CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction & Scoping Introduction 1-1 Physical/Biological Characteristics 1-2 Erosion Hazard 1-4 Geology/Soils 1-5 Climate/Precipitation 1-6 Vegetation/Land Cover 1-7 Fire 1-9 Water Quality/Quantity/Uses 1-9 Animal/Plant communities 1-14 Economy 1-15 Public and Agency Scoping 1-16 Initial Scoping 1-16 Final Objectives 1-27 Resource Issues 1-36 Desired Future Conditions 1-37 Chapter 2 Data Collection Assessment Plan 2-1 Issues/Objectives/Resources 2-1 Watershed Assessment Goals 2-9 Resource Assessment Themes 2-11 Assessment Approach 2-12 Data Assemblage Phase 1 First Generation GIS Products & System 2-15 US Forest Service 2-15 Additional First Generation Products 2-44 Phase 1 Conclusion 2-47 Phase 2 Second Generation GIS Products 2-47 Subwatershed Delineation 2-48 GIS-Based Subwatershed Analysis/Ranking 2-50 Watershed Assessments Geology 2-74 Soil-Water Routing 2-100 Channels 2-125 Erosion Hazard 2-140 Phase 3 Third Generation GIS Products 2-145 Placer County Fire Safe Council GIS Assessment 2-145 Greater Auburn Area FSC GIS Map Assessment 2-147 Placer Hills FSC GIS Map Assessment 2-148 Greater Colfax Area FSC GIS Map Assessment 2-149 Alta FSC GIS Map Assessment 2-150 Iowa Hill FSC GIS Map Assessment 2-151 Foresthill FSC GIS Map Assessment 2-152 GIS System 2-152 Additional Watershed Assessment and Data Analysis 2-153
Table of Contents Page 1 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Human History in the Watershed 2-153 Census Demographics 2-159 Biomass Utilization (Amesbury) 2-166 Hydrology Study (Humphrey) 2-186
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Introduction 3-1 Agency Review 3-1 Federal 3-2 US Forest Service (USFS) 3-2 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 3-8 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 3-13 State 3-17 California Department of Forestry (CDF) 3-17 Resource Conservation District (RCD) 3-21 Local 3-24 El Dorado County 3-24 Nevada County 3-36 Placer County 3-46 Stewardship Opportunities Common to All Agencies 3-65 Non-governmental Organizations 3-67 Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Introduction 4-1 Programmatic ARWG Stewardship Strategies 4-3 Landowner Component 4-3 Commercial/Business Component 4-6 Agency Component 4-9 Field Strategies 4-13 Firesafe Ecosystem 4-13 Sediment 4-24 Education 4-26 Data Management & Capacity-Building 4-30 Resource Inventory 4-33 Chapter 5 Pilot Projects Introduction 5-1 Pilot Project #1- Bunch Canyon 5-2 Bunch Canyon Pilot GIS Analysis 5-4 Applied Stewardship Strategies 5-7 Programmatic 5-8 Field 5-10
Table of Contents Page 2 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Pilot Project #2 - Upper Middle Fork American 5-13 Middle Fork Pilot GIS Analysis 5-16 Applied Stewardship Strategies 5-20 Programmatic 5-20 Field 5-22 Chapter 6 Evaluation/Monitoring Project Evaluation 6-3 Stewardship Program Objectives 6-3 Watershed Health/Conditions Objectives 6-6 Monitoring Implementation-Accomplishments to Date 6-9
Appendices 7 Appendix A Phase I GIS Soil-Water Routing Hand Calculations Appendix B Phase I GIS Available Water Capacity Appendix C Phase I GIS USFS Metadata Appendix D Phase II GIS ARWG Metadata example (each coverage or grid has metadata in ArcCatalog) Appendix E Placer Legacy Draft Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Resources Appendix F A Guide to Placer County Ecological Zones Appendix G A Watershed-Based Approach for Setting Conservation Priorities in Nevada County, CA Appendix H Biomass Utilization Background Material Forest-Sourced Biomass Utilization
Table of Contents Page 3 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
List of Maps & Figures
Map # Map Name Page Map 1-1 ARWG Area Shaded Relief Map 1-1 Map 1-2 Fifth Field Watershed Boundaries 1-2
Map 2-1 Change Detection 2-18 Map 2-2 Cities, Towns & Other Landmarks 2-21 Map 2-3 80-Ft Contour Interval 2-21 Map 2-4 Major Vegetation Covertypes 2-22 Map 2-5 Fire Frequency 2-25 Map 2-6 Bedrock Geology 2-27 Map 2-7 Government Administrative Boundaries 2-30 Map 2-8 Mining Sites and Features 2-30 Map 2-9 Placer Co. Prop. 204 Projects 2-31 Map 2-10 Quad Index 2-32 Map 2-11 Average Annual Precipitation 2-32 Map 2-12 Rain on Snow Zone 2-33 Map 2-13 Wilderness, Wild & Scenic Rivers and Roadless Areas 2-33 Map 2-14 Road System 2-37 Map 2-15 General Landscape Incision 2-39 Map 2-16 Streams 2-39 Map 2-17 Fifth Field Watershed Boundaries 2-41 Map 2-18 Road Density for Sixth Field Watersheds 2-43 Map 2-19 Relative Fast Runoff Potential 2-45 Map 2-20 Available Water Capacity I 2-45 Map 2-21 Delayed Runoff Potential [superceded by Map 2-45] Map 2-22 Groundwater Recharge [superceded by Map 2-46 and 2-47] Map 2-23 Erosion Hazard Potential [superceded by Map 2-52 & 2-54] Map 2-24 American River Region Calwater Watersheds & 500-Acre Subwatersheds 2-49 Map 2-25 American River Region: Watershed Zones 2-53 Map 2-26 American River Region: Subwatershed Scores 2-56 Map 2-27 American River Region: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 2-57 Report Areas of Late Successional Emphasis Map 2-28 American River Region: Blue Oak Woodlands 2-59 Map 2-29 American River Region: Mines in Subwatersheds 2-65 Map 2-30 American River Region: California Natural Diversity 2-67 Database Threatened and Endangered Species Map 2-31 American River Region: Mean Parcel Size 2-69 Map 2-32 American River Region: Subwatershed Road Density 2-70 Map 2-33 American River Region: Relative Road Density 2-70 Normalized by Ecological Zones Map 2-34 American River Region: Roads in Streamside Zones 2-70 Map 2-35 Geology II 2-74 and 2-83 Map 2-36 Generalized Watershed Incision 2-36 Map 2-37 Bedrock Permeability first approximation 2-86 Map 2-38 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Low-sulfide 2-92
Table of Contents Page 4 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
gold-quartz deposits Map 2-39 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Sulfide deposits, 2-92 kuroko type Map 2-40 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Copper 2-92 porphyry deposits Map 2-41 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Copper skarn deposits 2-93 Map 2-42 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Anthropogenic mercury 2-93 Map 2-43 Soils: Relative Direct Runoff Potential 2-111 Map 2-44 Soils: Available Water Capacity II 2-113 Map 2-45 Soils: Relative Subsurface Stormflow Runoff Potential 2-113 Map 2-46 Soils: Relative Groundwater Recharge Potential 2-115 Map 2-47 Potential Groundwater Recharge: Soil and Geologic 2-115 Parameters Map 2-48 Precipitation Regime 2-135 Map 2-49 Dominant Channel Forming Runoff Regime 2-135 Map 2-50 Dominant Channel Forming Runoff Regime: Global 2-135 Warming Scenario Map 2-51 Wildland Fire: Potential Intensity 2-140 Map 2-52 Erosion Hazard: Soil & Slope Parameters 2-141 Map 2-53 Precipitation Intensity: 2 year – 6 hour Storm 2-141 Map 2-54 Erosion Hazard: Soil & Precipitation Parameters 2-141 Map 2-55 Wildland Fire: Potential Erosion Hazard 2-142 Map 2-56 Placer County Fire Safe Councils: Vegetation Types 2-146 Map 2-57 Placer County Fire Safe Councils: Fuel Hazard Ranking 2-146 Map 2-58 Greater Auburn Area Fire Safe Council Base Map 2-147 Map 2-59 GAAFSC: Contour Map 2-147 Map 2-60 GAAFSC: Elevation Schematic 2-147 Map 2-61 GAAFSC: Fire History 2-147 Map 2-62 GAAFSC: Fuel Model ` 2-147 Map 2-63 GAAFSC: Fuel Hazard Ranking 2-147 Map 2-64 GAAFSC: Ownership 2-147 Map 2-65 GAAFSC: Placer County General Plan Zoning Designation 2-147 Map 2-66 Placer Hills Fire Safe Council: Base Map 2-148 Map 2-67 PHFSC: Contour Map 2-148 Map 2-68 PHFSC: Elevation Schematic 2-148 Map 2-69 PHFSC Fire History 2-148 Map 2-70 PHFSC: Fuel Model 2-148 Map 2-71 PHFSC: Fuel Hazard Rank 2-148 Map 2-71 PHFSC: Ownership 2-148 Map 2-73 PHFSC: Placer County General Plan Zoning Designation 2-148 Map 2-74 Greater Colfax Area Fire Safe Council: Base Map 2-149 Map 2-75 GCAFSC: Elevation Map 2-149 Map 2-76 GCAFSC: Historical Fires 2-149 Map 2-77 GCAFSC: Fuel Model 2-149 Map 2-78 GCAFSC: Fuel Hazard Ranking 2-149 Map 2-79 GCAFSC: Ownership 2-149 Map 2-80 GCAFSC: Placer County General Plan Zoning Designation 2-149 Map 2-81 Alta Fire Safe Council: Base Map 2-150
