Meeks Meadow Restoration Decision Memo

USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Pre-decisional Decision Memo For Implementation of the Meeks Creek Meadow Ecosystem Restoration Project El Dorado County, California

BACKGROUND:

Meadows play important roles in hydrology, erosion control, nutrient cycling, provision of animal food and shelter, and human recreation. Meadows are also important in maintaining hydrological processes downstream, maintaining stream flows and reducing downstream sediment transport and nutrient loads (Carter 1986, Johnston 1991, Johnston 1993). Meadow drying is one of the most significant forms of change that has occurred in the Lake Tahoe basin and many other places in the Sierra Nevada, primarily as a result of past overgrazing (Wagoner 1986, Hughes 1934, Ratliff 1985, Menke et al. 1996). Montane meadows have been identified among the most vulnerable and impacted habitat types in the Sierra Nevada (Kattelmann and Embury 1996, USFS 2004), and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA 2002) has identified meadow ecosystems as an important focus area for restoration efforts in the Lake Tahoe basin.

Droughts are a familiar stressor on vegetation; whereas, changing climate may further impact the condition of Sierran meadows and may be a significant contributor to the problem of meadow drying. Because of their high sensitivity to drying, montane meadows have been suggested as early indicators of environmental changes associated with climate change (Debinski et al. 2004). Meadow drying has been observed to cause the replacement of native wetland perennials with non-native annuals (Burcham 1970, Hagberg 1995) and upland species. In addition, changes in inter-annual variability combined with fire suppression are factors that contribute to invasion of Sierran meadows by the native lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and other upland conifer species. Meadow restoration via the removal of conifers is currently a major focus area in the Lake Tahoe basin. Prescribed fire and vegetative treatments of conifers are two management tools that can be used to maintain meadow health.

The Meeks Creek Meadow is located within the Meeks Management Area on the western shore of Lake Tahoe in El Dorado County, California in Section 29, SE ¼ Section 30 and the NW ¼ Section 31, T14N, R17E of the Homewood, California quadrangle map (Figure 1).

Due to a combination of fire suppression, changes in grazing practices, and changing climate, meadow edges along Meeks Meadow have become over-grown with dense conifers. These conifers are now moving further into meadow areas and creating large pockets of upland habitat within the meadow, thus reducing water availability for herbaceous vegetation and degrading habitat conditions for riparian dependent species. Additionally, the very dense conifer thickets within the meadow and along the meadows edge in conjunction to the proximity to the highway and popular recreation areas make this area, under the current conditions, vulnerable to natural or human caused catastrophic fires.

Through conifer removal and the reintroduction of fire to these systems, this project will improve water availability, increase meadow wetness, increase herbaceous vegetation, increase the amount of meadow habitat for riparian dependent native species, and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire throughout this sensitive area. The intent of the project is to restore the ecological and hydrological function of Meeks meadow, which will in turn prepare these systems for natural disturbances in the future.

A Decision Memo was signed for the Meeks Creek Meadow Restoration Project June 2010. During initial implementation activities it was apparent that some aspects of the proposed action could not be successfully and safely implemented. The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) concluded that the Interdisciplinary Team needed to reconvene to revise the proposed action, conduct additional surveys to comply with NEPA requirements, re-scope to agencies and members of the public, and complete a new Decision Memo. Through this process the proposed action was modified to insure that the goals of the project were met while confirming the planned activities could be implemented effectively. No modifications were made to the actions associated with the Camp Wasiu girl scout camp clean-up.

PURPOSE AND NEED:

The primary purpose of this project is to restore Meeks Meadow using pre-European conditions for reference while managing for resiliency to prepare for uncertain future conditions. Pre- European conditions are considered those prior to Comstock logging, livestock grazing, mining,

and fire suppression. Restoration to this condition does, however, recognize that other potential impacts including, but not limited to, climate change and current land use would prevent some historic characteristics from being fully restored. This restoration approach supports adaptations to changing future conditions, such as changing climate.

The needs for the project are to: • Restore physical (hydrological) and biological (terrestrial and aquatic diversity and abundance), and ecological meadow processes (evapotranspiration) and functions (flow dispersal, ground water recharge, sediment detention) that are appropriate for the current climate regime and comparable to reference conditions. • Restore natural fire disturbance regime in Meeks meadow to enhance riparian habitat for native riparian dependent species, increase meadow acreage, improve plant diversity and vigor, provide habitat for native species, increase water availability for wetland species, and provide wetter conditions for a longer duration each year. • Provide diverse wildlife habitat for native riparian dependent species, which is currently limited within the Lake Tahoe basin due to past land management activities. • Move the project area toward a pre-fire suppression vegetative condition related to stand density, tree size class, and species composition to enable the reintroduction of fire into a fire adapted ecosystem. • Reduce the potential for a catastrophic wildland fire and provide for defensible space adjacent to communities.

PROPOSED ACTION:

Summary

This project proposes to restore approximately 300 acres of meadow habitat in Meeks Meadow thru treatments of removing encroaching conifer and prescribed fire (Figure 2). The preferred approach is to treat the entire meadow in one entry using a combination of mechanical equipment and hand treatment followed by prescribed fire. If the entire meadow cannot be treated in one year, the treatment will be phased to ensure that conifer removal/thinning and burning occur in the same year in each area, where burn plans allow. Prescribed fire in the form of broadcast burning will be introduced into the treated areas to enhance and encourage native meadow and riparian vegetation.

Due to the severity of conifer encroachment along the meadows edge and within the majority of the meadow, the preferred method of treatment would be to utilize mechanical equipment where conditions allow. In order to eliminate the need for burn piles as well as excessive slash depths, mechanical equipment would be used to remove material from the project area. The soil and water quality impacts of using low ground pressure mechanical equipment treatments in SEZs under appropriate soil moisture conditions have been shown to be minimal (Norman et.al 2008; Cody and Norman, 2011).

If operating mechanically is not suitable within portions of the project area during normal operating periods, over the snow mechanical operations and/or hand treatments would be used to accomplish tree removal. Hand treated material would be lopped and scattered, and then broadcast burning would be used to complete the treatments. No piling of cut material would occur. Piling of cut material could lead to spots of high intensity fire in areas of the meadow, and not meet the project objectives. Hand treatments may require multiple entries over time, with each entry lop and scattering the cut material, or removing by carrying as needed. Burning in the treatment unit would occur in the same season, as conditions allow.

Mechanical suitability will be determined based on the LTBMU SEZ Sensitivity Rating System (see Soils and Hydrology Report), which considers a treatment unit’s proximity to stream channels or other water features and accessibility, and also depends on soil moisture conditions at the time of operations. The completed SEZ ratings for this project indicate that the project treatments are in locations determined to be operable based only on the physical site characteristics of the units. However, the soil moisture conditions prior to on the ground operations may dictate otherwise. Several areas of depressions in the meadow identified during the ratings suggested that some portions of the project area will remain too wet to treat mechanically, particularly in wet years (see Soils and Hydrology Report for more details).

Treatment type (thinning verses complete removal of conifer (see Figure 2)) is determined by soil type and existing conifer stand conditions. Based on this information, all conifers less than

30 inch Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) will be removed within the meadow and along the meadows edge. Additionally, a buffer along the meadows edge will have all conifers removed to reduce future seed sources. Select trees 30 inch DBH or greater may be girdled to provide future snag habitat. Existing snags within the meadow, along the meadows edge, as well as within the thinned areas will not be removed unless deemed necessary to complete treatment activities. Within thinning treatments, conifers less than 30 inch DBH will be thinned from below to mimic historic stocking levels (Figure 2).

