Harris Vegetation Management Project

Transcription

1 Harris Vegetation Management Project Hydrology Report Prepared by: Chad Hermandorfer Hydrologist for: Shasta-McCloud Management Unit Shasta Trinity National Forest July 28, 2011

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 Harris Vegetation Management Project Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Overview of Issues Addressed... 1 Regulatory Framework... 1 Methodology for Analysis... 5 Affected Environment... 6 Existing Condition... 6 BMPs and Resource Protection Measures Monitoring Environmental Consequences Introduction Road Management common to all action Alternatives Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and Climate Change Compliance with Regulatory Direction References Appendix A Vicinity and Watershed Maps Appendix B Erosion Hazard Rating Calculations Appendix C Best Management Practices List of Tables Table 1. Summary of 7 th Field Watersheds located within the Harris Vegetation Management Project Boundary Table 2 Summary of 8 th Field Watersheds located within the Harris Vegetation Management Project Boundary Table 3 Existing Road Densities for 7 th and 8 th Field Watersheds Located within the Harris Project Boundary Area... 8 Table 4 Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) Analyses for 7 th field Watersheds within the Harris Project Area and Existing Watershed Condition Class Table 5. Designated Beneficial Uses for the Pit River Table 6. Summary of Alternative 1 treatments proposed for the Harris Vegetation Management Project Table 7. Summary of Alternative 2 treatments proposed for the Harris Vegetation Management Project Table 8. Summary of Alternative 3 treatments proposed for the Harris Vegetation Management Project Table 9. Summary of Alternative 4 treatments proposed for the Harris Vegetation Management Project Table 10. ERA Model results after implementation of treatments in Alternative Table 11. ERA Model results after implementation of treatments in Alternative Table 12. ERA Model results after implementation of treatments in Alternative Table 13. ERA Model results after implementation of treatments in Alternative Shasta-Trinity National Forest i

4 Hydrology Report List of Figures Figure 1. Thresholds of Concern and Watershed Condition Class Figure 2. Riparian reserve located within the Harris Vegetation Management Project Area. Notice the lack of any defined stream channel, running or standing water, or riparian vegetation. Forest Road 42N49 is located in the distance. Forest personnel indicate that occasionally water will overtop the tank and sit in low lying areas Figure 3. Overflow at the Harris Spring Campground water tank. The absence of riparian vegetation surrounding the tank indicates that overflow is rare Figure 4. Vicinity Map of the Harris Vegetation Management Project Figure 5 Map of 5 th, 7 th, and 8th Field HUCs located within the Harris Vegetation Management Project Area ii Shasta-Trinity National Forest

5 Harris Vegetation Management Project Introduction This report documents existing conditions and analyzes potential environmental effects to hydrologic resources, related to the proposed Harris Vegetation Management Project. The report also includes recommended project design features, and specific Best Management Practices, that would be required to be implemented as part of this project. Overview of Issues Addressed No significant issues related to hydrology were identified during project scoping. Therefore, this analysis was conducted to see if the Harris Vegetation Management Project was designed to follow the direction set forth in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1995), the Northwest Forest Plan (ROD 1994) and other State of California and federal laws. The following topics regarding hydrology are addressed in this report: Potential effects to watershed and hydrology resources consisting of impacts to wetlands, floodplains, stream channels, and associated riparian areas as well as water and sediment yield changes from soil disturbance and ground cover removal. Regulatory Framework Shasta Trinity Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan The Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LMP) provides direction and guidance for the management of water resources on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Plan direction for water resources is provided in the context of Forest Goals, Standards and Guidelines, and more specific Management Area direction. Additional guidelines for Water Resource Management are found in Chapter 4, of the Shasta Trinity Land Management Plan, which documents management prescriptions for riparian reserves and key watersheds within the Forest s boundaries. A review of Chapter 4, in the Forest Plan, documents that no key watersheds lie within the boundaries of Harris Vegetation Management Project. All of the guidelines in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan are based on the Standards and Guidelines from the Record of Decision (ROD) for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (ROD, 1994). The 1994-ROD was clarified in a 2007 memo in order to clarify provisions related to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and is commonly referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan. The 2007 memo automatically amends the Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan. The Forest Plan specifically provides direction on Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (LMP 4-53); Watershed Analysis (LMP 4-53); Riparian Reserves (LMP 4-53); and Standards and Guidelines for Resource Activities (LMP 4-54). Applicable Shasta Trinity and Northwest Forest Plan Goals and Standards and Guidelines are listed below. Shasta-Trinity National Forest 1

6 Hydrology Report Goals Pertinent to the Project Scope (Shasta Trinity Forest Plan) Water: Maintain or improve water quality and quantity to meet fish habitat requirements and domestic use needs (LMP 4-6). Maintain water quality to meet or exceed applicable standards and regulations (LMP 4-6). Riparian Areas: Maintain or improve riparian habitat (LMP 4-5). Standards and Guidelines Pertinent to the Project Scope (Shasta Trinity Forest Plan) Water: Analyze each land disturbing project for its effect on the appropriate 2nd or 3rd order watershed to prevent excessive cumulative impacts on stream channel condition and water quality (LMP 4-25). Determine the sensitivity of each 2 nd or 3 rd order watershed using soil, geologic and streamflow characteristics (LMP 4-25). The threshold of concern (TOC) for a watershed is expressed as the percentage of disturbed or compacted soil area within a total watershed, as measured by Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA). The Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) threshold equals 18% in low sensitivity watersheds, 16% in moderate sensitivity watersheds, and 14% in high sensitivity watersheds and 12% in extremely sensitive watersheds. (LMP 4-25). Projects on National Forest lands should not increase the ERA above the proportional share (depending on land ownership) of the TOC, unless, as part of the project, existing ERAs would be reduced or the ERA recovery factor would be improved. Watersheds that are over TOC, regardless of ownership, will not be further impacted unless they can be improved with appropriate mitigation measures (LMP 4-25). Implement Best Management Practices for protection or improvement of water quality, as described in Water Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in California, for applicable management activities. Determine specific practices or techniques during project level planning using information obtained from on-site soil, water, and geology investigations (LMP 4-25). This direction conforms and complies with Sections 208 and 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act (PL ) and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (USDA Forest Service, 2000). Identify and treat areas with a degraded watershed condition in a cost-effective manner and according to beneficial use priorities. High priority items include domestic use, anadromous fish habitat, and sensitive species habitat. Improvement activities will be designed to meet Management Area objectives (LMP 4-25). Maintain or improve water quality to meet or exceed applicable standards and regulations.(lmp 4-6). When watering roads for dust abatement, follow the following rules (LMP 4-25): Allow drafting from fishery streams only where immediate downstream discharge is maintained at 1.5 cubic feet per second or greater. 2 Shasta-Trinity National Forest

