Hydrology Specialist Report. ROCK CREEK FUELS AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS Minidoka Ranger District

Transcription

1 Sawtooth National Forest Hydrology Specialist Report ROCK CREEK FUELS AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS Minidoka Ranger District Mark Dallon Hydrologist, Minidoka Ranger District /s/ Mark Dallon 9/22/2015 Signature Date Table of Contents 1) Introduction and Alternatives ) Scope of Report ) Relevant Direction ) Existing Conditions ) Recommended BMPs ) Effects Analysis ) Summary ) References ) Introduction and Alternatives This report includes hydrologic analysis of the various alternatives of the Rock Creek fuels and vegetation management project in the Cassia Division of the Minidoka Ranger District. Three alternatives were considered as described in the project record. They are summarized below and in Table 1. Alternative 1: No action alternative: The project would not be authorized or implemented. Alternative 2: Proposed Action, mechanical and prescribed fire treatments: This alternative includes approximately 238 acres of mechanical treatments, prescribed fire targeted for 496 acres within a 1241 acre treatment unit, 1428 acres of hand treatment, and 345 acres of timber stand improvement. Alternative 3: Limited Mechanical and No Commercial Timber Sale Treatment Alternative: This alternative would exclude mechanical treatment (with the exception of a 100 foot buffer around structures), increase the acres of hand treatment, and use hand treatment around the perimeter of timber stands instead of commercial thinning. Page 1 of 14

2 Table 1. Project Alternatives Description Treatment Type (Acres) Alternative Mechanical Hand Prescribed Fire Timber Stand Improvements acres Remove ladder fuels; masticate all material less than 6 DBH 1428 acres Combination of aspen and conifer treatments Shaded fuel break acre block targeting 496 forested acres Pile burning of areas with hand treatment 345 total acres 55 acres post and pole sales 279 acres of pre commercial thinning 12 acres patch cut harvest 0.3 miles temporary road construction 3 21 acres within 100 of structures 1691 acres No shaded fuel break Same as Alt 2 0 acres No temporary road 2) Scope of Report Spatial Scope - This report includes hydrologic and watershed analysis for the proposed alternatives for the allotments at the 6 th level hydrologic unit scale (subwatershed). There are 6 subwatersheds in the project area (Table 2), however, 4 of the subwatersheds have relatively small areas within the treatment units. Additionally, the areas of those 4 subwatersheds within the treatment units is at the drainage divides, which in this area consists of low gradient, broad ridgelines. No stream channel within those 4 subwatersheds is within 400 feet of any treatment unit. Cumulatively, the small spatial extent, position high in the watershed, low slope gradients, and distance from aquatic resources does not warrant further analysis for those 4 subwatersheds. The analysis area includes all of the remaining 2 subwatersheds, a total of 34,486 acres. Discussion of effects will occur at various scales, including analysis area, subwatershed, stream, stream reach, and site. Temporal Scope The analysis will consider effects for approximately 10 years. Report Objectives This report will: 1. Describe hydrologic and watershed resources/conditions within the project area. 2. Ensure that the project complies with direction, standards, and guidelines of the Sawtooth National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Sawtooth LRMP) and other applicable laws and regulations. 3. Evaluate potential effects to hydrologic resources. Recommend project design to increase benefits and minimize negative impacts. Page 2 of 14

3 Table 2. Subwatersheds and Acres Hydrologic Unit Headwaters Rock Creek Winecup Creek Goose Creek Fifth Fork Rock Creek Pole Camp Creek Shoshone Creek Hydrologic Unit Code Total SUBWATERSHED AREA (ACRES) Treatment Units % HUC in Treatment Units % % Total Subwatersheds Excluded From Further Analysis Cottonwood Creek Big Creek ) Relevant Direction Numerous laws, regulations, and policy are applicable to this project. These include: Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Amended 2012 National Forest Management Act Executive Order 11988, Clean Water Act State of Idaho Water Quality Standards; Raft River Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Amended 2012) The Sawtooth NF LRMP directs management activities on the forest (USDA, 2012). Directions within the plan for rangeland, soil, water, riparian, and aquatic resources are relevant to this analysis (see Forest Plan consistency checklist). The Desired Condition for Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources (pg III-18) and relevant forest management direction (III-19-24) are incorporated into the proposed action. The project is location within Management Areas 11 (Rock Creek, III ) and 13 (Trapper Creek/Goose Creek III ) and objectives specific to those areas are also incorporated into the project. In addition, the Goose Creek drainage is identified as a priority for aquatic restoration in the Watershed Aquatic Recovery Strategy. Forest Plan direction specific to this analysis is included in Appendix A. National Forest Management Act Page 3 of 14