Existing openings or disturbed areas will be used for landing locations, where available. Where previous disturbance or openings are not available, new landings will be constructed (Figure 2). Landings will be no larger than two acres in order to safely facilitate the handling and removal of material (e.g. logs, biomass). Constructed landings may require removal of trees larger than 30 inches DBH, but removal will be minimized with choice location of landings. Landings could have potential short term visual impacts; however, all sites will be rehabilitated to a natural state post implementation. In non SEZ areas, this will include spreading chip, subsoiling to a minimum of 12 inches depth, and reseeding of native species. In SEZ areas, landings will be decommissioned by subsoiling to a minimum of 12 inches depth, reseeding with native species, and spreading meadow mowing clippings as ground cover.

The project is proposing a total of approximately 0.15 mile of temporary roads (Figure 2). Design features for temporary roads include provision of drainage structures to disconnect road runoff from surface water features during use, as well as requirements for decommissioning when use of the temporary road is complete.

Some road maintenance will be conducted for mechanical treatments on Roads 14N42 and 14N44. During road maintenance activities, removal of trees outside the existing road system could occur. Additional road maintenance will include grading and shaping classified forest roads to provide a suitable surface for equipment to travel (e.g. removing ruts, shoulder and slough repairs). Classified roads and trails are under Forest Service jurisdiction and are required to protect, administer, and use the National Forest System lands for administrative and public access. All other roads and trails are unclassified, and are generally characterized as non-system and user created. The native surface roads will be maintained during the implementation of the project by abating dust using water. Roads will be watered for dust abatement at least as often as specified in Forest Service Handbook 2409.15 (USFS 1992). Maintenance activities will not be undertaken to accomplish substantial improvements in road standard, to make extensive repairs, or to raise the traffic service level such that the roads will be passable to standard four wheel passenger cars.

Project treatments could pose a threat to public safety due to the presence of numerous falling trees, lower visibility around operating equipment and crews, and flying debris. Public and contractor safety would be provided adjacent to project work by posting signs, maintaining truck traffic communications, keeping primary roads open, offering alternate means to access the Desolation Wilderness trailhead utilizing existing disturbance areas (no new trails would be constructed), and/ or issuing temporary Forest Closure Orders where contractor operations (thinning, chipping, mastication, and log hauling) pose a safety hazard to the public that cannot be mitigated. Temporary forest closures could include closing public use of Roads 14N42 and 14N44 where project work is occurring, as necessary. Road 14N42 provides access to a

Desolation Wilderness trailhead. Forest closure of this road would only occur if it was not possible to protect public users and provide alternate access to the Wilderness trailhead.

Mechanical Treatments

In all areas considered operable, limit mechanical equipment operations to innovative technology that has been demonstrated to adequately protect soil and water resources. Examples include but are not limited to: cut-to-length harvester and forwarding (CTL) operations, low ground pressure tracked equipment; rubber-tired equipment; equipment that operates on a bed of slash; over-snow equipment. The LTBMU SEZ rating system (see Soils and Hydrology Report) or other current research is applied to each treatment unit. This rating is used to determine to what extent mechanized equipment is used, and the level of monitoring needed both during and post treatment. Where it is available, mechanized equipment would operate over a slash mat to reduce soils impacts, with this material left on site to add to the fuel bed for prescribed burning. Mechanical removal treatments will be constrained to an upper diameter limit of 30 inches DBH.

Over the Snow Mechanical Treatments

Over the snow mechanical treatments will be used in areas that the LTBMU SEZ rating system does not describe as suitable for mechanical treatment during a normal operating period. It will also be used in those areas where soil moisture conditions at the time of implementation are not operable (Appendix A (soil moisture table)). See the Resource Protection Measures (RPM) section for additional details as to when and under what conditions this type of operation will take place.

Hand Treatments

Hand treatments will remove trees up to 30 inches DBH. Manageably-sized portions of felled live trees (e.g., branch wood and portions of boles smaller than 16 inches in diameter) will be lop and scattered to provide a fuel bed for prescribed broadcast burning. Larger bole material will be left in place only if it is out of reach of the mechanical equipment. Hand treatment will be used if no other mechanical removal options exist in the project area.

Prescribed Broadcast Burning Prescribed fire in the form of broadcast burning will be used as a treatment to remove small conifers (<3 inches DBH) and enhance native riparian plant vigor and diversity. Broadcast burning will be used subsequent to thinning treatments, preferably immediately following vegetation treatments for optimal success. This is due to expected increases in the water table after conifers are removed. Anticipated fire intensity would be light to moderate and residence time would be limited. No pile burning would occur. Underburning prescriptions will be designed to avoid adverse effects on soil and water resources by planning prescribed fire to ensure that fire intensity and duration do not result in severely burned soils, through consultation with LTBMU specialists. Underburning prescriptions will be designed such that flame heights would not exceed two feet within 50 feet of stream courses or on wetlands unless higher intensities are required to achieve specific objectives. Additionally, fires would not be ignited in

stream corridors (i.e. within 50 feet of perennial or intermittent streams) to avoid water quality impacts related to the use of fire accelerant.

Maintenance and Monitoring A maintenance plan will be developed to determine the approximate time between prescribed fire treatments, unforeseen needs for additional hand treatment, or if riparian vegetation seeding is required. If natural recruitment of aspen, cottonwood, and willow does not occur post implementation, efforts such as seeding and planting may be implemented. The frequency and timing of prescribed burns is expected to change with time and be delineated by monitoring efforts. Monitoring will include analysis of vegetative trend plots and Brown’s transects. Data will be collected pre-implementation and monitored annually for three years post implementation. After three years, if budget allows, vegetative trend monitoring will be incorporated into the existing long term meadow monitoring effort (Weixelman et al. 2003). Implementation, effectiveness, and validation monitoring will be developed by the Interdisciplinary Team to corroborate the goals and objectives of the project.

Resource Protection Measures:

Resource protection measures (RPM) are elements of the proposed action and project design that are applied in treatment areas. These measures were developed to reduce or avoid negative environmental effects of the proposed action on forest resources.

Hydrology/Soils A list of applicable soil and water BMPs from the Region 5 Water Quality Management Handbook (USDA, 2011) is located in Appendix B, including project specific details. The normal operating period is generally considered to be from May 1 through October 15 each year. However, operable conditions may be present outside of that time period and inoperable conditions may be present within that period. RPM’s included apply to treatment activities within and outside of the normal operating period, and may apply to one or more of the following conditions: dry soils, wet soils, frozen or snow-covered soils. (Note: the normal operating period headings may include RPM’s that apply in wet conditions).

All Project Phases 1. Watershed or transportation specialist will review project Best Management Practices (BMP’s) prior to a large storm event (1 inch or greater) that may exceed BMP capacity and will notify the contract administrator if additional BMP’s are recommended to disconnect runoff from surface water features. 2. To minimize soil compaction, gullying, and rutting, ground based equipment operations would be conducted only when soils are dry to moist at the 4 to 8 inch depth. This determination would be made by a LTBMU watershed specialist or contract administrator, using Appendix A (soil moisture table) as a guideline.

3. Flag and avoid equipment use in and adjacent to special aquatic features (springs, seeps); use hand treatments in these areas. 4. Restore any temporary bypass trails that are needed to maintain Desolation Wilderness trailhead access to a condition that resembles the surrounding area. This may include the decompaction of the trail tread surface, the scattering of tree limbs and branches, mulching, and placement of natural barriers to discourage use following restoration.