Table of Contents Page 5 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Map 2-82 AFSC: Elevation Schematic 2-150 Map 2-83 AFSC: Fire History 2-150 Map 2-84 AFSC: Fuel 2-150 Map 2-85 AFSC: Fuel Hazard Map 2-150 Map 2-86 AFSC: Ownership 2-150 Map 2-87 AFSC: Placer County General Plan Zoning Designation 2-150 Map 2-88 Iowa Hill Fire Safe Council: Base Map 2-151 Map 2-89 IHFSC: Elevation Schematic 2-151 Map 2-90 IHFSC: Historical Fires 2-151 Map 2-91 IHFSC: Fuel Hazard Ranking 2-151 Map 2-92 IHFSC: Fuel Model 2-151 Map 2-93 IHFSC: Ownership 2-151 Map 2-94 IHFSC: Placer County General Plan Zoning Designation 2-151 Map 2-95 Foresthill Fire Safe Council: Base Map 2-152 Map 2-96 FFSC: Elevation Schematic 2-152 Map 2-97 FFSC: Historical Fires 2-152 Map 2-98 FFSC: Fuel Model 2-152 Map 2-99 FFSC: Fuel Hazard Rank 2-152 Map 2-100 FFSC: Ownership 2-152 Map 2-101 FFSC: Placer County General Plan Zoning Designation 2-152 Map 2-102 Colfax and Placer Hills Fire Safe Councils: Census Population and Tracks versus Blocks 2-163 Map 2-103 Colfax and Placer Hills Fire Safe Councils: Census Data: Households per Block 2-164 Map 2-104 Colfax and Placer Hills Fire Safe Councils: Census Data: Households with presence of people over 65 years 2-165 Map 2-105 BestBet Map 1: Biomass Supply and Business Location Map 2-173 Map 2-106 BestBet Map 2: Biomass Modeling Results Map Bunch Canyon Assessment Area (Bunch Canyon Pilot) 2-173 Map 2-107 BestBet Map 3: Biomass Modeling Results Map PCWA Assessment Area (Upper MF Pilot 2-174 Map 2-108 BestBet Map 4: Biomass Modeling Results Map Firesafe Council Assessment Area 2-175 Map 2-109 BestBet Map 5: Potential Future Projects Within Assessment Area 2-177 Map 2-110 Middle Fork American River USGS Gage Station No. 11433300 River Basin Boundaries 2-189 Map 2-111 Sierra Nevada River Basins 2-189 Map 2-112 Climatological Stations and Snow Courses 2-189 Map 2-113 MFAR HRU Elevation Zones 2-189 Map 2-114 MFAR HRU Aspect 2-189 Map 2-115 MFAR HRU Soil Moisture Capacity 2-189 Map 2-116 MFAR Canopy Cover Types 2-189 Map 2-117 MFAR Star Fire Boundary 2-189
Map 5-1 Bunch Canyon Stewardship Pilot Project 5-2 Map 5-2 Bunch Canyon Stewardship Pilot Project Land Ownership 5-2
Table of Contents Page 6 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Map 5-3 Bunch Canyon: Fire History 5-2 Map 5-4 Bunch Canyon: Change in Vegetation Cover 5-2 Map 5-5 Bunch Canyon: Vegetation Type 5-2 Map 5-6 Bunch Canyon: Placer County General Plan Zoning 5-3 Map 5-7 Bunch Canyon: Geology (from Phase II) 5-4 Map 5-8 Bunch Canyon: Geology (from Phase I) 5-4 Map 5-9 Bunch Canyon: Generalized Water Incision 5-5 Map 5-10 Bunch Canyon: Relative Direct Runoff Potential 5-5 Map 5-11 Bunch Canyon: Available Water Capacity 5-5 Map 5-12 Bunch Canyon: Relative Subsurface Runoff Potential 5-5 Map 5-13 Bunch Canyon: Relative Groundwater Recharge Potential 5-5 Map 5-14 Bunch Canyon: Potential Groundwater Recharge: Soil and Geologic Parameters 5-6 Map 5-15 Bunch Canyon: Wildland Fire: Potential Intensity 5-6 Map 5-16 Bunch Canyon: Erosion Hazard; Soil and Slopt Parameters 5-6 Map 5-17 Bunch Canyon: Precipitation Intensity: 2-yr 6 hour Storm 5-6 Map 5-18 Bunch Canyon: Soil and Precipitation Parameters 5-6 Map 5-19 Bunch Canyon: Wildland Fire: Potential Erosion Hazard 5-6 Map 5-20 Bunch Canyon: Potential Anthropogenic Mercury Hazard 5-7 Map 5-21 Bunch Canyon: Potential Sulfide Deposits Hazard: Kuroko 5-7 Map 5-22 Bunch Canyon: Potential copper porphyry Hazards 5-7 Map 5-23 Bunch Canyon: Potential Hazards: Copper Skarn 5-7 Map 5-24 Bunch Canyon: Potential Hazards: low-sulfide gold-quartz 5-7 Map 5-25 Upper Middle Fork American River Ownership 5-13 Map 5-26 UMFAR: Geology 5-16 Map 5-27 UMFAR: Generalized Watershed Incision 5-16 Map 5-28 UMFAR: Soils: Relative Direct Runoff Potential 5-17 Map 5-29 UMFAR: Soils: Available Water Capacity 5-17 Map 5-30 UMFAR: Soils: Relative Subsurface Stormflow Runoff 5-17 Map 5-31 UMFAR: Soils: Relative Groundwater Recharge Potential 5-17 Map 5-32 UMFAR: Potential Groundwater Recharge: Soil and Geologic Parameters 5-17 Map 5-33 UMFAR: Wildland Fire: Potential Intensity 5-18 Map 5-34 UMFAR: Erosion Hazard: Soil & Slope Parameters 5-18 Map 5-35 UMFAR: Precipitation Intensity: 2 year – 6 hour Storm 5-18 Map 5-36 UMFAR: Erosion Hazard: Soil and Precipitation Parameter 5-18 Map 5-37 UMFAR: Wildland Fire: Potential Erosion Hazard 5-18 Map 5-38 UMFAR: Precipitation Regime 5-19 Map 5-39 UMFAR: Dominant Channel Forming Runoff Regime 5-19 Map 5-40 UMFAR: Dominant Channel Forming Regime: Global Warming Scenario 5-19 Map 5-41 UMFAR: Potential Low-sulfide gold-quartz Hazards 5-19 Map 5-42 UMFAR: Potential Sulfide Kuroko Hazards 5-19 Map 5-43 UMFAR: Potential Copper porphyry Hazards 5-19 Map 5-44 UMFAR: Potential Copper Skarn Hazards 5-19 Map 5-45 UMFAR: Potential Anthropogenic Mercury Hazards 5-19
Table of Contents Page 7 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Figures Page
Figure 1-1 California Department of Mines & Geology Erosion 1-5 Hazard Ratings Figure 1-2 Average Total Monthly Precipitation, Blue Canyon, CA 1-6 Figure 1-3 Precipitation by Weighted Average 1-7 Figure 1-4 Major Vegetation Types 1-8 Figure 1-5 Jurisdictional Dams – North Fork American 1-12 Figure 2-1 p. 110 Figure 2-2 p. 110 Figure 2-3 MFAR USGS Gage Water Year 1992 (Dry Year) 2-189 Figure 2-4 MFAR USGS Gage Water Year 1998 (Wet Year) 2-189 Figure 2-5 MFAR USGS Gage Water Year 2000 (Average Year) 2-189 Figure 2-6 Star Fire PRMS Model: Duncan Creek near near French Meadows; Water Year 1992 (Dry Year) 2-189 Figure 2-7 Star Fire PRMS Model: Duncan Creek near near French Meadows; Water Year 1998 (Wet Year) 2-189 Figure 2-8 Star Fire PRMS Model: Duncan Creek near near French Meadows; Water Year 2000 (Average Year) 2-189
Plates Plate 1 Poverty Bar on the middle Fork American River, 1858 2-154 Plate 2 Hydraulic Mining at Gold Run and Emigrant Gap 2-156
Table of Contents Page 8 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
CHAPTER 1 Introduction & Scoping
Introduction
This document is the result of three years of collaborative work among the members of the American River Watershed Group and other interested parties to collect data on the watershed, evaluate current conditions, and suggest potential strategies for improving watershed health in the North/Middle Fork American River watershed. Chapters 1 through 3 set the stage, identifying issues of concern, data needs and a framework for evaluation of the different subwatersheds that make up the North/Middle Fork American. In Chapter 4 the project team uses that data and evaluation material to design programmatic and field-level stewardship strategies for improving watershed health. Chapter 5 outlines how those strategies can be put into practice in two pilot projects, Bunch Canyon and the Upper Middle Fork. And Chapter 6 addresses how the project team can monitor and evaluate the overall project recommendations into the future. This report provides important background information and the beginnings of a framework for action in the watershed. However, it is meant to be a living document, changing over time as new data become available, as conditions change, and as various stewardship tools are tested and evaluated for relative success. The American River Watershed Group’s primary area of focus for this stewardship planning effort is the approximately 647,200-acre section of the American River watershed including the North and Middle Forks of the American River. It is the intent of the American River Watershed Group to use scientific data, public and agency input and a variety of voluntary stewardship strategies to help improve watershed planning and management in the North/Middle Fork American watershed. The watershed runs from its headwaters in Placer and El Dorado counties at the crest of the Sierra Nevada generally southwest to Folsom Reservoir at Folsom, California. For consistency with other studies and information, it is noted that the so- called North Fork American watershed, which includes the Middle Fork also, is identified by the U.S. Geological Survey’s watershed identification system as Hydrologic Unit #18020128,1 and all site-specific information contained in this report refers to that watershed unit. [See Map 1-1 ARWG Area Shaded Relief Map (HYPERLINK)]
1 “General Information-North Fork American,” California Rivers Assessment (CARA) website: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara/calwaterone.htm. Note: The primary method used to depict watersheds in the CARA Assessment is the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit developed by the United States Geological Survey Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-1 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The change in the watershed’s elevation from its headwaters west of Lake Tahoe [elev. 9,930 feet] to its inflow at Folsom Reservoir [elev. 490 feet] contributes to a wide range of land uses, soils/geology/vegetation types, population densities, species diversity, political jurisdictions and other characteristics within the watershed, all of which need to be understood in order to plan effectively for the future.