4 The National Forest Management Act (NFMA 1976) requires that the Forest Service provide for protection of aquatic ecosystems, including riparian areas. FSM 2526 directs the Forest Service to protect, manage, and improve riparian areas while implementing land and resource management activities. Executive Order Executive Order Floodplain Management (May 24, 1977, revised July 20, 1979) states objectives to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. Executive Order Executive Order Protection of Wet Lands (May 24, 1977) states objectives to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modifications of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. The Clean Water Act The principal law governing pollution in the nation's streams, lakes, and estuaries is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L , enacted in 1972), commonly known as the Clean Water Act (as amended in 1977, 1981 and 1987). The Act s primary objective is to restore and maintain the integrity of the nation s waters. Under the Clean Water Act 303(d) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation (40 CFR 130.2(J), 130.7), states are required to list which waters do not meet water quality standards. State of Idaho Integrated Report, TMDLs, and Water Quality Standards As required by the Clean Water Act, the state of Idaho determines surface water use designations and water quality standards (IDAPA ). The state is also responsible for determining the water quality status for all waterbodies in the state and prepares the Integrated 303(d)/305(b) Report to categorize them. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are developed for degraded water bodies and the State of Idaho antidegradation policy for water quality (IDAPA ) that states, The existing in-stream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected is also applicable to Forest Service management activities. The Forest Service is required to comply with state water quality standards and requirements set forth in the TMDLs and subsequent addendums, which for this project include the Upper Snake Rock Subbasin (IDEQ, 2010) and the Goose Creek Subbasin (IDEQ, 2012). The Forest Service has agreements with the State to implement Best Management Practices or Soil and Water Conservation Practices for all management activities. Proposed activities will comply with the guidelines in the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (Forest Service Manual ), which outlines Best Management Practices that meet the intent of the water quality protection elements of the Idaho Forest Practices Act. Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act Requirements governing alteration of stream channels are outlined under Idaho Statutes, Title 42, Chapter 38. This act requires permitting for any alteration of stream channels for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat, aquatic life, recreation, aesthetic beauty, and water quality. This act applies on all waters within the state, including land managed by the Forest Service. Page 4 of 14

5 Figure 1. Treatment Units, Analysis Area, and Aquatic Features Identified Resource Issues Page 5 of 14

6 During the development of alternatives for this project 3 issues were identified as sufficient to be addressed within the analysis. These issues are: 1. Cheatgrass. Spotted Knapweed, and Canada Thistle 2. Recreation 3. Sagebrush Habitat Other issues were identified but without potential that would require detailed analysis. These issues include the following: 1. Cultural Resources 2. Climate Change 3. Fisheries 4. Grazing 5. Hydrology 6. Noxious Weeds 7. Smoke Management 8. Special Status Plants 9. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Hydrology was identified as an issue that would not require detailed analysis and the remainder of this report will address estimated effects to validate that determination. Indicators Indicators are used to characterize existing conditions and to provide estimates of the potential impacts from the proposed activities to resources of concern. Indicators selected depend on the issues identified as areas of concern during the development of the assessment. Sediment input to streams is the potential cause of water quality/hydrology effects and will be the indicator for determining effects to aquatic resources from the project. 4) Existing Conditions The analysis area for this project is located in the Cassia Mountains (also known as Goose Creek Mountains, or locally as the South Hills) in the headwaters of the Rock Creek and Goose Creek drainages, which were both historic tributaries of the Snake River. Goose Creek s historic confluence with the Snake River was at Burley, Idaho, but it is now captured in Lower Goose Creek Reservoir and used entirely for irrigation in the Oakley, Idaho area. Rock Creek flows into the Snake River just below the city of Twin Falls. The analysis area includes elevations ranging from 6000 feet along 4 th Fork Rock Creek to 8000 feet on Monument Peak. A Snotel precipitation gauge (Magic Mountain) is located within the project area and annual precipitation averages 32.9 at the site (USDA, 2015). Approximately 70% of the yearly total occurs during the period from Nov-April (Snotel, 2015), mostly as snow. There are several perennial stream channels throughout the project area, most of which are headwater first and second order streams. Streamflows are characteristic of a snowmelt runoff pattern, with peaks typically in May. However, most of these headwater streams have small drainage areas and are susceptible to peak flows from localized, intense thunderstorms that can occur at other times of year (typically thunderstorms in July and August). Page 6 of 14

