 1 ', (/ (/ Placerville (/ (/88 The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. The RCD shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any user or third party on account of or rising from the use of data or maps. El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts County boundaries Focus Area 1 Sub-basins Big Sailor Creek Hangtown Creek Indian Creek Kelley Creek New York Creek Traverse Creek Miles N Figure 2.4

155 Table 11.4 Crops grown in El Dorado County by acreage (Source: El Dorado County Crop Report 2002) Crop Acreage in 2002 Winegrapes (bearing+ nonbearing) = 2127 Apples 835 Pears 366 Stone fruits (cherries, peaches and plums) 266 Walnuts 253 Total 3,847 Geographic location of cropped lands. In general, there are two major agricultural growing areas located in El Dorado County: Camino Apple Hill and Somerset-Fairplay. Of these two areas Camino is situated in the SFAR watershed. Camino- Apple Hill Apple Hill is located in the South Fork of the American River Watershed and includes the Coloma and Weber Creek drainages. Crops grown in this region include the majority of the county s apple and pear acreage, winegrapes, stone fruits and Christmas trees. Elevations range from approx ft ft. The soils are characterized mainly as Aiken Loam on 3-15% slopes, Sites series soils and Cohasset clay loams. This region is considered prime farmland by the State Department of Conservation. The El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) provides most of the irrigation water service in this area and most growers utilize the EID Irrigation Management Service for irrigation scheduling information (see below). Production Practices - pesticide use and practices that impact pesticide movement El Dorado county pesticide use ranking: 45 th of 58 counties in state. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) monitoring and decision-making practices. Implementation of alternatives to organophosphates. Low number of dormant season sprays. Ground application-no aerial applications. El Dorado county ranked 45 th among all 58 counties in 2002 for pesticide use, with a total of 96,860 pounds of active ingredient applied that year for all sites including nonagricultural such as forest timberland and right-of-way (Dept. of Pesticide Regulation report). Total agricultural pesticide use reported for the county was 60,020 lbs. a.i. (Kim Wilson, El Dorado Ag. Dept. communication). Sulfur was the top pesticide used (22,513 lbs. a.i. applied in winegrapes), followed by glyphosate, the majority of which was applied to forest timberlands, the fungicide myclobutanil, the herbicide hexaizinone (again with most use in forest timberlands) and the insecticide azinphos methyl

156 Table 11.5 The top five pesticides used in El Dorado County in 2002: all sites including non-agricultural. (source: Department of Pesticide Regulation website: Pesticide Top 3 Sites Used and Total Pounds a.i. Use 1. Sulfur Winegrapes 22,513 Apples 592 Peaches 165 Sulfur Total 23, Glyphosate, Isopropylamine salt Forest Timberland 3,709 Winegrapes 854 Apples 96 Glyphosate Total 9, Myclobutanil Winegrapes 186 Apples 57 Unknown 3 Myclobutanil Total Hexazinone Forest Timberland 3,554 Christmas Tree 4 Hexazinone Total 3, Azinphos methyl Apple 919 Pear 278 Unknown 15 Azinphos methyl total 1,212 Growers in El Dorado County utilize a number of Integrated Pest Management practices that aid in decision-making and appropriate timing for pesticide applications when needed. An estimated 75% of the growers of fruit tree acreage utilize a Pest Control Advisor who monitors pest activity and advises growers on the appropriate timing of pesticide sprays (Hansen, personal communication)

157 Table 11.6 Typical pests and pest control practices for apple and pear producers in El Dorado County. Source: Wunderlich and Hansen, personal communication. Time Crop Pest Typical treatment Comments Winter dormant Jan.-Feb., and seasonally thereafter. Pear Pear Psylla Oil Oil is recommended by the UC IPM guidelines as the best control measure for this pest. Dormant oil prevents the need for more toxic materials later in the season. Oil is commonly added to codling moth sprays during the season for Delayed dormant March-April Green tip March-April Green tip-petal fall, depending on weather May-preharvest. Apple Scale, European Red Mite Oil Psylla control in pears. Oil is recommended by the UC IPM guidelines as the best control measure for these pests. Apple Aphids Diazinon Recommended, after oil, as the best treatment for this pest by the UC IPM guidelines. No Lorsban is used here, compared to the rest of the state. Apple Apple scab Various fungicides: Captan (little), Dithane, Myclobutanil, Sulfur and Copper compounds are among those used. Apples and pears. Codling moth Azinphos methyl and phosmet are among the older materials used. Newer materials such as acetamiprid are becoming registered. Scab treatments are weather dependent. In rainy springs, treatment is necessary to prevent crop damage and loss. In dry springs, treatments are not necessary. Codling moth is the key economic pest for pome fruit. Monitoring with traps and a degree day model are employed to accurately time treatments. Pheromone mating disruption is an alternative but often still requires supplemental sprays for effective control. Table 11.6 describes typical seasonal pests and control practices for apple and pears grown in El Dorado County. Included in this table are some of the materials which appear as the most commonly used in the Coloma and Weber Creek drainages, including petroleum oil which is a least toxic method for controlling a number of 11-23

158 pests including Pear Psylla, European Red Mite, and Scale and is rarely used with diazinon, or chlorpyrifos (Lorsban), which is often the case in other parts of the state. Dormant sprays are infrequently used in El Dorado County: only a small number of oil treatments are applied in winter for pear psylla and oil + diazinon is sometimes used to control aphids in cherries and plums, however the acreage of those two crops is minimal (169 acres reported in 2002 crop report). Diazinon is not a major pesticide reported in the county, accounty for only 0.8% of the total pesticide a.i. used by agriculture. Codling moth remains the key pest for pome fruit growers and it is extremely difficult to control in this region, due, in part, to the geography of small farms that makes pheromone mating disruption, a pesticide alternative, difficult to implement on a contiguous land basis. Hansen estimates that approximately 50% of the apple and pear growers currently implement pheromone mating disruption for codling moth control, however, supplemental sprays are still often necessary to achieve adequate control. Pesticide treatments are timed for maximum effectiveness using pheromone traps and a weather degree day model. Research in the county conducted by Wunderlich (2003) is investigating new lures for additional tools to aid in timing treatments. Azinphos methyl is the most commonly used material for codling moth control, however, newer, reduced-risk pesticides such as acetamiprid (Assail, Cerexagri) are being evaluated in on-farm trials conducted by Wunderlich (2004). All pesticide applications made in the county are applied by ground, no aerial applications are made. Known Management Practices A variety of organizations and programs are already set in place in El Dorado County that provide assistance to farmers in order to reduce erosion, improve wildlife habitat and protect water quality. The approximate timing of these management practices varies depending on the crop type and funding available. Not every management practice is implemented every calendar year and site specific conditions will determine if a specific management practice is necessary. The following information details those programs and conservation practices, headed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the University of California Cooperative Extension, which are designed to reduce pollution and address water quality and irrigated lands

159 Recommended Practices Utilized in Grape Production in El Dorado County: University of California Cooperative Extension /Natural Resources Conservation Service Practice Fact Sheet Number Agrichemical Storage and Loading Facilities 596 Contour Farming 330 Cover Crop 340 Critical Area Planting 342 Deep Tillage 324 Diversion 362 Irrigation Water Management 449 Irrigation Storage Reservoirs 436 Land Smoothing 466 Microirrigation System 441 Mulching 484 Nutrient Management 590 Obstruction Removal 500 Pest Management 595 Residue Management 329 Riparian Forest Buffer 391 Roof Runoff Management System 558 Sediment Basins 350 Sprinkler Irrigation System 442 Subsurface Drains 606 Tree/Shrub Establishment 612 Underground Outlets

160 Table 11.7 NRCS Recommended Practices describing effects on water quality. (The information is taken from the Conservation Practices Physical Effects table in the Field Office Technical Guide. The information is intended to be a general guide to the effects of conservation practices, and is not quantitative). NRCS Practice Code Number Approved Practice Name 331 Contour Orchard and Other Fruit 340 Cover Crop (340B) 342 Critical Area Planting (342) 410 Grade Stabilization Structure (410) Ground Water Contaminants No effect. Slight improvement in pathogen contamination due to increased organic matter and biological activity. Slight improvement in salinity due to increased plant uptake and utilization. No effect. Conservation Practice Physical Effects on Water Quality Surface Water Contaminants Slight to moderate improvement in contamination by pesticides, nutrients and organics, suspended sediment, salinity, heavy metals, and pathogens due to reduced runoff and sediment transport. Slight to moderate improvement in pesticide, nutrient and organic, suspended sediment, and dissolved oxygen (DO) due to decreased runoff, decreased fine sediment delivery, and increased plant uptake. Slight to moderate improvement in suspended sediment, DO, and heavy metals due to reduced soil erosion, decreased sediment delivery, and reduced turbidity of runoff. Slight to moderate improvement in suspended sediment and turbidity due to reduced gully or streambank erosion. Aquatic Habitat Suitability Slight improvement due to decreased sediment yield, turbidity, organics and agricultural chemicals. Slight improvement because of reduced sediment yield, turbidity, organics, and other chemicals. Moderate improvement because of improved DO; decrease in sediment yield, turbidity. Slight improvement because of reduced sedimentation

161 412 Grassed Waterway (412) 430 Irrigation Water Conveyance (430) 441 Irrigation System, Micro- Irrigation (441) 442 Irrigation System, Sprinkler (442) 449 Irrigation Water Management (449) No effect. No effect in this geographical area. Slight to significant decrease in contamination by pesticides, nutrients and organics, salinity, heavy metals, and pathogens due to more uniform application and reduced deep percolation. Slight to significant decrease in contamination by pesticides, nutrients and organics, salinity, heavy metals, and pathogens due to more uniform application and reduced deep percolation. Slight to significant decrease in contamination by pesticides, nutrients and organics, salinity, and pathogens due to uniform application and scheduling. Slight improvement in contamination by pesticides, nutrients and organics, and suspended sediment due to increased infiltration, decreased sediment yield, and decrease in sediment-bound pesticides, phosphorous, total organic carbon. Slight decrease in pesticide contamination due to decrease in use of pesticides to control weeds in ditches. Slight to significant decrease in contamination by pesticides, nutrients and organics, suspended sediment, DO, salinity, heavy metals, and pathogens due to more uniform application, reduced runoff, and reduced irrigationinduced erosion. Slight to significant decrease in contamination by pesticides, nutrients and organics, suspended sediment, DO, and heavy metals due to reduced runoff, reduced sediment yield, and reduced irrigationinduced erosion. Slight to significant decrease in contamination by pesticides, nutrients and organics, suspended sediment, DO, and heavy metals due to reduced runoff, reduced sediment yield, and reduced total organic Slight improvement due to decrease of sediment and agricultural chemicals. No effect. Slight to significant improvement because of more uniform application, reduced runoff, and reduced irrigationinduced erosion. Moderate to significant improvement due to improved water quality. May reduce water supply to water bodies; may also significantly improve quality of water available to water bodies

162 carbon levels. 484 Mulching (484) Reduces pesticide contamination due to decreased herbicide use; may slightly increase nutrient and organic contamination due to increased infiltration. 560 Access Road (560) 590 Nutrient management (590) 638 Water and Sediment Control Basin (638) No effect. Slight to significant improvement in contamination by nutrients and organics, salinity, and heavy metals due to reduction of excess applications and improved distribution of applications. Possible slight to moderate increase in contamination due to pesticides, nutrients and organics, salinity, heavy metals, and pathogens, depending on upstream inputs, due to increased infiltration of solubles. Slight to moderate decrease in contamination by pesticides, nutrients and organics, suspended sediment, DO, salinity, pathogens, and heavy metals due to reduced runoff and erosion. Slight to moderate decrease in contamination by nutrients and organics and suspended sediment due to controlled erosion, sedimentation, runoff, and reduced organic loadings due to improved distribution of animal wastes. Slight to significant improvement in contamination by pesticides, nutrients and organics, DO, and salinity due to improved plant and residue cover, decrease in excess applications, and improved distribution of applications. Slight to significant improvement in contamination by pesticides, nutrients and organics, suspended sediment, DO, salinity and heavy metals due to storage of sediment and sediment-bound pesticides, heavy metals, nutrients, and total organic carbon. Moderate improvement because of decrease in sediment yield. Slight to significant improvement because of controlled runoff and erosion, and reduced sediment yield and turbidity. Slight to significant improvement because of improved plant cover, reduced sediment, organics, and chemicals. Slight to significant decrease because of reduced sediments, organic matter, and turbidity

163 Almost all growers in El Dorado County maintain a ground cover of some type during the winter months to avoid erosion off of sloping farmland. These covers may be sod, intentionally planted cover crops or perennial grasses, and/or weedy covers which are mowed in spring time to avoid competition with crops. Rarely are farmed lands disced, the exception being spring time discing of some orchards and vineyards, especially those located in South County which has less available irrigation water and therefore discing is important to reduce weedy competition which can be an issue for productive cropping. Strip use of herbicides, within the crop row, is typical to maintain a cover in between rows and reduce the cost of material. In addition, contour farming is typically used for plantings on slopes and native borders of forested lands surrounding farm acreage and providing a buffer to riparian areas are also typical. All of these practices are effective at reducing sediment movement, and therefore pesticide and nutrient movement off-site. The El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) initiated an Irrigation Management Service in 1976 which provides subscribing growers with a weekly irrigation report utilizing CIMIS weather information and readings from on-farm tensiometer and neutron probe installations. These reports provide growers with information to optimize irrigation scheduling and improve irrigation uniformity and efficiency and reduce runoff. Programs Addressing Water Quality on Irrigated Lands The University of California Cooperative Extension conducts educational programs for agricultural producers addressing issues in: integrated pest management; pesticide storage and handling; irrigation water management; cover crops; erosion control; among others. In addition, they offer a wide array of publications that target these topics areas. UC Cooperative Extension advisors also work with growers to address issues on a site specific basis. The Natural Resources Conservation Service manages the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which provides growers with a cost share for implementation of conservation practices, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP). Included in these programs is technical assistance for the development of conservation plans for individual operations which include a significant component for dealing with water quality. The El Dorado County Department of Agriculture conducts pesticide applicator training for professionals on an annual basis. The El Dorado County and Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts offer a variety of services along with the NRCS to private landowners with assistance that includes site-specific erosion control practices and information on conservation programs focused on resource protection in a non-regulatory, non-confrontational manner. A collaborative effort, headed up by the UC Cooperative Extension and the NRCS and including the El Dorado County Department of Agriculture, El Dorado County Water Agency, Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District, El Dorado County Resource Conservation District and the El Dorado County Farm Bureau, conduct Farm Water Quality Planning Short courses for producers and managers. The El Dorado Wine Grape Growers Association has initiated the Sustainable Winegrowers Practices program which promotes ecologically responsible production as developed by the California Wine Institute; a California Association of wine grape growers. The El Dorado Irrigation District conducts an Irrigation Management Service Program which monitors soil moisture a 300 sites. Monitoring results are used to provide specific reports to individuals, including recommendations on the amount of water to 11-29

164 apply, reducing excessive water applications. Historical Monitoring Results A preliminary review of available data summaries provides some big-picture insights into current water quality conditions within El Dorado County. Overall, the results of the assessments indicate that water quality throughout the SFAR watershed is generally very good. It should be noted that under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories and authorized tribes are required to develop a list of water quality-limited segments of water bodies, including those impacted by sedimentation. The water bodies on the list (commonly referred to as the 303(d) list ) do not meet state water quality standards, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. For California, the law requires that the RWQCBs establish priority rankings for water bodies that are 303(d)-listed, and develop action plans, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), to improve water quality in an effort to achieve standards. Because new water quality data collected within El Dorado County is continually becoming available, ongoing comprehensive evaluations of water quality data, and actions to improve water quality where necessary, need to occur to update our knowledge of water quality throughout El Dorado County. At this time, the RWQCB s current 303(d) list does not include any water bodies within El Dorado County. This means that, based on available data, the RWQCB has not identified any constituents that fail to meet State water quality standards within El Dorado County, that cannot be remedied by best practicable treatment technologies applied to point sources of pollution. Known Water Quality Issues and Potential Water Quality Problems Soil erosion is a process that occurs naturally within the watershed s ecosystem. The process of erosion moves mass and nutrients throughout the system, thereby enriching downstream reaches and floodplains. However, excessive land disturbance (e.g., poorly designed roads in unsuitable areas, high-density impervious cover) or catastrophic events (e.g., flooding, intense wildfire, or landslide) can lead to conditions where the volume and timing of sediment movement have substantial adverse effects on aquatic systems or water quality. In addition to strict physical effects of excess sediments entering water bodies, eroded soils often carry absorbed contaminants from roadways, pesticides from agricultural lands, and pathogens from both urban and agricultural areas. These issues will be addressed as part of water quality monitoring required for the Conditional Waiver permit and as part of this Stewardship Project Focus Area 5 The final Focus Area 5, is designed in response to input received from the watershed stakeholders and direction from the South Fork American River Watershed Group (SFARWG) and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The stakeholder input was received during monthly meetings with the SFARWG and the TAC and during in-person interviews with the stakeholders conducted as part of Task 3 - the Watershed Evaluation. Based on this input we concluded that the stakeholders and project participants understand and acknowledge the need to prioritize stewardship projects based on environmental concerns for the watershed and there is agreement that Focus Areas 1 through 4 will address critical areas for stewardship projects; however, there was also consensus that the Stewardship Project 11-30

165 should remain adaptive and responsive to the concerns, needs and interests for stewardship projects beyond the borders of the sub-basins included within the first three Focus Areas and to sub-basins with conditions that warrant further attention. Focus Area 5 allows for flexibility within the Stewardship Project by incorporating other non-physical environment considerations such as economics, fundraising, partnership potential, and community interest into the stewardship design. In this way, Focus Area 4 expands to areas outside the first three Focus Areas and permits the design of stewardship projects anywhere within the SFAR watershed. The criteria for stewardship projects in this Focus Area will still be stewardship-related and based on the physical attributes of the sub-basins as listed in Appendix B of the Watershed Assessment, but it remains more flexible within the boundaries and it considers such criteria as stakeholder interests, partnership potential and community needs equally with environmental conditions Stewardship Programs and Opportunities Within the Five Focus Areas The existing environmental and social conditions, described above, are critical components to this Stewardship Project, but special attention needs to be placed on those areas that are not currently addressed by other programs. Research into existing programs within the five Focus Areas described above will help ensure that the Stewardship Project will complement and build-on existing programs. It will also help ensure that future efforts and funding are cost-effective and targeted at the priority areas and issues. The following Table 11.8 summarizes the existing stewardship programs already in place within the five Focus Areas and throughout the SFAR watershed. The stewardship projects included in these tables are headed by stakeholders and potential partners now working in the watershed to reduce or limit the risks of catastrophic wildfire and/or protect water quality