Physical/Biological Characteristics The North Fork American watershed is characterized by six major drainages, including the: 1. Upper North Fork American River; 2. Lower North Fork American River; 3. Upper Middle Fork American River; 4. North Middle Fork American River; 5. Lower Middle Fork American River, and; 6. Rubicon River. The Rubicon joins the Upper Middle Fork and North Fork of the Middle Fork drainages at Ralston Reservoir. The resulting Middle Fork joins the North Fork American at the confluence just outside of Auburn and, together, they flow into Folsom Reservoir. The South Fork American, a separate drainage south of the area of interest for this inventory, also flows into Folsom reservoir. The outflow from the reservoir, called the Lower American, joins the Sacramento River and then makes its way into the Delta and out into the Pacific Ocean. [See Map 1-2 Fifth Field Watershed Boundaries (HYPERLINK)] Each of these major drainages contains smaller stream systems broken down by topography using the CalWater system developed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and other state agencies. Based on the CalWater system, the North Fork watershed has a total of 78 sub-basins.2 Each of these can be further divided along topographic lines into many smaller sub-basins. Such breakdowns can be helpful in looking at information at finer detail, and can be especially helpful to specialists addressing resource management issues in smaller portions of the watershed. In describing the North Fork American River, the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Report (SNEP) offers the following information.
(USGS). Each Hydrologic Unit represents roughly an area between one-half and one million acres, and corresponds to the drainage of a coastal or main tributary river. 2 “Watershed Statistics-North Fork American,” California Rivers Assessment website: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara. Note: The California Rivers Assessment (CARA) is a computer-based data management system designed to give resource managers, policy-makers, landowners, scientists and interested citizens rapid access to essential information and tools with which to make sound decisions about the conservation and use of California's rivers. Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-2 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The North Fork American headwater area is characterized as a broad glaciated valley composed of several steep gradient tributaries surrounded by patches of forest interspersed with exposed granite bedrock…. The river below Serena Creek changes to a high gradient stream with numerous rapids and several falls 20-5- feet high in a V-shaped canyon. The canyon at Royal Gorge has depths up to 1,050 meters [3,445 feet]. Below the Gorge the gradient decreases and the river becomes more braided and meandering within a narrow alluvial valley. Red fir and mixed conifer forest is the dominate [sic] vegetation type in the upland area. The streambed widens to 100 feet in some places and contains extensive gravel beds. The canyon narrow than widens at Green Valley then closes again at Giant Gap, where the river becomes constricted by a narrow bedrock canyon. Oak woodland and chaparral are the dominant vegetation in the lower reaches.3 Native fishes, according to SNEP, include: rainbow trout, Sacramento sucker, Sacramento squawfish, hardhead, California roach, riffle sculpin, Chinook salmon and steelhead were once present but are now excluded by downstream dams. Amphibians include mountain yellow-legged frogs, reported in some areas; and other high interest vertebrates include Golden Eagle and Peregrine Falcon nesting areas in the upper canyon.4 The riparian zone is noted by SNEP as important due to its “very diverse group of plant communities along the river canyon.”5 Riparian vegetation consists of “dense overstory on the north facing slopes dominated by conifers and more sparse vegetation on the south facing slopes with canyon live oak as a common species. Unaltered red fir and yellow pine stands along the river canyon have been identified as California Natural Areas. CNPS [California Native Plant Society] lists Veronica cusickii as the only rare plant in the North Fork (1977) where it is found in high alpine meadows on north facing slopes. Remoteness of the canyon, unaltered flows and limited timber harvesting has resulted in little impacts to streamside vegetation.”6 In terms of human impacts, the SNEP Report indicates that the headwaters area has experienced relatively little impact due to rugged topography, limited access, few road crossings, and limited timber harvest or mining activity. Private landowners in The Cedars area have actively worked to protect the area, as well. And much of this portion of the North Fork falls within federal Wild & Scenic River designation or is protected through research areas, such as the University of California Natural Reserve System or the US Forest Service Onion Creek Experimental Forest, or through designated Natural Areas representing unaltered stands of red fir, yellow pine, meadow and riparian areas.7 Similar descriptions exist for the Rubicon River from its headwaters in Desolation Wilderness to the inlet to Hell Hole Reservoir.
3 Moyle, Peter B, Paul J. Randall, Ronald M. Yoshiyama, Chapter 9 “Potential Aquatic Diversity Management Areas in the Sierra Nevada,” Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, vol. III, Assessments, Commissioned Reports, and Background Information (Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996), pp. 19-20. 4 Ibid., p. 20. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-3 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The headwaters of the Rubicon begin in the Rockbound Valley of Desolation Wilderness Area, which was originally without fish. Steep gradient snowmelt tributaries flow into alpine lakes, which discharge their water into the river. The river is characterized by long runs and riffles with frequent pools. At the lower end of Rockbound Valley the flow is captured in part by Rubicon Reservoir and Rockbound Lake, which are connected by a tunnel. The river then drops into a steep, glaciated canyon with patches of late successional forests adjacent to the stream. Stream access is limited to foot trails for the entire drainage. The river eventually flows into Hell Hole Reservoir.8 According to SNEP, native fishes in the Rubicon include rainbow trout. Non- native brown trout and brook trout are also present. Mountain yellow-legged frogs also live in this watershed. The riparian zone along the Rubicon is narrow and coniferous due to the steepness of the canyon walls. The stream is partially regulated for power production, and recreational uses such as hiking, camping, and fishing are the main activities in the watershed. There is some logging and grazing present in parts of the watershed. Much of the watershed is in public ownership (Eldorado National Forest) with some private inholdings. The headwaters area is protected by wilderness designation, including the Desolation Wilderness and the Granite Chief Wilderness. And although the lower half of the river is partially regulated for hydropower, the flow regime is close to the one that originally existed, making this watershed a good example of a high alpine system fed by many small lakes.9
EROSION HAZARD According to the California Rivers Assessment (CARA), slope incidence coupled with amount of annual precipitation are primary factors in determining the relative stability/instability and erosion risk potential in different parts of the watershed. CARA is a project of the California Resources Agency and partners designed to provide GIS data and links to other watershed-based data sources for use by resource managers, policy-makers, landowners, scientists and interested citizens in making decisions about the use and conservation of California’s rivers. The CARA data show that more than two-thirds of the North Fork watershed has “moderate” to “very high” erosion potential based on slope. In fact, more than 39% of the watershed is in the “high to very high” category, which is defined as slopes greater than 15%.10 Other characteristics affecting erosion potential in the watershed include climate (timing, location, intensity of precipitation and/or snow melt), soil characteristics and ground cover. The California Department of Conservation’s Division of Mines & Geology (DMG) employs another method to rate forested watershed areas for erosion hazard. DMG’s rating system uses slope, concavity, groundwater, soil and bedrock data to delineate forested areas most prone to increases in sediment yield. Looking at sub-basins
8 Ibid., p. 21. 9 Ibid. 10 California Rivers Assessment: Assembling Environmental Data to Characterize California’s Watersheds, Joshua Viers, Michael C. McCoy, James F. Quinn, Karen Beardsley, and Eric Lehmer. 1998 ESRI User Conference Proceedings. Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-4 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
identified by the CalWater system, the North Fork American watershed has at least 15 sub-basins that have ratings of between 2 and 7 on a scale of 0 to 10. The headwaters of the Upper North Fork, near The Cedars, along with much of the area around the Rubicon, especially where it meets the Upper Middle Fork, appear to be the most erosion-prone areas based on this ranking system. Almost the entire length of the Upper North Fork from Emigrant Gap to below Iowa Hill is rated a 6. The two areas rated the highest – a ranking of 7 – are largely composed of private land.
FIGURE 1-1 California Department of Mines & Geology Erosion Hazard Ratings
GEOLOGY/SOILS According to information from the US Forest Service, much of the watershed is underlain with Tertiary pyroclastic rock and volcanic mudflow as well as Jurassic marine deposits. Other well-represented geologic types in the watershed include Mesozoic granitic rock, Mesozoic volcanic and metavolcanic rock, Paleozoic marine and glacial deposits. An uncommon formation in this watershed is the Mesozoic gabbroic rock11, which is very important since it typically underlies highly specialized and often rare or endangered species of plants.