7 Geology of the Goose Creek Mountains, particularly in the project area, is dominated by volcanic rocks types, including rhyolite flows and tuffs (ISU, 2002). Exposed rock outcroppings are common and bedrock is typically shallow. This results in frequent expressions of groundwater, numerous springs/seeps, and several perennial streams in the analysis area. Main perennial streams in the analysis area include Third Fork Rock Creek, Fourth Fork Rock Creek and Goose Creek. Several perennial tributaries of each of those streams exist, including Little Fork, Mountain View Creek, Thompson Creek (Rock Creek), and Bear Hollow and FS Spring Creek (Goose Creek). Each of the perennial streams is fish bearing and includes a variety of aquatic species. The Goose Creek drainage supports Yellowstone cutthroat trout, which is classified as a Forest Service Region 4 sensitive species. Seeps and springs located within the analysis area are numerous and total 76 identified sites. There are 12 springs located within the treatment units. In many cases, the springs are the headwater source of 1 st order streams. The spring sites are generally located in the upper third of the drainage, below ridgelines that collect snow, with dense riparian vegetation. Figure 2 includes major aquatic features in the analysis area. The analysis area includes designated motorized routes as well as unauthorized routes. Most unauthorized routes receive use from a variety of users. Some routes, however, are used primarily by livestock permittees, and while the route itself is not part of the designated road system, limited use by the permittees is allowed as part of their allotment management. Water Quality Standards and Status The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality has responsibility for water quality issues in the state. The 2012 Integrated Report is the most recent determination of water quality conditions for the state of Idaho (IDEQ, 2014). One assessment unit within the analysis area is identified as not supporting designated beneficial uses. All other assessment units are supporting beneficial uses. Relevant assessment units, stream segments, beneficial uses, pollutants, and TMDL status are summarized in Table 2. All assessment units and streams in the Rock Creek drainage, as well as the 3 rd order segment of Goose Creek, are fully supporting designated beneficial uses and no water quality issues have been identified. The Goose Creek assessment unit that includes all 1 st and 2 nd order segments has water temperature identified as the cause of the listing. Analysis of these segments and potential effects from each project alternative will be included in section 6. Page 7 of 14

8 Table 2. Summary of Water Quality Status Stream Segment Assessment Unit Beneficial Uses Support Status Cause(s) 303(d) or TMDL status Goose Creek source to Idaho border: includes all 1 st and 2 nd order streams ID SK008_02 CW, SS Water Temperature Category 4A: Not Supporting PCR TMDL completed and approved by EPA Supporting N/A Goose Creek source to Idaho border: includes all 3 rd order segments ID SK008_03 CW, PCR, SS Fully Supporting N/A Category 2: Fully supporting beneficial uses Rock Creek source to Fifth Fork Rock Creek: includes all 1 st and 2 nd order streams ID SK018_02 CW, PCR, SS Fully Supporting N/A Category 2: Fully supporting beneficial uses Rock Creek source to Fifth Fork Rock Creek: includes all 3 rd order segments ID SK018_03 CW, PCR, SS Fully Supporting N/A Category 2: Fully supporting beneficial uses CW Cold Water Aquatic life; SS Salmonid Spawning; SCR Secondary Contact Recreation 5) Recommended BMPs Best Management Practices are part of US Forest Service direction and National Core BMPs include general categories of BMPs for most activities undertaken on NFS lands. BMPs specific to this project fit under the general categories for Veg 4 Ground Based Skidding and Yarding, Road-5 Temporary Roads, and Fire-2 Use of Prescribed Fire. Specific BMPs recommended for this project are included as required mitigation measures in the EA and include the following: Soils/Water/Riparian/Aquatics (SWRA) Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) are delineated as directed in Appendix B of the Forest Plan. The RCA width boundaries used are based on site specific tree heights for lodgepole pine of feet (2 tree heights) either side of perennial and/or fish-bearing streams - 75 feet (1 tree height) either side of intermittent streams - 75 feet from the edge of ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands RCA boundaries are estimates and ground conditions may vary. RCA objectives/prescriptions will be applied wherever stream channels or wetlands are encountered within the project area during implementation. Page 8 of 14