7 Harris Vegetation Management Project Allow drafting from ephemeral streams, intermittent streams, wetlands or constructed ponds provided that sufficient water quantity and quality remains to support associated wildlife species and riparian values. Never allow drafting to remove more than 40 percent of any stream discharge or 75 percent of constructed pond water. Riparian Areas: Maintain riparian area values, particularly when locating and constructing new roads and trails (LMP 4-25). Identify and treat riparian areas that are in a degraded condition (LMP 4-25). Many of the goals of the Shasta Trinity and Northwest Forest Plans tier to riparian-dependent resources. The Northwest Forest Plan defines a Riparian Reserve as the portion of a watershed where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where special standards and guidelines apply. These areas include those portions of a watershed directly tied to streams and rivers that are required in order for proper hydrologic, geomorphic and ecologic processes to be maintained, and that directly affect standing and flowing waterbodies such as lakes, ponds, wetlands and streams. The special standards and guidelines are documented in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (ACSO) and are listed below. All projects must achieve ACS Objectives in Riparian Reserves (USDA Forest Service, 2007). Goals and Objectives Pertinent to the Project Scope (Northwest Forest Plan) The Aquatic Conservation Strategy s Goal is to maintain and restore the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public lands and to prevent further degradation and restore habitat over broad landscapes as opposed to individual projects or small watersheds. Over the short term (10-20 years) the goals is to halt declines of watershed condition and to protect watersheds that had good-quality habitat and healthy fish populations Over the long term the goal (100 years +) is to develop a network of functioning watersheds that supported populations of fish and other aquatic and riparian dependent organisms across the NWFP area (USDA FS & BLM 1994) The Northwest Forest Plan also includes Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives which are designed to help achieve the applicable goals of the Northwest Forest Plan. These objectives are: 1. Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscapescale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations, and communities are uniquely adapted. 2. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. 3. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations. 4. Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. 5. Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements include timing, volume, rate and character of sediment input, storage, and transport 6. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. Shasta-Trinity National Forest 3

8 Hydrology Report 7. Maintain and restore timing variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. 8. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration, and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. 9. Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Standards and Guidelines Pertinent to the Project Scope (Northwest Forest Plan) Within the Harris Project area, there are matrix, late successional reserves, administratively withdrawn, and Riparian Reserve lands. The only lands in the project area where Standards and Guidelines pertinent to watershed or riparian apply are in regards to Riparian Reserves. As a general rule, standards and guidelines for Riparian Reserves prohibit or regulate activities in Riparian Reserves that retard or prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Watershed analysis and appropriate NEPA compliance is required to change Riparian Reserve boundaries in all watersheds. Timber Management TM-1. Prohibit timber harvest, including fuelwood cutting, in Riparian Reserves, except as described below. a. Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Reserves to control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Roads Management RF-1. Federal, state, and county agencies should cooperate to achieve consistency in road design, operation, and maintenance necessary to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. RF-2. For each existing or planned road, meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives by: a. minimizing road and landing locations in Riparian Reserves. b. preparing operation and maintenance criteria that govern road operation, maintenance, and management. General Riparian Area Management RA-4. Locate water drafting sites to minimize adverse effects on stream channel stability, sedimentation, and in-stream flows needed to maintain riparian resources, channel conditions, and fish habitat. Existing Laws, Executive Orders, and memorandums of Understanding (MOU s) National Forest Management Act 1976: The objectives of this act ensure that Forest planning and management activities provide for the conservation and sustained yield of soil and water resources. Clean Water Act of 1972 and related amendments: The objective of the Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation s waters. (Section 4 Shasta-Trinity National Forest

9 Harris Vegetation Management Project 101(a)). It also regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters (waters of the U.S.) (Section 404). Key sections to this law, and related amendments include: Section 208 requiring states to develop and use Best Management Practices (BMPs) for managing non-point source pollution; Section 305(b) requiring states to generate a biennial report to Congress on water quality; Section 303(d) requiring that waterbodies that are repeatedly out of compliance with the applicable water quality standards be subject to a Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDL. Executive Order 11990, 1977; Wetlands Management: This Executive order requires Federal agencies to follow avoidance, mitigation, and preservation procedures with public input before proposing new construction in wetlands. To comply with Executive Order 11990, the Federal agency would coordinate with the ACOE, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and mitigate for impacts to wetland habitats. There are no known wetlands in the project area. Executive Order 11998, 1977; Floodplain Management: This Executive order requires all Federal agencies to take actions to reduce the risk of flood loss, restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values in floodplains, and minimize the impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare. There are no stream channels with floodplain characteristics that would be affected by this project. All stream channels that cross or are immediately adjacent to project activities are ephemeral and do not have floodplain characteristics. Other Applicable Laws and Regulations The State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act designates regional boards within the state. Each board is required to publish and update a regional basin plan complete with water quality goals and objectives. Duties also include compiling the biennial 303(d) list of Impaired Waterbodies. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan and Water Quality Objectives Each basin plan provides a definitive program of actions designed to preserve and enhance water quality and to protect beneficial uses of water in the Central Valley Region. Each water board also must develop plans to improve water in identified impaired waterbodies that cannot meet the standards set forth in each basin plan. Typically a Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) process is utilized to reduce pollution sources to improve and restore water quality to meet basin plan standards. Methodology for Analysis Field reconnaissance was conducted in the fall of 2009 by a TEAMS hydrologist to evaluate existing hydrologic conditions and potential effects related to the proposed project. Literature reviews, Forest monitoring reports, Geographical Information System (GIS) data, and professional judgment were used to support report conclusions. The potential for effects was evaluated using both the Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) and Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR) models. Use of the ERA model, for cumulative effects was done to fulfill the requirements of the Shasta Trinity LMP while use of the EHR meets the requirements of the Region 5 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Chapter 50 (USDA Forest Service, 1990; Amendment 2). Thresholds of concern (TOC) for the ERA Model have been established for 5 th field HUC watershed in the Forest Plan. The ERA for the Harris Project was conducted at the 7 th HUC scale as this is the optimal scale to run the model. The TOC for the 5 th Field HUC watersheds (Bear Shasta-Trinity National Forest 5