Vegetation treatments in SEZs (during and outside normal operating period)

5. To the extent possible, heavy equipment will avoid open meadow areas lacking conifer vegetation.

6. Temporary crossings for forwarder trails on ephemeral and intermittent drainages would be constructed and removed when the channels are dry, to the extent feasible, or under appropriate over snow conditions. If the channel is wet or flowing at the time that access is needed across a channel (i.e. during installation or for crossing removal), implement diversion and dewatering BMPs prior to crossing installation and removal. Crossings on intermittent channels will be installed such that water flow and fish passage are not obstructed and would be designed (e.g. pipe size) to accommodate a 1” or greater precipitation event. Crossings would be removed before the winter season begins. 7. Saturated or ponded soil areas will be avoided. Where it is necessary to cross an SEZ area with inoperable soil moisture conditions, equipment would operate over a slash mat, landing mat, or other protective material to minimize soil compaction. The Contract Administrator will determine the crossing location and method. 8. Limit mechanical equipment operations in SEZs to CTL operations or operations using equipment that has low ground pressure such as rubber-tired equipment, equipment that operates on a bed of slash, or other innovative technologies that adequately protect soil and water resources. Use the SEZ risk rating system to determine operability in all of the SEZ areas. 9. For mechanical operations, use a minimum 25 foot equipment exclusion buffer adjacent to perennial and intermittent streams, and lakes and ponds when the SEZ rating system determines appropriate. A larger buffer may be prescribed in certain areas based on the SEZ rating outcomes. 10. Prohibit tree removal methods that disturb the ground surface within 25 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream channel or other water body (e.g. lakes, ponds). 11. Where implementation monitoring finds potential for sediment delivery, disturbed soil would be hand raked. Vegetation removal and thinning treatments (outside of normal operating period or wet conditions)

12. When working outside of the normal operating period, conditions must be adequate to prevent erosion, sediment delivery to water bodies, and soil compaction that would impact soil productivity or soil hydrologic function. Equipment operations would take place on portions of the treatment unit where adequate snow or frozen ground conditions are present while considering the above desired outcome. The following criteria will be applied in determining equipment operations: a. Frozen soil operations are permitted where operated vehicles, tractors and equipment can travel without sinking into soil or landing surfaces to a depth of more than 2 inches for a distance of more than 25 feet. Temperatures must also remain low enough to preclude thawing of the soil surface. b. For over-snow operations, maintain approximately 12 inches of compacted snow/ice on undisturbed ground, and 6 inches of compacted snow/ice on existing disturbed surfaces. c. For over-the-snow and frozen soil operations, exclude ground based equipment from the 25 foot buffer around perennial and intermittent channels. d. When adequate snow or frozen soil conditions are not present, temporary crossings on intermittent or ephemeral channels may be approved on a case by case basis through agreement between the Contract Administrator and watershed specialist. These crossings shall not result in bank damage, water quality impairment, or obstructed flows. Landings 13. Locate landings outside SEZs where operationally feasible. Prohibit fuel storage and refueling in SEZs. Procedures and spill prevention control measures for hazardous materials of any amount are included in project contract clauses. 14. Hazardous materials, including diesel fuels and gasoline, will be transported, stored and handled outside of SEZs. Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plans will be prepared, if the quantities used require them. 15. Proper drainage from landings will be provided during use; ditching, sloping, and water bars or other BMP’s may be used where needed as recommended by watershed specialist to disconnect runoff from surface water features. 16. Restore landings in upland areas after operations are complete using the following methods, as determined by the LTBMU Watershed Specialist: a. Providing ground cover, such as slash, wood chips or masticated material (spread no more than 6-inches deep). b. Ditching, sloping, and water bars may be used where needed as recommended by watershed specialist to disconnect runoff from surface water features. c. Landings will be ripped to approximately a 12-inch depth after ground cover has been spread followed by reseeding with native species. Ripping is not permitted in known infestations of noxious weeds, and may not be possible in rocky soils; this determination may be made by the Contract Administrator.

17. Landings within SEZs will be subsoiled to a 12 inch depth, seeded with a native seed mix of grasses, forbs, and shrubs, and covered with native meadow mowing clippings rather than chip or slash. Transportation 18. Road improvements will be needed for mechanical treatments on Roads 14N42 and 14N44. These roads are currently in level 1 maintenance status (dormant). During project implementation, road maintenance level will change to level 2 and returned to level one when the project is complete. 19. New temporary roads will be out sloped or other drainage structures installed to ensure for proper drainage. These temporary roads would be obliterated and returned to natural condition after implementation is complete. Temporary roads will not be overwintered. Existing roads and trails would be utilized as fire lines to minimize new ground disturbance. 20. All temporary roads would be returned to their original conditions under the ATMs (e.g. Forest Service trails used as temporary roads would be returned to trail width). All drainage structures will be removed and natural drainage patterns will be re-established. 21. Temporary road segments in SEZs would be subsoiled to a 12 inch depth, seeded using a native seed mix and mulched with native meadow mowings. 22. Roads will be watered for dust abatement according to Forest Service Handbook 2409.15. Determination of dust abatement will be made by contract administrator. The purpose of dust abatement is to control road surface loss, provide for road user safety, and minimize impact to adjacent resources and neighborhoods. 23. Construction will occur between May 1 and October 15 to the maximum extent possible. If grading or movement of soil becomes necessary between October 16 and April 30, a standard grading exception request will be submitted to TRPA.

Operation and Implementation 24. During implementation, project work (tree removal and thinning activities) would be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday (excluding holidays). Tree cutting activities would not take place within 300 feet of residences. Exceptions are approved by the Contract Administrator and include the following: a. Vehicle or equipment maintenance/repairs. b. Weekend work in order to finish up a treatment area in a timely manner, or stabilize an area prior to equipment move out and prior to upcoming storm events (e.g. grading season deadlines). c. If fire restrictions limit operating times, extended work hours may be approved

25. Treated material not removed from the site will be lop and scattered to a depth of 6 inches. This material will then be disposed of by broadcast burning. 26. Stumps from live conifer trees, with the exception of incense-cedar, greater than 14 inches in diameter within mechanical treatment areas, will be treated with an EPA registered borate compound, for the prevention of the spread of annosus root disease (Fomes annosus). The compound will be applied by hand in an approved granular or liquid form to cut stumps within the effective timeframe.

Prescribed Fire 27. Existing roads and trails will be used as fire line to the extent feasible. When line construction is necessary it will be completed with hand tools, to the minimum width and depth necessary to hold the fire. Minimum Impact Suppression Techniques (MIST) will be used. All line will be rehabilitated by pulling any berms created back into the line and creating water bars where necessary. Prior to construction of fire lines in meadow areas, consultation with Watershed Specialist will occur to determine the appropriate construction and decommissioning techniques to avoid soil and water quality impacts. 28. No ignitions will take place within identified stream corridors (i.e. within 50 feet of perennial and intermittent streams), fire will be allowed to back into these corridors. Ignitions may take place within SEZs if necessary to facilitate fire spread through the area.

Wildlife and Fish 29. For treatments within aspen stands: • Woody slash should be removed to allow sunlight to reach the forest floor, unless a prescribed fire is planned to stimulate additional suckering. In the latter case, only scattered branches and tops should be left (broadcast burning of heavy fuel loadings may generate sufficient heat to kill too many shallow aspen roots and result in poor suckering). • Prescribed burn activities in meadows and aspen stands are desired; however, they should be designed to protect existing late seral vegetation (e.g., willow along streams and within meadows, as well as larger overstory aspen trees). 30. Leave 3 large diameter trees per acre (e.g., large coarse woody debris) on the ground, including recently felled trees, without exceeding the desired fuel load. Emphasize retention of wood in the largest size classes and in decay classes 1, 2, and 3. Consider the effects of follow-up prescribed fire in achieving desired down woody material retention levels (SNFPA 51.10). 31. Where thinning occurs, Jeffrey/ponderosa pine and cedar would be favored for retention, as well as desired riparian species, such as aspen and willow.