9 No mechanical harvest activities would occur within RCAs. Equipment staging, including fuel storage, and refueling would occur outside RCAs. Care would be taken to avoid lubricant and fuel spills in all project areas. All equipment will be free of leaks. Woody debris (logs, branches) will be placed over these areas to encourage native vegetation recovery and to discourage off road vehicle use No equipment for timber harvest should be used off designated routes when soil is saturated as determined by timber sale administrator in consultation with the District Hydrologist. Landings, skid trails and temporary access routes will be ripped and obliterated to loosen soils to increase infiltration of surface water and reduce the effects of soil compaction. Woody debris (logs, branches) will be placed over these areas to encourage native vegetation recovery and to discourage off road vehicle use (See Botanical Resources design criteria). Prescribed fire would not be ignited on slopes having moderate or high landslide hazard as delineated by the SinMAP landslide analysis that are in the vicinity of past landslide or debris flow events identified through review of aerial photography. Following completion of the project, landings, skid trails and temporary access routes would be obliterated and rehabilitated to break compaction and promote revegetation. No mechanical (bulldozer) fire line construction would occur for prescribed fire treatments. Aquatic Invasives Project activities will adhere to the USFS Intermountain Region Operational Guidance for 2013 Fire Activities, to avoid the spread of aquatic invasive species. During prescribed burning activities: - Avoid drafting from waterbodies with known infestations of aquatic invasive species - Avoid entering waterbodies or contacting mud and aquatic plants. - Avoid transferring water between drainages or between unconnected waters within the same drainage. Do not dump water directly from one stream or lake into another. Pile Burning and Prescribed Burning Direct ignition of prescribed fire in RCAs should not be used unless site/project scale effects analysis demonstrates it would not degrade or retard attainment of soil, water, riparian, and aquatic desired conditions, except where outweighed by demonstrable short- or long-term benefits to watershed resource conditions (FMGU06, Forest Plan III-40; SWRA Standard SWST04, Forest Plan III-22 ). 6) Effects Analysis Potential Resources of Concern Fuels treatments have the potential to negatively affect aquatic and riparian resources. These processes and effects include: Increased runoff and erosion from disturbed soil (fire lines, equipment from equipment or prescribed fire) Removal of shade and subsequent temperature increase in streams Contamination of soil or water from fuel or lubricant spills The potential for these effects exists, but the likelihood is reduced by mitigation measures and project design. The remainder of this section details the potential effects from the activities under the different alternatives. Effects will be analyzed using the Water Erosion Prediction Page 9 of 14