10 Hydrology Report Creek and Medicine Lake/Whitehorse Flat) was developed by the Shasta Trinity to be 18%. (LMP) This is considered the lowest sensitivity rating for the Forest due to the lack of steep slopes, unstable geology, stream channels, floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas. The 7 th field HUC watersheds involved with the project area were given the lowest sensitivity rating of 18% because the 7 th field HUC watershed physical attributes are similar to the 5 th field. Modeling was conducted for the no-action alternative as well as the four action alternatives proposed for the project. Modeling was done on the 7th field HUC watersheds where project activities are planned: Big Sand Flat, Nine Buck Butte, Harris Spring, Lava Crack Spring, Lost Iron Well, Middle Lava Crack Spring, and White Deer Lake watersheds. There are two additional 7 th HUC watersheds, Belnap Spring and Oso Butte, involved with the project area where modeling was not conducted because no activities are planned in them. Affected Environment Existing Condition The Harris Project area encompasses 9,200 acres on the Shasta Trinity National Forest in the Shasta-McCloud Management Unit in the McCloud Ranger District. The project area is located approximately 23 miles northeast of the city of McCloud, CA (Figure 4 in Appendix A). The vegetation in the area is predominately mixed conifer with some pure fir stands. Stands of ponderosa pine and white fir are also common. Elevation ranges from 4,400 to 5,600 feet. This area is typified by volcanic buttes and cinder cones (with up to 45% slopes) separated by nearly level glacial outwash terraces and lava flows. No surface water exists within the project area. The climate in the project area is characterized by cool, wet winters and warm dry summers with an average annual precipitation of 48, with most precipitation occurring between October-May (WRCC 2010). Geographic Boundary The boundary chosen for the hydrologic cumulative effects analysis provides a watershed where effects from activities within or adjacent to the project boundary can be analyzed as to whether any direct or indirect impacts would result in an incremental effect from the proposed action when added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other actions and regardless of land ownership on which the other actions occur. Both 7 th and 8 th field hydrologic units that are within or adjacent to the Harris EIS project boundary form this boundary. A fifth field boundary would have extended well outside the analysis area which would have incorporated other activities whose effects would be non-existent within the project area, and was therefore determined to be too large. A smaller fourth order boundary would not have extended up to the project boundary and would have prevented effects from the project from being recognized and would have been inadequate. In addition, Forest Plan Standard and Guideline 18a states: Analyze each land disturbing project for its effect on the appropriate 2nd or 3rd order watershed (average size about 1,000 acres), to prevent excessive cumulative impacts on stream channel condition and water quality (Forest Service, 1995). In current watershed parlance, a watershed with average size of 1,000 acres correlates to an 8th field watershed or smaller. The smallest watersheds the Forest has mapped are the 8th level HUCs; therefore these were considered to fulfill the direction in Forest Plan Standard and Guideline 18a. 6 Shasta-Trinity National Forest

11 Harris Vegetation Management Project Watershed Description and Condition Watershed boundaries were identified from the Forest watershed GIS layer. Boundaries are based on Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) seventh and eighth field watersheds. The project area lies within portions of nine 7 th field HUC watersheds and fifteen 8 th field HUC watersheds, listed in Table 1 and Table 2 and displayed in Figure 5 in Appendix A. All streams that drain these watersheds flow to either the Bear Creek or Medicine Lake/Whitehorse Flat 5 th field HUC watershed (Figure 5). Table 1. Summary of 7 th Field Watersheds located within the Harris Vegetation Management Project Boundary. 7th Field Watershed Name 7th Field Watershed Number Acres of Project within Watershed 7th Field Watershed Size (Acres) Percent of Project within Watershed Belnap Spring ,363 < 1 Big Sand Flat ,649 5 Nine Buck Butte ,433 < 1 Harris Spring ,283 7, Lava Crack Spring ,078 9, Lost Iron Well ,398 6, Middle Lava Crack Spring ,049 10, White Deer Lake ,742 8 Oso Butte , 376 < 1 Table 2 Summary of 8 th Field Watersheds located within the Harris Vegetation Management Project Boundary. 7th Field Watershed Name 8th Field Watershed Number Acres of Project within Watershed 8th Field Watershed Size (Acres) Percent of Project within Watershed Belnap Spring ,128 < 1 Big Sand Flat , Nine Buck Butte , Harris Spring Lava Crack Spring Lost Iron Well Middle Lava Crack Spring , ,420 2, , , , , , , , White Deer Lake , Oso Butte ,334 4 Shasta-Trinity National Forest 7

12 Hydrology Report Soils in the project area are derived from volcanic materials from lava flows, pyroclastics, mudflows, ash deposition and pumice deposition as well as glacial outwash plains. Because of this, the soils are generally coarse textured with a range of coarse fragments, are deep to moderately deep and are well drained (Lanspa 1994). Further, the project area is relatively flat with slopes generally between 0-10 percent. Because of these factors, the project area is not conducive to the development of well developed stream channels. Field review found that stream channels do not exist anywhere within the project area. There was no indication of scour, bed load transport, or runoff at these sites. Further, no hydric soils or riparian vegetation were discovered. The overall road density for each of the 7 th and 8 th field HUCs is shown in Table 3. The road density calculations consider only the roads within the project boundary divided by only the land within the project boundary. The 7 th field HUCs range from 0 to 5 miles/square mile while 8 th field HUC road densities range from 0 to 7 miles/square mile. From a watershed perspective, roads within the project area are in adequate shape. The Harris Springs and Pilgrim Creek roads are paved while the other roads are graveled or native surfaced. Sediment from erosion that does occur from these roads is filtered out by vegetation before sediment transport can occur. Table 3 Existing Road Densities for 7 th and 8 th Field Watersheds Located within the Harris Project Boundary Area 7th HUC Watershed Road Density (mi./sq. mi) Belnap Spring 0 Big Sand Flat 4.6 Nine Buck Butte 4 Harris Spring 4.3 Lava Crack Spring 3.5 Lost Iron Well 2.8 Middle Lava Crack Spring 4.3 White Deer Lake 3 Oso Butte 5 8 th HUC watershed Road Density (mi./sq. mi) Shasta-Trinity National Forest