166 Chapter 12.0 Political Trends and Funding Opportunities in the Priority Focus Areas 12.1 Introduction This chapter completes sub-task 4.2 of the Stewardship Project by describing some of the funding opportunities for implementation of watershed restoration and stewardship development within the five Focus Areas described in Chapter It lists the sources of funding currently at work to improve the ecological functioning within the five Focus Areas and, where relevant, throughout the SFAR watershed, and it introduces some ideas of potential sources of funding that could be utilized to address ecological concerns in the watershed. The Georgetown Divide RCD has designed this stewardship strategy for collaborative implementation by all stakeholders of the SFAR basin. The opportunities and partnerships targeted by the stewardship strategy are based on information gathered concerning stakeholder interests and their priorities. As such, the selection of the Focus Areas and resource issues reflect the land management agencies, natural and human resources, and political organizations that are locally responsible for the future of the SFAR basin. Recommended stewardship priorities and opportunities are also a product of the databases and other available information concerning the conditions and trends of the resource issues. Overall, this approach provides as strong a foundation as possible for implementing a successful watershed stewardship program for the SFAR basin. This chapter provides the foundation to address two fundamental questions concerning stewardship of the SFAR watershed: 1. What are the potential sources of funding to address catastrophic wildfire and water quality problems in the Focus Areas? 2. What are the gaps between where the funding is now going and the stewardship needs within the Focus Areas? These questions will be examined further as part of Task 6 the Final Integration Plan and Stewardship Strategy. The following table 12.1 lists the various sources of funding available to reduce the risk of wildfire and improve water quality. 12-1

167 Chapter 12.0 Political Trends and Funding Opportunities in the Priority Focus Areas 12.1 Introduction This chapter completes sub-task 4.2 of the Stewardship Project by describing some of the funding opportunities for implementation of watershed restoration and stewardship development within the five Focus Areas described in Chapter It lists the sources of funding currently at work to improve the ecological functioning within the five Focus Areas and, where relevant, throughout the SFAR watershed, and it introduces some ideas of potential sources of funding that could be utilized to address ecological concerns in the watershed. The Georgetown Divide RCD has designed this stewardship strategy for collaborative implementation by all stakeholders of the SFAR basin. The opportunities and partnerships targeted by the stewardship strategy are based on information gathered concerning stakeholder interests and their priorities. As such, the selection of the Focus Areas and resource issues reflect the land management agencies, natural and human resources, and political organizations that are locally responsible for the future of the SFAR basin. Recommended stewardship priorities and opportunities are also a product of the databases and other available information concerning the conditions and trends of the resource issues. Overall, this approach provides as strong a foundation as possible for implementing a successful watershed stewardship program for the SFAR basin. This chapter provides the foundation to address two fundamental questions concerning stewardship of the SFAR watershed: 1. What are the potential sources of funding to address catastrophic wildfire and water quality problems in the Focus Areas? 2. What are the gaps between where the funding is now going and the stewardship needs within the Focus Areas? These questions will be examined further as part of Task 6 the Final Integration Plan and Stewardship Strategy. The following table 12.1 lists the various sources of funding available to reduce the risk of wildfire and improve water quality. 12-1

168 Table 12.1 Funding Sources available for Stewardship of the South Fork American River Watershed. Funding Source Project Description Deadlines Website/ Contacts Funding Available and Requirements Belvedere Fund Varies Funds are provided for organizational development and capacity building, citizen participation, outreach to new constituencies, coalition building, and training and technical assistance. CALFED Watershed Program Eligible Applicants / Geographic Range Support and funding to state and regional environmental organizations. Submit letter of inquiry at any time, applications are accepted year round. und.org California Department of Conservation: RCD Assistance Grant Program California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Varies California Forest Improvement Program Forest Stewardship Program Stewardship Incentive Program Grants to fund RCD projects that improve the health of watersheds in California and build RCD capacity to promote and support conservation with landowners and communities within watersheds. Provides Funds for Reforestation, site preparation, erosion control, revegetation, and fish and wildlife habitat improvement To award grants for forest stewardship, demonstration, education and assistance To develop forest stewardship plans and practices to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, riparian zones and wetlands, soil and water resources, rangeland and timber RCD projects within California. Any private individual, group, association, or corporation Resource Conservation Districts, counties, and other entities Check website for current grant deadlines. gov up to $30,000 California Forest Improvement Program Cost sharing grants David Soho (408) Private landowners, owning between 20 and 1,000 acres (with approval up to 5,000 acres) $10,000 David Soho (408)

169 Funding Source Funding Available and Requirements Project Description Eligible Applicants / Geographic Range Deadlines Website/ Contacts California Department of Parks and Recreation: Habitat Conservation Fund California Department of Water Resources: Urban Stream Restoration Program California Fire Alliance: Up to $400,000 per project. Must have 1 to 1 match from non state source. Up to $4.5 million in Prop 40 funds may become available. Acquisition and restoration of wildlife habitats and significant natural areas. Funding is provided for flooding and erosion projects that enhance the environmental and ecological values of urban streams. Funding varies Funding is provided for fuel and is provided reduction projects, wildfire by the USDA prevention education, Forest Service and demonstration projects, and agencies within technology transfer the Department of Interior. California counties, cities, and special districts. Available to local government agencies (city and county), special districts, and citizen groups statewide. Deadline for 2003 has passed. Proposals generally due in October. Fall (to be determined). Organizations Concept working in papers due California that October, Full represent their proposal due communities are in February eligible. Susan Oldland water.ca.gov/ safecouncil.org California State Water Resources Control Board: Consolidated Grants Program Up to $5 million per project. Consultation with appropriate RWQCB or SWRCB is required prior to submitting an application. Provides grant funds and loans for various types of assessment, planning, and implementation projects that reduce, eliminate, or prevent water pollution resulting from polluted runoff and enhance water quality in state waters. Nonprofits, local government agencies including special districts, Indian tribes, and educational institutions. State or federal agencies may qualify. Deadline for 2003 has passed. Typically due in May or June. ov/funding/inde x/html 12-3

170 Funding Source California Wildlife Conservation Board: Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Program El Dorado Community Foundation Environmental Support Center: The Leadership and Enhanced Assistance Program (LEAP) National Fish and Wildlife Foundation: Bring Back the Natives (BBN) National Fish and Wildlife Foundation: General Challenge Grants National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (partner with EPA and NOAA): Five Star Restoration Challenge Grants Funding Available and Requirements In the past, grants have ranged from $25,000 to over $5 million. Match required. Varies On average, $10,000 per project with 20% match $10,000 to $100,000 per project. $10,000 to $150,000 per project. 2 to 1 match preferred. $5,000 to $20,000 per project. Contributions from 5 organizations ideal. Project Description Funding available for stream, wetland, and riparian habitat acquisition and restoration projects. Grants are made which benefit the people of El Dorado County. Funding may be given to organizations with offices outside of El Dorado County for services or programs for residents in El Dorado County Funding available for capacity building Supports on the ground habitat restoration projects benefiting native aquatic species. Eligible Applicants / Geographic Range Grants awarded to nonprofit organizations, federal, state and local government agencies, RCDs and other special districts statewide. Projects that promote fish and Nationwide. wildlife conservation, the habitats on which they depend, and those that work proactively to involve other conservation and community interests. Community based wetland, riparian, or coastal restoration projects (on the ground) with outreach, education, and community component. Deadlines Applications are reviewed in February, May, August, and November. Website/ Contacts Wildlife Conservation Board Riparian Program Manager ca.gov/wcb/inde x.html Nonprofits with Varies contact offices located in source f.org El Dorado County Local, state or Applications regional are due in nonprofits with September a portion of their resources devoted to environmental issues. Nationwide deadlines: Pre proposals due October 15, Full proposal due December 1, 2003 Nationwide. Caroline Brown, LEAP Coordinator (cbrown@envsc. org) Suzanne Piluso: Year round NFWF deadline. Two Southwest decisions Region cycles annually (June 1 and October 15). Deadline for 2003 has passed. Applications normally due in May. oration/ wow/wetlands/r estore/5star 12-4

171 Funding Source National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (partner with NRCS): Conservation on Private Lands Natural Resources Conservation Service: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program Packard Varies Foundation: Conservation and Science Program Patagonia: Environmental Grants Program Resources for Community Collaboration: Opportunity and Sustaining Grants Funding Available and Requirements $10,000 to $150,000 per project. 1 to 1 non federal match required. Federal source. Funding for up to 75% of the cost of the project. Technical assistance also provided. Grants range from $3,000 to $8,000 per project. Opportunity: up to $5,000 Sustaining: up to $10,000 (only open to previous RCC grant recipients) River Network: $1,000 to $30,000 Watershed per project. Very Assistance Grants competitive funding source. Project Description Projects that engage private landowners in the conservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and natural resources on their lands. Voluntary program for private landowners who want to develop or improve fish and wildlife habitat on their property. Activities that promote sustainability in coastal ecosystems. Focus is on preservation of wild and scenic areas, biodiversity, limited funding for urban restoration. They are mostly interested in projects that identify and work on the root causes of problems and that approach issues with a commitment to long term change. Provide seed money for organizations involved in community based collaborations or those planning to start one. Grants support meeting expenses, supporting key participants, communication, and good information. Assist in organizational development and long term effectiveness. Eligible Applicants / Geographic Range Nationwide. Private landowners. Nationwide. Deadlines Full proposal due: December 2, Contact local NRCS office All interested Accept parties are applications eligible to apply. year round Focus area: California coast, the Gulf of California, and the Western Pacific. Open to organizations with 501(c)(3) status. Open to groups (in California and beyond) engaged in community collaboration (must be 501(c)(3) or have appropriate sponsor). Available to watershed partnerships. Nationwide. Deadline for 2003 has passed. Typically April 30 and August 31 each year. Deadline for 2003 has passed. No updated application dates provided. Future funding has not been secured. Check the website for current updates. Website/ Contacts Jody Olson Jody.olson@nfwf.org gov rg com/enviro/gran ts_app.shtml Shannon Rowan Patagonia, Inc. PO Box 150 Ventura, CA or contact local retail store Whitney Tilt whitney@sonora n.org org ork.org wag@rivernetwo rk.org 12-5

172 Funding Source Town Creek Foundation Funding Available and Requirements Project Description $5,000 to $100,000 The Foundation supports programs that engage citizens in challenging the unsustainable use of natural resources and in protecting biological diversity. Eligible Applicants / Geographic Range Non profit organizations nation wide Deadlines January 15, May 15, and September 15 Website/ Contacts fdn.org Trout Unlimited (partner with NOAA): Embrace A Stream Turner Foundation Up to $10,000 per project. Match required. U.S. Up to $1,000,000 Environmental Protection Agency and Environmental Systems Research Institute Coastal conservation and restoration projects benefiting anadromous fish. Nationwide. Open to those associated with a Trout Unlimited chapter. Varies Habitat protection. Nationwide, although priority is given to projects outside of California. Funding will be for studies of approaches that go beyond implementing separate, detached activities and will, instead, focus on the effectiveness of an integrated ecosystem based approach to conservation and restoration throughout a watershed. The selected nominations will include water quality and ecosystem monitoring and evaluation to provide quantitative data to determine the effectiveness of addressing water quality issues at the watershed level application available online. Must contact a committee representative by 11/24/03. See web for details. As of July 2003, proposals for 2004 will be accepted by invitation only. Check website in fall 2003 for info. State January governments, County governments, City or township governments, Special district governments, State controlled institutions of higher education, Native American tribal governments (Federally recognized), Nonprofits other than institutions of higher education [includes community action agencies and other organizations ndation.org

173 Funding Source US Fish and Wildlife Service: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program William C. Kenney Watershed Protection Foundation Funding Available and Requirements Typically in the range of $25,000 to $50,00o per project. Grant size is generally $7,500 to $15,000 per project. Project Description Funding provided for work on private lands. Typical projects include (but not limited to) wetland and riparian habitat restoration and improvement for threatened or endangered species, anadromous fish, and exotic species control and removal. Projects that seek to protect wild rivers and river ecosystems (large ecosystem campaigns). Funding available for general support, technical assistance, capacity building, advocacy and special projects. Funding is NOT available for watershed restoration, land acquisition, endowments, research or legal work. Eligible Applicants / Geographic Range having a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS], Private institutions of higher education and Individuals. Nationwide. Private landowners, Indian tribes, and other nonfederal landowners. Open to locallybased 501(c)(3), in the western US. Must have operating budget less than $750K and work strategically and collaboratively with other groups. Deadlines Applications accepted throughout the year. Submit onepage letter of inquiry. Applications accepted year round. Website/ Contacts State contacts (Dan Strait, Tom Moore, or Brian Weidler): ws.gov Kimery Wiltshire, Director grants@kenneyf dn.org n.org 12-7

174 Chapter 13.0 Integration Plan Summary 13.1 Introduction In Chapter 11 of this report, the results of the Watershed Assessment and Watershed Evaluation are integrated to define and describe Focus Areas 1 through 3 selected as priority areas for Stewardship Projects in the SFAR watershed. Focus Areas 4 and 5 were designed in response to community interests and direction from the SFARWG. Chapter 12 provides more detail about the five Focus Areas through an outline of existing stewardship projects and sources of funds already at work to improve the environmental conditions in the Focus Areas and throughout the SFAR watershed. This information will be utilized in later stages of the project to help define the stewardship gaps and help ensure coordination between stewardship efforts. The following paragraphs summarize this report and describe how the data gathered for this report will be used in the final Stewardship Plan to help develop and guide effective projects while at the same time integrating with existing programs wherever possible. This summary discussion is followed by a concluding section that describes the next steps required to complete the Stewardship Project Summary The selection of the first three Focus Areas (1, 2 and 3) is based on the results of Task 2 the Watershed Assessment which included an in-depth analysis of the physical attributes of the SFAR watershed. Through this analysis we performed a catastrophic wildfire and sedimentation risk assessment and prioritized the eighty-one sub-basins in the SFAR watershed for stewardship projects. This analysis resulted in the selection of sixteen sub-basins as priority areas for stewardship projects. These sixteen sub-basins were then divided into three Focus Areas based on the risk assessment: 1. sub-basins that ranked as the highest risk for both catastrophic wildfire and sedimentation; 2. sub-basins that ranked as the highest risk for catastrophic wildfire only, and; 3. sub-basins that ranked as the highest risk for sedimentation only. Focus Area 4 was designed to assist the El Dorado County Agricultural Watershed Group and farmers with irrigated lands to comply with requirements for an Irrigated Lands Conditional Waiver. Through the discussion of Focus Area 4 the goals and objectives of this Stewardship Project have been expanded to incorporate, more specifically, agricultural issues within the SFAR watershed. Section of Chapter 11.0 outlines the status of irrigated agriculture in El Dorado County and provides the necessary background information to include those sub-basins with irrigated agriculture as a priority Focus Area for this Stewardship Project. The final Focus Area 5 was designed in response to input received from the watershed stakeholders and direction from the SFARWG and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The stakeholder input was received during monthly meetings with the SFARWG and the TAC and during inperson interviews with the stakeholders conducted as part of Task 3 - the Watershed Evaluation. Based on this input, it was concluded that the stakeholders and project participants understand and acknowledge the need to prioritize stewardship projects based on environmental concerns for the watershed and there is agreement that Focus Areas 1 through 3 will address critical areas for stewardship projects; however, there was also consensus that the Stewardship Project should remain adaptive and responsive to the concerns, needs and interests for stewardship projects beyond the borders of the sub-basins included within the first four Focus Areas. 13-1

175 Focus Area 5 allows for flexibility within the Stewardship Project by incorporating other non-physical environment considerations such as economics, fundraising and partnership potential, and community interest into the stewardship design. In this way, Focus Area 5 expands to areas outside the first four Focus Areas and permits the design of stewardship projects anywhere within the SFAR watershed. The criteria for stewardship projects in this Focus Area will still be based on the physical attributes of the sub-basins as listed in Appendix B of the Watershed Assessment, but it remains more flexible within the boundaries and it considers such criteria as stakeholder interests, partnership potential and community needs equally with environmental conditions. As discussed in Chapter 11, there are a number of ongoing stewardship programs in the SFAR watershed designed to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. These ongoing programs are headed by organizations such as the Fire Safe Council, the California Department of Forestry and Fire and the United States Forest Service. In the case of catastrophic wildfire, based on our analysis and coordination with stakeholders, we concluded that the Georgetown RCD can serve most effectively in partnering with and providing support to those organizations already working towards improved fuel loading in the watershed. However, while we concluded that various organizations are working to address catastrophic wildfire in the watershed, little is being done, outside the main stem of the South Fork American River, to address the risks of sedimentation and other water quality issues on the tributaries of the South Fork American River. Task 5 of the Stewardship Project, the Water Quality Monitoring Program, describes in more detail those ongoing programs addressing water quality throughout the watershed including programs headed by the El Dorado County Resource Conservation District, Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District, the United States Forest Service, El Dorado County, the American River Conservancy, area high schools, and other local, state, and federal agencies. It is critical that this Stewardship Project integrate with and complement these programs to maximize the stewardship benefits. Chapter 12 of this report provides a comprehensive list of existing stewardship programs in the watershed and various sources of funding currently at-work to improve the conditions of the watershed. This list will be used as a cross-reference during the design phase of specific stewardship projects to determine likely partnerships, potential sources of funding and to ensure the projects consider work already accomplished in local regions Next Steps This Draft Integration Plan and Stewardship Strategy provides the foundation for specific projects and components of an Integrated Watershed Stewardship Strategy (Task 6) which is scheduled for completion in June The final phase of the Stewardship Project will expand on the information provided in this report and design a stewardship program that considers the environmental concerns of the watershed, identifies the gaps or areas most in need of funding, and provides the information to create a program that is both affordable and effective. 13-2