10 Project (WEPP) model to estimate hillslope soil erosion and delivery to channels. WEPP was used to estimate the effects from each treatment type. It was also used to estimate the effects of a wildfire under the no action alternative. WEPP provides estimates for the effects the first year following a treatment or wildfire, as well as an annual average over the expected return interval of that event. The risk to aquatic resources from wildfire (or treatments for the action alternatives) is higher where treatments are in proximity to streams. The treatment units were analyzed for proximity to channels. For the analysis, hillslopes that were within treatment units and upslope of channels were selected. A subset of 7 hillslopes were selected that were the most likely to have negative effects to channels, based on gradient, slope length, and slope topography. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (no action) Under this alternative no treatments would occur. Short term direct effects would result in conditions fairly similar to current conditions, as described in the previous section. However, longer term effects would not be similar. Without treatment, it is more likely that elevated fuel loads would lead to an eventual wildfire. Wildfire results in more severe soil and water effects than prescribed fire, particularly in the first few years following an event. The results produced by WEPP include estimates for sediment delivery to the channel for the year following a wildfire, and averaged over the expected return interval of a wildfire. These effects are included as estimates under Alternative 1. To estimate effects for Alternative 1, the WEPP FUME (Fuel Management Erosion) was used for the 7 selected hillslopes. FUME provides estimates for various treatments, including undisturbed forest (direct short term effect for Alternative 1), for the 1 st year following a wildfire, and the annual average effect of wildfire (1 st year effect averaged over fire return interval). The model estimates sediment erosion and delivery to the channel and results are included in Table 2. Table 2. Alternative 1 Estimates of Sediment Delivery WEPP Results (tons/mi 2 /yr) Treatment Unit/Hillslope Stream Treatment Type 1st Year following Wildfire Average Annual Bear Hollow Bear Hollow Hand Bear Hollow Goose Creek Hand Balsam Goose Int Mechanical Rock Ck GS 4th Fk Rock Mechanical Penstemon 4th Fk Rock Mechanical RX Mountain View Ck Rx RX Unnamed Rx These results estimate the amount of sediment delivered from each hillslope following a wildfire. Since no treatment is proposed under this alternative, the effects are zero from the treatments. However, an eventual wildfire with elevated fuel loads would likely have significant effects the Page 10 of 14

11 first year following the fire, which averaged over a 40 year recurrence interval give the results in Table 2. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action, mechanical and prescribed fire treatments) This alternative includes a combination of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. Short term effects from treatments in this alternative include a variety of runoff and sediment issues from disturbed soils or soils affected by fire. To estimate aquatic effects, the same hillslopes analyzed under alternative 1 were considered. WEPP was used to estimate sediment delivery to channels from the hillslopes, but with a different treatment type and subsequent hillslope condition. For hand and mechanical treatment units, Disturbed WEPP was used. For prescribed fire units, the WEPP Erosion Risk Management Tool (ERMit) was used. Results for the model estimate sediment delivery to the channel in tons/mi 2 /yr and were run with the assumption that all required mitigation and recommended BMPs are implemented, including a minimum 75 foot buffer between treatment activity and the channel. Table 3. Alternative 2 and 3 WEPP Estimates WEPP Results Estimate for 5 Yr Annual Precip (tons/mi 2 /yr) Treatment Stream Treatment Type Alt 2 Alt 3 Unit/Hillslope Bear Hollow Bear Hollow Hand 0 Same as Alt 2 Bear Hollow Goose Creek Hand 0 Same as Alt 2 Balsam Goose Int Mechanical-Alt 0 0 2/Hand Alt 3 Rock Ck GS 4th Fk Rock Mechanical-Alt 0 0 2/Hand Alt 3 Penstemon 4th Fk Rock Mechanical-Alt 0 0 2/Hand Alt 3 RX Mountain View Ck Rx 0 Same as Alt 2 RX Unnamed Rx 0 Same as Alt 2 WEPP results indicate it is not likely that any of the hillslopes would deliver sediment to the channel at its base. Alternative 3 (Limited Mechanical and No Commercial Timber Sale Treatment Alternative) Under this alternative, the proposed mechanical and timber treatment units would be treated with hand crews. For the WEPP analysis, hand treatment units were the same under alternatives 2 and 3, and mechanical units (under Alt 3 became hand treatment units) had the same input as the hand treatment alternatives. Likewise, the prescribed fire results were identical for the 2 hillslopes under that treatment, for Alternatives 2 and 3. Results for alternative 3 are also included in table 2. Similar to Alternative 2, no sediment delivery to stream channels is expected to occur under Alternative 3. Page 11 of 14