13 Harris Vegetation Management Project The McCloud flats area has been heavily logged in the past. In the early 1900 s railroad logging almost completely cleared the landscape with ground based logging systems. Evidence of grazing exists on some of the units in the project area. The Toad Mountain Allotment (cattle) and the McCloud/Hambone Allotment (sheep) are both located within the project area; however, the McCloud/Hambone Allotment is currently vacant and is not anticipated to be restocked until at least the summer of 2013 (pers. comm. Brownsey 2010). Existing disturbance conditions within these watersheds have been evaluated onsite and by using the ERA process (as required by the Shasta Trinity LMP). In calculating ERA s, all documented ground-disturbing activities such as roads, landings, wildfire, vegetation and fuels treatments, and grazing, are entered into the model. The model then calculates a percent disturbance for that watershed, which is the percent existing ERA. This number is compared to a pre-determined Threshold of Concern (TOC); and when the ERA percentage equals 80% or greater of TOC, further analysis is triggered to determine if water yield, erosion, or sedimentation are of concern. Watershed Condition Class (WCC) is defined as an indicator of cumulative watershed risk. TOC for all involved watersheds in this project area is 18% (as described in the Methodology for Analysis section of this report). These classes are defined below by FSM (USDA Forest Service, 2004b). WCC I: ERA is less than 40% TOC WCC II: ERA is between 40% and 80% TOC WCC III: ERA is greater than 80% TOC Definitions for each watershed class (Forest Service Manual ) are as follows: Class I: Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. The drainage network is generally stable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are predominantly functional in terms of supporting beneficial uses. Class II: Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Portions of the drainage network may be unstable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk in being able to support beneficial uses. Class III: Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage network may be unstable physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems do not support beneficial uses. Shasta-Trinity National Forest 9

14 Hydrology Report Figure 1. Thresholds of Concern and Watershed Condition Class Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) analyses for existing conditions for the seven 7th field watersheds where activities are proposed are displayed in Table 4. Associated land management activities included in the ERA analysis are: grazing, landings, timber harvest, site preparation, herbicide use/grubbing and roads. Table 4 Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) Analyses for 7 th field Watersheds within the Harris Project Area and Existing Watershed Condition Class 7th Field Watershed Watershed Size (acres) Existing ERA Acres Existing Percent ERA Existing Percent of TOC Watershed Condition Class Nine Buck Butte 5, II Harris Spring 7, II Lava Crack Spring 9, I Lost Iron Well 6, II Middle Lava Crack Spring 10, I White Deer Lake 10, I Big Sand Flat 7, I Table 4 indicates that all watersheds within the project area currently have a Watershed Condition Class rating of I or II. This means that all 7th field HUC watersheds in the project area are in a high or moderate functioning condition in terms of geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Soils Inherent potential for erosion may exist in some areas, given some form of severe disturbance; however, the project area is fairly stable at this time. The slope is generally between 5 and 10% and ranges up to 20% in very small areas. Ground cover by rock, litter, duff and vegetation was nearly continuous in many places, averaging 91% in the project area (USDA Forest Service 2010). In assessing inherent erosion hazard ratings (EHR) an assumption is made about the ability of a soil, with little or no vegetation cover, to withstand a precipitation event equivalent to the longterm average occurrence of a 2-year, 6 hour storm. The severity of a soil s erosion hazard can depend on a number of factors including the soil s texture, water movement within the soil as 10 Shasta-Trinity National Forest

15 Harris Vegetation Management Project well as runoff potential, slope length, and (importantly) soil surface cover. Risk ratings can vary from low to very high with low ratings meaning low probability of adverse effects on soil and water quality if accelerated surface erosion occurs. Moderate EHR ratings mean that accelerated erosion is likely to occur in most years and water quality impacts may occur. High to very high EHR ratings mean that effects to soil productivity and water quality are likely to occur when accelerated erosion happens. Although two soil types within the project area (8% of the total area) can potentially have high EHR, currently all of the EHR for the Harris Project area are low (Appendix B). Runoff Surface runoff is scarce to non-existent in the project area, reflecting high infiltration rates through the volcanic soils. It is assumed that such high infiltration without runoff ultimately transfers precipitation to groundwater. Water Quality Water quality in the project area is regulated by the Central Valley Regional Board. Designated beneficial uses, water quality objectives (standards), and a policy statement regarding maintaining high quality waters in California are in the Board s Water Quality Control Plan (California EPA, CVRWQCB 2009). The 1995 Forest Plan directs water quality on Shasta Trinity Forest lands to be maintained and improved through the use of state certified and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved Best Management Practices (BMPs). This direction conforms and complies with Sections 208 and 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act (PL ) and the guidelines established by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The 2009 Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region defines the following beneficial uses for the project area. These beneficial uses are based on the major waterbodies found within the project area as defined by the watershed polygon layer for the State of California and the major surface water bodies within those polygons ( ). The surface area drainages found in the State of California watershed polygon layer, which is associated with the project area, is the Pit River. The associated beneficial needs are derived from the 2006 California Water Board report for the 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments (State of California, 2006) and are summarized below in Table 5. Table 5. Designated Beneficial Uses for the Pit River Pit River (North and South Forks) Designated Beneficial Use Municipal and Domestic Supply Irrigation Stock Watering Power Contact Canoeing/Rafting Other Non-contact Freshwater Habitat-Warm Freshwater Habitat-Cold Spawning-Warm Established Use (E)/Potential Use (P) E E E E E P E E E E Shasta-Trinity National Forest 11

16 Hydrology Report Pit River (North and South Forks) Designated Beneficial Use Spawning-Cold Wildlife Habitat Established Use (E)/Potential Use (P) E E By direction of the Clean Water Act, where water quality is limited, state agencies develop total maximum daily load (TMDL) plans to improve water quality to support the beneficial uses of water. For water-quality-limited streams on National Forest System lands, the Forest Service provides information, analysis, and site-specific planning to support state processes to protect and restore water quality. The most recent listing was approved for California in 2006, which compiles all the information from each of the regional water boards. This information was reviewed in context of the project area boundary and proposed treatment units. According to the 2006 Clean Water Act, Section 303(d) list of water quality limited segments for the State of California; there are no water quality limited water bodies related to the project area. ( 03dlist.pdf) Municipal Watersheds There are no defined municipal watersheds within the 5 th field watersheds within the Harris Vegetation Management Project Area. Streamflow Regime and Stream Channel Conditions Defined stream channels are absent within the project area due to high infiltration caused by the underlying volcanic geology. Stream densities in project area watersheds here are extremely low as channels located beyond the project area boundary are confined to small ephemeral drainages that flow only short distances before infiltrating into the ground. There were USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps that show the presence of stream channels within the project area. Locations for these channels were reviewed in the field and found to be absent on the ground. The forest service is submitting stream channel verification results from field review to USGS. Riparian Reserves Riparian Reserves are defined under the Northwest Forest Plan as portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where special standards and guidelines apply (USDA Forest Service, 2004a). Riparian Reserves include those portions of a watershed directly tied to streams and rivers; that are required in order for proper hydrologic, geomorphic and ecologic processes to be maintained; and that directly affect standing and flowing waterbodies such as lakes, ponds, wetlands and streams. Management directions for these areas are defined in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives; all projects must achieve these in Riparian Reserves (see Regulatory Framework section) (USDA Forest Service ([2004a]). Riparian Reserves are essentially absent from the project area due to the lack of surface water. There are, however, approximately 5 acres of riparian reserves designated in the Harris Spring Campground Area in the Harris Spring 7 th field watershed (Figure 2). Field review of this area in the fall of 2009 confirmed that no stream channel, standing or running water, riparian vegetation or hydric soils are present. The only sign of water is associated with the water tank (Figure 2) that 12 Shasta-Trinity National Forest