176 Chapter 14.0 Introduction 14.1 Overview of Task 5 - Watershed Monitoring This report, the Assessment of Existing Water Quality Data for 11 Priority Sub-basins of the South Fork American River Watershed (Water Quality Data Assessment), completes sub-task 5.3 of the South Fork American River (SFAR) Watershed Stewardship Project (Stewardship Project). The goals of the Watershed Monitoring Task include the collection and assessment of existing water quality data for select SFAR sub-basins, the development of a Watershed Monitoring Work Plan (WMWP) based on the water quality assessment, and the revision of the El Dorado County & Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation Districts (the RCD s) current Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) to reflect the objectives of the WMWP. This approach of the Watershed Monitoring phase of the Stewardship Project is consistent with CALFED objectives because it takes a basin-wide, comprehensive approach to help improve watershed management. Water quality and fuel load management were identified by the South Fork American River Watershed Group (Watershed Group) as the most important resource issues facing stakeholders in the watershed and as the focus of the Stewardship Project. The South Fork American River Watershed Assessment Report (WA), completed in February 2003, describes the methodology and results of a detailed analysis of physical, commercial, and cultural conditions within the SFAR watershed that contribute to increased fire hazard/risk and increased water quality degradation. Through a detailed analysis, the Watershed Assessment described the potential for each of the eighty-one sub-basins in the SFAR watershed to experience adverse impacts from wildfire or sedimentation. The Watershed Assessment placed a high priority for stewardship action on those sub-basins with the greatest potential to experience adverse impacts. In the WA, each sub-basin s potential to experience adverse impacts from wildfire or sedimentation was calculated using indicator criteria, and ranked on a Final Crude Score scale from 0 to 6 (where 0 indicates the least potential for adverse impacts, and 6 indicates greatest potential). Table 1-1 lists the eleven sub-basins that generated the highest Final Crude Score values (5 or 6) and the indicator criteria used to generate the scores. Table 1-2 lists the SFAR tributary streams located in each sub-basin for geographical reference. These eleven priority sub-basins (the priority sub-basins) were the focus of the Task 5 Water Quality Data Collection efforts, and are the subject of this report. A map highlighting the location of the priority sub-basins within the project area can be found in Appendix C. This document represents the beginning of a process that will document available water quality data for the SFAR watershed. As such, the current version represents a summary of all water quality data collected to date, and as additional data becomes available (either preexisting or newly collected data), this document will grow to reflect new information Water Quality Data Collection and Analysis Methods The Task 5 Watershed Monitoring Advisory Committee (WMAC) met in November 2003 to develop a strategy for collecting and assessing water quality data for the eleven priority sub-basins. For logistical purposes, the 14-1

177 Table Eleven Priority Sub-basins with Crude Score criteria Watershed Name Basin # Area (acres) Sensitive Soils (%) Sensitive Soils - total Area (acres) Road Density (mi / mi 2 ) Road Density in Stream Buffer (mi / mi 2 ) Impervious Area (%) Impervious Factor Roads on Slope 35% and Greater (miles) Area of parcels 5 acres or less with structure of $5,000 value or greater New York Creek X 5 Big Sailor Creek X 6 Traverse Creek X 5 Iowa Canyon X 5 Long Canyon X 5 South Fork Weber Creek X 6 North Fork Weber Creek X 5 Hangtown Creek X 5 Shaw Mine Mill X 5 Indian Creek X 5 Kelley Creek X 5 Table Eleven Priority sub-basins and their tributaries to the South Fork American River Watershed Basin # Tributaries to SFAR in Watershed New York Creek 1 New York Creek Allegheny Creek Green Springs Creek Big Sailor Creek 8 Big Sailor Creek Empire Creek Manhattan Creek Johntown Creek Slate Creek Little Sailor Creek Irish Creek Dutch Creek Traverse Creek 10 Traverse Creek Meadowbrook Creek Slat Creek Rock Canyon Iowa Canyon 21 Iowa Canyon Creek Brushy Canyon Creek Fuels ranked above 50 th percentile Long Canyon 22 Long Canyon Creek North Fork Long Canyon Creek South Fork Long Canyon Creek South Fork Weber Creek North Fork Weber Creek South Fork Weber Creek North Fork Weber Creek Hangtown Creek 75 Hangtown Creek Randolph Canyon Creek Spanish Ravine Cedar Ravine Shaw Mine Mill 77 Shaw Mine Mill Creek Dry Creek Slate Creek Indian Creek 78 Indian Creek Mound Springs Creek Kelley Creek 81 Kelley Creek Tennessee Creek White Oak Creek Dry Creek Final Crude Score 14-2

178 WMAC decided to constrain data collection efforts to water quality monitoring datasets rather than include datasets for fuel load / reduction in the data search. WMAC members then divided the responsibilities of soliciting and collecting water quality data from stakeholder groups who have or are currently engaged in water quality monitoring within the SFAR watershed. These groups included government agencies, community organizations, and institutes of learning and are listed in Table Table SFAR stakeholder groups from whom data was solicited and/or collected Stakeholder Group CA Department of Fish and Game Georgetown Divide & El Dorado Resource Conservation Districts El Dorado Irrigation District El Dorado County Department of Environmental Management City of Placerville Sacramento Municipal Utilities District US Bureau of Reclamation US Bureau of Land Management Pacific Gas & Electric American River Conservancy El Dorado National Forest Hangtown Creek Master Plan Committee Oak Ridge High School Cosumnes River College - El Dorado Center State Water Resources Control Board Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board The WMAC agreed to assess the existing conditions within each priority sub-basin by applying the following steps to collected water quality data sets: STEP 1 Determine whether or not baseline water quality conditions can be determined for each priority sub-basin from existing water quality data. If baseline conditions can be determined, continue to Step 2. If baseline conditions cannot be determined, the WMWP for this sub-basin will focus on establishing sub-basin water quality baseline conditions. STEP 2 If baseline conditions can be determined from existing datasets, further determine if these conditions are in compliance with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board s (CV-RWQCB) Water Quality Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan) objectives. If baseline conditions are in compliance with the Basin Plan, the WMWP for this sub-basin will focus on collecting long-term water quality datasets. If long-term datasets are available, continue to Step 3. If baseline conditions are out of compliance with the Basin Plan, the WMWP for this sub-basin will focus on addressing the improvement of identified water quality impairment(s). STEP 3 If baseline conditions can be determined, and existing water quality conditions are in compliance with the Basin Plan, and longterm datasets are available, then determine if a trend analysis indicates an upward or downward trend in water quality conditions in the sub-basin. If data indicates a downward trend, the WMWP for this sub-basin will focus on addressing the improvement of water quality conditions. If data does not indicate a downward trend, continue to Step 4. STEP 4 If baseline conditions are in compliance with the Basin Plan, and longitudinal data indicates no downward trend in water quality conditions, then compare priority sub-basin data to a reference condition subbasin if a suitable reference sub-basin can be identified. Chapter Two of this report details the type and quality of data collected by priority subbasin. Chapter Three applies the 4-step 14-3

179 assessment process to each priority subbasin where applicable, and Chapter Four recommends a WMWP focus for the priority sub-basins based on the assessments presented in Chapter Three. 14-4

180 Chapter 15.0 Existing Water Quality Data Presented by Priority Subbasin 15.1 Big Sailor Creek El Dorado RCD data In November 2000 the El Dorado RCD conducted a Snapshot Pesticide Monitoring Day event (Snapshot Day) during which volunteer citizen water quality monitors, under the direction of trained water quality professionals from the State Water Resources Control Board s (SWRCB) Clean Water Team, the Bureau of Reclamation, the CV-RWQCB, the El Dorado National Forest, and the El Dorado RCD, collected water samples from Johntown Creek to be analyzed for chlorpyrifos. Johntown Creek water samples contained less than 50 ng/l chlorpyrifos. Volunteer and professional monitors followed water quality sample collection and analysis Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) as detailed in the RCD s SWRCBapproved QAPP. Results from the November 2000 and June 2001 Pesticide Snapshot Day events are summarized in Table American River Conservancy data In June 2000, September 2000, and May 2001, the American River Conservancy (ARC) collected benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) samples as per the DFG s California Stream Bioassessment Protocol (CSBP). Trained, professional monitors collected the samples which were sent to a professional laboratory for CSBP Level III analysis (300 individuals / sample identified to lowest possible taxon). Additional BMI samples were collected concurrently with the aforementioned samples and used to train volunteer monitors to conduct the CSBP Level II analysis (100 individuals / sample identified to Family). Stream Physical / Habitat Surveys were conducted on all sampling dates. Table Pesticide Snapshot Monitoring Day Results November 2000 Sampling Site [Chlorpyrifos (ng/l)] TDS (mg/l) Weber Creek <50 NA Hangtown Creek < SFAR <50 NA New York Creek <50 NA Johntown Creek <50 NA June 2001 Sampling Site [Diazinon (ng/l)] T C ph EC (µs) DO (mg/l) Total Coliform (MPN/100ml) SFAR NA - - Hangtown Creek Canal St. Hangtown Creek Debbie Court E. coli (MPN/100ml) >2, , Meadowbrook

181 Creek New York Creek Weber Creek >2, Ringgold Creek >2, In June 2003, volunteer monitors collected BMI samples as a training exercise, and performed a Level II analysis as part of their training workshop. A Stream Physical / Habitat Survey was conducted during this event also. Volunteer and professional monitors followed water quality sample collection and analysis Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) as detailed in the ARC s QAPP. ARC s Dutch Creek BMI data is summarized in Appendix B South Fork Weber Creek Like Big Sailor Creek sub-basin, the South Fork Weber Creek sub-basin (Basin #72) generated a Final Crude Score of 6. CA DFG data In March and April 2001, the CA DFG collected BMI samples from South Fork Weber Creek at the bridge at Fort Jim Rd. These data are summarized in Appendix B Hangtown Creek BMI Data Since 1998, several BMI studies have been conducted within the Hangtown Creek watershed. Data from these studies are summarized in Appendix B. CA DFG In September 1998, the CA DFG collected benthic macroinvertebrate samples from five sites along Hangtown Creek; from the culvert at the Mallard Road bridge, from upstream of the bridge at Debbie Road, from the Vinici Engineering bridge, from along the Signature Theatre parking lot on Placerville Drive, and near the trailer park in Placerville. The data from the samples are summarized in Appendix B. City of Placerville In April 2003, the City of Placerville commissioned a study of Hangtown Creek BMI populations both upstream and downstream of the Hangtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (HCWWTP) as part of the Survey of the Aquatic Biological Resources and Seasonal Water Temperature Regime of Hangtown Creek, Placerville, California, prepared for the CV-RWQCB and the CA DFG by the City of Placerville. Four sites were sampled for BMI analysis; two upstream of the HCWWTP - the Wiltse Road site and the Mallard Road site, and two downstream of the plant - just below the outfall, and the Rising Hill Road site. BMI data are summarized in Appendix B. American River Conservancy data In July 2003, ARC began sampling Hangtown Creek at the Signature Theatre parking lot as part of their CalFed grant s Reference Stream project. They will sample this site twice more in July 1993 data are summarized in Appendix B. Other Hangtown Creek Data The Home Depot project In November 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) asked The Home Depot, USA, Inc. to prepare a Biological Assessment addressing the California Red Legged Frog (CRLF) and the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB) in preparation for planned construction of a home improvement retail store along Hangtown Creek on Placerville Drive in the City of Placerville. The resulting documents, the Biological Resources Evaluation Report for the Home Depot Project, and the Biological Assessment for the Home Depot Project address the current status of potential habitat for both the CRLF and the VELB in the project area, and the mitigation of potential habitat impairment or loss 15-2

182 during the construction and operation of the store. The documents also address the potential for increased sedimentation and for hazardous spills in Hangtown Creek during construction and operation of the store, and what best management practices (BMPs) will be followed to prevent water quality impairment during both construction and operation phases. The treatment of increased stormwater runoff into Hangtown Creek will occur via on-site storm drain filtration systems. These documents are available through the El Dorado Resource Conservation District, the City of Placerville, and the USFWS. City of Placerville The April 2003 document, the Survey of the Aquatic Biological Resources and Seasonal Water Temperature Regime of Hangtown Creek, Placerville, California (Hangtown Creek Report) characterizes the aquatic biota and seasonal temperature regime of Hangtown Creek upstream and downstream of the HCWWTP. It also investigates the effects of the thermal loading from the HCWWTP on the aquatic ecology of the creek downstream of the outfall. BMI data are summarized in Appendix B. HCWWTP ERWQA Study The City of Placerville conducted effluent and receiving water quality sampling at the Hangtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant from February 2002 to January 2003 as directed by the CV-RWQCB, and this data is summarized in the Effluent and Receiving Water Quality Assessment for the Hangtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant report (February, 2003). In order to prepare an appropriate NPDES permit for the City s wastewater treatment plant, the Regional Board required the collection of water quality data in order to adequately characterize the discharge effluent and receiving waters at the Hangtown Creek site. Of the many constituents analyzed during this study, twelve were detected in the undiluted effluent or in Hangtown Creek at concentrations greater than an applicable water quality standard. These twelve constituents and their concentrations are summarized in Table 2-2. El Dorado RCD data In November 2000 and June 2001, the El Dorado RCD conducted Snapshot Day sampling events on Hangtown Creek. On the November 2000 Snapshot Day, samples contained less than 50 ng/l chlorpyrifos. On the June 2001 event date, Hangtown Creek samples contained less than 30 ng/l diazinon (15.80 ng/l at the Canal St. site, and ng/l at the Debbie Court site). During the November 2000 event, the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) value measured in Hangtown Creek was 162 mg/l which exceeds the Basin Plan objectives maximum TDS value for the SFAR and its tributaries of 125 mg/l. During the June 2001 event, monitors collected water samples to be tested for Total Coliform and E. coli. Analysis of Hangtown Creek samples revealed Total Coliform counts above the detection limit of the test (Most Probable Number (MPN) > 2419 / 100ml). The E. coli count was / 100ml MPN. June 2001 Pesticide Snapshot Day data are shown in Table 2-1. Smith Flat Project Water samples from within the upper Hangtown Creek watershed were collected for drinking water quality analyses on June 18, 2003 (from the Mine Drain at the intersection of Smith Flat and Jacquier Rds., and from Hangtown Creek at 1666 Smith Flat Road), and on July 17, 2003 (from a stream feeding the Akin Hydro Pond, and from a hose bib at the Porini House). All samples were sent to the National Testing Laboratories (NTL) in Ypsilanti, Michigan for analysis. E. coli counts from the Mine Drain and 1666 Smith Flat Road sites were beyond the detectable limits of the test. 15-3

183 Table Summary of HCWWTP effluent and receiving water monitoring results for February 2002-January Constituent Group Constituent Units Aluminum µg/l (total recoverable) Trace Metals Pesticides, herbicides, and PCBs Lowest CTR Standard Effluent Concentration range # Samples > CTR Hangtown Creek Concentration range # Samples > CTR 1,000 a (200) b none out of 12 Copper (dissolved) µg/l 2.2 c out none of 12 Iron (total recoverable) µg/l 300 b none 143-1,570 5 out of 12 Manganese µg/l 1 out of (total recoverable) 50 b none Zinc (dissolved) µg/l 29 c out of none 12 4,4 -DDD µg/l ND E 2 out of 4 Bromodichloromethane µg/l out of 12 Dibromochloromethane µg/l ND out of 12 Volatile organics MTBE µg/l 13 a Semi-volatile organics Conventional constituents (5) b ND out of 12 Bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate µg/l 1.8 ND E 1 out of 4 Cyanide µg/l 5.2 ND out of 12 Nitrate (as NO 3 ) mg/l 10 a out of 12 CTR = California Toxics Rule E = estimated concentration between laboratory s method detection limit and reporting limit. ND = not detected above the laboratory s reporting limit. a California Department of Health Services primary maximum contaminant level. b California Department of Health Services secondary maximum contaminant level. c Based on the lowest measured effluent hardness of 19 mg/l as CaCO 3 ND ND ND none none none 2.0 E none ND ND ND none none none Hangtown Creek Master Plan The Hangtown Creek Master Plan is a work in progress that describes goals for the preservation, restoration, and stewardship of 15-4

184 Hangtown Creek. Notable elements of the current version of the Master Plan include detailed visual descriptions of Hangtown Creek, divided into a total of 18 reaches and sub-reaches from the headwaters to the confluence with Weber Creek, and sitespecific improvements outlined by reach. The Master Plan also includes fish counts for Hangtown Creek from , and water quality monitoring data collected by El Dorado High School students from These data sets are included in Appendix A Indian Creek Folsom Lake College - El Dorado Center data In the spring of 2001, Biology classes from the Folsom Lake College El Dorado Center began an inventory of aquatic organisms found in Indian Creek within the Greenstone County development with their instructor, Curt Coffman. Actual quantitative analysis of organism taxonomy and abundance is planned for future classes Iowa Canyon Creek CA DFG data In August 1983, CA DFG fish biologists performed a fish survey at the site of a proposed hydroelectric diversion on Iowa Canyon Creek. Fish count data is attached in Appendix A. An October 1989 CA DFG report investigated the sedimentation impacts to Iowa Canyon Creek caused by an irrigation pipeline break in mid-may, Dominant substrate particle size, fish counts, and invertebrate population densities indicated increased substrate embeddedness, decreased fish abundance and size, and decreased invertebrate population densities along the one-mile reach of Iowa Creek (from the point of entry into Iowa Creek to the confluence with the SFAR) effected by the siltation incident. Table 2-3 summarizes the sediment, invertebrate, and fish data of this report. Table Oct 1989 Iowa Canyon Creek siltation incident report data summary % substrate embeddedness invertebrate population density (g / ft 2 ) Rainbow Trout population estimates Upstream of sediment point of entry mile downstream from point of entry 0.5 mile downstream from point of entry 15.6 Kelley Creek There is no known water quality data for this sub-basin and its tributaries Long Canyon Creek El Dorado NF A brief July 1980 memo describes a logjamclearing project on Long Canyon Creek in which logging debris that had accumulated in sections along a one-mile reach above Middle Meadows and that had resulted in some bank erosion had been cleared by USFS personnel along with volunteer YCC crews New York Creek CA DFG data In October 2002, the CA DFG collected BMI samples from New York Creek at Salmon Falls Road. These data are summarized in Appendix B. El Dorado RCD data In November 2000 and June 2001, the El Dorado RCD conducted Snapshot Day 15-5