11 California Division of Mines & Geology, GIS Geology layer, provided by Tahoe National Forest. Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-5 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Both climate and the weathering characteristics of underlying rock formations vary considerably throughout the watershed, leading to great variability in how and at what rate soil particles are loosened and then transported by flowing water in the erosion process.
CLIMATE/PRECIPITATION According to the California Rivers Assessment, levels of precipitation play a huge role in many factors affecting watershed health, including water levels in lakes and reservoirs, water temperature, and velocity of runoff. These factors, in turn, impact the rate and location of erosion in the watershed, as well as pollution runoff.12 Based on localized data collected from the Tahoe National Forest, the California Rivers Assessment database, and other sources, we know the following general information about the North Fork American watershed’s climate and precipitation: The majority of the watershed receives, on average, between 45 and 65 inches of precipitation a year. Precipitation data collected by the U.S. Weather Service over a 60-year period (from 1900-1960) shows an overall average of 58.72 inches per year.13 Based on precipitation data recorded by the Western Regional Climate Center from January 1, 1914 through December 31, 2000 (from Blue Canyon, California), precipitation in the watershed is heaviest during the winter months (December through February), tapers off during the spring (March through May), is virtually non-existent in the summer months (June through August), and picks up again in the fall (Sept. through Nov.). [See Figure 1-2] FIGURE 1-2 Average Total Monthly Precipitation, Blue Canyon, CA
Source: California Rivers Assessment: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara
12 California Rivers Assessment: Assembling Environmental Data to Characterize California’s Watersheds, Joshua Viers, Michael C. McCoy, James F. Quinn, Karen Beardsley, and Eric Lehmer. 1998 ESRI User Conference Proceedings. 13 “Watershed Statistics-North Fork American,” California Rivers Assessment website: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara. Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-6 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
However, actual amounts of precipitation differ from location to location within the watershed. For example, the southwestern-most part of the watershed receives annual averages as low as 23 inches per year, while the headwaters of the Middle Fork and the Rubicon drainages can see annual averages of between 65 and 75 inches. The headwaters of the North Fork get the highest, averaging as much as 85 inches a year. [See Figure 1-3]
FIGURE 1-3 Precipitation by Weighted Average Average Rainfall Units Watershed Area % Contribution (inches/year) (acres) 22.5 6,231 acres 1 % 27.5 18,500 acres 3 % 35.0 18,903 acres 3 % 45.0 99,827 acres 15 % 55.0 145,856 acres 23 % 65.0 271,367 acres 42 % 75.0 81,388 acres 13 % 85.0 5,095 acres <1 % TOTALS 647,167 acres 100 % Source: California Rivers Assessment: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara/precipitation.
A substantial amount of precipitation falls in the form of snow at higher elevations (generally above 5,000 feet). In the 4,000 to 5,000-foot range is what is known as a rain-on-snow zone. The snow zone and rain-on-snow zone are important to consider in watershed planning because they play a significant role in the timing and amount of spring run-off in the watershed’s many creeks, streams and rivers.
VEGETATION/LAND COVER Land cover composition and pattern can help land managers understand the impacts of land use, potential for erosion, which is an issue of concern to the American River Watershed Group, wildlife habitat associations and other information. According to the Tahoe National Forest, the North Fork American watershed is covered by eight major vegetation types, plus waterbodies, as shown in Figure 1-4.
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-7 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
FIGURE 1-4 Major Vegetation Types Major Vegetation Cover Type # of Acres % of Watershed Agricultural 185 < 1% Barren, Rock (<10% cover of any natural vegetation) 23,775 4% Conifer (>10% conifer as dominant type) 333,395 51% Hardwood (>10% hardwood as dominant type) 79,280 12% Herbaceous (>10% grass as dominant type) 10,485 2% Mixed Confer/Hardwood (>10% conifer & >20% hardwood cover) 131,095 20% Shrub (>10% shrub as dominant type) 55,820 8% Urban/Residential 1,915 <1% Water bodies 16,855 2% Source: Tahoe National Forest Major Vegetation Covertypes
These vegetation cover types are part of the CALVEG Classification System, a statewide system developed by the USDA Forest Service in Region 5, based on Landsat Thematic Mapper Imagery and other criteria, to serve as a standard for existing vegetation maps.14 By knowing the major or “dominant” vegetation type, such as conifer or shrub, land managers and others can predict what other plant species are likely to be in the area, based on known plant associations. These associations are referred to as “plant communities.” There are many other plant classification systems used by other agencies and entities. One such system is the Holland Community types system created by Robert Holland in 1986 and used by the Department of Fish & Game for its California Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB). The Holland system was created with the purpose of being a complete classification system for the state of California, including rarity ranking and conservation status elements within the hierarchy. There are 50 Holland community types represented in the North Fork American watershed.15 Another framework, the WHR, or Wildlife Habitat Relations Community Types, links wildlife species with specific vegetation types based on the habitat associated with those vegetation types. There are 26 WHR types in this watershed.16 Vegetation cover, including associated plant and animal communities, can be substantially impacted by various types of land use and other activities in the watershed, including development, timber harvesting, mining, and fire.
14 USDA Forest Service, CALVEG: A Classification of California Vegetation. Pacific Southwest Region, Regional Ecology Group, San Francisco, CA. 1981. 15 “General Information Regarding Holland Communities,” California Rivers Assessment: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara/hollandone.htm 16 “Watershed Statistics,” California Rivers Assessment: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara/community.asp?cara_id=55 Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-8 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
FIRE The combined North Fork/Middle Fork American watershed has a long history of fire, likely dating back to pre-history but with written records beginning in 1909. Fire frequency maps show areas in the watershed that have burned at least once, with some areas having burned three or four times since 1909. Recorded fires have been as small as the 3-acre Dark Canyon #5 fire in 192117 to the 42,598-acre Homestake Mine fire in 196018. Last year there were three major fires – the 2,448-acre Gap fire, the 16,500+-acre Star Fire and the 2,778-acre Ponderosa fire.19 Much of the fire activity takes place in the hardwood and mixed conifer zones, where efforts to manage vegetation in order to provide a slowing-down or stopping point should a fire break out are underway. The Councils also conduct residential inspections and work directly with landowners to make their properties as fire-safe as possible. Placer County, in conjunction with the American River Watershed Group, the Resource Conservation Districts and Fire Safe Councils, received funding through State Proposition 204 to conduct specific chipping, fuelbreak, thinning, meadow restoration and residential inspection projects in the watershed to help reduce fire risk.
WATER QUALITY/QUANTITY/USES Based on the California Department of Fish & Game, University of California at Davis and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s River Reach File system of identifying surface waterways in the continental U.S. and Hawaii, the North Fork American watershed contains 1,318 miles of naturally occurring waterways. Of these, some 1,100 miles are considered free-flowing, and 1,028 miles are ranked as perennial, meaning they flow basically year-round.20 In addition, the watershed encompasses 67 lakes and 11 first-order streams.21 The EPA’s Index of Watershed Health is another framework for assessing water resources in the watershed. Under the Watershed Health index, which assesses current watershed condition and future vulnerability, the North Fork watershed gets an overall rating of 3. This means that, based on the indicators for which there is sufficient data, the watershed appears to have “less serious problems” and generally “low vulnerability.”22 Under Current Condition indicators, only three of seven categories had enough data to generate a ranking. Those three categories and rankings include: Designated Use Attainment – Less Serious: based on state and tribal water quality standards for designated uses, ie: drinking water supplies, support of
17 Incident #CA1921ENF0064G200000 18 Incident #CA1960TNF00000000071 19 Gap Fire Incident #CA2001TNF00000014107; Star Fire Incident #CA2001ENF00000012745; Ponderosa Fire Incident #CA2001NEU00000014446. 20 “Watershed Statistics-North Fork American,” California Rivers Assessment: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara. 21 U.S. EPA “Surf Your Watershed,” Watershed Information, North Fork American. www.epa.gov/surf. 22 U.S. EPA Surf Your Watershed, Index of Watershed Indicators, North Fork American. www.epa.gov/iwi. Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-9 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
aquatic life, fish consumption, primary and secondary contact recreation (swimming, boating, etc.); Source Water Condition – Less Serious: condition of drinking water sources – rivers, lakes/reservoirs, groundwater; Wetland Loss Index – More Serious: percentage loss of wetlands over historic period (1870-1980) and more recently (1986-1996).23 The other Current Condition categories, none of which had enough data to produce a ranking, include Fish & Wildlife Consumption Advisories, Contaminated Sediments, Ambient Water Quality Data – Four Toxic Pollutants, and Ambient Water Quality Data – Four Conventional Pollutants. Under Vulnerability Indicators, which show where pollution discharges and other activities put pressure on the watershed, the North Fork received rankings in six out of nine categories, including: Aquatic Species at Risk – Moderate: assessment of conservation of plants and animals at greatest risk of extinction; Urban Runoff Potential – Low: potential for impacts from urban runoff based on percentage of impervious surfaces in the watershed (ie: roads, parking lots, rooftops, etc.); Index of Agricultural Runoff Potential – Low: composite index of a.) nitrogen runoff potential, b.) modeled sediment delivery to rivers, and c.) pesticide runoff potential; Population Change – High: population growth rate as a surrogate for many stress-producing activities from urbanization; Hydrologic Modification – High: relative reservoir impoundment volume behind dams in the watershed, as the impoundment process changes stream characteristics; Air Deposition – Low: based on National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network regarding nitrogen (NO3 and NH4) deposition estimates.24 Each category under the Vulnerability Index is assessed using different data available from a variety of national and regional data sources. The “Aquatic Species at Risk” category, for example, is scored based on data from the State agency-based Natural Heritage Network and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) who assess the conservation status of plants and animals and map out the population occurrences of those species at greatest risk of extinction. In the case of this category, the watershed is scored based on the number of documented aquatic or wetland-dependent species classified as critically
23 U.S. EPA Index of Watershed Indicators, “Current Conditions,” North Fork American, www.epa.gov/iwi. 24 U.S. EPA Index of Watershed Indicators, “Vulnerability Indicators,” North Fork American, www.epa.gov/iwi. Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-10 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
imperiled, imperiled or vulnerable by the Heritage Network or TNC or listed under the federal Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered.25 The EPA website points out that “the presence of rare or endangered species in a watershed is not necessarily an indication of poor watershed conditions. Indeed, it more likely indicates the opposite; in many instances these species persist only in areas of exceptionally high quality habitat. The presence of species at risk in a watershed indicates, however, that these watersheds are especially vulnerable to future water quality or habitat degradation, which could jeopardize the maintenance or recovery of these organisms. Watersheds considered vulnerable because of the presence of species at risk may require special attention to protect or restore water quality in order to maintain these biological values.” The North Fork American watershed has also been identified by the EPA’s Unified Watershed Assessment as one of 66 watersheds slated for the highest restoration priority. This identification is based on Clean Water Act 303d listings for impairment, along with a number of other existing prioritization systems for determining watersheds with restoration needs, including: USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Geographic Priority Areas, California Department of Forestry and Fire’s Wildfire Potential database, areas with threatened or endangered aquatic species as per the California Department of Fish & Game’s databases, and areas with riparian corridor restoration needs as determined from the multi-agency California Rivers Assessment (CARA).26 The good news here is that the North Fork/Middle Fork American is not listed as impaired under Section 303d of the Clean Water Act. But it is still considered a high priority for restoration by the EPA based on other factors mentioned above.