17 Harris Vegetation Management Project is used for the Harris Spring Guard Station and campground. Forest personnel indicate that water occasionally overtops the tank and sits in low lying areas around the tank. That is the reason for the Riparian Reserve designation at this location. Figure 2. Riparian reserve located within the Harris Vegetation Management Project Area. Notice the lack of any defined stream channel, running or standing water, or riparian vegetation. Forest Road 42N49 is located in the distance. Forest personnel indicate that occasionally water will overtop the tank and sit in low lying areas. Shasta-Trinity National Forest 13

18 Hydrology Report Figure 3. Overflow at the Harris Spring Campground water tank. The absence of riparian vegetation surrounding the tank indicates that overflow is rare. Wetlands A review of the National Wetlands Inventory database and supporting fieldwork showed that no wetlands over 1 contiguous acre are located within the project area. Floodplains No floodplains exist in the project area due to the fact that no stream channels are present. BMPs and Resource Protection Measures This section includes details on BMPs and resource protection measures specific to the project project design features, mitigation measures, and subsequent project monitoring. BMPs and resource protection measures will be implemented to prevent or substantially minimize resource issues. BMPs, resource protection measures and Shasta Trinity and Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, were incorporated into the development of this project to ensure compliance with Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and its Basin Plan. Hence, there should be no deleterious effects to downstream beneficial uses from the implementation of the proposed action. 14 Shasta-Trinity National Forest

19 Harris Vegetation Management Project Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Practices, or BMPs, have been designed to protect and restore watershed resources (USDA Forest Service, 1990). BMPs have been certified by the State Water Quality Resources Control Board and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the most effective way to protect water quality from impacts stemming from nonpoint sources of pollution. Throughout the Forest Service, BMPs have been developed over time based on research, monitoring, and modification, to ensure the measures are effective (Burroughs and King, 1985; Burroughs and King, 1989; Burroughs, 1990; Seyedbagheri, 1996; Schuler and Briggs, 2000; USDA Forest Service, 2002). Region 5 Forest Service BMPs have been monitored and modified to improve their effectiveness since their original implementation in The Shasta-McCloud Management Unit has been monitoring BMPs since Numerous onsite evaluations by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) have found the practices to be effective in maintaining water quality and protecting beneficial uses that is in conformance with water quality objectives delineated in the CVRWQCB basin plan. The Forest monitors the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs on randomly selected projects each year. Data was available from BMP effectiveness requirements were met on 100% of the sites sampled on the Mount Shasta McCloud Management Unit (USDA Forest Service, 2010). By incorporating BMPs and resource protection measures for soils and hydrology, substantial conflicts with watershed resources would be avoided, and potential impacts either eliminated or mitigated so that effects from the implementation of the proposed action are within acceptable levels. Other than Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Region 5 BMPs (which are required to be implemented), one additional protection measure was recommended to protect water resources in the project area. In order to protect the Harris Spring Campground and Guard station water supply, a 20 foot equipment exclusion zone will be implemented around the tank and additional areas of the Riparian Reserve will be flagged for avoidance during implementation. Equipment can walk up to the buffer and reach in and harvest. Monitoring The Forest has a BMP monitoring program conducted by the Forest s hydrologists and hydrology technicians with coordination provided by the Forest hydrologist and others located on the Forest s ranger districts. This monitoring is conducted and reported annually to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Environmental Consequences Introduction The Harris Vegetation Management Project proposes four action alternatives and the no action alternative. The no action alternative is just that, meaning no additional activities associated with vegetation, fuels, or road management would occur. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 include vegetation and fuels management actions summarized in Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9 as well as road management treatments described below for all action alternatives. Shasta-Trinity National Forest 15

20 Hydrology Report Table 6. Summary of Alternative 1 treatments proposed for the Harris Vegetation Management Project. Forest Stand Treatments Forest stand treatment area (acres) Fuel treatment area (acres) Machine pile and burn Underburn Aspen release Fuel reduction - underburning Fuel reduction - harvest Campground thin Lodgepole regeneration with green tree retention Growth acceleration thin Standard thin Total acres Table 7. Summary of Alternative 2 treatments proposed for the Harris Vegetation Management Project. Forest Stand Treatments Forest stand treatment area (acres) Fuel treatment area (acres) Machine pile and burn Underburn Aspen release Fuel reduction - underburning Fuel reduction - harvest Campground thin Lodgepole regeneration with green tree retention Growth acceleration thin Standard thin Standard thin, 60% canopy cover Individual tree selection Individual tree selection, 60% canopy cover Total acres Table 8. Summary of Alternative 3 treatments proposed for the Harris Vegetation Management Project. Forest Stand Treatments Forest stand treatment area (acres) Fuel treatment area (acres) Machine pile and burn Underburn Aspen release Fuel reduction - underburning Campground thin Standard thin with 60% canopy closure Shasta-Trinity National Forest

21 Harris Vegetation Management Project Forest Stand Treatments Forest stand treatment area (acres) Fuel treatment area (acres) Machine pile and burn Underburn Growth acceleration thin with 60% canopy closure Total acres Table 9. Summary of Alternative 4 treatments proposed for the Harris Vegetation Management Project. Forest Stand Treatments Forest stand treatment area (acres) Machine pile and burn Fuel treatment area (acres) Mastication Underburn Aspen release Fuel reduction - underburning Fuel reduction - harvest Campground thin Lodgepole regeneration with green tree retention Growth acceleration thin Standard thin Total acres , Road Management common to all action Alternatives Two national Forest System roads were identified in the analysis as being no longer necessary to implement management objectives; in addition, two unclassified roads were identified as needing restoration to pre-user created conditions. The system roads to be decommissioned total approximately 0.5 mile and the unclassified roads total approximately 1.5 miles. Decommissioning may include scarifying the surface to break up compacted soils, seeding with native vegetation, and blocking the road to vehicle traffic with slash, rocks, and barricades or a combination of these. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 Direct and Indirect Effects Erosion, Sediment and Water Quality Erosion risk for all units is low due to the gentle slopes and high infiltration capacity of the ashderived soils (Most soils are in hydrologic group B 1 ). Erosion is predicted to remain low in all units for all action alternatives due to soils that are very deep, well drained and gentle sloping. 1 Hydrologic group B soils are those having moderate infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well drained to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. Shasta-Trinity National Forest 17