32. Within the project area report any sightings of large sticks nests or dens with recent signs of activity to the Forest Biologist. Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) are currently not required, but can be implemented at the discretion of the Forest Biologist. 33. Leave four of the largest standing snags per acre. Snags should be clumped and distributed irregularly across the treatment units (SNFPA 51.11). 34. Retain some mid- and large diameter live trees that are currently in decline, have substantial wood defect, or that have desirable characteristics (teakettle branches, large diameter broken top, large cavities in the bole) to serve as future replacement snags and to provide nesting structure (SNFPA 51.11). 35. Prior to project implementation, surveys for willow flycatchers would be conducted to determine the locations of any active nest. If nests are found, they will be protected in accordance with the SNFPA (2004) which prohibits thinning, prescribed fire, and restoration activities within suitable habitat surrounding the active nest sites between June 1 and August 31.

36. Use directional falling to keep felled trees out of intermittent and perennial streams unless the channel reach is identified as deficient in large woody debris, in which case a FS Fisheries Biologist shall select trees greater than 12 in DBH to be felled directionally into the channel. 37. Leave existing downed trees and LWD that are in perennial or intermittent stream channels in place unless channel stability needs, as determined by an LTBMU Fisheries Biologist and/or hydrologist, dictate otherwise (LRMP STD/GD 15).

Rare Plants: These measures are designed to protect unique plant populations and/or habitat from damage. 38. An LTBMU botanist will be notified if any R5 sensitive plant or LTBMU special interest species is identified during project implementation. Depending on the species, design features may need to be implemented. Design features could range from avoidance or may allow project activities to occur within the population or within a buffered area around the population. It is recognized that restoration activities may require short term impacts, however some species may be able to withstand these short term impacts, or in some cases these may improve the populations. • Scutellaria galericulata, a LTBMU special interest species, was identified in the project area and will be monitored pre and post project implementation. This is the only targeted rare plant species that was identified in the project area. This species has a state rank of S2 (imperiled) and a CA Rare plant rank of 2.2 (rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere fairly endangered in California). Project activities will be allowed to occur within this population, because this project is expected to improve habitat for this species. Butte et al. (2003) found that this species increased in abundance at burn sites. They

hypothesized the increased population was a result of increased light from removal of the canopy.

Non-native Invasive Plant Species: These measures are intended to protect the native plant and animal species and associated habitat that are unique to the project area. The project design measures will be implemented to control impacts due to invasive weeds.

39. Known weed infestations will continue to be monitored and surveyed for new occurrences in portions of the project area with focus on temporary roads and landings prior to implementation. Weed infestations within the treatment area or along travel routes associated with the project area will be treated using approved methods, or flagged and avoided according to the species present and project constraints. Staging areas (e.g., for equipment, materials, or crews) will not be located in weed infested areas. As of 2011 surveys, the only invasive species known to occur in the project area is Bromus tectorum. 40. All off-road equipment used on this project will be washed before moving into the project area to ensure that the equipment is free of soil, seeds, vegetative material, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds of invasive weeds. Off-road equipment includes all logging and construction equipment and brushing equipment such as brush hogs, masticators, and chippers; it does not include log trucks, chip vans, service vehicles, water trucks, and pickup trucks. Equipment will be considered clean when visual inspection (by contract administrator) does not reveal soil, seeds, plant material, or other such debris. When working in known weed-infested areas, equipment will be cleaned before moving to other NFS lands that do not contain invasive weeds. 41. All earth-moving equipment, gravel, fill, or other materials are required to be weed- free. Sand, gravel, rock, or organic matter from an approved onsite source will be used. 42. Road and trail staging areas and landings would be only as large as needed for safe operation. Staging areas will be re-vegetated to discourage the establishment of invasive weeds. LTBMU specialists will determine sites which need re-vegetation. 43. Weed-free mulches and seed sources will be used. Topsoil from the project area will be salvaged for use in onsite revegetation when possible, unless contaminated with invasive weeds. All activities that require seeding or planting must utilize locally collected native seed sources when possible. Plant and seed material should be collected from or near the project area, from within the same watershed, and at a similar elevation when possible. Persistent non-natives such as cultivated timothy (Phleum pratense), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), or ryegrass (Lolium spp.) will not be used. This requirement is consistent with the Forest Service Region 5 policy that directs the use of native plant material for revegetation and restoration for maintaining “the overall national goal of conserving the biodiversity, health, productivity, and sustainable use of forest, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems.” Seed mixes will be approved by an LTBMU botanist.

44. Disturbed sites where infestations of invasive plants are likely to become established will be revegetated. Revegetation with plants native to the area would occur at landings, staging areas, and other highly disturbed sites to reduce risk of invasion from nonnative invasive species. Revegetation could include tilling, mulching, plantings, watering, and seeding with native shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Sites would be evaluated for revegetation needs based on future use of site, extent of disturbance, accessibility, and similar parameters.

Air Quality 45. A burn plan will be prepared and reviewed by Fire Management Officer and the Forest Supervisor. In addition to the burn plan a Smoke Management Plan will be prepared, which is the basis for obtaining a burn permit from the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District. In order to minimize the effects of prescribed burning on air quality, identify monitoring, mitigation, and contingency measures in the Smoke Management Plan. Require desirable meteorological conditions, such as favorable mixing layer and transport wind speeds, in the Smoke Management Plan to facilitate venting and dispersion of smoke from populated areas.

Scenic 46. Accomplish meadow restoration, and stand improvement work in a manner that closely duplicates the existing lines, forms, colors, and textures of the surrounding landscape character, to the extent practical.

47. Minimize cut stump heights. Stump heights will not exceed six inches measured from the uphill side.

Recreation

48. Prepare a Project Implementation Plan to ensure that all potential effects to recreationists and users are minimized through a well-planned schedule. The Plan will address the following phases and requirements: A. Pre-Implementation Phase d. Develop a Communication and Sign Plan that includes signage posted at the access road and trailhead, as well as other trailheads from which Wilderness users might access the area, that describe the purpose of the project and safe travel suggestions. Ensure permitting locations for Desolation Wilderness (including the William Kent campground, Pacific Ranger District, Taylor Creek Visitor Center, and LTBMU Supervisors Office, are informed regarding project activities and potential short-term road closures.

e. Post project information and potential effects to Desolation Wilderness access on the LTBMU and Eldorado National Forest public websites, as well as the Pacific Crest Trail Association website as soon as project implementation schedule is known. B. Construction Phase f. Due to potential safety hazards to the public inherent in the project process, implement the following strategies: establish a Desolation Wilderness trailhead bypass trail on existing disturbed areas in conjunction with project phasing, or provide safety escorts for recreation users to maintain public access to and from the Wilderness via the trailhead. If the Forest Supervisor determines that safe access to the trailhead cannot be provided temporary Forest Closures may be issued. Adequately post any temporary closures with signage that meets Forest Service design standard guidelines. Cultural Resources 49. Recorded Cultural sites will be flagged and avoided by project activities. 50. If previously unidentified Cultural sites are discovered during planning activities, work in the area and the Heritage Program manager will be notified to recommend a course of action.

MONITORING:

The following bulleted list of monitoring is to be carried forward as part of project implementation.

 Each year, the LTBMU completes evaluations for the Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP), as part of the Pacific Southwest Region’s effort to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs created for protecting soil and water resources associated with timber, engineering, recreation, grazing, and revegetation activities. During the spring, fuel treatment units that were treated the previous field season are evaluated for BMP implementation and effectiveness. The Meeks Meadow Restoration Project BMPs would be included in the pool for random BMP evaluations under the BMPEP program.