12 Table 4. Quantitative Comparison of Effects Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Sediment Delivery to Stream Channel (tons/mi 2 /yr) Treatment Stream Alt 1 Alt 2 Unit/Hillslope (annual average) (annual based on 5 yr Recurrence Interval precip) Alt 3 (annual based on 5 yr Recurrence Interval precip) Bear Hollow Bear Hollow Same as Alt 2 Bear Hollow Goose Creek Same as Alt 2 Balsam Goose Int Rock Ck GS 4th Fk Rock Penstemon 4th Fk Rock RX Mountain View Ck Same as Alt 2 RX Unnamed Same as Alt 2 Table 5. Qualitative Comparison of Alternatives Alternative Comparison Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Sediment Delivery to Stream Channel Same as current conditions until eventual wildfire: without treatment, wildfire results in sediment delivery from treatment hillslopes from tons/mi 2 /yr annual average, or tons/mi 2 /yr in the first year following the fire. Sediment delivery not expected from treatment hillslopes to channels. Sediment delivery not expected from treatment hillslopes to channels. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are defined as all past, present, and foreseeable future actions within the analysis area. Past and current activities within the analysis area that have affected hydrologic resources or watershed condition include livestock grazing, maintenance and use of forest system roads, dispersed recreation, timber thinning, fuelwood collection, water development, and wildfire. Foreseeable future actions include those actions that are likely to occur within the analysis area. Many of these actions would require individual NEPA analysis and are summarized below: Changes to the motorized trail system Closure of unauthorized motorized routes New ski lift at Magic Mountain Continued livestock grazing Page 12 of 14

13 Alternative 1 (no action) For Alternative 1, the risk of exceeding a critical threshold of sedimentation exists. Under the no action alternative, the risk of an eventual wildfire, and the likely extreme sediment delivery that typically occurs in the first years following the fire, is much higher than under the action alternatives. Model estimates, and post fire runoff from other fires on the district, indicate that post fire runoff and sediment delivery are very likely. Hillslope sediment delivery estimates for pre fire conditions and for the action alternatives are zero. Estimates for the first year following a wildfire range from tons/mi 2 /yr. This range would exceed water quality thresholds for streams and reduce fish habitat. Alternatives 2 and 3 Current conditions of aquatic resources, including riparian habitat and water quality, are generally good throughout the analysis area. Alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to have no sediment delivery to channels, thus not contributing to cumulative effects on a larger scale. Current conditions are good and with no estimated contribution under these alternatives, cumulative effects are not expected to exceed water quality or aquatic thresholds. 7) Summary Aquatic resources within the analysis area include numerous intermittent and perennial streams, and many seeps/springs. Current conditions of these resources are generally good, including riparian habitat and water quality. Identified water quality issues are isolated to some segments of Goose Creek that are listed as impaired for water temperature. Based on the analysis, none of the 3 alternatives is expected to have direct effects to aquatic resources. However, Alternative 1 is expected to have the greatest long term effect, assuming that the increasingly heavy fuel loads would eventually result in a wildfire that would be of a larger magnitude than if fuel reductions under Alternatives 2 or 3 reduce the risk. Alternative 1 is expected to have the largest negative aquatic effect over time. Neither Alternative 2 nor 3 are expected to have an effect. Given the generally good current aquatic conditions, and the lack of effects predicted under alternatives 2 or 3, cumulative effects should be nearly equal to current effects. Under Alternative 1, while the analysis predicted annual average sediment delivery rates from the hillslopes of between 0.3 and 2.7 tons/m2/yr, actual effects from wildfire are typically generated in the first years following the disturbance. Given the scale of that initial disturbance, there is a higher likelihood of extreme aquatic effects that exceed the capacity of these 1 st and 2 nd order streams under Alternative 1. 8) References 1. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Upper Snake Rock/Middle Snake TMDLs HUC , Upper Snake Rock TMDL Modification (2005), Upper Snake Rock Watershed Management Plan (2000) and Middle Snake River Watershed Management Plan (1997); 5-Year TMDL Review. 2. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Goose Creek Subbasin Temperature Total Maximum Daily Loads: Addendum to the Goose Creek Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads. 3. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho s 2012 Integrated Report. Page 13 of 14

14 4. Idaho State University GeoSciences Department, Digital Atlas of Idaho USDA Forest Service, Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Amended Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 6. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Snotel website: :id:sntl%7cid=%22%22%7cname/ , /prec::average_1981 Page 14 of 14