185 sampling events on New York Creek. New York Creek samples contained less than 50 ng/l chlorpyrifos on the November 2000 Snapshot Day event, and less than 30 ng/l diazinon (21.09 ng/l) on the June 2001 sampling date, although the New York Creek diazinon level was 30% higher than diazinon levels measured from any other stream sampled during the June 2001 event. Also during the June 2001 event, New York Creek s electrical conductivity reading (684 µs) was 2.5 times higher than other streams measured on that date, and DO measured 5.0 mg/l at 24 C. Oak Ridge High School A multi-year study by Oak Ridge High School science instructor, Stan Iverson, and his students provides anecdotal evidence of stream erosion in New York Creek. In 1994, Oak Ridge HS monitors drove 36 rebar stakes almost completely into the stream bank, perpendicular to the direction of flow. In 1994, 3.5 inches of rebar were exposed from the bank; today the stakes are gone (one was recovered downstream). Mr. Iverson estimates nearly 48 of stream bank sediment has eroded in 10 years. In addition, students at Oak Ridge HS have collected data on several water quality parameters for New York Creek since 1998 (ph, water temperature, DO, conductivity, turbidity, nitrogen, phosphate, and alkalinity). Although their methods and quality assurance and control measures are unclear, the student data appears to indicate water quality conditions that comply with Basin Plan objectives. These data are included in Appendix A North Fork Weber Creek CA DFG data In March 2001, the CA DFG collected BMI samples from North Fork Weber Creek above the Weber Reservoir, and from the bypass flow channel downstream of the reservoir. These data are summarized in Appendix B Shaw Mine Mill There is no known water quality data for this sub-basin and its tributaries Traverse Creek El Dorado NF In November 2003, the El Dorado NF recommended exploring a more appropriate recreational design for the Meadowbrook Day Use Area with the El Dorado RCD, as the existing parking situation is encroaching upon sensitive plant areas and aquatic habitat. Proposed improvements include meadow restoration work, removing a wet stream crossing, protecting stream banks, fence repair, and traffic and parking redesigns. CA DFG data Data on fish stocking in Traverse Creek exists for 1932, 1933, 1938, and According to these brief reports, thousands of rainbow, German brown, and Loch Leven trout were stocked in Traverse Creek during the 1930 s, and several thousand rainbow trout during the 1950 s. These data are attached in Appendix A. El Dorado / Georgetown Divide RCD data Hand-written visual survey reports for Traverse Creek describe stream habitat conditions, fish and amphibian counts, and recommend potential management projects. A July 1986 survey describes stream gradient, flow, vegetation, and fisheries in qualitative terms. A July 1991 visual survey attempts to characterize the fishery along a reach within the Traverse Creek Special Interest Botanical Area (Meadowbrook Day Use Area) where boulders were to be placed as sediment collectors to aggrade the channel above bedrock. Past mining had scoured the stream substrate down to bedrock. The survey identifies bullfrogs, rainbow trout, green sunfish, red ear sunfish, and largemouth bass within the stream reach. 15-6

186 In June 2001, the El Dorado RCD conducted a Snapshot Day sampling event on Meadowbrook Creek. Meadowbrook Creek samples contained less than 30 ng/l diazinon (13.64 ng/l). Pesticide Snapshot Day data are shown in Table

187 Chapter 16.0 Existing Water Quality Data Assessment The following sections review the existing water quality data and apply the 4-step test described in Chapter 15 to the data when possible Big Sailor Creek In November 2000, Johntown Creek water samples contained less than 50 ng/l chlorpyrifos. The California Department of Fish and Game s (DFG) Office of Spill Prevention and Response has determined that the freshwater Final Acute Value (FAV) for chlorpyrifos is 50 ng/l (in bioassays using the Cladoceran Ceriodaphnia dubia). If the Snapshot Day measured values represent concentrations of these constituents that may occur in Johntown Creek due to a pulse input of pesticide(s) (acute exposure), then the November 2000 samples indicate that Johntown Creek is within the acceptable freshwater limit for these constituents. The same CA DFG study (Water Quality Criteria for Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos, 2000) found the Final Chronic Value (FCV) for chlorpyrifos to be 14 ng/l (again using C. dubia). If macroinvertebrates are exposed to a continuous presence of chlorpyrifos in Johntown Creek (chronic exposure), then the [<50ng/L] Snapshot Day concentrations represent an inconclusive picture regarding the potential effects of chlorpyrifos in Johntown Creek; more frequent sampling with a more sensitive detection method is necessary to clarify this picture. The CA DFG chlorpyrifos study is referenced in the CV-RWQCB s Compilation of Water Quality Goals (2003) with the following footnote, Criterion derived by the California Department of Fish and Game; not a national recommended criterion. American River Conservancy data for Dutch Creek provide baseline BMI data for this stream. There were no other water quality data found for this sub-basin South Fork Weber Creek CA DFG BMI data for South Fork Weber Creek provide baseline BMI data for this stream. There were no other water quality data found for this sub-basin Hangtown Creek BMI data Hangtown Creek BMI data is available from , and more sampling is planned for 2004 (ARC). These data represent baseline values for this stream, and allow for an observation of trends in BMI populations over this period. Pesticide data In November 2000, Hangtown Creek water samples contained less than 50 ng/l chlorpyrifos. In June 2001, samples contained less than 30 ng/l diazinon. As mentioned above, the CA DFG s FAV for chlorpyrifos is 50 ng/l, and is 160 ng/l for diazinon. The FCV for chlorpyrifos is 14 ng/l, and 50 ng/l for diazinon. If the Snapshot Day measured values represent concentrations of acute exposure to these constituents, then the sample sets indicate that Hangtown Creek is within the acceptable freshwater limit for these constituents. If macroinvertebrates are subject to chronic exposure to chlorpyrifos in Hangtown Creek, then the [<50ng/L] Snapshot Day concentrations represent an inconclusive picture regarding the potential effects of chlorpyrifos in Hangtown Creek; more frequent sampling with a more sensitive detection method is necessary to clarify this picture. HCWWTP ERWQA Study data This report found concentrations of several constituents at levels greater than applicable water quality standards during the 12-month sampling regime. The City of Placerville will 16-1

188 continue to monitor many of these constituents as part of their NPDES permit requirements. A more extensive monitoring program will be necessary to identify sources of constituent inputs. An effective outreach program that raises public awareness of the role of community behavior in Hangtown Creek water quality will also be necessary to reduce and / or eliminate inputs of some of the constituents. E. coli data Measurements of E. coli in Hangtown Creek taken during Snapshot Day events and for the Smith Flat Project indicate that levels of fecal coliform in Hangtown Creek exceed Basin Plan limits for water designated for contact recreation (REC-1). As a tributary to the South Fork American River, a REC-1 water body, Hangtown Creek is technically designated as REC-1. Thus Hangtown Creek is out of compliance with Basin Plan goals for bacteria. Temperature regime data Temperature data from the Hangtown Creek Report (2003) show that the Basin Plan s 5 F temperature objective is frequently exceeded throughout the period from June through November, with the greatest magnitude and frequency of exceedence occurring during the period August through October Indian Creek There is currently no water quality data for this sub-basin with which to determine baseline conditions, or to compare with Basin Plan goals Iowa Canyon Creek In October 1989, the CA DFG described stream substrate conditions, invertebrate population densities, and fish counts following a siltation incident that affected the last downstream river-mile of Iowa Canyon Creek up to its confluence with the South Fork American River. When considering current baseline water quality conditions in this stream, it would be useful to re-examine the stream substrate conditions, BMI population densities, and fish counts to determine to what extent the stream has attenuated the impairments of We found no other water quality data for this sub-basin with which to determine baseline conditions, or to compare with Basin Plan goals Kelley Creek There is currently no water quality data for this sub-basin with which to determine baseline conditions, or to compare with Basin Plan goals Long Canyon Creek There is currently no water quality data for this sub-basin with which to determine baseline conditions, or to compare with Basin Plan goals New York Creek BMI data CA DFG BMI data for New York Creek provide baseline BMI data for this stream. Pesticide data In November 2000, New York Creek water samples contained less than 50 ng/l chlorpyrifos, and in June 2001, samples contained less than 30 ng/l diazinon (21.09 ng/l). Both these sample sets indicate that New York Creek is within the acceptable freshwater limit for acute exposure to these constituents. However it must be noted that the diazinon level measured in June 2001 in New York Creek was 30% higher than values measured in six other local streams on that date. As mentioned previously, more data is needed to determine if biota at Snapshot Day sampling sites are chronically exposed to these constituents. 16-2

189 Dissolved oxygen (5.0 mg/l) and conductivity (684 µs) readings taken during the June 2001 Snapshot event, along with a notably elevated diazinon concentration (relative to other study streams) and indications of bank scouring raise a concern for continued monitoring of these parameters along rapidly developing reaches of New York Creek North Fork Weber Creek CA DFG BMI data for North Fork Weber Creek provide BMI baseline data for this stream. There were no other water quality data found for this sub-basin Shaw Mine Mill There is currently no water quality data for this sub-basin with which to determine baseline conditions, or to compare with Basin Plan goals Traverse Creek In June 2001, Meadowbrook Creek water samples collected near Garden Valley contained less than 30 ng/l diazinon, which is within the acceptable freshwater limit for acute exposure to this constituent. More data is needed to determine if biota at this sampling site are chronically exposed to diazinon. Although historical fish stocking data exists for Traverse Creek, we found no other water quality data for this sub-basin with which to determine baseline conditions, or to compare with Basin Plan goals. 16-3

190 Chapter 17.0 Next Phase 17.1 Addressing the Goals and Objectives of the SFAR Watershed Monitoring Program The goals of the Watershed Monitoring Program are: 1. To facilitate the coordination of and expand current water quality monitoring efforts within the SFAR watershed. Water quality data will be collected from these various sources and used to determine where the most appropriate sampling locations are to gain an understanding of water quality trends throughout the watershed. 2. To enrich the understanding of SFAR watershed residents to the issues affecting water quality within the watershed. 3. To identify opportunities for funding to continue and expand water quality monitoring efforts established during the term of this project. It is not possible to determine baseline water quality conditions for the eleven priority subbasins from existing water quality data. Development of the SFAR Watershed Monitoring Work Plan will focus on the design and implementation of a program to establish baseline water quality data for priority sub-basins that address the following objectives: 1. to establish baseline water quality conditions for the SFAR watershed 2. to look for temporal and spatial trends in water quality data 3. to manage and maintain a library of water quality monitoring data, and 4. to provide periodic reports and assessments on the sub-watershed-based monitoring results to stakeholder agencies, community organizations, and SFAR watershed residents. Monitoring efforts that address these objectives by coordinating, training, and using volunteer monitors to complament professional monitoring where appropriate, will help achieve the goals of the Watershed Monitoring Program Identifying water quality issues contributing to current water quality degradation In addition to monitoring for potential increased sediment loading into priority subbasin streams, other current water quality issues have been identified after reviewing existing water quality data. The body of existing water quality data described in this report suggests concentrations of E. coli in the Hangtown Creek watershed at levels above the Basin Plan objectives for surface waters designated for contact recreation. A more extensive E. coli monitoring program will be necessary to identify potential sources of E. coli inputs into the Hangtown Creek watershed. There are also data from New York Creek near the Oak Ridge High School campus that suggest elevated sediment and pesticide (diazinon) concentrations relative to other priority sub-basin streams. Sites sampled in New York Creek are in an area that has undergone rapid development in the last decade Designing an approach that will address the causes of and provide solutions to water quality problems From the assessment of existing water quality data for the priority sub-basins, it is clear that more data is needed to establish current conditions within tributary streams to the 17-1

191 SFAR, in particular regarding surface water sediment load, E. coli, and pesticide concentrations. Volunteer monitors can be trained to collect water samples used for E. coli and pesticide analyses. The analytical tests themselves can be expensive when sample numbers are large and a sustainable funding mechanism will need to be developed to insure the monitoring program s ability to pay for these tests. Recently, analytical equipment was donated to a local community college (gas chromatograph (GC), and high pressure liquid chromatograph (HPLC)), and it is possible that local junior college students and / or staff could perform analyses for several of the constituents of concern listed in Table 2-2 as an independent project for the purpose of providing first-pass water quality monitoring results. If desired, results could be forwarded to appropriate entities for follow-up sample collection and testing. This could reduce the costs of regular testing of these constituents. provide data points relevant to the monitoring of sediment loading into sub-basin streams. However, a statistically robust data set that could potentially be used to assess trends or cause-effect relationships between water quality and land use / management would be best accomplished with a continuous data record that could be produced by automated samplers, supplemented by periodic instantaneous measurements of stream discharge (water flow in cubic feet / second). It would be possible for field personnel to produce a valuable data set using instantaneous measurements, (once a week would be preferably, twice a month would be informative) coupled with data during storm events, however the investment of time and effort would be high. The RCD, the ARC, and the El Dorado NF currently have volunteer monitoring training events. These workshops will be coordinated to address the water quality monitoring needs identified in this report. The RWQCB requires at least five E. coli counts per month be taken at a site during lowflow conditions in order to determine whether or not bacterial levels are within compliance with Basin Plan objectives for contact recreational surface waters. Instantaneous E. coli measurements taken during Snapshot Day events indicate levels well above allowable levels in Hangtown Creek. Sub-basin-wide ambient sampling for E. coli could help determine possible sources of E. coli into the Hangtown Creek watershed. Turbidity is an indicator of the amount of material suspended in water; it measures the amount of light that is scattered or absorbed by suspended silt, clay, organic matter, and / or plankton. Sediment comes from soil erosion and suspended solids from watershed surfaces. Sediment is a natural component of streams, but excessive sediment can be carried into streams from erosion of unstable streambanks, construction sites, agricultural activities, and urban runoff. Taking regular and frequent instantaneous measurements of turbidity can 17-2

192 18.0 Watershed Stewardship in Action 18.1 Developing Watershed Advocacy Promoting watershed advocacy is important because it can lay the foundations for public support and greater watershed stewardship (Center for Watershed Protection). Watershed Stewardship integrates the objectives set forth in the previous components of the Stewardship Project. While policy development and environmental regulatory programs are developed at the state level, land management decisions are made at the local level advocacy occurs on a watershed scale and depends on people with expertise, knowledge and concerns about resource conditions in local watersheds. They act collectively through a Coordinated Resource Planning Process and impementation of activities to support their interests. In an effort to maintain watershed advocacy and meet the objectives of the Stewardship Strategy the Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District (District) will: 1) Support the South Fork American River Watershed Group (SFARWG) to facilitate and improve coordination, collaboration, and assistance among government agencies, other organizations, and private landowners. This round-table collaborative planning process offers a means for all interested citizens to express their concerns for natural resources of the watershed and to provide input into watershed restoration activities. Through the implementation of the Stewardship Strategy watershed advocacy will build as resource issues are addressed. 2) Develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the SFARWG. The development of a MOU is a significant measure in making the SFARWG more efficient when it comes to protecting, restoring and improving the ecological conditions of the South Fork American River watershed. The responsibilities and roles for each participant will ensure funding is consistent and addresses the priority issues affecting the watershed. 3) Initiate upper watershed partnership for Cosumnes River Task Force collaboration with private landowners, Sloughhouse and Florin Resource Conservation Districts. 4) Continue collaboration with the American River Watershed Group (middle and north forks of the American River) to ensure an American River scale commitment is consistent and cooperative in its geographical scope. 5) Coordination with Federal and State agencies through project distribution and the development of informational brochures to maintain their advocacy. 6) Implement a strategy that will ensure support and long-term sustainability of local watershed activities. Continued support for the SFARWG will ensure the long-term sustainability for watershed activities through grant writing and cost share incentive partnerships. In addition, addressing water quality and fuel load problems directly benefits ecosystem health of the Delta-Bay system and are a priority for CALFED. Long-term success will be measured by the number of individuals and organizations participating in improving watershed health and measuring the amount of funding received to implement the Stewardship Strategy and restoration activities Watershed Education Why are watersheds important? Everyone lives in a watershed. Even if we don t live near a body of water, we live in its watershed, and our actions on that land affect water quality for downstream purveyors. Throughout the implementation 18-1

193 of the Stewardship Strategy the District will adhere to meeting the fundamental goals of informing stakeholders that we live in a watershed, and that we understand how to live within it. Education programs will facilitate community involvement and provide communities with a framework to better understand the state of water quality and fuel load issues within their watershed. The design of watershed education component that create this awareness is of fundamental importance. The District will implement four watershed education program components as described in summary in the following sections Watershed awareness: raising basic watershed awareness thought the design and development of the following: 1) Developing stream signage programs at every major road crossing in partnership with local government; 2) Design and maintain information kiosks at recreational trails and public use areas; 3) Maintain natural resource information, GIS Database (Maps), and a library of resource information/ research; 4) Partner on taking students and interested community members on creek and stream educational field trips; 5) Participate in outreach and media events such as the Home & Garden Show, Harvest Far, Earth Day Celebration, National Monitoring Day, Georgetown Nature Area Festival, Hangtown Creek Day and other various community events; 6) Maintain an informational web-sit (GeorgetwondivideRCD.org) where educational materials related to watershed stewardship programs, activities and related resource information will be available; 7) Continue to promote outreach and education and provide technical assistance to agricultural community in partnership with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the University of California Cooperative Extension, and the Department of Agriculture Personal stewardship: educating residents about the individual role they play in the watershed and communicating specific messages about positive and negative behaviors. The RCD will develop a means for stakeholders to engage in personnel stewardship by: 1) Developing Watershed Stewardship Brochure/ Watershed information brochure (what is a watershed?); 2) Developing Fire Resilient Plant brochures in cooperation with University California Cooperative Extension; 3) Conduct watershed education programs in the schools to increase the number of students and teachers participating in hands-on field activities located with priority watersheds. Elementary and High school located with each priority sub-basin will participate in stream restoration and monitoring programs. These schools include: Oak Ridge High School, El Dorado High School, Union Mine High School, Golden Sierra High School, Gold Oak elementary, Black Oak Union Mine Middle School, and Schnell Elementary School; 4) Enlist the assistance with program coordination of professional mentors to provide leadership with hand-on student activities; 5) Develop a Homeowners Erosion Control Manual; 6) Maintain commitment to schedule a longrange community stewardship minigrant program in partnership with 18-2