 Implementation monitoring in fuels treatment areas would include completing a checklist to determine if soil and water related BMPs and resource protection measures were implemented as described in the NEPA and contract documents. Implementation monitoring for select BMPs would occur prior to a large storm event (1 inch or greater forecasted). A watershed or transportation specialist would review project BMPs on the ground and notify contract administrator if additional BMPs are recommended on active units to disconnect runoff from surface water features.

 The LTBMU botanist would be notified after fuels reduction, aspen stand improvement, meadow restoration, and road trail projects are completed of any project activities that occur in known invasive plant sites. Known invasive weed infestations within the project

area would be monitored following project implementation to ensure additional weed species do not become established in the areas affected by the project and to ensure that known weeds do not spread.

 Re-vegetated sites as identified in project resource protection measures would be monitored for 3 years post-implementation, as funding allows, to evaluate whether revegetation is successful or whether there is a need for further revegetation.

 Browns transects will be located in the five established vegetative trend transects to monitor fuel loading effects on vegetation. The transects will be monitored pre and post broadcast burn implementation.

PERMITTING:

• California Air Resources Board regulates prescribed burning in California in accordance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Prescribed burning in this project will coordinate with the State and follow the SIP to protect air resources; including obtaining and following air quality permits.

• Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQB) is aware of and anticipating collaboration on this project. The Forest Service conducted a field walk with LRWCQB staff on July 27, 2011 and August 2, 2012. Forest Service staff will work with LRWQB to ensure that all appropriate permits are obtained. These may include a Basin Plan prohibition exemption for work within an SEZ and General Waste Discharge Requirements 91-31 before implementation of the Camp Wasiu clean-up, which will include the removal of concrete foundations in the SEZ.

• Current Timber Waiver at time of implementation or project level permits if needed.

• TRPA is aware of and anticipating collaboration on this project. Forest Service staff conducted a field walk with TRPA staff on July 27, 2011. No concerns were identified during the field walk. A letter of Threshold of Compliance is expected.

REASONS FOR CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION:

CEQ regulations allow Federal agencies to exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) categories of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, based on the agency’s experience and knowledge. I have determined that this proposed action fits under the following category per Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1909.15): Chapter 31.2 - Categories of Actions for Which a Project or Case File and Decision Memo Are Required, Category (6) Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction [36 CFR 220.6 (e)(6)].

EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES:

This project is Categorically Excluded because no extraordinary circumstances exist potentially having effects which may individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This is based on the following:

1. Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species

The potential effects of this decision on listed wildlife, fish, and plant species have been analyzed and documented in a Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological Evaluation (BE). No threatened or endangered species occur within the project area. There is no proposed or designated Critical Habitat within the project area. There is physical habitat for Lahontan Cutthroat trout (LCT) in the area, however presence of nonnative trout species make this habitat unsuitable for LCT. The Meeks Creek Meadow Restoration Project will not affect the LCT.

Project design features, described in this memo, are intended to minimize potential effects to sensitive species. The proposed action, including these design features, may allow for minimal impact to some individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for any sensitive species. Effects to wildlife, aquatic and sensitive plant resources are discussed in the Wildlife and Aquatic Species BE/BA and in the Sensitive Plant BE, which are found in the project record.

2. Floodplains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds

Floodplains: Executive Order 11988 is to avoid adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Floodplains are defined by this order as, “. . . the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters include flood prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent [100-year recurrence] or greater chance of flooding in any one year.”

The project area contains floodplains. This has been validated by map and site-review. To ensure that floodplain-related impacts are minimized, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be incorporated. These BMPs are identified in Appendix B. Project resource protection measures will also reduce the potential for impacts from mechanical treatments on floodplains. The potential effects from the proposed action have been evaluated and will not result in extraordinary circumstances. Effects of this project are expected to have a positive impact on floodplains.

Wetlands: Executive Order 11990 is to avoid adverse impacts associated with destruction or modification of wetlands. Wetlands are defined by this order as, “areas inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or will support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.

Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds.”

There are no swamps, bogs, sloughs, potholes, or mud flats in the project area. However, project activities occur in wet meadow habitats. This has been validated by map and site- review. This is a restoration project designed to improve meadow conditions. Project resource protection measures will reduce the potential for impacts from mechanical treatments and reduce the intensity of the prescribed fire when near stream courses or in wetlands. Riparian areas are adapted to frequent disturbances, and are expected to recover rapidly.

Municipal Watersheds: There are no municipal watersheds located within the project area.

3. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas

The project area is not located in a congressionally designated area.

4. Inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness area

Approximately 21 acres of Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) occurs adjacent to the project boundary. No implementation activities will occur in the IRA.

The project area is not located in a potential wilderness area.

5. Research Natural Areas

The project is not located within a Research Natural Area.

6. American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites

Washoe Elders and tribal members have been consulted in planning this project. The Forest Service conducted a field walk with Washoe tribe staff on July 27, 2011. Surveys R2008051900022 and R2011051900091 (see Heritage Report) were conducted for archaeological sites and historic properties in September 2008 and August 2011. No American Indian religious or cultural sites within the project area were detected.

7. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas

Surveys R2008051900022 and R2011051900091 (see Heritage Report) were conducted for archaeological sites and historic properties in September 2008 and August 2011. Identified Cultural sites will be flagged and avoided by project activities.

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS:

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

This Act requires the development of long-range land and resource management plans (Plans). The Lake Tahoe basin Management Unit Land and Resource Management Plan was approved in 1988 as required by this Act. It has been amended several times, including the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, (2004). The amended plan provides for guidance for all natural resource management activities. The Act requires all projects and activities are consistent with the Plan. Therefore, a forest plan consistency analysis of standards and guidelines and management areas was completed for the project. The project is consistent with management direction in the Forest Plan.

Endangered Species Act

Threatened and endangered species and critical habitat are addressed under the extraordinary circumstances section of this document.

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)

Wetlands are addressed under the extraordinary circumstances section of this document.

Floodplains (Executive Order 11988)

Floodplains are addressed under the extraordinary circumstances section of this document.

Noxious Weeds (Executive Order 13112)

Executive Order 13112’s intent is to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. A weed assessment was completed for the project and design features were included in the proposed action to reduce the potential introduction and/or spread in invasive plant species within the project area.

Sensitive Species (Forest Service Manual 2670)

The Manual direction requires analysis of potential impacts to sensitive species, those species for which the Regional Forester has identified population viability is a concern; the project biological review contains the sensitive species list. Potential effects have been analyzed and documented in BE’s.

Clean Water Act

This Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of waters. The Forest Service complies with this Act through the use of BMPs (see Appendix B). This decision incorporates BMPs to ensure protection of soil and water resources. In addition, hydrological and soil field assessments were completed to determine site specific BMPs and project resource protection measures. Forest

Service staff collaborated with LRWQCB staff to satisfy water quality regulations within the Lake Tahoe basin that are specific to this project.

Clean Air Act

Under this Act areas of the country were designated as Class I, II, or III airsheds for Prevention of Significant Deterioration purposes. Impacts to air quality have been considered for this decision. Class I areas generally include national parks and wilderness areas. Class I provides the most protection to pristine lands by severely limiting the amount of additional human-caused air pollution that can be added to these areas. The remainder of the Forest is classified as Class II airsheds. Any prescribed burning in this decision will coordinate with CARB to protect air resources; including obtaining and following air quality permits. However, because of the small scale of this project, no impacts to air quality are expected.