22 Hydrology Report The erosion hazard rating (EHR) model rated three soils at low-moderate hazard after vegetation and fuels treatment due to small portions of steeper slopes (Appendix B). The steepest slopes possible in the units were used in the model so this is the highest post-treatment risk. Generally, proposed harvest is on slopes from 0 to 15 percent, much gentler than modeled. Therefore, it is anticipated that vegetative manipulation would not increase the erosion hazard rating of any of the project area soils. Even given the chance that soil movement does occur after implementation from any of the action alternatives, there are no streams in the project area to carry the sediment away. Once the water goes subsurface the sediment would be filtered out long before water quality issues would arise. No additional permanent roads would be constructed for any of the action alternatives. There is the potential that short (< 300 ) temporary roads would be constructed to provide access to harvest landings in all alternatives. No cut and fill slopes would be necessary with this activity. Further, these roads would not be constructed in riparian reserves, wetlands, or stream channels. These temporary roads would be rehabilitated to existing condition after project completion as required by BMP Approximately 0.5 miles of classified and 1.5 miles of unclassified road would be decommissioned after project implementation, thus slightly reducing road densities in the project area in the Harris Spring and Nine Buck Butte 7 th HUC watersheds and the and th HUC watersheds. This would reduce the risk of erosion on approximately 4 acres of ground in the project area and return the disturbed areas to natural forest soil processes. Implementation of BMPs 2.6, 2.22, and 2.23 would ensure protection of watershed resources from road decommissioning activities. From the ERA Model, it is estimated that approximately 47 acres of disturbance would occur from landings in Alternative 1, 44 acres in Alternative 2, 38 acres in Alternative 3 and 47 acres in Alternative 4. BMPs 1.12, 1.16, and 2.26 would ensure that landings are located in areas least sensitive to soil and watershed disturbance, that erosion control measures are implemented and landings are decommissioned appropriately after use. The ERA Model estimates that landings would disrupt no more than 0.2% of any of the 7 th field HUC watersheds involved in the project area no matter the alternative selected. This is a small area. With implementation of BMPs, design features, and mitigation measures landings would not impact water quality under any of the action alternatives. Road maintenance would occur on haul routes throughout the project area. Grading of existing road prisms and improvement of existing road drainage structures would be the primary activities. This work would not be widespread and no sediment is expected to be produced to streams should proper BMPs be followed. After maintenance activities are completed, erosion rates would be reduced below current levels due to the improvements made to road drainage. Therefore, the improvement of road conditions and road drainage structures would have a net positive effect on minimizing erosion. Municipal Watersheds There are no municipal watersheds within the project area; therefore there would be no direct or indirect effects to municipal watersheds. 18 Shasta-Trinity National Forest

23 Harris Vegetation Management Project Water Quantity Natural flow in a wildland watershed can be impacted by human activity, including timber harvest and road building. Although any disturbance that reduces the density of live vegetation cover will locally increase runoff from forested watersheds, flow increases are generally not measurable until about 25 percent of the basal area of a forested watershed has been harvested (this viewpoint is supported by Grant et al., 2008 and Ziemer, 1986). From the ERA Model, it is shown that Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 propose to treat less than 1% of the basal area in the Big Sand Flat, Lava Crack Spring, Lost Iron Well, Middle Lava Crack Spring, Nine Buck Butte, and White Deer Lake watersheds. In addition, approximately 2.1% of the Harris Spring watershed would be harvested in Alternative 1, 1.7% in Alternative 2, 1.5% in Alternative 3, and 1.2% in Alternative 4. To see the results of the ERA Model for the project area watersheds, please see the hydrology project record. All these changes shown in the ERA Model are small. No changes to water quantity or peak flows would be detectable in the field due to implementation of any of the action alternatives. Stream Channel Conditions No stream channels exist within the project area, therefore no direct or indirect effects to stream channels would occur. Riparian Reserves Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 propose to thin approximately 3.4 acres of vegetation in the Riparian Reserve next to the Harris Spring Campground. This is the only Riparian Reserve associated with the project area. No burning of any kind would occur in the Riparian Reserve units (113 and 200). Since no running water and wetland or streamside vegetation exists at the site, the integrity of the Riparian Reserve would be protected. The Riparian Reserve was created to protect the spring box, water line and collection tank that provide water to the Harris Spring Campground and Guard Station. A 20 foot no mecahnical buffer is proposed around the tank as well as other areas that will be flagged by the District hydrology staff prior to project implementation. Slight ground disturbance would occur with mechanical harvest using tractors. This area is already highly disturbed due to the campground use. Therefore, additional effects from harvest activities would be minimal. Although short-term disturbance would be expected, treatment would be expected to increase light to understory vegetation and improve Riparian Reserve vegetation health and vigor and reproduction into the future. Implementation of BMPs and project resource protection measures would be expected to result in protection of soil and watershed resources. Wetlands There are no wetlands within any proposed harvest units; hence, there would be no direct or indirect effects to wetlands under this alternative. Floodplains Floodplain development within harvest units in the project area is nonexistent. Therefore, no impacts to floodplains are expected. Shasta-Trinity National Forest 19

24 Hydrology Report Aquatic Conservation Strategy: How the Action Alternatives and the No Action Alternative meet ACS Objectives. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 essentially propose identical treatments within all riparian reserves associated with the project area. The only riparian reserves associated with the project area are 3.4 acres located in Units 113 and 200 near the Harris Springs Campground and Guard Station. However, there are no stream channels or riparian vegetation associated with these units (Figure 2). The riparian reserve in this area was created to protect the spring box, which is the water source for the area. The anticipated effects from the four action alternatives are similar within riparian reserves. Outside of riparian reserves, Alternatives 2 and 3 have fewer acres of treatment proposed than both Alternatives 1 and 4 (Table 6 through Table 9), but no difference in environmental effects that would prevent attainment of ACS Objectives. A description of how Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 will affect each of the nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives follows: Objective 1. Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and communities are uniquely adapted. Effect: The action alternatives would open the canopy of the overstocked stands and allow sunlight to reach the forest floor thereby promoting under-story species vigor and encouraging diversity in composition. Multi-story vegetation components should result from treating diseased and dying conifer and thinning. These treatments will have a neutral to beneficial effect on the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features. These alternatives would meet Objective 1. No Action: Conifer encroachment would continue to advance forests into the limited meadows associated with the project. The distribution, diversity and complexity of the watershed would decline without meadows, their processes and functions. This alternative would not prevent attainment of Objective 1. Objective 2. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Effect: No developed stream channels or floodplains, wetlands, or associated riparian areas exist within the project area. Therefore, spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds will not be compromised by any of the action alternatives nor the no action alternative. Objective 3. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations. Effect: No shorelines, banks or bottom configurations exist within the project area. Therefore, Objective 3 would be met under any o the action alternatives or no action alternative. Objective 4. Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the 20 Shasta-Trinity National Forest