Impoundments Although the North Fork American boasts more than 1,100 miles of free flowing rivers and streams, it is also a hard-working watershed in terms of dams and impoundments. A total of 28 dams located throughout the watershed (see Figure 1-5 Jurisdictional Dams) inundate up to 5,763 acres and impound up to 456,519 acre-feet of water for a variety of residential, municipal, utility, agricultural, recreational and other uses.27
25 U.S. EPA Index of Watershed Indicators, “Vulnerability Indicators-Aquatic/Wetland Species at Risk 1996,” North Fork American, www.epa.gov/iwi/1999april/iii8_usmap.html. 26 U.S. EPA, “Unified Watershed Assessment Factsheet-California,” Unified Watershed Assessment website: www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/states/ca_icon.html. 27 “Watershed Statistics-North Fork American,” California Rivers Assessment: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara. Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-11 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
FIGURE 1-5 Jurisdictional Dams – North Fork American
Source: 1997 California Rivers Assessment Some of the larger dams in the watershed include Placer County Water Agency’s Lower Hell Hole and L.L. Anderson dams on the Middle Fork American, which hold 208,400 and 111,333 acre-feet of water respectively and can inundate 1,250 and 1,344 acres respectively; Loon Lake, a Sacramento Municipal Utility District dam on Gerle Creek that has a capacity of 76,500 acre-feet and can cover 1,450 acres; and North Fork dam, an Army Corps of Engineers dam that creates Lake Clementine, a 14,700-acre-foot reservoir covering 279 acres.28 It is no secret that California has perhaps the largest water engineering program in the world, largely because 75% of the rain in the state falls north of Sacramento while 80% of the demand comes from southern California. Something has to be done to get the water from where it falls to where it is needed. To do this, California has built 1,200 non-federal dams, 181 federal dams, and 1,400 reservoirs that, together, have the capacity to hold 60% of the state’s total runoff every year.29
Thanks, in part, to this extraordinary water engineering system, California has led the nation in total farm revenues every year since 1948. Up to 85% of all the water controlled by dams and reservoirs goes to agriculture to support this high productivity.30 However, dams and the accompanying growth they support have also led to significant loss of wildlife and fisheries habitat in the state, as well as changing the flow patterns in rivers and streams and their adjacent riparian areas. Alterations caused by
28 “Watershed Statistics-North Fork American,” California Rivers Assessment: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara. 29 “Watershed Statistics-North Fork American,” California Rivers Assessment: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara. 30 “Watershed Statistics-North Fork American,” California Rivers Assessment: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara. Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-12 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
flow manipulation can have harmful effects on many wildlife species as well as on the river and stream channel itself.31
Hazardous Waste Other issues affect water and water quality, including hazardous waste. Based on information kept for the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), there are 30 facilities in the watershed that handle hazardous waste, including: retail facilities; auto service stations; utilities, including Pacific Bell and AT&T; power generators, including Placer County Water Agency’s French Meadows, Ralston and Middle Fork powerhouses; agencies, such as CalTrans, CDF, etc., and businesses, such as Georgia Pacific Corporation in Foresthill, Union Pacific on Old Highway 40, and Shell Oil company in Auburn.32 These sites are monitored under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo), a national program management and inventory system about hazardous waste handlers. In general, all generators, transporters, treaters, storers, and disposers of hazardous waste are required to provide information about their activities to state environmental agencies. These agencies, in turn pass on the information to regional and national EPA offices.33 Also, given the proximity to the watershed of Interstate 80, the railroad, and a high-pressure long-distance oil pipeline, there is a heightened risk of potential incident pollution from an accident or catastrophic spill, such as one by the Southern Pacific Railroad at Cantara Loop on the Upper Sacramento River some number of years ago.
Water Use The US Geological Survey also keeps useful data on water use. Unfortunately, the most recent data available are from 1990. But according to 1990 figures, the North Fork American supplied more than 58 million gallons a day of fresh groundwater and 87 million gallons a day of fresh surface water withdrawals, for a total of 145 million gallons a day for public, commercial, domestic, industrial, power, livestock, irrigation and reservoir evaporation purposes.34
31 “Watershed Statistics-North Fork American,” California Rivers Assessment: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara. 32 US EPA, “RCRAINFO Facilities for: North Fork American,” Surf Your Watershed: http://oaspub.epa.gov/surf. 33 US EPA, “RCRAINFO Facilities for: North Fork American,” Surf Your Watershed: http://oaspub.epa.gov/surf. 34 US Geological Survey, “1990 Water Use for North Fork American,” http://water.usgs.gov/cgi- bin/wuhuc?huc=18020128 Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-13 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
ANIMAL/PLANT COMMUNITIES The California Rivers Assessment (CARA) points out that watersheds are home to many species of plants and animals.. In caring for watersheds and the creatures living in them, it is important to recognize which areas are crucial in promoting the survival of species, especially those species that have some special status due to being threatened, endangered or otherwise impacted. In this case, Special Status refers to any species which has been listed as threatened or endangered by the State or Federal Government, or which appears on the Natural Diversity Database (NDDB) with a Global Rank of G3 or lower or a State Rank of S1.2 or lower. CARA also uses the Moyle Fish Rank system to determine fish species at risk. In this system a rating of 3 or lower indicates a species in danger. Knowing which special status species exist in the watershed, as well as how many of these species occur within a given location, can help land managers, developers, county and city planners, environmental organizations and others to target the most meaningful areas for protection from adverse activity. The California Natural Diversity Database (NDDB) provides information on rare species and natural community locations, condition, dates of observation, precision of sighting, and comments regarding habitat associations, threats, population sizes, as well as state and federal legal status, if any. According to that database, the North Fork American watershed is home to 13 special status plant and animal species, including:
Common Name Federal Listing State Listing Butte County Fritillary Species of concern No state classification California Wolverine Species of concern Listed as Threatened Donner Pass Buckwheat Species of concern No state classification Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Species of concern No state classification Harlequin Duck Species of concern No state classification Layne’s Ragwort Listed as Threatened Listed as Rare Long-petaled Lewisia Species of concern No state classification Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Species of concern No state classification Nissenan Manzanita Species of concern No state classification Northern Goshawk Species of concern No state classification Saw-toothed Lewisia Species of concern No state classification Stebbin’s Phacelia Species of concern No state classification Valley Elderberry Longhorn Listed as Threatened No state classification Beetle Source: Natural Diversity Database (NDDB) In addition, two fish species have a ranking of 3 or lower on the Moyle scale, including the Hardhead and the Western Brook Lamprey, making them Watch List species in decline but not yet in serious trouble. Other sources list additional species of concern based on different parameters than the NDDB or Moyle lists. Additional species listed by other groups include: Peregrine
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-14 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
falcon, Bald eagle, Golden eagle, River otter, and Townsend big-eared bat, along with more than 86 butterfly species. 35 The Tahoe National Forest also uses the status of special species or groups of species as management indicators. These include: Riparian Group: mountain yellow-legged frog, western terrestrial garter snake, wood duck, downy woodpecker, winter wren, house wren, song sparrow, yellow warbler, yellow-bellied sapsucker, Wilson’s warbler, northern oriole, black-headed grosbeak, Lincolns sparrow, vagrant shrew, dusky shrew, ornate shrew, water shrew, western jumping mouse, raccoon, and mountain beaver Hardwood Group: dusky-footed woodrat, rubber boa, western skink, mountain quail, band-tailed pigeon, violet green swallow, white-breasted nuthatch, black-throated gray warbler, gray squirrel, mule deer, and common flicker Old-growth Group: Ensatina, rubber boa, pileated woodpecker, white- headed woodpecker, Hammonds flycatcher, red-breasted nuthatch, brown creeper, winter wren, golden-crowned kinglet, and northern flying squirrel Mountain Meadow Group: Mountain yellow-legged frog, Pacific tree frog, California king snake, western terrestrial garter snake, western aquatic garter snake, calliope hummingbird, mountain bluebird, Cassin’s finch, mountain white-crowned sparrow, Wilson’s warbler, Lincoln’s sparrow, red-breasted nuthatch, and mountain beaver Wetlands Group: Canada goose, mallard and cinnamon teal.36
ECONOMY Recreation/Tourism More than half a million people a year visit the canyons of the North and Middle Forks of the American River, according to Friends of the River. The area’s proximity to Sacramento – located just 35 miles east – and the variety of activities available make it a particularly popular destination within the state. For example, the rivers offer a wide variety of whitewater boating opportunities, from easy Class II floats for canoes and kayaks to Class IV-V whitewater for expert boaters. Flatwater enthusiasts can take advantage of the boat-in campgrounds on Lake Clementine, as well.37
35 River Gems of California, Friends of the River website: www.friendsoftheriver.org. 36 Tahoe NF MIS list, provided by Mary Grim, West Zone Fisheries Biologist, Tahoe National Forest. 37 River Gems of California, “The American River, North and Middle Forks,” Friends of the River: www.friendsoftheriver.org. Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-15 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