194 Federal, State, and local governments. The program will also maintain its commitment through cooperation from local organizations, Industry, and private business owners. This purpose for engaging in a local stewardship mini-grant program will ensure the stakeholders working towards watershed education and restoration the tools to promote such stewardship Professional training and engagement: The District has developed a variety of professional training tools to bring the community into awareness of the water quality and fuel load hazards throughout the watershed and integrate on how to apply the tools of watershed protection. Watershed monitoring and assessment methods have been developed to enable citizen monitoring groups be involved with the evaluation, adaptive management, and decision making process with partnering resource professionals from the USFS, SWRCB the El Dorado County Resource Conservation District and others. Professional erosion and sediment workshops aimed at promoting responsible stewardship on private lands will provide the tools for technically sound, cost effective, management practices. 1) Promote Stream Restoration Projects. An example currently underway in the sub-basin of Hangtown Creek at Ivy House involves removal of invasive species, planting of native vegetation, trash removal and water quality monitoring. This collaborative program is utilizing the partnerships of the American River Conservancy, the City of Placerville, Community Pride, Native Plant Society, Trails Now!, and students from El Dorado High School, Union Mine High School, and Oak Ridge High School; 2) Volunteer Monitoring Training & Water Quality Workshops. Water quality monitoring will follow certain quality assurance and protocol that will enable the evaluation of existing restoration activities, adaptive management, and improved collaborative decision making. The Watershed Education Summit has been active for sixyears conducting water quality data for three major tributaries of the South Fork American River within the Crystal Basin. This program will be the model for additional monitoring programs to be developed throughout the priority watershed that occur in a more urban setting; 3) Backyard Conservation. Backyard Conservation shows you how conservation practices that are used on agricultural land across the country to conserve and improve natural resources can be adapted for use on the land around your home. These practices help the environment and can make your yard more attractive and enjoyable; 4) Conduct irrigation evaluation and water conservation assistance on a one-onone basis specific to private landowner needs; 5) Conduct Water Quality workshops for private landowners aimed at developing conservation plans using a set of criteria of conservation practices develop by the Natural Resources Conservation Service; 6) Enviroscape Watershed Model Loan Program. The Enviroscape is an interactive teaching tool, demonstrating the relationship between land uses and water quality. The Enviroscape mimics stormwater runoff characteristics and patterns. It consists of a land model, rain (spray bottle) and pollutants (colored powders, such as grape Kool-Aid) that work together to display how a 18-3

195 watershed works and the impacts various land uses have on local water conditions; 18.3 Watershed Maintenance & Pollution Prevention The District is involved in 2 major pollution prevention efforts: El Dorado County s General Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board s Irrigated Land Waiver. Each entail stewardship components that entail implementation of conservation practices on-the-ground. In addition, cooperative partnerships are being developed to ensure the resources of each partner are brought together to provide local assistance and program assurance. The following sections provide a brief overview of each effort and the District involvement in each El Dorado County s General Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Since 1972, the Clean Water Act (CWA) has evolved to require the control of pollutants from MS4s, construction sites and industrial activities. Discharges from such sources were brought under the NPDES permit process by the 1987 CWA amendments and the subsequent 1990 and 1999 promulgation of storm water regulations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In California, the EPA has delegated administration of the federal NPDES program to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The SWRCB has issued statewide general NPDES storm water permits for designated types of construction and industrial activities, and has adopted a statewide permit applicable to all small municipalities, including Western El Dorado County. The permit in Western El Dorado County is administered by the El Dorado County Department of Transportation (DOT). The 1999 Federal Regulations require that NPDES storm water permits be issued for discharges from small MS4s, or municipal separate storm sewer systems. Such systems mean a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains): (i) owned or operated by a state, city, town, borough, county.. The County, as the owner and operator of an MS4, is subject to an NPDES MS4 permit. Furthermore, Federal Regulations require that all parties discharging storm water associated with construction activity, including clearing, grading and excavation activities, obtain an NPDES Permit. Currently, small construction projects, that is, those that disturb less than 1 acre of total land area and that are not part of a larger common plan of development, are exempted from NPDES Permit requirements. El Dorado DOT also enforces the County s Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. DOT issues a grading permit for any activity that removes more than 250 cubic yards of material or removes or buries more than 10,000 square feet of vegetation on slopes of 10% or steeper. The NPDES Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP addresses storm water pollution control related to project planning, design, construction and maintenance activities throughout the unincorporated area of Western El Dorado County (that portion of El Dorado County within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, excluding the Tahoe Basin). In addition, the SWMP addresses assignment of responsibilities within the County for implementing storm water management 18-4

196 procedures and practices as well as training, public education and outreach, monitoring and research, program evaluation, and reporting activities. In order to comply with the General Permit, the SWMP must address the following 6 measures (issues): 1) Public Education and Outreach 2) Watershed Planning 3) Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 4) Construction Site Runoff Control 5) Post Construction Runoff Control 6) Pollution Prevention / Good Housekeeping The District is involved in Watershed Planning, Public Education and Outreach, and Construction Site and Post Construction Runoff Control. The following sections describe the District activities associated with these measures Watershed Planning The District, as part of the Watershed Assessment, mapped impervious areas and sensitive soils and uses this information when it reviews projects through and contract with the El Dorado Planning Department. The District also uses the water quality data from its database in its review of projects Public Education and Outreach The District will work with DOT to provide outreach to private project planners, designers and construction contractors to raise their awareness and understanding of the problems and causes of storm water pollution and to explain their responsibilities. This outreach will be done primarily through informational exchanges between the County and these parties. The informational exchanges cover the following topics: 1) The provisions, conditions and requirements of the Permit that apply to their projects; and 2) General responsibilities of project site manager regarding implementation of the SWMP and the requirements of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The District also participates in various erosion and sediment control seminars and teaches the review course for the Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC) exam. The CPESC program is sponsored by the Soil and Water Conservation Society and the International Erosion Control Association and is fully endorsed by US Environmental Protection Agency and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Construction Site and Post- Construction Runoff Control The District reviews erosion control plans for DOT under the contract with the El Dorado County Planning Department. Construction runoff control is perhaps the most important issue the land developer will have to face. Properly designed runoff control measures are necessary to ensure that any proposed site stabilization measures (e.g. temporary and permanent seeding) are effective. The District reviews projects for the El Dorado County Planning Department through the Initial Review Process to make sure any increase in peak runoff flow and volume does not negatively impact downstream channels and aquatic habitat Agricultural Irrigated Lands Waiver Program As mentioned earlier (Draft), in February 2004, the RCD was approached by the El Dorado County Agricultural Watershed 18-5

197 Group to discuss the recent agricultural discharge regulations set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) and the Central Valley Regional Board. In order to assist the EDC Agricultural Watershed Group and farmers with irrigated lands, the goals and objectives of the Stewardship Project have been expanded to address, more specifically, agricultural issues within the SFAR watershed. We believe the inclusion of agricultural discharge in this Stewardship Project is appropriate for a number of reasons as outlined below: 1. The Regional Board s objectives for an Irrigated Lands Waiver are consistent with the District's goals to develop a better understanding of base line water quality characteristics in the SFAR watershed and to protect water quality through specific stewardship projects (e.g. implement best management practices). In addition, the priority issues in the SFAR watershed, as defined by the South Fork American River Watershed Group (SFARWG) included storm water patterns, agricultural conversions, pesticide use, and agricultural education among the top resource issues of concern (see Table 1.2 in the Watershed Assessment RCD 2003). 2. The Stewardship Project s focus on sedimentation as a critical issue for water quality is also in line with the goals and objectives outlined by the Regional Board to avoid pollution of rivers, streams and creeks by pesticides, fertilizers, sediment, and other pollutants (Irrigated Lands Waiver Brochure CVRWQCB ND). Because sediment can be a conductor of pollutants, increased risk of sediment discharge can be an indicator of potential water quality risk for other parameters as well. 3. By assisting the EDC Agricultural Watershed Group in addressing stewardship of irrigated lands through the development of a coalition group and by helping growers meet the requirements for an Irrigated Lands Waiver, this Stewardship Project is demonstrating conformity to CALFED s goals for collaboration among stakeholders. The Stewardship Project is also helping to improve communication between and reduce potential conflicts among beneficial users such as instream users (e.g. recreationists, wildlife) and agriculture. Improved stewardship of agricultural lands (e.g. incentives to implement best management practices) will also result in improvements to all downstream users. Farmers and the EDC Agricultural Watershed Group are important stakeholders in the SFAR watershed. By including irrigated lands in the Stewardship Project and by helping the El Dorado County Agricultural Watershed Group to meet the requirements for an Irrigated Lands Waiver, the Stewardship Project can provide direct assistance to small farmers while maintaining long-term goals for improved water quality throughout the watershed Sediment Reduction Strategy As part of a sediment reduction strategy, the District will partner with other entities (e.g. US Forest Service and CSU Sacramento) to develop baseline sediment source mapping. Sediment mapping involves identifying erosion sources on aerial photographs and in the field and making attempts to quantify the sediment yield. A baseline sediment yield is necessary if we are to assess whether a sediment reduction treatment or set of treatments are effective. There are 2 major sediment reduction issues that the District can focus on despite the lack of baseline sediment yield data: 1) Construction site runoff control and 2) Channel enlargement in urban areas. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) considers construction site runoff control to be the primary non-point source issue (Borroum 18-6

198 pers. comm.). Construction site runoff control refers to the diversion of clean runoff around a disturbed site and routing sediment-laden water to stable outlets where settling of particulates can occur prior to offsite discharge. Good runoff control is required if erosion control measures (e.g. temporary and permanent seeding and mulching) are to be effective in reducing accelerated erosion. Channel enlargement occurs in response to increases in peak flows and volumes of storm water. Channel morphology is dictated by the watershed s flow and sediment transport regime. Any increase in flow can cause a channel s bed and bank to erode. The channel then becomes a sediment source (see Appendix A for a more thorough discussion on the channel enlargement issue). Studies have shown (McRae 1994 Simon 1990, Booth et al 2002) have shown that it may take 50 years or more for a channel to adjust to the new flow and sediment transport regime and to cease being a significant sediment source. The District is currently undertaking the following activities to address these 2 issues: 1 BMP workshops; 2 The subdivision review program; 3 Updating the El Dorado County Drainage manual to include provisions for stream channel protection; 4 Updating the homeowner erosion and sediment control guidelines; and 5 Updating the vegetation Section of the High Sierra Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines. The District could prioritize Hangtown Creek (>13% impervious surface) and those watersheds that have between 5 and 10% total impervious area as candidates for storm water retrofits and stream enhancement. Schueler (1998) classifies streams with 0-10% impervious surface as sensitive and Booth (2002) has argued that some streams lose sensitive elements when impervious area is less than 10%. Pollution prevention through source control should be implemented in all sub-watersheds regardless of impervious area Fuel Load Management Strategy The SFARWG s identification of the state of fire hazard and risk and the factors that contribute to increased risk and hazard as the second of two priority resource issue (water quality as the first priority) lays the foundation from which the fuel load management strategy is tiered. Strategy focus results from the results of the Watershed Assessment, Evaluation, and Integration components to implement restoration projects that provide on-theground relief from catastrophic wildfire within the priority sub-basins at greatest risk. The Stewardship Strategy is intended to integrate with fire management strategies developed by the FS, the primary landholder in the upper South Fork American River Watershed, the California Department of Forestry (CDF), Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) California s largest timber company and El Dorado County Fire Safe Council (FSC). These partners have conducted management strategies under the recently completed State Water Resources Control Board Watershed 2000 project under agreement with the El Dorado County Resource Conservation District (project # ) in areas of the South Fork American River Watershed and North Fork Cosumnes River Watershed. Technical assessment and evaluations have provided Adaptive Management awareness to ultimately move closer to understanding potential fuel load management solutions. The collaboration provides a boundaryless approach to confront the watersheds more complex, and far-reaching environmental issues such as wildfire. Solutions to these issues can only be resolved through broad scale efforts and ultimately result in far reaching benefits (e.g. downstream 18-7

199 improvements to water quality). The Fuel Load Management Strategy consists of two main components: 1) An education and outreach campaign for stimulating community awareness, interest, and encouraging individual involvement. Proposed education and outreach campaign will stress the benefits of landowner involvement and how to get additional information. The District will implement its Fuel Load Management Strategy through several activities that include: * Participation with the Fire Safe Council to ensure duplication of efforts is avoided and resource allocation is focused; * Participation with the Noxious Weed Group in the effort to eradicate noxious weeds through the watershed; * Biomass utilization research and development projects with Sierra Economic Development District (SEDD) and the High Sierra Resource Conservation and Development District (HSRC&D); *Maintain Fire Risk analysis maps to use in conjunction with concurrent planning efforts of the Fire Safe Council, local fire departments, USFS, and CDF; * Identify the District's role in the development of a County Wide Fire Safe Plan; * Continued support for the Chipper Program to provide landowners incentive for firescaping their individual property; * Produce Fire-wise Landscaping information brochures in cooperation with the University of California Cooperative Extension; Through fuels-reduction programs, agencies help landowners discover the reality to the risk of catastrophic wildfire and discover ways to advocate fire prevention programs. To the extent that these programs will be developed with the understanding that different sub-basins throughout the watershed are at varying risk to catastrophic wildfire, they all maintain a commonality that will be incorporated such as wildfires threaten both biological and economic resources, inaction costs money, assistance is available, solutions are only effective when everyone works together, and stewardship is landowner based. 2) Public and Private Lands Fuel Treatment in Urban-Wildland Intermix Areas. Proposed projects include fire risk and hazard reduction on public lands within targeted urban-wildland. The priority areas and activities identified coincide with the needs outlined in the fuels strategy within the Sierra Nevada Framework decision as well as the National Fire Plan. * Fuels Reduction and Prescribed Fire - Construct shaded fuel breaks along the Omo Ranch Road utilizing mastication equipment and prescribed fire through the State Vegetation Management Program Project will complete gaps within an area of mixed USFS and private land has left gaps in the landscape where fuels reduction needs exist. * Fuels Reduction and Shaded Fuel Break Construction - Project will include construction of a shaded fuel break along the border of the community of Auburn Lake Trails and the Auburn State Recreation Area near the town of Cool, California. The project will establish a defensible fuel zone along the American River using portable chippers, prescribed fire and fuels reduction. Fire crews from the Growlersburg inmate facility in Georgetown, CA will complete the hand 18-8

200 fuels reduction task. * Community Defensible Zone This project will include planning and implementation of a defensible fuel zone between homes along Folsom Lake and the Folsom Lake Recreation Area. CDF Fire crews will complete fuels reduction work utilizing chipping, and prescribed fire. This project, within the New York Creek watershed, was identified in the SFARW assessment as a watershed at risk, and will require the cooperation from California Department of Parks and Recreation, Bureau of Reclamation, the El Dorado Hills Fire Department, and private citizens of the community. * Crystal Basin Prescribed Burning The USFS will complete prescribed burning in areas in and around the Crystal Basin and above the SFARW along ridge tops, south facing slopes, and around high recreational use areas.. The burns will provide maintenance or second entry burns into previously thinned forest health projects. The proposed areas originally had understory thinning and machine piled/burned treatments and need follow-up fuels treatments to maintain the low fuel Ladings typical of a west side pine ecosystem. The 2nd entry burns will be a step towards returning the area to the historic fire regime. * Mastication of brush in plantations and natural stands The USFS proposes to use mastication to change the fuel arrangement and reduce the fuel bed depth to levels where wildland fire effects and fire behavior will be reduced. The proposed sites are within the Crystal Basin and above the SFARW, adjacent to areas previously treated for forest health *Fire Safe Property Inspections Fire-safe inspections and consultations will be conducted within the Traverse Creek, New York Creek, Big Sailor Creek, Indian Creek and Kelley Creek watersheds. These watersheds amount to 32,135 acres and have been ranked as the highest priorities for resource values at risk from catastrophic wildfire identified in the South Fork American River Assessment Data Management & Capacity Building Strategy The RCD will maintain a GIS Database of resource information that will be made available to support various landowner conservation planning efforts. A computer workstation will be maintained in the RCD office for landowners to use to acquire specific resource information. The RCD will provide opportunities for landowners to become trained in the use of the GIS database. The RCD will work with the American River Watershed Group to develop an introductory Watershed Guide to Permitting Process Guide Book. to watershed permitting processes, services, and/or resources available to landowners, and contact staff to each respective agency representative. A model for this guidebook is the CARCD booklet. The landowner guidebook will be introductory in level of treatment on the permitting process and services available so that it can be easily developed and modified, inexpensive to produce, and made readily available. The guidebook will be developed under the general direction of the American River Watershed Group coordinator and staff of respective agencies. Inventory of Resource Information, Assessments, and Restoration Programs. Continuous Inventory and Assessment will ensure information sharing that will aid long-range support for local 18-9

201 watershed activities. Organized inventories of such information will be effective for watershed-wide coordination, implementation and monitoring. Build Local Community Capacity to Manage Watersheds. The dynamic nature of the Stewardship Strategy will build local community capacity to form local watershed groups that will address issues on a sub-watershed level. The RCD will actively engage in the development of these sub-watershed groups Watershed Restoration The Stewardship Strategy is focused on developing watershed management options for the implementation of watershed improvement projects. - Meadowbrook Day Use Area/ Traverse Creek Special Interest Area Restoration. Restoration would provide immediate protection below the Bear Creek stream crossing of Traverse Creek and the sensitive plant site. - Mosquito Watershed Restoration Project. Project currently being developed by Mosquito Volunteer Fire Department will repair damage to aquatic and riparian habitats that have resulted from past transportation and range activities in the area and to educate the public about the importance of restoration activities to watershed health. - stormwater retrofitting - source control through pollution prevention - stream enhancement - Funding Database - Role of TAC - Long-term success - reflect strong component of sustainable local economics - Consistent with goals of CALFED - Implementation of Stewardship Components in every proposal Given the Stewardship Project contains watershed scale restoration it overlaps in scope with other CALFED programs such as the ERP, addressing ecosystem function. Likewise, watershed monitoring addresses objectives shared with the Water Quality Program, addressing aspects of water quality improvement for environmental, agricultural, drinking water, industrial, and recreational beneficial uses. 3.8 Next Steps The Stewardship Strategy is dynamic documents that will be develop on a continual basis to ensure that its intended usage is sustained. SFARWG participants will constantly track the progress and note all data gaps are addressed through continual project development. In order to meet CALFED objectives the Stewardship Strategy will constantly work to develop a more complex Watershed Management Plan. The Stewardship Strategy began with an intense scoping process that identified water quality and fuel load reduction as the main components to be addressed throughout the development of the project. Ongoing scoping will occur to continuously identify issues as they arise and document these within the Agency Review Binder and Resource Management database. The SFARWG has formed the forum from which the Stewardship Strategy will provide the basis for implementing a coordinated management strategy for managing the sources of sedimentation and causes of catastrophic wildfire. A SFAR Management Plan will improve coordination and collaboration among watershed stakeholders. The participants of the SFARG (including for example representatives from the NRCS, USFS, CDF, UCCE, Farm Bureau, Sierra Pacific Industries, and private landowners) will work together to develop the funding proposals, management and implement the plan. This stewardship strategy has identified watershed groups and partnering agencies that will provide help address the resource concerns that were identified through the 18-10