25 Harris Vegetation Management Project biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities. Effect: There are no surface water features associated with the project area other than the Harris Springs Campground and Guard Station water tank. The tank would receive a 20 foot no mechanical buffer. Therefore the action alternatives and the no action alternative will meet Objective 4. Objective 5. Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport. Effect: There are no stream channels to carry sediment away. Any erosion that occurs through project activity, including vegetation management or road management would be filtered out before reaching a stream channel with the ability to impact water quality. Therefore, the action alternatives and the no action alternative will meet Objective 5. Objective 6. Maintain and restore instream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high and low flows must be protected. Effect: There are no stream channels, riparian ecosystems, wetlands or aquatic habitat within the project area. Runoff from rainfall and snowmelt quickly infiltrates into the ground before concentrated runoff is able to occur. This is due to the volcanic soils associated with the area. Because of this instream flows do not occur within the project area and Objective 6 would be met under the no action and action alternatives. Objective 7. Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. Effect: There are no stream channels, floodplains, wet meadows, or wetlands present within the project area. Therefore, this objective does not apply to the Harris Vegetation Management Project. Objective 8. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. Effect: Although approximately 3.4 acres of riparian reserves (as defined by the NWFP) are to be treated under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, no true riparian vegetation is present (Figure 2). The riparian reserve area is an extension of the typical vegetation found throughout the project area (typically mixed conifer) and does not contain hydric soils or hydric vegetation. The treatment proposed within the riparian reserve would improve forest health; therefore ensure that Objective 8 would be met under any of the action alternatives as well as the no action. Objective 9. Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Shasta-Trinity National Forest 21

26 Hydrology Report Effect: There are no true riparian dependent species located within the project area, therefore, no effects would be realized from the action or the no action alternatives. Thus Objective 9 would be met. Summary: Review of the 9 ACS Objectives indicates that the Harris Vegetation Management Project will not retard or prevent the attainment of ACS objectives as stated in the 5/22/07 memorandum. Cumulative Effects Overview The cumulative effects boundary for this proposed project was based on two factors: the location of project activities and the use of the Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) model for analyzing potential cumulative effects. Project activities are proposed in the Nine Buck Butte, Harris Spring, Lava Crack Spring, Lost Iron Well, Middle Lava Crack Spring, White Deer Lake, and Big Sand Flat 7 th field HUC watersheds. The protocol direction for the model directs that analysis be conducted on 3,000 to 6,000 acres, which translates more closely to the 7 th field watershed size for this project. As a result, the ERA model for cumulative effects was run only on the 7 th field watersheds. The 8 th field HUCs is thought to be too small for the ERA Model and will be discussed qualitatively. No activities related to this project for any of the action alternatives, are proposed in any other 7 th field watersheds. A key assumption for the ERA model was that all harvest would occur in year 1 and fuels treatments conducted in year 2. Therefore, effects in year 3 would be the highest cumulative effects that could be seen with the project. This was done because differing treatment types have differing coefficients, which relate to treatment type and the amount of associated ground disturbance. Since it was not possible to determine what treatments were going to happen when, and in what watershed, the decision was made to assume that all vegetation treatment would occur in the first year of project implementation and the fuels work in the second year. However, there is very little chance that this would occur. As a result of these assumptions it must be clear to the reader that the results documented in Table 10, Table 11, Table 12, and Table 13 represent a maximum implementation scenario which has very little chance of occurring. Actual conditions would be better than reported. Past activities in the 7 th field watersheds involved with this project include private, federal and state timber harvest (hazardous fuels reductions, clear cuts, salvage and thinning), road, trail, and landing construction, grazing, and fire. Table 10. ERA Model results after implementation of treatments in Alternative 1. 7 th Field Watershed Total Acres Existing ERA Acres Existing Percent ERA Existing Percent of TOC Watershed Condition Class Nine Buck Butte 5, II Harris Spring 7, II Lava Crack Spring 9, I Lost Iron Well 6, II Middle Lava Crack Spring 10, II White Deer Lake 10, I Big Sand Flat 7, I 22 Shasta-Trinity National Forest

27 Harris Vegetation Management Project Table 11. ERA Model results after implementation of treatments in Alternative 2. 7 th Field Watershed Total Acres Existing ERA Acres Existing Percent ERA Existing Percent of TOC Watershed Condition Class Nine Buck Butte 5, II Harris Spring 7, II Lava Crack Spring 9, I Lost Iron Well 6, II Middle Lava Crack Spring 10, II White Deer Lake 10, I Big Sand Flat 7, I Table 12. ERA Model results after implementation of treatments in Alternative 3. 7 th Field Watershed Total Acres Existing ERA Acres Existing Percent ERA Existing Percent of TOC Watershed Condition Class Nine Buck Butte 5, II Harris Spring 7, II Lava Crack Spring 9, I Lost Iron Well 6, II Middle Lava Crack Spring 10, II White Deer Lake 10, I Big Sand Flat 7, I Table 13. ERA Model results after implementation of treatments in Alternative 4. 7 th Field Watershed Total Acres Existing ERA Acres Existing Percent ERA Existing Percent of TOC Watershed Condition Class Nine Buck Butte 5, II Harris Spring 7, II Lava Crack Spring 9, I Lost Iron Well 6, II Middle Lava Crack Spring 10, II White Deer Lake 10, I Big Sand Flat 7, I In the Nine Buck Butte Watershed, recorded timber harvest occurred from , and site preparation occurred from The Toad Mountain grazing allotment has 31 acres within the Nine Buck Butte Watershed. There are approximately 31 acres involved with existing landings and 53 miles of road involved with this watershed and 0.3 miles of trail. No major fires have occurred in the watershed since Shasta-Trinity National Forest 23