More than 100 miles of trails provide access for hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, and equestrian riders. The Western States National Recreation Trail traverses the area and hosts internationally recognized competitive running and equestrian events.38 Those interested in the historic amenities of the area have more than 1,500 historic and cultural sites to choose from, many of which are already on or eligible for inclusion on the National Historic Register.39
Public and Agency Scoping Meetings
INITIAL SCOPING The project team began the scoping process by brainstorming watershed stressors with members of the American River Watershed Group and by hosting a number of public and agency scoping meetings – both daytime and evening – to kick off the project and get input and ideas from key stakeholders in the watershed. At these meetings we reviewed the project plan, sought input on relevant planning documents/studies, etc, and solicited comments on watershed issues to be addressed by this stewardship planning process, management goals and objectives to consider, and desired future conditions for key watershed resources. Results of the initial scoping meetings follow. Watershed Stressor Brainstorming Based on the information above, the project team brainstormed with members of the American River Watershed Group to identify various stressors that can impact function or process within the watershed. The key stressors, as identified by the American River Watershed Group, include: Upper Watershed (in order of importance) Management of timber lands, including harvest, etc. Water storage and conveyance Recreation Roads Catastrophic fire/fire frequency Historic mining Hydropower generation facilities Flood events Prescribed burning Exotic, invasive plants Drought Grazing/current mining activity/OHV use.
38 River Gems of California, “The American River, North and Middle Forks,” Friends of the River: www.friendsoftheriver.org. 39 River Gems of California, “The American River, North and Middle Forks,” Friends of the River: www.friendsoftheriver.org. Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-16 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Lower Watershed (in order of importance) Urban coverage (impermeable surfaces e.g. housing, parking lots, etc.) Urban landscaping (including use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) Air pollution Conversion of agricultural land Non-point source pollution (e.g. grading, business/industrial/commercial sources) Urban population distribution (intensity, utilization levels) Agricultural practices I-80 transportation corridor Wastewater disposal Construction/Regulatory actions/Stormwater/transcontinental railroad/gas transmission line/power transmission lines/pot farms [tied]. These issues, along with those identified at the public and agency meetings described below, formed the basis for the data acquisition and stewardship strategy development components of this project.
Public Meetings Georgetown June 23, 1999 [one day and one evening meeting] Attendees at these meetings, held in Georgetown on June 23, 1999, addressed a number of issues, including: level of accuracy for data (especially soils data) that will be used for any watershed modeling; usefulness of basing the watershed study on Calwater subwatershed delineations; the need to track ongoing timber harvest activities, as well as getting data on historic timber harvests into a database system; the need to change timber harvest laws; the challenge of land ownership patterns and their impacts on wildfire and fuel loading; the need to prioritize areas for fuel load reduction; the need to include parcel data in the analysis; the need for a road condition assessment or inventory; the difference between natural dynamics or processes and human causes in terms of impacts to the watershed; the need to address both land use and water management in the final plan objectives; the need to consider and study the potential impacts of doing nothing – the No Action alternative; the need to emphasize action and on-the-ground projects; the need to keep the private landowners and business people involved in the process, and;
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-17 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
the need to show people, including private landowners and loggers, the benefits of proposed stewardship strategies and how those strategies meet their needs. Participants also identified key resource issues, including: fuel loading and forest health; roads and road failures (sedimentation); fire/fire suppression; water quality and quantity in the face of population growth and potential demands from Calfed and other processes; sediment and its impact on stream conditions; point-source pollution; noxious weeds; water rights; impacts of development on wetlands and other habitat types; impacts of recreation, including south of the Rubicon River, due to road access and additional dispersed recreation based on water sports that affect stream edges and riparian zones, and; the expense of doing required timber harvest plans which leads the landowner to harvest more in order to pay costs. Possible project objectives or outcomes were also discussed, including: using this watershed assessment to assist landowner groups in dealing administratively and economically with coordinated timber harvest planning for fuel load reduction; making assessment information available to professional foresters for use in developing future timber harvest plans more efficiently and economically; the need to address cumulative impact issues; using this process to educate people and tailoring that outreach and education to the different needs of the smaller private landowners in the lower elevations versus the larger industrial landowners in the upper elevations; developing recommendations for the County and for private landowners on drainage management; the need to develop a careful study and to understand watershed process/function before doing anything, as well as making sure to measure impacts after taking some action; ensuring that data is available for a baseline measurement and that monitoring data be collected to measure results; using this process to develop acceptable incentives for private landowner stewardship, such as insurance premiums, etc., and; using this process to help fill gaps and provide better coordination between agencies regarding data. Participants expressed concerns about: the potential prescriptive nature of the project and the fear that initial “recommendations” may result in future regulation or requirements; that this project may just be an attempt by Calfed to encourage better water management simply to increase water yield and lay claim to more water from the upstream areas of origin; and that Proposition 204 funding was approved by urban voters Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-18 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
who do not understand the implications of timber harvest and fuel loading on local landowners; and overlapping information and duplicative efforts among agencies. Resources identified by the group included: the National Fire Plan; data from the Blodgett UC Experimental Forest; a US Forest Service study being done on Long Canyon, one of the most slide-prone areas on the forest; the existing Environmental Impact Statement on the Cleveland fire and the Placerville US Forest Service office as a source of monitoring on the impacts of that fire; an older study that shows timber production pre- and post-Smoky Bear fire suppression philosophy is about the same but that fire damage has increased substantially; and an academic researcher working on sedimentation issues: Lee H. MacDonald (Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523-1482, tel: 970-491-6109, email: [email protected]), regarding hydrologic process/function methods to address sediment rather than using roaded area as a proxy.
Foresthill June 29, 1999 [evening meeting] Additional issues brought up at this meeting (that were not specifically mentioned at the previous meeting) included: purchase of Sugarpine Dam by Foresthill and how that will be addressed in the stewardship plan; the need for a backcountry map for access; the need for information on stream flow regimes; concerns about general availability of mapped information and how that might increase public use/trespass on private land; concerns about downstream interests driving how people who live in the watershed view resource values; concerns about having parcel-specific data included; the need for more data on the BLM lands in the Foresthill area; concerns about why private landowners should be expected to change their operations when use of private land is a private issue; concerns about why taxpayers are paying for this effort to coordinate information when that should be the agencies’ job; the idea of a surcharge on water users as a way of funding stewardship projects; whether private landowners and residents will be able to have any influence on how the agencies do business; concerns about personnel from this project accessing private lands for surveys; concerns about overlapping or unnecessarily duplicating regulatory authority and rules that already exist; concerns about this stewardship plan resulting in road closures; the need to analyze recreation impacts as well as economic benefits of recreation to towns like Foresthill, Auburn, etc.; the need to target funding for fuel reduction to the small-parcel landowners, not just the large landowners;
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-19 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
the idea to use email as communication vehicle, and; the need to address potential consequences of BLM selling or trading its land to the public in order to acquire more land in the river corridors.
Auburn July 14, 1999 [one day and one evening meeting] Additional issues brought up at these meetings (that were not specifically mentioned at the previous meetings) included: concerns about the relationship between CalTrans and water quality in the watershed; concerns about the impacts of reservoir recreation activities such as powerboating on water quality; the need to coordinate with Placer County to get access to Placer Legacy data; the need to address the aesthetic issue, ie: visual impacts; the need to monitor impacts of recreation on water quality beyond simply enforcing existing rules; concerns about jumping to action (fuel load reduction) before understanding processes and relationships, such as the relationship between forest fire and water quality – basing action on assumptions not on data; the need to understand the historical relationship between cultural practices, fire history and vegetation dynamics; the need to distinguish between shaded fuel breaks and open space, as they may not meet the same objectives, and; the desire for a mechanism for public review/distribution of the project plan so land managers can use it in the future.