202 stakeholder involvement process. Next steps are expected to be sub-watershed management plans that identify the vulnerability of individual waterbodies, ongoing project inventory/database development, ongoing GIS database development, ongoing monitoring programs, and development of a funding database

203 References Archibald and Wallberg Consultants, Inc American River Watershed Sanitary Survey 1998 Update. Source Water Assessment Report. Prepared for El Dorado Irrigation District, Placerville, CA. Blackburn, T.C. and K.A. Anderson Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Californians. Ballena Press. Booth, D.B. and C.R. Jackson Urbanization of aquatic systems-degradation thresholds, stormwater detention, and the limits of mitigation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 22:1-20. Booth, D.B., D. Hartley, and C.R. Jackson Forest cover, impervious surface area, and the mitigation of stormwater impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 38: Bureau of Land Management Mission Statement CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000, July. Watershed Program Plan. CALFED Bay-Delta Program Website data. California Department of Fish and Game Gap analysis of mainland California. An interactive altas of terrestrial biodiversity and land management. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Geographic information system data ( California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Personal Communication, Greg Greenwood. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. 2003, October 15. Fact Sheet: History of the Conditional Waivers of Waste Discharge Requirements for the Discharges from Irrigated Lands. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. 2003, October. Irrigated Lands News. Issue 1. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. 2003, April. Public Meeting Notice. California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2004, January 28. Memo Regarding Notice of Applicability Resolution No. R Conditional Waiver of Waste R-1

204 Discharge Requirements for Dischargers from Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley. Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2004, March 1. Memo Regarding California Water Atlas California Watershed Map Calwater version 2.2. Teale Data Center. Center for Economic Development El Dorado County Economic and Demographic Profile. California State University, Chico. Center for Watershed Protection Rapid watershed planning handbook. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Anacostia, VA. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Summary, Volume I - IV. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) The water quality control plan (basin plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Fourth Edition Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) The water quality control plan (basin plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Fourth Edition Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2002, November. Staff Report: Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Dischargers from Irrigated Lands. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2002, November. Staff Report: Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Dischargers from Irrigated Lands. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2004, March. Staff Report: Informational Item for Dischargers from Irrigated Lands. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. n.d. Irrigated Lands Waiver (brochure). Cermak, Robert. February Fire in the forest: fire control in the California national forests Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands. R-2

205 Department of Pesticide Regulation website: Duane, T.P Shaping the sierra: nature, culture and conflict in the changing west. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce. n.d.a El Dorado County Agricultural Watershed Group. Draft Memorandum of Understanding. Revised 2/11/04. El Dorado County Crop Report California Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Crop Report Crop Report El Dorado County, Department of General Services El Dorado County Crop Report El Dorado County River Management Plan. November. El Dorado County, Planning Department General Plan Update. Draft Environmental Impact Report. El Dorado County Website data. El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) Sanitary watershed survey for reservoir one, reservoir A, and Outingdale water treatment facilities. Source water assessment report. Prepared by El Dorado Irrigation District, Placerville, CA. El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) Sanitary watershed survey for Reservoir One, Reservoir A, and Outingdale water treatment facilities, update. Source water assessment report. Prepared by El Dorado Irrigation District, Placerville, CA. El Dorado Irrigation District Website data. Ellicott City, Maryland. http//: Erman, D. and Jones, R. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District South Fork American River Watershed Stewardship Project: Watershed Assessment. Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District South Fork American River Watershed Stewardship Project: Watershed Evaluation. Hansen, Randy. Weddle, Hansen & Associates, Inc. Pest Control Advisor. Personal communication to Lynn Wunderlich, March 1, R-3

206 Hauer, F.R. and G.A. Lamberti, eds. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Minnich, R.A Fire mosaics in Southern California and northern Baja. Science. 219: Oregon Climate Service Unpublished website data. Jennings, M.R Status of amphibians. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Vol. II, Assessments, Commissioned Reports, and Background Assessments. Jones & Stokes Cosumnes River watershed inventory and assessment: Phase II. Draft Report. July. (J&S ) Sacramento, CA. Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc Draft. El Dorado County Water Agency Water Program and El Dorado Project Draft Environmental Impact Report for the El Dorado Irrigation District Service Area. September 30, 1992 (JSA ). Sacramento, CA. Prepared for El Dorado County Water Agency, Placerville, CA. Kattelmann, Richard "Hydrology and water resources". Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. University of California, Davis. Kilgore, B.M The ecological role of fire in Sierran conifer forests: Its application to national park management. Quarternary Research 3: Kondolf, G.M., Kattelmann, M. Embury, and D. Erman Status of riparian habitat. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Vol. II, Assessments and Scientifc Basis for Management Options. University of California, Davis. McKelvey, K.S., C.N. Skinner, C. Chang, D.C. Erman, S.J. Husari, D.J. Parsons, J. van Wagtendonk, and C.P. Weatherspoon An overview of fire in the Sierra Nevada. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Northern California Water Association and Ducks Unlimited. 2003, October 27. Policy Statement Before the State Water Resources Control Board Stay Hearing Regarding the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Conditional Waiver Requirements. Northern California Water Association and Ducks Unlimited. 2004, February 3. Memo regarding Policy for Implementation and Enforcement of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Radtke, K., A. Arnde, and R.H Wakimoto Fire history of the Santa Monica Mountains. Proceedings Symposium on dynamics and management of Mediterranean type ecosystems. Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, CA. GTR-PSW-58. R-4

207 Rapetti, Randy. El Dorado Christmas Tree Growers Association President. Personal communication to Lynn Wunderlich, March 15, Riley, A Restoring urban streams. Island University Press, Berkeley, CA. Sacramento Municipal Utility District Website data. Sierra Business Council Sierra Nevada Wealth Index: Understanding and Tracking Our Region's Wealth Edition. Truckee, California: Sierra Business Council. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to congress. Vol. II: Assessments and Scientific Basis for Mangement Options. Stephson, N.L.,J.D. Parsons, and T.W. Skinner, C.N. and C. Chang Fire regimes, past and present. State of California. California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento. State Water Resources Control Board Addressing the Needs to Protect California s Watersheds: Working with Local Partnerships (report to Legislature as required by AB 2117), CA Resources Agency & SWRCB, Draft April 15, 2002; p.7. Swetnam Restoring natural fire to the sequoia-mixed conifer forest: Should intense fire play a role? Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference 17: The American River Conservancy Upper Cosumnes River Watershed Conservation Project: Environmental Assessment. The American River Conservancy Upper Cosumnes River Watershed Conservation Project: Environmental Assessment Upper Cosumnes River Watershed Conservation Project: Strategic Plan. Internal document. Thompson, Don "Timber giant growing while others cut back." The Monterey County Herald. May 30. UC IPM website: United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service Ecological subregions of the United States: section descriptions Whale Rock Forest Health Multi-Resource Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Pacific Southwest Region. Eldorado National Forest Eldorado National Forest Fire Management Plan Pacific Southwest Region. Eldorado National Forest. R-5

208 United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a. Draft recovery plan for the California red- legged frog. Region 1, Portland, Oregon. United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b. Amendment to the draft recovery plan for gabbro soil plants of the Central Sierra Nevada. Region 1, Portland, Oregon. University of California, Davis. Center for Watershed Protection Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook - a Comprehensive guide to managing urbanizing watersheds. University of California, Davis. Franklin, J. and J. Fites-Kaufmann Assessment of late-successional forest of the Sierra Nevada: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. University of California, Davis. Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins Trophic relationships of macroinvertebrates. Pages in Methods in stream ecology. University of California, Davis Gruell, G.E Fire in Sierra Nevada forests: a photographic interpretation of ecological change since Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. Information Publications, California Cities and Towns Waters, R Sediment in streams. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Wilkinson, T Prometheus Unbound. The Nature Conservancy.51 (3): Wilson, Kim. GIS Analyst for El Dorado Agriculture Dept. Personal communication to Lynn Wunderlich, March 16, Wunderlich, L. R Integrating Assail into Sierra foothill apple pest management programs for codling moth and leafhopper control. Presentation at the Western Orchard Pest and Disease Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon. Wunderlich, L.R Investigating the potential utility of pear kairomone (DA) in Sierra foothill apple orchards: a codling moth monitoring lure and a mass trapping tool? Poster presented at Advances in Codling Moth Management for Apples, Pears, Walnuts, Stockton, Ca. R-6

209 Appendix A Methodology The following appendix describes in detail the source of the data used in this document and the methodology applied to analyze the data. The appendix is organized into two parts. First, a table lists each figure, table or attribute, identifies the name of the data file which is located on the Project Data CD and explains the origin of the data collected. In many cases, a citation is given for the data source. The second part of the appendix describes the analytical methods used in this assessment. This section includes a general discussion about the techniques used as well as a detailed description of the fuel rank/resources at risk and water quality analyses. All geographic information system (GIS) data and other tabular data used in this analysis is contained on the South Fork American River Assessment Project Data CD. Appendix Contents Part 1 Listing of Data Sources p. A-2 Part 2 Analysis Methods p. A-5 I. General Methods p. A-5 II. III. Methods Specific to Analyzing Resource Values at Risk from Wildfire p. A-5 Methods Specific to Analyzing the Risk of Sedimentation p. A-7 Appendix A - 1

210 Part 1 Listing of data sources. Table A-1. Listing of Data Sources Figure/Table/Attribute Data Source Data Processing All maps GIS coverages: sfar basins.shp sfar project area merged.shp Regional roads.shp Major streams.shp Regional waterbodies.shp County boundaries.shp Some or all of the following data were used in each maps: Project area or basins extracted from the CalWater 2.2 data set contained in the California Spatial Information Library (CSIL, Major road and stream data extracted from the California GAP Analysis Interactive CD. Regional water bodies data (hydropola) from the hydrography data maintained by CSIL. County boundaries taken from data maintained at CSIL. Figure 1.1 Regional Setting GIS coverages: American River Basin.shp Basin coverage extracted from the CalWater 2.2 data set contained in the California Spatial Information Library (CSIL). Figure 2.1 GIS coverages: Community data from the general plan land use data supplied by El Dorado County. Project Area Figure 2.2 Elevation and Precipitation Figure 2.3 Stream Gages Figure 2.4 Comparison of average Figure 2.5 Comparison of flow Figure 2.6 Hourly water Figure 2.7 Public Ownership Sfar communities.shp GIS coverages: sfar rain.shp sfardem (grid) GIS coverages: Sfar stream gages.shp Tabular data: Sfar stream gage data.xls Tabular data: Sfar stream gage data.xls Tabular data: Sfar stream gage data.xls GIS coverages: Sfar public ownership.shp Precipitation data extracted from data maintained by CSIL. Elevation data derived from 30-meter digital elevation model provided by the American River Watershed Group. Data created from descriptions of the locations of the gage sites identified in the Department of Water Resources and US Geological Survey databases on stream gage stations ( and in the SMUD Initial Consultation Package for the Upper American River Project (FERC No. 2101) California Department of Water Resources for the dates of interest. Data downloaded from the California Data Exchange Center managed by the California Department of Water Resources for the dates of interest. Data from Gage 1 was reported hourly. A daily average of this hourly flow was calculated for use in this figure. Data downloaded from the California Data Exchange Center managed by the California Department of Water Resources for the dates of interest. Ownership data extracted from the El Dorado County parcel database (June 2002). In many cases, ownership and management responsibility was not clear from the Appendix A - 2

211 Figure/Table/Attribute Data Source Data Processing database. Current Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management maps were used to update some of the ownership data. Table 3.1 Excerpted from McKelvey et al Fire return intervals Figure 3.1 Cover Types Table 3.2 Cover types burned Figure 3.2 Distribution of Fire Hazard Table 3.3 Cover type by fuel rank Figure 3.3 Selected Biological Values Table 3.4 Listed species Stream density Figure 3.4 Selected Economic values GIS coverage: sfar cover type.shp GIS coverages: sfar cover type.shp sfar fires.shp GIS coverages: sfarhzrd (grid) GIS coverages: sfarhzrd (grid) sfar cover type.shp GIS coverages: sfar cnddb.shp sfar oak corridors.shp sfar old forest reserves.shp Recovery plan for crl frog.shp Recovery plan for the Pine Hill plants.shp Tabular data: sfar listed species.dbf GIS coverages: sfar streams.shp GIS coverages: Sfar important agricultural areas.shp Sfar timber production areas.shp Data taken from the LCMMP, Vegetation Data maintained by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP). Coverages for El Dorado, Alpine and Amador counties were used; coverage names: calveg20002s, calveg20003s, calveg20009s. ( Files contain additional vegetation data not used in this analysis. The cover type data was gathered as described above. Fire perimeter data taken from CDFFP ( an includes fires since between 1950 and 2000; CDF fires 300 acres in size or greater; FS fires 10 acres in size or greater.. Data taken from CDFFP ( Fuel ranks calculated by CDFFP based on fuel model developed internal to the agency. Refer to website for additional information on model. Cover type and fuel rank data gathered as described above. Listed species data extracted from the California Natural Diversity Database (2002); oak corridor data taken from Oak Woodland Technical Advisory Committee project file (El Dorado County); Old forest reserves taken from Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment data CD (2000); California red-legged frog recovery plan preserves taken from original files supplied by US Fish and Wildlife Service; Pine Hill plants frog recovery plan preserves taken from original files supplied by US Fish and Wildlife Service. Listed species data extracted from the California Natural Diversity Database (2002). Stream reaches extracted from the hydrography data maintained by CSIL. Agricultural coverage was derived by combining agricultural soils of importance (i.e. prime, statewide, regional, local) and the Agricultural Preserve designation from the El Dorado County parcel database; Timber production areas were assembled from the Timber Production Zone designation from the El Dorado County parcel database and the plantation data maintained by the Eldorado National Appendix A - 3

212 Figure/Table/Attribute Data Source Data Processing Sfar parcels with structures Forest; parcels with structures valued at $5,000 or more were extracted from the valued greater than 5000.shp county assessor s database connected to the parcel database. Figure 3.5 Selected Social Values Figure 3.6 Nexus Between Table 3.6 Selected basins Appendix B, pp. 2-5 Figure 4.1 Water quality risk Figure 5.1 Overlap Between GIS coverages: sfar county-city parks.shp sfar fs developed recreation.shp GIS coverages: Sfar resource values for fire analysis.shp Tabular data: Sfar fuels and resource values.xls Tabular data: Sfar fuels and resource values.xls GIS coverages: Sfar water quality risk with 50 th percentile for fuels.shp Tabular data: Sfar water quality risk.xls GIS coverages: Sfar water quality risk with 50 th percentile for fuels.shp Information on public utilizes was taken from the El Dorado County General Plan DEIS (1994) and 1:100k scale USGS maps. A GIS coverage was not made of this information. Developed recreation for non-forest Service properties was taken from the El Dorado County General Plan DEIS (1994), is coarse in nature and appropriate for use at 1:250K scale. Developed recreation sites for Forest Service properties was provided by the Forest Service. Coverage is based on the project basins coverage with attribute data for the crude score spatially joined to the original coverage. Crude scores extracted from Excel spreadsheet (sfar fuels and values.xls). Results from the analysis of each attribute are reported in this spreadsheet which was converted into the tables in the narrative. Coverage is based on the project basins coverage with attribute data for the crude score spatially joined to the original coverage. Crude scores extracted from Excel spreadsheet (sfar water quality risk.xls). Coverage is based on the project basins coverage with attribute data for the crude score spatially joined to the original coverage. Appendix A - 4

213 Part 2 Analysis Methods I. General Methods The analysis in this assessment relied upon the use of geographical information systems (GIS) software (ArcView 3.2a and Spatial Analyst 2.0, Environmental Systems Research Institute). Processing of estimates of acreage, calculating the area of one theme that is included in another, and the processing of digital elevation models to derive slope, are just a few examples of the types of analytical methods used. II. Methods Specific to Analyzing Resource Values at Risk from Wildfire The purpose of this analysis is to identify the sub-basins most likely to lose high value resources (human and natural) to wildfire. A. Fire Hazard 1. The CDF fuel rank maps for Alpine, Amador and Eldorado counties were used to determine proportion of each basin with high and very high fuel ranks. Note: The CDF data covers all jurisdictions and will be used instead of the Forest Service data which only covers national forest lands. 2. Sub-basins at or above the 50 th percentile were selected as the first cut in setting priority watersheds. 3. Ignition history and number of fires for the period was reported. Table A.2 Attribute Data to Use Method Ranking Fuel Rank California Department of Forestry Calculate proportion of each subbasin with high/very high fuel rank. 50 th percentile and above Fire Risk California Department of Forestry; Eldorado National Forest Identify the cause (i.e. human, lightning) and calculate proportion of a sub-basin burned. Presence or absence B. Resources at Risk 1. Quantify important resources by sub-basin. Streams, Timberlands, Agricultural lands and Structure Density, were prioritized by 75 th percentile rank and above. Public Utilities, Developed Recreation Sites, and Species, were prioritized by presence of resource. Appendix A - 5

214 Table A.3 Assessing Resources at Risk Resource Data to Use Method Ranking Listed (or proposed) Species California Natural Diversity Database Quantify: 1) number of occurrences per sub-basin; and 2) number of species per sub- Presence or absence Stream Important Woodlands and Forests Timberlands Agricultural lands Structure density Public utilities Developed recreation sites/major Cultural Sites Scenic Corridors Hydrology layer (1:100K) from California Spatial Information Library Oak woodland connectivity areas from Oak Woodland Technical Advisory Committee Report; Old Forest Emphasis Areas from the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Timber Production Zone (TPZ) land use designation from the El Dorado County land use database; plantation layer from Eldorado National Forest Agricultural Preserve (AGP) land use designation from the El Dorado County land use database; agricultural soils of importance (i.e. prime, statewide, regional, local) from Natural Resource Conservation Service. Parcel database with assessor s information from El Dorado County Information on hydroelectric facilities (reservoirs, conveyances, power lines) from the El Dorado County General Plan DEIS; ditches on 1:100K hydrology layer El Dorado County land use and ownership data layer; 1996 El Dorado County general plan DEIR; Eldorado National Forest recreation site data; City of Placerville general plan; Marshal Gold Discovery State Historic Park Scenic corridors from the 1996 El Dorado County general plan DEIR; information from the California Department of Transportation website basin. Calculate stream density by subbasin. Calculate by sub-basin the proportion of area in important woodland and forests. Calculate by sub-basin the proportion of area in TPZ. Calculate by sub-basin the proportion of area in AGP and important agricultural soils. Calculate by watershed the area covered by parcels 5 acres or less with structures values at $5,000 or more Identify existence of facilities by sub-basin. Identify existence of sites by sub-basin. Identify existence of scenic corridor in sub-basins. 75 th percentile and above 75 th percentile and above 75 th percentile and above 75 th percentile and above 75 th percentile and above Presence or absence Presence or absence Presence or absence Appendix A - 6