National Historic Preservation Act

Surveys were conducted September 2008 for Native American religious or cultural sites, archaeological sites, and historic properties or areas that may be affected by this decision. In a letter dated October 19, 2009 the Office of Historic Preservation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, concurred with the Forest Service finding that Camp Wasiu is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. No other sites were identified in the project areas.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:

This project was listed on the LTBMU’s Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) on April 1, 2009.

Scoping period began on June 22, 2012 and ended on July 23, 2012. Public scoping included mailing 48 scoping letters to interested parties. Additionally, the scoping package including the proposed action was posted on the LTBMU website. Two letters and two phone calls were received. A response to all comments can be found in the project record (see section C1).

Responses were generally supportive. In most cases responses were requesting more detailed information or clarification on portions of the proposed action. The Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada were in support of the proposed action. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency did not respond; however, were informed and supported project efforts during the field trip on July 27, 2011. This field trip also included staff from both Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB). An additional field trip was taken on August 2, 2012 with members of the Interdisciplinary Team and staff from LRWQCB.

IMPLEMENTATION DATE: June 2013, dependent on funding and ground conditions.

CONTACT PERSON: For additional information on this project contact:

Sarah Muskopf, Project Leader Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 35 College Dr. South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

Phone: (530) 543-2835 Email: [email protected].

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES:

A comment period is being provided pursuant to the March 19, 2012 order issued by the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Case No. CV F11-679LJO DLB. Only those who provide comments during this comment period will be eligible to appeal the decision pursuant to 36 CFR 215. Any individual or representative from an organization submitting comments must either sign the comments or verify identity upon request in order to maintain appeal eligibility.

How to Comment and Timeframe

Written, facsimile, hand-delivered, oral, and electronic comments concerning this action will be accepted for 30 calendar days following the publication of a legal notice in the Tahoe Daily Tribune. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the comment period for this proposal. Those wishing to comment should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. The regulations prohibit extending the length of the comment period.

Written comments must be submitted to: Nancy Gibson, Forest Supervisor, 35 College Drive, Re: Meeks Creek Meadow Ecosystem Restoration Project, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered comments are: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

Oral comments must be provided at the Responsible Official’s office during normal business hours via telephone (530) 543-2600 or in person. Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to [email protected] using Subject: Meeks Creek Meadow Ecosystem Restoration Project. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to a comment, a verification of identity will be required for appeal eligibility. If using an electronic message, a scanned signature is one way to provide verification. It is the responsibility of persons providing comments to submit them by the close of the comment period. Individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible to appeal must meet the information requirements of 36 CFR 215.6.

Literature Cited: Burcham, L.T. 1970. Ecological significance of alien plants in California grasslands. Proceedings of the Association of California Geographers 11: 36-39.

Carter, V. 1986. An overview of the hydrologic concerns related to wetlands in the United States. Canadian Journal of Botany 64: 36-39. Cody, T. and S. Norman. 2011. Roundhill Fuels Reduction Project Soil Quality Monitoring Report. USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit.

Debinski, D.M., M.E. Jakubauskas, and K. Kindscher. 2000. Montane meadows as indicators of environmental change. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 64: 213-225.

Hagberg, T. 1995. Relationships between hydrology, vegetation and gullies in montane meadows of the Sierra Nevada. Master’s thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata.

Johnston, C.A. 1991. Sediment and nutrient retention by freshwater wetlands. Critical Reviews of the Environmental Control 21: 491-565. Johnston, C.A. 1993. Material fluxes across wetland ecotones in northern landscapes. Ecological Applications 3: 424-40.

Kattelmann, R., and Embury, M. 1996. Riparian areas and wetlands. In Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to congress, Volume 3, Assessments, commissioned reports, and background information, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis, California.

Menke, J.W., C. Davis, and P. Beesley. 1996. Public rangeland / livestock grazing assessment. In Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to congress, Volume 3, Assessments, commissioned reports, and background information, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis, California.

Norman S. 2008. Heavenly SEZ Fuels Reduction Project Monitoring Report. USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit.

Ratliff, R.D. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: state of knowledge. General Technical Report PSW-84. Berkeley: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

TRPA. 2002. Final draft Threshold Evaluation Report. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Zephyr Cove, NV.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2011. Water quality management handbook. Best Management practices. Vallejo, CA: USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. 261p.

USFS. 1992. Forest Service Handbook. Forest Service Timber Sale Administration Handbook. Washington, DC. Accessed via World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us /cgi- bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2409.15.

USFS. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final supplemental Environmental Impact Decision. Record of Decision. Publication R5-MB-046. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

Wagoner, L. 1886. Report on forests of the counties of Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa. In First biennial report of the California State Board of Forestry for the years 1885-1886, 39-44. Sacramento: State Board of Forestry.

Weixelman, D. G. Bakker, and J.A. Fites. 2003 USFS Region 5 Range Monitoring Project 2003 Report. Unpublished Report. Adaptive Management Services, USDA Forest Service, Nevada City, CA.

Appendix A: Soil Moisture Texture Matrix (Field Guide to Soil Moisture Conditions Relative to Operability of Mecahnical Equipment)

Soil Textural Group and Moisture Conditions

Coarse Soils Light Soils Med. Soils (<35% clay) Soil Moisture % Loamy sands, fine Fine sandy loams, Sandy clay loam, Heavy Soils (>35% clay) Increases sand loam, very fine sandy loams, very loam, silt loam, sandy Clay loam, sandy clay, Downward sands, coarse sands fine sandy loam clay loam, clay loam silty clay loam, clay Dry soils Dry, loose, single Dry, loose, flows thru Powdery, dry, Hard, baked, cracked grained flows thru fingers sometimes slightly sometimes has loose fingers crusted but breaks crumbs on surface down into powdery conditions Moist soil Still appears dry, will Still appears to be Somewhat crumbly, Somewhat pliable; will not form a ball with dry; will not form a but will hold together form ball under pressure ball from pressure pressure. At plastic limit. Moist soil Still appears dry, will Tends to ball under Forms a ball and is Easily ribbons out not form a ball with pressure but very pliable, sticks between fingers, has a pressure seldom will hold readily if high in clay. slick feeling. At plastic together limit. Very moist soil Tends to stick together Forms a weak ball Forms a ball and is Easily ribbons out slightly, sometimes breaks easily, will very pliable, sticks between fingers, has a forms a very weak ball not stick. Plastic readily if high in clay. slick feeling. Exceeds limit or nonplastic. Exceeds plastic limit. plastic limit. Wet soils Upon squeezing, free Upon squeezing free Can squeeze out free Puddles and free water water may appear. Wet water may appear. water. Wet outline left forms on surface. Wet outline is left on hand. Wet outline left on on hand. outline left on hand. Nonplastic. hand.  Recommended not operable by USFS Regional Soil Scientist

Appendix B: Summary of Meeks Creek Meadow Ecosystem Restoration Project Best Management Practices (BMPs) Summarized from “Water Quality Management Handbook”, USDA Forest Service, Region 5, December 2011 Best Management Description Practice BMP 1.1: Timber Earth scientists or other trained individuals will evaluate onsite watershed characteristics and the Sale Planning Process potential environmental consequences of activities related to the proposed timber harvest (TSPP) activities. They will design the timber sale to include site-specific prescriptions for each area of water quality concern. BMP 1.2: Timber Earth scientists or qualified specialists will conduct a hydrologic and geologic survey of the area Harvest Unit Design affected by proposed harvest activities. Mitigations or changes needed to stabilize slopes or improve stream courses will be incorporated into the harvest unit design. BMP 1.4: Use of Sale The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) will identify and delineate water quality protection features, Area Maps (SAMs) such as the location of stream courses and riparian zones to be protected, wetlands to be for Designating Water protected, boundaries of harvest units, and roads where log hauling is prohibited or restricted, as Quality Protection part of the environmental documentation process. The Sale Preparation Forester will include Needs them on the SAM at the time of contract preparation. BMP 1.5: Limiting Limited operating periods will be identified and recommended during the TSPP by the IDT. the Operating Period Contractor must submit a general plan of operation which will identify planned periods for, and of Timber Sale methods of road construction, timber harvesting, completion of slash disposal, erosion control Activities work and other contractual requirements. The contractor will provide an annual schedule of anticipated activities. Limited operating period will be used to limit the purchaser’s operation to specified periods when adverse environmental effects are not likely. BMP 1.6: Protection The IDT will prepare plans and environmental documents, utilizing information provided from of Unstable Lands specialists trained and qualified to identify unstable areas. Where unstable lands are presently classified as suitable forest lands, the classification is changed to unsuitable forest lands, which will not be harvested until they can be harvested without irreversible adverse effects to soils, productivity, or watershed conditions.