Colfax July 19, 1999 [evening meeting] Additional issues brought up at this meeting (that were not specifically addressed at the previous meetings) included: concerns about whether this project will have an Environmental Impact Report or Study; concerns about whether this study duplicates assessment and recommendations already completed as part of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) Report; concerns that the same entities that are at the root of some of the watershed’s problems are the ones working on this plan, therefore isn’t there a danger that they will proceed with the same approach and pattern of resource exploitation; concerns about this plan resulting in a subsidy for landowners to do what they should be doing anyway in terms of stewardship;
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-20 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
concerns about potential conflicts of interest with the parties engaged in this study and the possible bias that might affect proposed resource assessment outcomes and recommendations; reference to Santa Cruz’ steam management outreach program as a good model for helping to educate and inform especially small landowners about best practices and stewardship strategies; identification of mercury and probably cyanide from historic mining as water quality issue in the watershed; concerns about cattle grazing along streams and associated impacts such as water quality degradation, riparian zone damage and sedimentation; the issue of recreational mining and related impacts; the need to study fish productivity and the possibility of using this stewardship plan to help restore the fishery to historic levels; questions about where El Dorado County is in this process; the need to address how any projects that might result from this effort may impact potential Wild & Scenic designation on the Middle Fork American; concerns about public input given promises made but not kept in the Applegate community planning process, and; the need to take a long-term view in terms of stewardship and impacts.
Agency: Agency Workshop July 21, 1999 Participants in this agency workshop included representatives from the Tahoe National Forest (Foresthill and Nevada City Ranger Districts), Eldorado National Forest (Georgetown Ranger District), Placer County Planning Department, El Dorado County Planning Department, Sierra Planning Organization and Sierra Economic Development District, California Department of Fish & Game, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sierra Nevada Network for Education and Outreach at UC Davis; Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Placer County Water Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, California Conservation Corps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Auburn Recreation District. Agency representatives discussed their individual agency management parameters, resources and general concerns, as follows.
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-21 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Agency Parameters Concerns/Questions Resources Tahoe 1.) 1/3 of lands in watershed 1.) urban intermix zone, 1.) TNF intends to be National are part of TNF especially as land active in GIS portion of Forest development grows this plan 2.) TNF has 2 main goals: Foresthill manage land, serve the people 2.) fire as a resource Ranger concern in terms of dealing 3.) TNF operates under District with resource impacts approved Land Management Plan last updated in 1991 3.) water quality/water quantity 4.) governance modifications will likely occur as result of 4.) roads in terms of ongoing Sierra Nevada sediment production; USFS Framework (Forest Plan also looking to Amendment) process; draft decommission some due out soon 5.) mining and its impacts, 5.) TNF works with many including rehab/restoration watershed groups, including 6.) wildlife management, ARWG – such work is particularly in old growth becoming “institutionalized” within the agency 7.) noxious weeds 8.) recreation and tourism Eldorado 1.) Eldorado National Forest 1.) ENF has conducted National operates under same rules as a number of watershed Forest the Tahoe; so many of the studies, including: issues presented above apply Wallace, Brushy Georgetown to Eldorado as well Canyon, Lower Long Ranger Canyon and R2H2 District 2.) Eldorado’s Land Management Plan is a couple 2.) both ENF and TNF of years older than Tahoe’s use GIS ARC/INFO and ArcView 3.) there are a number of timber stand improvement projects, mostly thinning, looking toward healthy forests
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-22 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Tahoe 1.) All forests will 1.) Need to address National have a common GIS overuse issues (through Forest framework system carrying capacity study?) that will be Nevada City 2.) Should consider GIS compatible with other Ranger mapping beyond forest u.s. government District boundaries agencies Placer Co. 1.) County’s data is 1.) technical concerns 1.) Placer Co. has extensive GIS Planning either “general” or regarding edge mapping, program and data, with +/-$1.5 Department “parcel-specific”; variations between data million invested so far therefore more site- sources, etc. when trying 2.) data sets will be largely specific resource to join data from different complete by year-end assessment may be sources needed 3.) hope to have GIS data on 2.) concerned about how to Internet in about 3 years 2.) County willing to help people understand the make GIS data complicated language and 4.) Foresthill Community Plan just available to public; processes involved in GIS being completed with EIR due out but County won’t be next spring 3.) high rate of growth in taking responsibility Placer (highest % rate in for education and 5.) consider coordinating mapping state), including projections outreach about its and planning process with newly of 17,000 additional use starting community planning houses in the efforts in the Clipper Gap/ 3.) County regulates unincorporated area Weimar/Applegate/Colfax area use on private lands 4.) with this growth, remote 4.) in general, County portions of watershed will zoning matches be important for economic adjacent forest health and lifestyles of this zoning and future population 5.) this plan can 5.) this stewardship plan provide proactive way could be resource to address issues (recommendations, data) usually dealt with by for future community “avoidance” planning efforts 6.) consider water quality and air quality issues
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-23 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
El Dorado Co. 1.) General issues in placer county also 1.) County has 1.) El Dorado’s GIS Planning apply in El Dorado general water quality in about same Department concerns, including place as Placer’s – 2.) Co. General Plan completed in 1996 habitat, fish and although not at but has been in litigation which may go domestic supply parcel level nor at on for a while level of detail of 2.) Plan could 3.) A new EIR may get started soon USFS identify and 4.) Co. doesn’t have any real land use recommend concerns in the NF/MF watershed treatment for because, with the exception of existing problems Georgetown, there is little county land subject to development in the watershed; County’s big concern is with land in the South Fork American 5.) Georgetown does not have a community plan Sierra Planning 1.) looking at regional approach to 1.) issues are land 1.) there will be GIS Organization economic development use decisions with and interactive (SPO) respect to air quality, Internet layer of 2.) works in 4 counties: Sierra, Nevada, traffic, economic biomass Sierra Placer, El Dorado viability, job creation businesses and Economic 3.) starting to look at border issues and job/housing market facilitation Development between counties to help develop tools balance District (SEDD) 2.) developing a 5- for counties to use for own purposes year economic development strategic plan for 4- county area California 1.) DFG has a strategic plan (1995) with 1.) many different 1.) DFG assists Dept. of Fish & following goals: protect ecological laws that affect counties in land use Game (DFG) values, provide use by public different activities, issues through but enforcement is Natural Community 2.) Plan themes include: difficult due to Conservation Plans cooperation/collaborative approaches, staffing limitations (NCCPs) review of land use activities that affect fish and wildlife resources, use habitat 2.) DFG has no 2.) DFG has given perspective at broad scale, ensure management plans GIS data to Placer sufficient water quality/quantity for fish in the watershed Co. (worth $1,500?) and wildlife resources because it manages at no cost; County no land in this can give that data watershed to ARWG 3.) DFG does have 3.) that data mostly management plans covers vernal pool for Pine Hill area in resources the South Fork 4.) DFG also has watershed Wildlife Habitat Rating information that it has given to Placer Co.
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-24 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
California 1.) Focus is to reduce 1.) Data most useful to 1.) There is a 1996 GIS map Department of potential for large costly CDF would be parcel maps assessment of fire potential Forestry & Fire fires to help CDF manage fire with respect to assets at risk Protection risk reduction at the parcel 2.) CDF has projects in 2.) Sponsored the Meadow (CDF) level the auburn recreation Vista “Program Timberland area, including EIR” to implement fire plan in maintaining shaded fuel area; but there is no real break budget for implementation; also starting one in Traverse 3.) CDF regulates timber Creek – may be able to harvest rules on private provide more detailed info to land – focused on timber this effort production lands as defined by a 20cuft 3.) Have a vegetation production/ac/yr management plan for the threshold Brushy Canyon area to prevent costly fires and 4.) There is Forest control star thistle Improvement Program to increase timber and 4.) CDF has integrated oak- wildlife productivity on hardwood outreach & lands made marginal by education program past land use activities 5.) CDF has good-sized GIS 5.) CDF also involved, shop with a lot of data through FRAP (Fire & 6.) Greg Greenwood has Resource Assessment been working with El Dorado Project) with assessing Co. on assessing potential and monitoring condition impacts of the General Plan trends of land resources, on vegetation, habitat and including range and fire issues; may start similar timber project with Placer and Nevada counties Sierra Nevada 1.) working with Yuba 1.) SNNER collaborates 1.) maintains the SNEP site Network for Watershed Council to with other groups on their with ARC/INFO GIS data Education and generate land use data efforts 2.) SNEP maps are more Outreach 2.) could work with this user friendly (SNNER) effort to develop interactive 3.) SNEP maps and data can website for data access be accessed through the and outreach/education SNNER Internet site Sacramento 1.) interest is in FERC 1.) interest is in FERC Municipal relicensings for dam relicensing of Project Utility District operations; many #2101 that expires in 2007 (SMUD) licenses are up for – this is project that diverts renewal in coming years, Rubicon and SF Rubicon and once renewed, last water into SF American for 30 – 50 years
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-25 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Placer Co. 1.) American River Water Agency Watershed Sanitary Report (PCWA) 1993 2.) There will be another report done in several years 3.) Georgetown Divide PUD will be doing one soon for Stumpy Meadows Natural 1.) NRCS does not 1.) water quality is an 1.) has natural resource Resources own any land important issue inventory for Placer County Conservation with data on resource 2.) mission is to work 2.) watershed has some of Service (NRCS) conditions and trends every 5 with private the best timber soils in the years since 1975 landowners on state resource issues, 2.) developed soil maps for including use and western portion of county – sustainability but maps have different soil survey Orders that represent 3.) they partner with varying levels of detail, Resource generalization and inclusions; Conservation District this needs to be recognized (RCD) offices in the planning process 4.) they provide technical and cost- sharing assistance to landowners 5.) each NRCS office has a board of directors that gives it guidance California 1.) CCC has three 1.) CCC projects can include Conservation camps in the work on private land if there Corps (CCC) American, including is an identified public benefit Greenwood, Christian 2.) projects have included: Valley and Echo stream restoration, park Summit development, trails development and GIS in other regions 3.) GIS work included tree inventories US Fish & 1.) USFWS has an 1.) concerned about water 1.) interested in looking at Wildlife Service anadromous fish use and land use activities Yuba County approach to (USFWS) restoration program in the upper watershed as alternatives to flood control with objectives to they may affect yield and and water supply improve habitat along watershed process/function relationships and looking to Lower American River with respect to streamflow new ways of dealing with regime these issues 2.) flow and temperature are concerns for Lower American River habitat
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-26 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Auburn 1.) has recreational 1.) District’s most urgent 1.) looking to develop the Recreation resource goal is restoration of the Maidu Center at the dam District responsibilities for a 3/4-mile section of NF overlook as a regional 100+-square mile area American at coffer dam site conference center and closure of tunnel 2.) District generally supports any form of recreation 3.) works in cooperation with the US Bureau of Reclamation on trails and dam overlook park
These initial scoping meetings were augmented by regular discussion of ideas and feedback opportunities scheduled into the monthly American River Watershed Group stakeholder meetings held throughout the life of the project. Some of the comments and concerns identified at these scoping meetings went well beyond the scope of this project. But the information from these meetings was considered by the team in terms of data assemblage and the development of specific stewardship strategies to work with willing landowners, business people, agency personnel and others in the community.