215 C. Nexus Between Resource Values and Fuel Hazard Results from parts A and B above will be overlaid. Sub-basins will be selected that meet the criteria for high/very high fuels and the criteria for resource value. D. Review and Adjustment This prioritization scheme depends on the nature of the criteria for ranking. The criteria must be sufficiently narrow to allow selection but not so narrow as to limit the final selection of basins to too few. There are 81 sub-basins in the watershed. A target of sub-basins was used to measure the success of the prioritization scheme. In the event that fewer than 10 sub-basins are detected, then the ranking criteria for resource values will be adjusted downward equally. If greater than 15 sub-basins are detected, the ranking criteria for resources values will be adjusted upwards equally. The completed analysis resulted in 10 basins being identified and an adjustment of the analysis was not necessary. III. Methods Specific to Analyzing the Risk of Sedimentation The purpose of this analysis is to identify the sub-basins with the highest potential to experience adverse effects from sedimentation. A. Assess sensitive features Quantify potential for risk by sub-basin by assessing sensitive features (i.e. erodible soils, steep slopes, streams) and land uses (i.e. roads, impervious surface/development) that can contribute to increasing sedimentation. Appendix A - 7

216 Table A.4 Assessing the risk of sedimentation. Attribute Data to Use Method Ranking Sensitive Soils SSURGO and Forest Service soil data Road Density throughout the Sub-basin Road Density with Stream Buffer Impervious Cover Impervious Potential Road density on Steep Slopes Structure density Road layers from El Dorado County; Eldorado National Forest; 1:100K USGS quads Road layers from El Dorado County, Eldorado National Forest, and 1:100K USGS quads; stream coverage from 1:100K USGS quads El Dorado County parcel database; estimate of percent impervious cover by use (see Table 2 for estimates); estimate of roaded surface per mile of road El Dorado County parcel database; estimate of percent impervious cover by use (see Table 2 for estimates); index associating the relative effect of development on impervious soil qualities given a variation in soil quality Road layers from El Dorado County and Eldorado National Forest (omit trails from FS data); slope maps from El Dorado County and Eldorado National Forest Parcel database with assessor s information from El Dorado County Calculate proportion of basin where Erosion Hazard Rating (FS) is very high or soil is classified as Highly Erodible Land (SSURGO). Calculate road density by subbasin. Calculate road density within 500 feet of each stream. Estimate total impervious surface by sub-basin. See discussion below for details on this analysis. Calculate road density on slopes of 35% or greater. Calculate by watershed the area covered by parcels 5 acres or less with structures values at $5,000 or more 75 th percentile and above 75 th percentile and above 75 th percentile and above 75 th percentile and above Comparative ranking 75 th percentile and above 75 th percentile and above Appendix A - 8

217 Table A.5 Estimates of impervious cover (%) by land use. Estimates of percent impervious cover taken from Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook - a comprehensive guide to managing urbanizing watersheds (Center for Watershed Protection 1998). Estimate of Land Use Impervious Cover (%) Forest 2 Agriculture 2 Low Density Residential < 0.5 du/ac du/ac 12 1 du/ac 20 Meduim Density Residential 2 du/ac 25 3 du/ac 30 4 du/ac 38 High Density Residential > 7 du/ac (townhouses) 65 Industrial 72 Commercial 85 du/ac = dwelling unit per acre B. Calculating Impervious Potential based on Soil Qulaity By their nature, some soils have poor infiltration. The calculations of impervious cover when based solely on county zoning do not take this in to account. As a result, the portion of area in residential development that contributes to imperviousness" may be over estimated. The solution utilized in this analysis was to use soil classes to sort out those soil types that are naturally "impervious" from those less so. Information in the publication Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (1986, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Technical Release 55) on soil types and water run-off by type was used to develop an Impervious Factor which was then applied to zoning paterns as they varied with soil type. Methodology for Estimating the Impervious Factor Hydrologic soil groups (HSG) are defined in part by their differing rates of infiltration and runoff potential. The following information is from Technical Report 55 (p. A-1). Table A.6. Runoff Potential for Hydrologic Soil Groups HSG Runoff Potential Water Transmission Rate A Low > 0.30 /h B /h C /h D High < 0.05 /h Technical Report 55 presents a simplified method to estimate runoff and peak discharges in small watersheds. Their method relies upon the use of several parameters including a runoff curve number which is based on soils, plant cover, amount of impervious areas, interception, and surface storage. (TR 55, p. 1-1). Appendix A - 9

218 We derived the impervious factor from a relative comparison of runoff produced during a single day for a specific cover type and hydrologic condition. We used 24-hour rainfall data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Precipitation Frequency Atlas of the Western United States as a basis for selecting a value for rainfall in a 24-hour period. The highest rainfall reported for a 24-hour period in the last 2 years for the Placerville area is 5.65 inches. We rounded this value up to 6 inches. Technical Report 55 estimates CN by hydrologic group and covertype/condition (TR 55, p. 2-5). For open space in fair condition the numbers are: Table A.7 Curve Number for Each Hydrologic Soil Group HSG CN A 49 B 69 C 79 D 84 Given the rainfall in a 24-hour period and the CN, a runoff depth can be estimated for each HSG. (TR 55, see Table 2-1). We normalized these runoff depths for the HSGs to the lowest value to create the Impervious Factor (IF). Table A.8 Estimate of Impervious Factor HSG CN Runoff depth Impervious Factor A B C D We associated the IF spatially with each HSG to create a map of IFs. Using the El Dorado County zoning designations for each parcel, we created a map of the impervious rank for each of the land uses listed in Table A.3. We divided the map of zoning by the map of IF to create an Impervious Potential (IP) estimate for every 15-meter block in the analysis area. IP then is only a relative ranking that incorporates the relationship of soil quality into our consideration of how development on various soils in the county may affect the potential for runoff. This analysis area was limited to those watersheds that occurred within the coverage of the El Dorado soil survey. This amounted to 27 of the 81 basins. With the exception of a couple basins near Pollock Pines, the densely developed areas in the county are included in the 27 basins. Appendix A - 10

219 C. Review and Adjustment This prioritization scheme depends on the nature of the criteria for ranking. The criteria must be sufficiently narrow to allow selection but not so narrow as to limit the final selection of basins to too few. There are 81 sub-basins in the watershed. A target of sub-basins was used to measure the success of the prioritization scheme. In the event that fewer than 10 sub-basins are detected, then the ranking criteria for resource values will be adjusted downward equally. If greater than 15 sub-basins are detected, the ranking criteria for resources values will be adjusted upwards equally. The completed analysis resulted in 11 basins being identified and an adjustment of the analysis was not necessary. Appendix A - 11

220 Appendix B Results of the Analysis by Basin The following appendix displays the results by basin for the two prioritization analyses completed. The first set of tables is for the fuel hazard and resources at risk analysis and the second set of tables is for the water quality analysis. Finally, the last set of tables identifies the developed recreation sites included in the fuel rank and values analysis. The highlighted values in the following tables represent those that were selected based on the percentile ranking. Percentile rankings for the relevant values presented in these tables were calculated following the methodology presented in Appendix B. The highlighted sections of the tables represent the values at or above the 50 th or 75 th percentile rank for the respective attribute. The calculated value of the 50 th or 75 th percentile rank is displayed as the final line on the table. Appendix B - 1

221 South Fork American River Watershed Assessment (12/10/02) Fuel Hazard and Resources at Risk Sub-Basin Name Area (acres) Basin # Wildfires - Human/Lightning casued since 1970 High and Very High Fuels (acres) Very High Fuels (acres) % High and Very High Fuels % Very High Fuels Pine Hill Recovery Plan Listed Species Occurrences CRLF Critical Habitat (acres) Stream Density (miles/acre) Oak Corridors Old Forest Reserves (acres) Timber Production Areas (acres) Important Agricultural Areas (acres) Area with Structures Valued over $5,000 (acres) New York Creek X X 13 6 Dutch Ravine X 5 Acorn Creek X 5 Burnt Shanty Creek X X 8 Black Rock Creek X X 5 Greenwood Creek X X 4 Georgetown Creek X X 1 5 Big Sailor Creek X X 1 6 Kelsey Canyon X X 3 6 Traverse Creek X 1 6 Bear Creek Bald Mountain Canyon White Rock Creek X 1 6 Brass Creek X X 3 Whaler Creek X 2 One Eye Creek Redbird Creek X 4 Gaddis Creek Slab Creek Slab Creek Reservoir X 1 Iowa Canyon X 4 Long Canyon X 3 Brush Creek X 3 Camp Seven X 2 Utilities Scenic Roads and Waterways Recreational/Major Historic Sites TOTAL VALUES SCORE Appendix B - 2

222 South Fork American River Watershed Assessment (12/10/02) Fuel Hazard and Resources at Risk Sub-Basin Name Area (acres) Basin # Wildfires - Human/Lightning casued since 1970 High and Very High Fuels (acres) Very High Fuels (acres) % High and Very High Fuels % Very High Fuels Pine Hill Recovery Plan Listed Species Occurrences CRLF Critical Habitat (acres) Stream Density (miles/acre) Oak Corridors Old Forest Reserves (acres) Timber Production Areas (acres) Important Agricultural Areas (acres) Area with Structures Valued over $5,000 (acres) Sugar Pine Creek X 4 Onion Creek Little Silver Creek X 3 Jay Bird Canyon Round Tent Canyon Peavine Creek X X 5 5 Ice House Reservoir Lyons Creek Union Valley Reservoir X X 4 Tells Creek X 4 Bassi Fork Silver Creek Lawrence Lake Big Siver Creek X 3 3 Table Rock X X 2 6 Jones Fork Silver Creek Grays Canyon X 2 Soldier Creek Twentyfive Mile Canyon X 3 Plum Creek X 3 Mill Creek X 6 3 Fry Creek X 2 Lower Alder Creek X 9 3 Carpenter Creek X 2 North Creek Utilities Scenic Roads and Waterways Recreational/Major Historic Sites TOTAL VALUES SCORE Appendix B - 3

223 South Fork American River Watershed Assessment (12/10/02) Fuel Hazard and Resources at Risk Sub-Basin Name Area (acres) Basin # Wildfires - Human/Lightning casued since 1970 High and Very High Fuels (acres) Very High Fuels (acres) % High and Very High Fuels % Very High Fuels Pine Hill Recovery Plan Listed Species Occurrences CRLF Critical Habitat (acres) Stream Density (miles/acre) Oak Corridors Old Forest Reserves (acres) Timber Production Areas (acres) Important Agricultural Areas (acres) Area with Structures Valued over $5,000 (acres) Upper Alder Creek Forni Creek Station Creek Rocky Canyon Pyramid Creek Aspen Creek Sayles Canyon Strawberry Creek Cody Creek Beanville Creek Middle Creek Long Canyon Girard Creek Bark Shanty Canyon Mule Canyon Matin Creek Caples Creek X 1 4 Sherman Canyon X 3 North Tragedy Creek X 2 Oyster Creek X 1 3 Kirkwood Creek Emigrant Creek Silver Lake SF Weber Creek X 4 Utilities Scenic Roads and Waterways Recreational/Major Historic Sites TOTAL VALUES SCORE Appendix B - 4

224 South Fork American River Watershed Assessment (12/10/02) Fuel Hazard and Resources at Risk Sub-Basin Name Area (acres) Basin # Wildfires - Human/Lightning casued since 1970 High and Very High Fuels (acres) Very High Fuels (acres) % High and Very High Fuels % Very High Fuels Listed Species Occurrences Pine Hill Recovery Plan CRLF Critical Habitat (acres) Stream Density (miles/acre) Oak Corridors Old Forest Reserves (acres) Timber Production Areas (acres) Important Agricultural Areas (acres) Area with Structures Valued over $5,000 (acres) Utilities Scenic Roads and Waterways Recreational/Major Historic Sites TOTAL VALUES SCORE NF Weber Creek X 4 China Creek X 4 Hangtown Creek X X 6 7 Ringold Creek X X 7 Shaw Mine Mill X X 5 Indian Creek X X 7 Cold Springs Creek X X 7 Pinehem Creek X 5 Kelley Creek X X th percentile rank th percentile rank Appendix B - 5

225 SFAR Watershed Assessment (12/10/02) Summary of Water Quality Risk by Basin Basin # Area (acres) Sensitive Soils (%) (acres) Sensitive Soils - total Area Road Density (mi/mi^2) (mi/mi^2) Road Density in Stream Buffer Impervious Area (acres) Impervious Area (%) Impervious Factor Roads on Slopes 35% and Greater (miles) or greater Area of parcels 5 acres or less with structure fo $5,000 value Crude Score (without 50th percentil fuel rank) Crude Score (with 50th Watershed Name New York Creek Dutch Ravine Acorn Creek Burnt Shanty Creek Black Rock Creek Greenwood Creek Georgetown Creek Big Sailor Creek Kelsey Canyon Traverse Creek Bear Creek Bald Mountain Canyon White Rock Creek Brass Creek Whaler Creek One Eye Creek Redbird Creek Gaddis Creek Slab Creek Slab Creek Reservoir Iowa Canyon Long Canyon Brush Creek Camp Seven Sugar Pine Creek % High and Very High Fuels percentile rank added) Appendix B - 6

226 SFAR Watershed Assessment (12/10/02) Summary of Water Quality Risk by Basin Basin # Area (acres) Sensitive Soils (%) (acres) Sensitive Soils - total Area Road Density (mi/mi^2) (mi/mi^2) Road Density in Stream Buffer Impervious Area (acres) Impervious Area (%) Impervious Factor Roads on Slopes 35% and Greater (miles) or greater Area of parcels 5 acres or less with structure fo $5,000 value Crude Score (without 50th percentil fuel rank) Crude Score (with 50th Watershed Name Onion Creek Little Silver Creek Jay Bird Canyon Round Tent Canyon Peavine Creek Ice House Reservoir Lyons Creek Union Valley Reservoir Tells Creek Bassi Fork Silver Creek Lawrence Lake Big Siver Creek Table Rock Jones Fork Silver Creek Grays Canyon Soldier Creek Twentyfive Mile Canyon Plum Creek Mill Creek Fry Creek Lower Alder Creek Carpenter Creek North Creek Upper Alder Creek Forni Creek % High and Very High Fuels percentile rank added) Appendix B - 7

227 SFAR Watershed Assessment (12/10/02) Summary of Water Quality Risk by Basin Basin # Area (acres) Sensitive Soils (%) (acres) Sensitive Soils - total Area Road Density (mi/mi^2) (mi/mi^2) Road Density in Stream Buffer Impervious Area (acres) Impervious Area (%) Impervious Factor Roads on Slopes 35% and Greater (miles) or greater Area of parcels 5 acres or less with structure fo $5,000 value Crude Score (without 50th percentil fuel rank) Crude Score (with 50th Watershed Name Station Creek Rocky Canyon Pyramid Creek Aspen Creek Sayles Canyon Strawberry Creek Cody Creek Beanville Creek Middle Creek Long Canyon Girard Creek Bark Shanty Canyon Mule Canyon Matin Creek Caples Creek Sherman Canyon North Tragedy Creek Oyster Creek Kirkwood Creek Emigrant Creek Silver Lake South Fork Webber Creek North Fork Webber Creek China Creek Hangtown Creek % High and Very High Fuels percentile rank added) Appendix B - 8

228 SFAR Watershed Assessment (12/10/02) Summary of Water Quality Risk by Basin Basin # Area (acres) Sensitive Soils (%) Sensitive Soils - total Area (acres) Road Density (mi/mi^2) Road Density in Stream Buffer (mi/mi^2) Impervious Area (acres) Impervious Area (%) Impervious Factor Roads on Slopes 35% and Greater (miles) Area of parcels 5 acres or less with structure fo $5,000 value or greater % High and Very High Fuels Crude Score (without 50th percentil fuel rank) Crude Score (with 50th percentile rank added) Watershed Name Ringold Creek Shaw Mine Mill Indian Creek Cold Springs Creek Pinehem Creek Kelley Creek th percentile rank Appendix B - 9

229 South Fork American River Project Developed Recreation Sites Included in Analysis Park Name Type Adminstrator Bonanza Neighborhood Park Cameron Park CSD Cameron Park Lake Community Park Cameron Park CSD Cameron Woods Neighborhood Park Cameron Park CSD Christa McAuliffe Neighborhood Park Cameron Park CSD Community Center Community Park Cameron Park CSD Gateway Neighborhood Park Cameron Park CSD Hacienda Neighborhood Park Cameron Park CSD Knollwood Neighborhood Park Cameron Park CSD Royal Oaks Neighborhood Park Cameron Park CSD Sandpiper Neighborhood Park Cameron Park CSD Bennett Park Neighborhood Park City of Placerville Chili Bar Park City Park City of Placerville City Park City Park City of Placerville Gold Bug Park Historic Site City of Placerville Lions Park City Park City of Placerville Lumsden Park City Park City of Placerville Main Street Placerville Historic Site City of Placerville Rotary Park City Park City of Placerville County Fairgrounds/Walker Field Regional Park El Dorado County Finnon Lkae Neighborhood/Community Park El Dorado County Henningsen/Lotus Park Regional Park El Dorado County Miller High School/Joint Use Joint Use El Dorado County Pioneer Park Neighborhood Park El Dorado County Ponderosa High School/Joint Use Joint Use El Dorado County Shingle Springs Park Neighborhood Park El Dorado County Bertelsen Neighborhood Park El Dorado Hills CSD El Dorado Hills Community Park Community Park El Dorado Hills CSD Governor's Ponds Neighborhood Park El Dorado Hills CSD Governors West Park Neighborhood Park El Dorado Hills CSD Highlands View Neighborhood Park El Dorado Hills CSD Marina Village Neighborhood Park El Dorado Hills CSD Park View Heights Neighborhood Park El Dorado Hills CSD Rideview 7 Park Neighborhood Park El Dorado Hills CSD Ridgeview Neighborhood Park El Dorado Hills CSD St. Andrews Neighborhood Park El Dorado Hills CSD Tennis Court Park Neighborhood Park El Dorado Hills CSD Waterford Park Neighborhood Park El Dorado Hills CSD Weisberg Neighborhood Park El Dorado Hills CSD Beam Field Neighborhood Park Georgetown Divide RD Garden Valley Neighborhood Park Georgetown Divide RD Georgetown Park Neighborhood Park Georgetown Divide RD Greenwood Neighborhood Park Georgetown Divide RD Pilto Hill Neighborhood Park Georgetown Divide RD Marshall Gold Discovery State Historic Park Historic Site State of California 29 Milestone Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service 30 Milestone Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service 31 Milestone Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service 33 Milestone Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service 34 Milestone Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service 35 Milestone Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Appendix B - 10