Best Management Description Practice BMP 1.8: Streamside Roads, forwarder trails, landings and other timber harvesting facilities will be kept at a Management Zone prescribed distance from designated stream courses. Factors such as stream type, channel aspect, Designation channel stability, sideslope steepness, and slope stability will be considered in determining the activities limited within Streamside Management Zones (SMZs). Aquatic and riparian habitat, beneficial riparian zone function, and their condition and estimated response to the proposed timber sale will also be evaluated in designating the SMZ. BMP 1.9: Determine To minimize soil erosion and subsequent sedimentation and water quality degradation resulting Tractor Loggable from ground disturbance of logging systems. To determine tractor loggable ground, consider Ground physical site characteristics such as steepness of slopes and soil properties.

BMP 1.12: Log Landing locations proposed by the contractor or their representatives must be agreed to by the Landing Location Sales Administrator (SA). An acceptable landing will be evaluated according to a set of criteria that includes the following: the cleared or excavated size of landings should not exceed that needed for safe and efficient forwarding and loading operations; landing locations that involve the least amount of excavation and the least erosion potential will be selected; landings will be located in areas that will allow forwarding without crossing stream channels or causing direct deposit of soil and debris to the stream; landings will be located where the least number of forwarder trails and temporary roads will be required, and sidecast material can be stabilized without entering drainages; approaches will be as nearly level as feasible; and the number of forwarder trails entering a landing will be minimized. BMP 1.13: Erosion Equipment will not be operated when ground conditions are such that excessive damage will Prevention & Control result. Erosion control measures will be kept current, which means daily, if precipitation is Measures During likely, or at least weekly, when precipitation is predicted. Timber Sale Operations BMP 1.14: Special Where required by the contract, the purchaser will give adequate treatment by spreading slash, Erosion Prevention mulch, wood chips, or some other treatment (if agreed upon) on portions of roads, forwarder Measures on Disturbed trails, landings, or temporary road fills. This provision is to be used only for timber sales that Lands contain special soil stabilization problems that are not adequately treated by normal methods, such as landings in SEZs.

Best Management Description Practice BMP 1.15: Where soil has been severely disturbed and the establishment of vegetation is needed to control Revegetation of Areas accelerated erosion, the purchaser will be required to establish an adequate ground cover of grass Disturbed by Harvest or other vegetative stabilization measures approved by the USFS. Activities BMP 1.16: Log Timber Sale Contract (TSC) requirements provide for erosion prevention and control measures Landing Erosion on all landings, which will include provisions for proper drainage. After landings have served Prevention and purchaser’s purpose, the purchaser will ditch or slope the landings and may be required to rip or Control subsoil and make provisions for revegetation to permit the drainage and dispersal of water.

BMP 1.17: Erosion To protect water quality by minimizing erosion and sedimentation derived from skid trails, Control on Skid Trails erosion control measures are required on a skid trails, tractor roads, and temporary roads. Normally, such measures involve constructing cross ditches and water spreading ditches. The location of all erosion control measures are designated and agreed to on the ground by the SA. BMP 1.18: Meadow At a minimum, meadow protection requirements contained in Forest Land and Resource Protection Management Plans must be identified and implemented. Unauthorized operation of vehicular or other equipment in meadows or in protection zones is prohibited by the TSC. Damage to designated meadows and/or their associated protection zones will be repaired by the purchaser in a timely manner, as agreed to by the SA. Damage to a stream course or streamside management zone (SMZ) caused by unauthorized purchaser operations will be repaired by the purchaser in a timely and agreed upon manner. BMP 1.19: Stream Stream course protection principles including but not limited to the following will be carried out: course Protection location and method of stream course crossings must be agreed to by the SA prior to (Implementation and construction; all damage to stream courses, including banks and channels, must be repaired to Enforcement) the extent practicable; all debris generated by the project will be removed from stream courses in an agreed upon manner that will cause the least disturbance; water bars and other erosion control structures will be located to disperse concentrated flows and filter out sediments prior to entry into a stream course; and material from temporary road and forwarder trail stream course crossings will be removed and streambanks restored to the extent practicable.

Best Management Description Practice BMP 1.20: Erosion During the period of the TSC, the contractor will provide maintenance of soil erosion structures Control Structure constructed by contractor until they become stabilized, but not for more than 1 year after their Maintenance construction. After 1 year, needed erosion control maintenance will be accomplished using other funding sources under TSC provisions B6.6 and B6.66. BMP 1.21: “Acceptable” erosion control means only minor deviation from established objectives, so long as Acceptance of Timber no major or lasting damage is caused to soil or water. SAs will not accept erosion control Sale Erosion Control measures that fail to meet these criteria. Measures Before Sale Closure BMP 1.22: Slash Special slash treatment site preparation will be prescribed in sensitive areas to facilitate slash Treatment in Sensitive disposal without the use of mechanized equipment. Areas BMP 1.25: Once timber sales are sold, they are harvested as planned in the TSC. Occasionally, however, it Modification of will be necessary to modify a TSC due to new concerns about the potential effects of land Timber Sale Contract disturbance on a water resource. Where the project is determined to unacceptably affect watershed values, the appropriate Line Officer will take corrective actions, which may include contract modification. BMP 2.2: General Location, design and construction of roads will be agreed upon by the IDT in order to result in Guidelines for minimal resource damage. This includes design and location of drainage features and road Location and Design surfacing. of Roads BMP 2.3: Road Temporary road construction and road re-construction activities will be conducted during the dry Construction and season, when rain and runoff are unlikely and weather and ground conditions are such that Reconstruction impacts to soils and water quality will be minimal. This also includes construction of drainage structures, erosion control measures on incomplete roads prior to precipitation events, and providing groundcover or mulch on disturbed areas. The operator shall limit the amount of disturbed area at a site at any one time, and shall minimize the time that an area is left bare.