28 Hydrology Report In the Harris Spring Watershed, recorded timber harvest occurred from , and site preparation occurred from There are 4,263 acres of the Toad Mountain allotment within this watershed. There are approximately 44 acres of existing landings, 47 miles of road and 0.1 miles of trail involved with this watershed. There have been no major fires in the watershed since In the Lava Crack Spring Watershed, recorded timber harvest occurred from , and site preparation occurred from There is 287 acres of the McCloud/Hambone allotment within this watershed. There are approximately 20 acres of existing landings, with 38 miles of road, zero miles of trail and no major fires in the watershed since In the Lost Iron Well Watershed, recorded timber harvest occurred from , and site preparation occurred from The McCloud/Hambone allotment has 10 acres within the watershed while the Toad Mountain allotment has 1,353 acres within the watershed. There are approximately 53 acres of existing landing, 31 miles of road and 0.6 miles of trail involved with this watershed. No major fires have occurred in the watershed since In the Middle Lava Crack Spring Watershed, recorded timber harvest occurred from , and site preparation occurred from There are 10 acres of the McCloud/ Hambone allotment within the watershed and 2 acres of the Toad Mountain allotment within the watershed. There are an estimated 49 acres of existing landings, approximately 42 miles of road and 0 miles of trail involved with this watershed. No major fires have occurred in the watershed since In the White Deer Lake Watershed, recorded timber harvest occurred from , and site preparation occurred from There are 259 acres and 567 acres respectively of the McCloud/Hambone and Toad Mountain allotments within this watershed. There are an estimated 42 acres of existing landings with approximately 60 miles of road and 0 miles of trail involved with this watershed. No major fires have occurred in the watershed since Discussion For municipal watersheds, riparian, wetlands, floodplains, and stream channel resources, no direct and indirect effects would be expected. As a result, no change (either positive or negative) to cumulative effects would be expected. To help assess project-related potential cumulative effects on overall watershed condition, ERA analysis was conducted on the Nine Buck Butte, Harris Spring, Lava Crack Spring, Lost Iron Well, Middle Lava Crack Spring, White Deer Lake and Big Sand Flat Watersheds. Analysis of equivalent roaded acres for the Nine Buck Butte, Harris Spring, Lava Crack Spring, Lost Iron Well, White Deer Lake and Big Sand Flat watersheds shows that conditions prior to project implementation would be similar to conditions after project implementation for all action alternatives. The existing Watershed Condition Classes for these 6 watersheds would not be changed with project implementation. The Middle Lava Crack Spring watershed would see an increase from a WCC I to a WCC II for all proposed action alternatives. It is estimated that this change would last for several years. After that time, the watershed is expected to return to a WCC I rating. Even with this change from a WCC I to a WCC II watershed for the Middle Lava Springs watershed, no detectable degradation is expected to occur. This is due to the fact that no stream channels, floodplains, wetlands, or riparian areas are present where impacts could occur. In this case the ERA Model indicated that increased disturbance is possible, but not to the point where water and sediment yield and water quality would be impacted. 24 Shasta-Trinity National Forest

29 Harris Vegetation Management Project The same can be true for the 8 th field HUC watersheds. The absence of stream channels, floodplains, riparian reserves, and wetlands as well as the relatively low disturbance in these watersheds indicates that little to no additional cumulative effects are probable. There may be localized incidents of erosion, increased runoff, and sediment movement. However, the runoff and erosion sediment would be filtered out long before reaching actual streams. Climate Change The climate in Northern California is predicted to change in the near future. Increases in temperature are likely and a change in precipitation is predicted as well but there is no clear trend on precipitation changes (CEC 2006). What changes will actually occur and how these changes will affect water resources are still unknown. Should more precipitation fall on the project area over the next fifty-plus years stream channels, floodplains, wetlands, and riparian vegetation may emerge. In contrast, should the precipitation regime become dryer the hydrologic landscape would remain as is, where water features are nonexistent and vegetation and soil properties transition to dryer conditions. Compliance with Regulatory Direction Implementation of BMPs, project specific resource protection measures, and site-specific riparian measures would result in the proposed activities being in compliance with the Shasta Trinity Forest Plan, Northwest Forest Plan, Forest Service handbook and manual direction, and with other guiding laws and regulations. Shasta-Trinity National Forest 25

30 Hydrology Report References Brownsey, Phillip Personal Communication, Re: when the McCloud/Hambone Allotment will be stocked again. Range Program Manager, Shasta Trinity National Forest. Burroughs, Edward R., Jr.; King, John G Surface Erosion Control on Roads in Granitic Soils. Proceedings of Symposium Sponsored by Committee on Watershed Management, Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE, ASCE Convention, Denver, CO, April 30 May 1. p Burroughs, Edward R., Jr.; King, John G Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads, USDA Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT 264. Burroughs, Edward R., Jr Predicting Onsite Sediment Yield from Forest Roads. Proceedings of Conference XXI, International Erosion Control Association, Erosion Control: Technology in Transition. Washington, DC, February p California Climate Change Center, July Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risksm to California. CEC California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board Total Maximum Daily Load Program d_lists2006_epa.shtml Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River Routier Road, Suite A, Sacramento, California , Grant, Gordon E.; Lewis, Sarah L.; Swanson, Frederick J.; Cissel, John H.; McDonnell, Jeffrey J. May General Technical Report PNW-GTR-760, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 76 p. Lanspa, Kenneth Soil Survey of Shasta-Trinity National Forest Area, California. USDA Forest Service. Overland, Bill Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) Calculations for Cumulative Watershed Effects (see project file). tml; TMDL and 303(d) List - Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies: The Current (2006) 303(d) List and Previous 303(d) List Updates California EPA and the State of California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB 2000), ttp:// Water Quality Control Plan Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Schuler, Jamie L.; Briggs, Russell D Assessing Application and Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management Practices in New York. National Journal of American Forestry 17(4): Shasta-Trinity National Forest

31 Harris Vegetation Management Project Seyedbagheri, Kathleen A Idaho Forestry Best Management Practices: Compilation of Research on their Effectiveness. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR p. USDA Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Region 5 Amendment, USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994, Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan). Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Region 5 Amendment 2, Effective 7/16/90. USDA Forest Service Shasta Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices. Pacific Southwest Region, September. USDA Forest Service Best Management Practices Effectiveness Monitoring Report, Lolo National Forest. Compiled by Renee Hanna. USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Attachment A to the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (commonly referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan). USDA Forest Service Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Memorandum regarding compliance with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Dated 5/22/07. USDA Forest Service Soils Report for the Harris Vegetation Management Project. Tricia Burgoyne, US Forest Service TEAMS Enterprise. USDA Forest Service. BMP Monitoring Data for the Mt. Shasta-McCloud Management Unit. Western Regional Climate Center Shasta-Trinity National Forest 27

32

33 Harris Vegetation Management Project Appendix A Vicinity and Watershed Maps Figure 4. Vicinity Map of the Harris Vegetation Management Project. Shasta-Trinity National Forest 29

34 Hydrology Report Figure 5 Map of 5 th, 7 th, and 8th Field HUCs located within the Harris Vegetation Management Project Area. 30 Shasta-Trinity National Forest