230 South Fork American River Project Developed Recreation Sites Included in Analysis Park Name Type Adminstrator 36 Milestone Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service 39 Milestone Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service 41 Milestone Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service 42 Mile PG Picnic Area US Forest Service 42 Milestone Recreation Residence US Forest Service 46 Milestone Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service 47 Milestone Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Alder Creek Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Aspen Creek Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Atwood Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Azalea Cove CG Family Campground US Forest Service Bear Creek PG Picnic Area US Forest Service Big Hill Observation US Forest Service Big Silver Family CG Family Campground US Forest Service Bridal Veil PG Picnic Area US Forest Service Bryant Creek Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Bull Creek Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Camino Cove CG Family Campground US Forest Service Camp Cody Organization Site US Forest Service Camp Minkalo Organization Site US Forest Service Camp Sacramento Organization Site US Forest Service Camp Silverado Organization Site US Forest Service Caples Dam TH Trailhead US Forest Service Caples Lake CG Family Campground US Forest Service Caples Lake Resort Lodge-Resort/Pvt US Forest Service Caples Lake Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Caples Lake Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Caples Lake Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Carson Pass TH/Info Trailhead US Forest Service China Flat CG Family Campground US Forest Service China Flat PG Picnic Area US Forest Service Cleveland Corral Information US Forest Service Crystal Basin Sta. Interp Admin US Forest Service Dark Lake Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Devils Gate Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Eagle Rock PG Picnic Area US Forest Service East Silver Lake Tra Recreation Residence US Forest Service Echo Lakes SP Snowpark US Forest Service Echo Summit SP Snowpark US Forest Service Fashoda CG Family Campground US Forest Service Fashoda PG Picnic Area US Forest Service Fir Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Forni Creek Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Ice House BR Boatramp US Forest Service Ice House CG Family Campground US Forest Service Ice House CG Family Campground US Forest Service Ice House PG Picnic Area US Forest Service Indian Springs PG Picnic Area US Forest Service Iron Mountain Ski Ar Ski Area US Forest Service Jones Fork CG Family Campground US Forest Service Appendix B - 11

231 South Fork American River Project Developed Recreation Sites Included in Analysis Park Name Type Adminstrator Kaleva Ski Lodge Organization Site US Forest Service Kirkwood Lake CG Family Campground US Forest Service Kirkwood Lake Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Kirkwood Lake Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Kirkwood Ski Area Ski Area US Forest Service Kit Carson Lodge Lodge-Resort/Pvt US Forest Service Lone Rock CG Family Campground US Forest Service Lovers Leap CG Family Campground US Forest Service Lyons CreekTH Trailhead US Forest Service Martin Point CG Family Campground US Forest Service Meiss TH Trailhead US Forest Service Mountain Camp II Organization Site US Forest Service Northwind CG Family Campground US Forest Service Our Lady of the Sier Organization Site US Forest Service Peninsula BR Boatramp US Forest Service Phillips Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Porcupine Club Organization Site US Forest Service Pyramid Creek Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Riverside Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Robbs Hut Lodge-Resort/FS US Forest Service Rockbound TH Trailhead US Forest Service S & S Clubhouse Organization Site US Forest Service Sand Flat CG Family Campground US Forest Service Sayles Canyon Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Sciots Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Sciots Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Sierra Pines Baptist Organization Site US Forest Service Sierra-At-Tahoe Ski Area US Forest Service Silver Creek Family Campground US Forest Service Silver Fork CG Family Campground US Forest Service Silver Lake CG Family Campground US Forest Service SMUDEA Organization Site US Forest Service South Silver Lake Recreation Residence US Forest Service Stockton Camp Organization Site US Forest Service Strawberry Creek Tra Recreation Residence US Forest Service Strawberry Pt. CG Family Campground US Forest Service Strawberry Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Sunset CG Family Campground US Forest Service Traverse Creek Interpretive Minor US Forest Service Twin Bridges TH Trailhead US Forest Service Twin Bridges Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Twin Lakes TH Trailhead US Forest Service Two Sentinels Organization Site US Forest Service Van Vleck Cabin Lodge-Resort/FS US Forest Service Van Vleck TH Trailhead US Forest Service Wench Creek CG Family Campground US Forest Service Wench Creek CG Family Campground US Forest Service Wench Creek GCG Group Campground US Forest Service West Point BR Boatramp US Forest Service West Point CG Family Campground US Forest Service Appendix B - 12

232 South Fork American River Project Developed Recreation Sites Included in Analysis Park Name Type Adminstrator Wolf Creek CG Family Campground US Forest Service Woods Lake CG Family Campground US Forest Service Woods Lake PG/TH Picnic Area US Forest Service Woods Lake Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Woods Lake Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Wrights Lake CG Family Campground US Forest Service Wrights Lake CG Family Campground US Forest Service Wrights Lake Eq CG Family Campground US Forest Service Wrights Lake Info St Information US Forest Service Wrights Lake PG Picnic Area US Forest Service Wrights Lake Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Wrights Lake Tract Recreation Residence US Forest Service Yellowjacket BR Boatramp US Forest Service Yellowjacket CG Family Campground US Forest Service Appendix B - 13

233 El Dorado County Resource Conservation District & Georgetown Divide RCD 100 Forni Road, Suite A Placerville, CA Phone (530) , Fax (530) Appendix C South Fork of the American River Watershed Group List of Participants "to protect and improve the health and condition of the South Fork of the American River watershed through stewardship and education to a measurable extent." South Fork American River Stewardship Project Watershed Assessment & Evaluation Name Affiliation Bonnie Bagwell Placer County RCD Bob Beegle President - El Dorado County RCD beegle@byber.com Anthony Belleye National Historical Society belleye@go.com Bill Bennett Director- Georgetown Divide RCD bennett@water.ca.gov Greg Boger Boger Winery Larry Bryant Golden Sierra High School lbryant@bomusd.k12.ca.us Bill Center American River Recreation Assoc. bclotus@innercite.com Monte Ceres CRMP Coordinator Gail Chun DOC - Grant Administrator Curt Coffman Cosumnes River College coffmac@flc.losrios.edu, cjcoffman@juno.com Janet Cohen 6 th grade teacher Gold Trail School jcohen@edcoe.k12.ca.us Tom Cumpston President - Community Pride klk@calweb.com Dan Daniels Vice President - Georgetown Divide RCD dandaniels@directcon.net John Daniels Golden Sierra High School jdaniels@bomusd.k12.ca.us, jwd633@yahoo.com Sid Davis Director- Georgetown Divide RCD davis@innercite.com Brian Deason BOR bdeason@mp.usbr.gov Jenny Decker DFG jdecker@dfg.ca.gov Deb Demoff Union Mine High School ddemoff@umhs.edu.hsd.k12.ca.us Harry Dunlap Stakeholder Jim Eicher BLM jeicher@ca.blm.gov Patrick Evans Soil Conservationist EDC & GT RCD patrick.evans@ca.usda.gov Marilyn Fergusen Waterway Research & Walking Brochure, Heritage prs mfergie@d-web.com Bob Fratini Community & Governmental Relations. PG&E rjf1@pge.com Bill Frost Natural Resource Advisor. UC Davis Extension wefrost@ucdavis.edu Pat Frost SMUD pfrost@smud.org Chuck Fuchsel Ca. Dept. of Forestry Chuck_fuchsel@fire.ca.gov Catherine Graham CVWQCB grahamc@rb5s.swrcb.ca.gov Dominic Gregorio SWRCB gregd@dwr.swrcb.ca.gov Rich Gresham Placer Co. RCD - District Manager richrcg@jps.net Appendix C-1

234 Name Affiliation Ray Griffiths Director- Georgetown Divide RCD Tom Halton USGS Kathy Hardy District Ranger. USDA Forest Service Albert Hazbun El Dorado County Citizens for Water Len Heinz Fire Safe Council Dana Helfer Past - CRMP Program Dir. CARCD Outreach. CRMP cacrmp@ca.nacdnet.org Diane Hernandez Schnell School. State Dept. of Education hernandez@innercite.com Gale Higgins SMUD ghiggin@smud.org Dan Hinrichs Water Quality Engineer, Friend to Bill Center djhengr@cal.net Steven Hopkins Sly Park Conservation School shopkins@scoe.net Jeff Horn BLM jhorn@ca.blm.gov Alice Howard Sierra Club aqhoward@aaahawk.net Robert Hughes DFG rwhughes@dfg.ca.gov Penny Humphreys El Dorado County ;Board of Supervisors see connie zelinsky Steve Hust EDC Planning Dept. shust@co.el-dorado.ca.us Stan Iverson Oak Ridge High School Siverson@eduhsd.k12.ca.us, SL iverson@attbi.com Josette Johnson CMC Vice Chair josette@jps.net James Kimmel Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) James.Kimmel@ca.usda.gov Mike Kirkley Division Chief. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Prot. mike_kirkley@fire.ca.gov Donna Knifong USGS - GIS coordinator dknifong@usgs.gov Jim Kosta Water District KOSTA@inreach.com Terryl Kostus NRCS - GIS Paul Lake NRCS - GIS Roger Le Hinds CA Geological Survey - Office of Mine Rec. John Leblanc UC Davis Extension jleblanc@nature.berkeley.edu Stafford Lehr DFG slehr@dfg.ca.gov Robert Little Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) RLittle@spi-ind.com Tina Lunt Cosumnes River RCD Tina.Lunt@ca.usda.gov Dan Macon High Sierra RC&D dan.macon@ca.usda.gov Christine Mai USFS cmai@fs.fed.us Lonn Maier SMUD lmaier@smud.org Jeff Marsolais USFS jmarsolais@fs.fed.us Brad Mason Golden Sierra High School bmason@bomusd.k12.ca.us Vernon Miller Friend of Harry Dunlop vomiller@mindspring.com Chuck Mitchell USFS Watershed Program Leader crmitchell@fs.fed.us Henry Miyashita USGS - Water Quality/ Quantity Nelson Money Vegetation Program Manager - PG&E NRM2@pge.com Cheryl Mulder USFS cmulder@fs.fed.us Jeff Novak ELDCO Parks & Recreation southfork@co.el-dorado.ca.us Beth Paulson USFS bapaulson@fs.fed.us Brad Pearson League to Save Sierra Lakes kitcarson@directcon.net Lorri Peltz-Lewis Regional Geospatial Data Admin-BOR lpeltzlewis@mp.usbr.gov Howard Perlman USGS hperlman@usgs.gov Erin Perry Citizen eoperry@yahoo.com Dale Pierce Director - Eldorado County RCD dpierce@innercite.com Appendix C-2

235 Name Affiliation Gary Pigg City of Placerville Deb Powers El Dorado High Teacher Madalene Ransom NRCS-State Economist, watershed planning Margie Read SWRCB Carolyn Rech DFG Pierre Rivas Planning Commissioner Ellsworth Rose Retired State Engineer Norbert Rupp League to Save Sierra Lakes Ed Russel NRCS State Soil Conservationist Jeff Russert El Dorado County Roy Rutz President - Georgetown Divide RCD rrutz@cdpr.ca.gov Holly Sheradin SWRCB sherh@dwq.swrcb.ca.gov Gerri Silva El Dorado County gsilva@co.el-dorado.ca.us Bob Smart Trails Now rsmart@jps.net Dave Spiegelberg DOT Development Services dspiegelberg@co.el-dorado.ca.us Glen Stanisewski USDS NRCS Glen.Stanisewski@ca.usda.gov Jeff Swindle CALTRANS - Assoc. Environmental Planner jeff_swindle@dot.ca.gov Mike Taylor Botanist, Sensitive Plant - Eldorado N.F. Botanist mtaylor@fs.fed.us William Templin USGS wtemplin@usgs.gov Geney Terry El Dorado County GIS gterry@co.el-dorado.ca.us Surjit Toor Lower Cosumnes NRCS Dist Conservationist surjit.toor@ca.usda.gov Richard Wade Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) rwade@spi-ind.com Chris Waters Amador-El Dorado Ranger Unit Dept. Forestry & Fire Chris_Waters@fire.ca.gov Lori Webber RWQCB Environmental Specialist WebberL@rb5s.swrcb.ca.gov Wendy West EDCO Dept. of Ag. wendyw@atasteofeldorado.com Henry (Hank) White GT Divide Public Utility Dist. Jann Williams USFS jowilliams@fs.fed.us Harry Williamson Nat'l park Service harry_williamson@nps.gov Linda Wright El Dorado County GIS lwright@co.el-dorado.ca.us Vicki Yorty Fire Safe Council Coordinator vyorty@attbi.com Connie Zelinsky ASS. Board of Sup. Dist. IV bosfour@co.el-dorado.ca.us Herman Zellmar Alpine County zmountain@gbis.com Appendix C-3

236 South Fork American River Stewardship Project Watershed Assessment & Evaluation revised November 22, 2002 Technical Advisory Committee "to protect and improve the health and condition of the South Fork of the American River watershed through stewardship and education to a measurable extent." Purpose: The purpose of this document is to describe to the creation and role of CALFED project No. 99-N19: South Fork of the American River Stewardship Project Technical Advisory Committee. Background: During the scoping process of the SFARWG, it was realized that the formation of a TAC would augment the watershed group's efforts. A diverse representation of committee members will ensure a full range of ideas and perspectives. The TAC's primary goal is to provide input and direction of CALFED Project #99-N19 "South Fork of the American River Watershed Stewardship Project." Beyond the scope of CALFED Project #99-N19, the TAC will assist in the collaboration, advise on the development and implementation of new projects, funding opportunities, and outreach strategies that will help ensure the success of the SFARWG into the future. The primary objectives of CALFED Project #99-N19 are to create a Watershed Management Plan and Stewardship Strategy for the South Fork of the American River watershed. With help from the TAC, this project will also generate a Watershed Assessment and Watershed Evaluation for the priority issues identified by the SFARWG: 1. Fuel Load Management, such that the state of fire hazard and risk and the factors that contribute to increased risk and hazard will be identified; and 2. Run-Off Management stated such that the state of water quality and the factors that contribute to the impairment of water quality will be identified. Organization: The TAC will act as a subcommittee of the larger SFARWG. The TAC will review and make recommendations to the RCD staff and consultant team regarding CALFED Project #99-N19. The AC will function under the following guidelines: The TAC will include representatives from different interests in the watershed. The TAC will provide updates on the progress of the project at TAC meetings. Items discussed at TAC meetings will be shared with the SFARWG for further comment. Decisions will be based on consensus between the participants. If consensus cannot be reached, the TAC will present the issue to the SFARWG for review. The primary objectives of CALFED Project #99-N19 are to create a Watershed Management Plan and Stewardship Strategy for the South Fork of the American River watershed. With help from the TAC, this project will also generate a Watershed Assessment and Watershed Evaluation for the priority issues identified by the TAC & SFARWG. The mission of the South Fork of the American River Watershed Group is "to protect and improve the health and condition of the South Fork of the American River watershed through stewardship and education, to a measurable extent." CALFED's major consideration regarding this project is to address the issues on the upper watershed as they relate to impacts on anadromous fish within the Lower American River and the Bay-Delta system. In order to implement a successful Watershed Management Plan and Stewardship Strategy, these documents will need to be synthesized with other planning projects within the watershed. The project will collaborate with federal, state, and local government agencies, neighboring watershed groups, local community organizations, and private individuals in order to develop a product that is practical for watershed management and planning. The Watershed Management Plan and Stewardship Strategy will be based on information compiled in the Watershed Assessment and Watershed Evaluation. Appendix C-4

237 South Fork American River Stewardship Project Watershed Assessment & Evaluation revised November 22, 2002 Technical Advisory Committee "to protect and improve the health and condition of the South Fork of the American River watershed through stewardship and education to a measurable extent." Member Name Organization/ Title Contact Information Mike Taylor USFS - El Dorado N.F. Botanist mtaylor@fs.fed.us Sensitive Plant Coordinator Jennifer Boyd USFS - FAM jboyd@fs.fed.us William E. Frost UCCE - Natural Resources Advisor wefrost@ucdavis.edu Chris Waters CDF - Vegetation Management Coordinator chris_waters@fire.ca.gov Michael L. Kirkley CDF - Division Chief mike_kirkley@fire.ca.gov James Kimmel NRCS - District Conservationist james.kimmel@ca.usda.gov Kevin Roberts SPI - Wildlife Biologist kroberts@spi-ind.com Holly Sheradin SWRCB - Division of Water Quality sherh@swrcb.ca.gov State Citizen Monitoring Coord., Scientist Lori Webber CVRWQCB webberl@rb5s.swrcb.ca.gov Dave Spiegelberg DOT - Development Services dspiegelberg@co.el-dorado.ca.us Dave Sederquist Youngdahl Consulting - Geo-Hydrologist dcs@youngdahl.net Dan Macon High Sierra RC&D - Project Coordinator dan.macon@ca.usda.gov Ray Griffiths Georgetown Divide RCD - Director raygriff@innercite.com Dan Daniels Georgetown Divide RCD - Director dandaniels@directcon.net Jon Morgan El Dorado County jmorgan@co.el-dorado.ca.us Environmental Health - Director Tony Valdes USFS - El Dorado N.F. Botanist tvaldes@fs.fed.us Resources Officer Jeff Novak El Dorado County Parks southfork@co.el-dorado.ca.us Rich Gresham Placer Co. Resource Conservation District richrcg@jps.net District Manager Appendix C-5

238 APPENDIX D Related SFAR Watershed Water Quality Data Documents Hangtown Creek Master Plan Fish Count (El Dorado High School (EDHS)) Hangtown Creek Master Plan Water Quality Data (EDHS) Iowa Canyon Creek Fish Counts (CA DFG) New York Creek Water Quality Data (Oak Ridge High School) Traverse Creek Fish Stocking Data (CA DFG) Traverse Creek Survey Reports (RCD)

239 SOUTH FORK AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP PROJECT Additional Information: Mark Egbert, District Manager El Dorado County & Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District 100 Forni Road, Suite A Placerville, CA (530) ElDoradoRCD.org / GeorgetownDivideRCD.org Georgetown Divide Resource Conservation District