Best Management Description Practice BMP 2.4: Road Assess road maintenance needs periodically as it relates to water quality effects. Provide the Maintenance and basic maintenance required to protect the road and to ensure that damage to adjacent land and Operations resources is prevented. At a minimum, maintenance must protect drainage structures and runoff patterns. This also includes road surface treatments and drainage structure improvements as needed based on road use. BMP 2.7: Road Temporary roads will be decommissioned following their intended use. Decommissioning may Decommissioning include re-contouring or outsloping to return the road prism to near natural hydrologic function, blocking the road to vehicle access, removing crossings and restoring natural drainage, and stabilizing road surfaces with ripping and/or revegetation. BMP 2.8: Stream Crossing locations shall be identified by the IDT to limit the number of crossings to minimize Crossings disturbance to the waterbody. During crossing installation, minimize streambank and riparian area excavation, ensure imported fill materials are free of toxins and invasive species, divert streamflow around work site as needed, dewater work areas, and stabilize streambanks and other disturbed surfaces following crossing installation or maintenance. The diverted flows shall be returned to their natural stream course as soon as possible after construction or prior to seasonal closures. Restore the original surface of the streambed upon completing the crossing construction or maintenance. Provide soil cover on exposed surfaces and revegetate disturbed areas. Remove temporary crossings and restore waterbody profile and substrate when the need for the crossing no longer exists. BMP 2.9: Snow Where Forest Roads are used throughout the winter, the contractor will be responsible for snow Removal and Storage removal that will protect roads and adjacent resources. Snow berms will be installed in places that will preclude concentration of snowmelt runoff and that will serve to rapidly dissipate melt water. Snow berms will be removed where they result in accumulation or concentration of snowmelt runoff on the road and erosive fill slopes. Store snow in pre-approved areas where snowmelt will not cause erosion or deposit snow or other materials directly into surface waters. Modify snow removal procedures as necessary to meet water-quality concerns.

Best Management Description Practice BMP 2.11: Equipment Service and refueling sites shall be located away from wet areas and surface water. Operators are Refueling and required to remove service residues, waste oil, and other materials from National Forest land Servicing following completion of the project, and be prepared to take responsive actions in case of a hazardous substance spill, according to the SPCC plan.

BMP 2.13: Erosion Effectively plan erosion control measures to control or prevent sedimentation. Prior to initiation Control Plan of construction activities, prepare a general erosion control plan for limiting and mitigating erosion and sedimentation from land disturbing activities.

BMP 5.2: Slope Ground based equipment operation will be limited to slopes where corrective measures such as Limitations for water bars can be effectively installed to reduce gully and sheet erosion and associated sediment Mechanical production. Equipment Operations BMP 5.3: Tractor Mechanical equipment will be excluded from wetlands and meadows except for the purpose of Operation Limitation restoring wetland and meadow function. The target areas will be protected from mechanical in Wetlands and operations except when they are identified for treatment by trained and qualified personnel on Meadows the IDT. Specific protection measures will be established for each area that could incur adverse water quality impacts. BMP 5.4: On unstable soil surfaces resulting from project activities, revegetation with native seed and/or Revegetation of application of mulch may be required to protect water quality and minimize soil erosion. The Surface Disturbed onsite factors evaluated will include soil productivity, topography, and soil water holding Areas capacity. BMP 5.5: Disposal of The project IDT will determine the methods of debris disposal and/or placement of debris after Organic Debris treatment. Methods of disposal include: prescribed burning, chipping, mastication, lop and scatter, and mechanical harvesting/collection.

BMP 5.6: Soil To prevent compaction, gullying and rutting, mechanical equipment operations will be limited or Moisture Limitations excluded during wet soil conditions. for Mechanical Equipment Operations

Best Management Description Practice BMP 6.1: Fire and To reduce public and private losses and environmental impacts that result from wildfires and/or Fuel Management subsequent flooding and erosion, measures including the use of prescribed fire or mechanical Activities methods will be used to achieve defensive fuel profile zones, fuel reduction units, and fire suppression activities. BMP 6.2: To ensure water quality protection while achieving management objectives through the use Consideration of prescribed fires, prescription elements will include, but not be limited to, factors such as fire Water Quality in weather, slope, aspect, soil moisture, and fuel moisture. The prescription will include at the Formulating Fire watershed and subwatershed level the optimum and maximum burn block size, aggregated Prescriptions burned area, acceptable disturbance for contiguous and aggregate length for the riparian/SMZ, and maximum expected area covered by water repellent soils. BMP 6.3: Protection Implementation of techniques to prevent water quality degradation, maintain soil productivity, of Water Quality from and minimize erosion from prescribed burning. These techniques include: constructing water Prescribed Burning bars in fire lines, reducing fuel loading in drainage channels, and retaining or re-establishing Effects ground cover as needed to keep erosion of the burned site within the limits of the burn plan.

BMP 7.3: Protection To avoid adverse water-quality impacts associated with destruction, disturbance or modification of Wetlands of wetlands, activities and new construction in wetlands will not be permitted whenever there is a practical alternative. Factors relevant to the survival and quality of the wetlands, such as water supply, water quality, recharge areas, functioning of the wetland during flood and storm events, flora and fauna, habitat diversity and stability, and hydrologic function of riparian areas will be considered when evaluating proposed actions in wetlands. Ensure that all mitigating measures are incorporated into project plans and that the actions maintain the hydrologic and biologic functions of the wetland. BMP 7.4: Forest and To prevent contamination of waters from accidental spills, timber sale operators shall develop Hazardous Substance SPCC plans consistent with the Forest SPCC plan before operating within the National Forest Spill Prevention boundary which is approved by a forest engineer if the total oil products on site in above-ground Control and storage exceed 1,320 gallons, or if a single container exceeds capacity of 660 gallons. Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan

Best Management Description Practice BMP 7.7: If the Forest Supervisor determines that a particular resource or improvement needs protection Management by from use to preclude adverse water quality effects, activities that could result in damages to Closure to Use those resources or improvements may be excluded.

National Core BMP Regional BMP Fire-2 Use of Prescribed Fire 6.1 Fire and Fuel Management Activities 6.2 Consideration of Water Quality in Formulating Fire prescriptions 6.3 Protection of Water Quality from Prescribed Burning Effects Road-3 Road Location and Design 2.3 Road Construction and Reconstruction Road-4 Road Operations and Maintenance 2.4 Road Maintenance and Operations Road-5 Temporary Roads 2.3 Road Construction and Reconstruction Road-6 Road Storage and 2.7 Road Decommissioning Decommissioning Road-7 Stream Crossings 2.8 Stream Crossings Road-8 Snow Removal and Storage 2.9 Snow Removal and Storage Road-10 Equipment Refueling and Servicing 2.11 Equipment Refueling and Servicing Veg-1 Vegetation Management Planning 1.1 Timber Sale Planning Process 1.2 Timber Harvest unit Design Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control 1.5 Limiting the Operating Period of Timber Sale Activities 1.13 Erosion Prevention and Control Measures During Timber Sale Operations 1.14 Special Erosion Prevention Measures on Disturbed Lands 1.15 Revegetation of Areas Disturbed by Harvest Activities 1.17 Erosion Control on Skid Trails 1.20 Erosion Control Structure Maintenance 1.21 Acceptance of Timber Sale Erosion Control Measures Before Sale Closure 2.13 Erosion Control Plan Veg-3 Aquatic Management Zones 1.8 Streamside Management Zone Designation 1.18 Meadow Protection during Timber Harvesting 1.19 Stream course Protection 5.3 Tractor Operation Limitation in Wetlands and Meadows 7.3 Protection of Wetlands Veg- 4 Ground-Based Skidding and 1.9 Determine Tractor Loggable Ground Yarding Operations 5.2 Slope Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operations 5.6 Soil Moisture Limitations for Tractor Operations Veg-6 Landings 7.4 Forest Hazardous Substance Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan 1.12 Log Landing Location 1.15 Regeneration of Areas Disturbed by Harvest Activities

1.16 Log Landing Erosion Prevention and Control Veg-7 Winter Logging 1.5 Limiting the Operating Period of Timber Sale Activities Veg-8 Mechanical Site Treatment 5.6 Soil Moisture Limitations for Tractor Operations

Reference:

National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands; Volume1: National Core BMP Technical Guide, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FS-900a, April, 2012.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Handbook Southwest Region, December, 2011; Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Chapter 10- Water Quality Management Handbook.