FINAL OBJECTIVES The following outlines a conceptual background on plan objectives as used in this analysis. Purpose and Function of Objectives The development of a watershed planning effort and study process that is targeted on achievement and success should be structured such that the effort is linear, progressive and minimizes circular discussions of fundamental issues. The development of explicit and thorough Plan Objectives is an essential first step and one that should be completed before considering subsequent study plan topics. Plan Objectives are developed as statements intended to become the ‘business’ rules of the NF/MF American River watershed planning effort. They establish the basic structure, direction, and intended application of the watershed planning effort. The Plan Objective statements are structured such that they give form to and a written understanding of the overall study effort direction, the explicit identification of that which is to be accomplished, and explicit identification of the role of that which is to be accomplished within the institutional setting. Finally, they are written in such detail that they can be used directly to develop the next step in the study process; the Workplan. The Workplan will be a general outline or structure of the study process necessary to accomplish the specifics of the Plan Objectives and identifies major work task components and the interrelationships between components.
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-27 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Terminology The first step in defining project plan objectives was to define selected terms used in describing these objectives, including: stewardship, watershed processes and interactions, watershed dynamics and cycles, land management activities, resource concerns and issues, and watershed strategy.
Stewardship The NF/MF American River Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy (WP/SS) has a primary focus on developing a stewardship program and strategy for watershed resources management. The American River Watershed Group (ARWG) has developed a set of Plan Objectives to guide the direction, purpose, and sideboards (limitations) of the WP/SS project. The Plan Objectives, taken as a whole, indirectly define the nature of “stewardship” within the context of the WP/SS. Combining the various Plan Objectives “WP/SS-stewardship” is defined as follows. The term stewardship is satisfied when all of the following are true: 1. actions are voluntary; 2. actions are undertaken by landowners, citizens, business interests, and agencies, etc.; 3. actions are land management based and may include physical activities, land management practices, restoration projects, resource and land use planning, and development policies, etc.; 4. actions are designed to protect, restore, or enhance; 5. actions involve resources that have community-based values in the watershed; 6. those community-based values are influenced by watershed processes; and, 7. those watershed process influences on community-based values extend beyond private properties or agency jurisdictions. Watershed Processes and Interactions The WP/SS Plan Objectives has limited the focus of the study to issues related by “Watershed Processes.” As used here “Watershed Processes” include relevant aspects of the hydrologic cycle within the watershed area which may include the movement of water by atmospheric process, through the landscape, and through free water bodies such as surface and groundwater flows. It may include associated energy, sediment, and nutrient transfers associated with the movement of water. “Watershed Processes” are, in general, the basis for the interface between atmospheric processes, soils and geologic processes, vegetational/biological processes, channel processes, and aquatic habitat conditions. The use of “Watershed Processes” in the Plan Objectives limits the focus of the WR/SS to those resource issues related by these processes; this could include such relationships as between fire and fuel management with respect to effects on streamflow and sediment production. Eliminated from focus are those resource issues and concerns not related to the movement of water through the watershed; this could include visual resources, or habitat management when influences do not effect hydrologic processes.
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-28 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Watershed Dynamics and Cycles “Watershed Dynamics” and “Cycles” refers to the concept that the family of watershed processes defined above is not a static suite with consistent relations. Watershed processes and the status of various elements related by hydrologic processes vary by two dimensions. First watersheds are in a constant process of evolution due the erosional processes and many ongoing watershed processes are related to an overall trend of watershed evolution that results from hillslope and channel processes. Second, the input energy of precipitation trends and event magnitudes, vary seasonally, vary over periods of years and decades with longer-termed cycle of weather variability, and vary with century scale climate variability (also progressive climate change trends). The inclusion of the concepts of watershed dynamics and cycle variabilities in the Plan Objectives is designed to accommodate the possibility that present conditions are a result of past watershed process relations and that future watershed process relations may be different than at present and to view the human derived influences on watershed processes and conditions within the context of natural variability. Land Management Activities
The Plan Objectives limit the focus of watershed assessment and Stewardship to land management actions which may affect the condition of resource concerns and issues through the relations of “Watershed Processes,” and may include such things as fire and fuel management, land use conversion, or recreational activities. These examples are presented within the context of all Plan Objectives. The inclusion of “Land Management Activities” excludes other activities within the watershed that could affect “Resource Concerns and Issues” such as water resource management. Resource Concerns and Issues “Resource concerns and issues” refers to any resource attribute that qualifies as a Key-Resource within the context of the various Plan Objectives. Examples of resource concerns or issues may include such things as runoff processes, how those runoff process are influenced by natural and man-induced influences, and how runoff processes influence channel conditions, land uses, and habitat. Watershed Strategy In the context of WS/SS Plan Objectives the “Watershed Strategy” refers to a program adopted by the ARWG as an approach to encouraging and supporting Stewardship actions by the various entities (agencies, landowners, businesses, etc), that meet all the requirements and limitations embodied by the total of the Plan Objectives.
Plan Objectives The Plan Objectives are based on three stages of work: 1) the initial work effort by the CORE Team of the NF/MF American River Watershed Plan study (dated 2/3/99) as modified by the review by the Main ARWG-CRMP Group; 2) input received through the study Planning Process Scoping Phase which included six open public meetings, an agency workshop, and the
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-29 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
review of relevant planning documents and developed into Preliminary Draft Plan Objectives by the CORE Team, and; 3) the review of, and comments on, the Preliminary Draft Final Plan Objectives by the ARWG-CRMP Group on 8/19/99. With terminology defined, the team used input from the public and agency scoping meetings and review by the stakeholder-based American River Watershed Group to develop the following goals and objectives for the plan process and its outcomes. The overall goal of the NF/MF American River Watershed Plan, as defined by the American River Watershed Group (ARWG), is the identification and facilitation of positive opportunities for voluntary, incentive-based stewardship programs and projects for the purposes of preserving and enhancing the quality of the watershed and enriching the understanding of watershed resource values as they are influenced by watershed process and function. The following Plan Objectives are the business rules, guidelines, and guiding principles adopted by the ARWG by which we intend to achieve these goals. The formally adopted Plan Objectives are presented below in fine-type. The bold-type represents informal summary statements of the Plan Objectives.
1) Three-year study to identify watershed issues, to assess the needs for stewardship by the inter-agency, private landowner, business sectors, and the user public to develop on-going programs for voluntary stewardship. The overall objective of this Watershed Strategy is to develop and improve basin-wide information on watershed processes, to identify watershed resource issues as they are affected by land management activities, to develop recommendations for the protection and rehabilitation of identified watershed resources of concern issues, and to develop a program to facilitate the voluntary involvement of agencies, landowners, business sector interests, and the user public in watershed management and stewardship. 2) The watershed is that area of the NF/MF American River above the inflow to Folsom Lake. The watershed area is that portion of the NF American River drainage upstream from a point on the channel at the normal pool elevation of Folsom Lake (466 ft.MSL), including the MF American River and all tributary areas, as delimited by topography. 3) Focus on environmental resource values as they are related to land management activities through identified watershed processes. The Watershed Strategy will focus on resource concerns and issues (such as water quality, flow quantity, flow regime, and biological resources) associated with land management activities that are related by watershed processes and interaction. 4) Land management activities to be addressed are limited to those that have specific influences to watershed resource values by way of watershed processes. Land management activities will include all land uses and resource uses and related activities, economic, and land and water-based recreational activities, etc., throughout the watershed that have an influence on, or are influenced by, the identified watershed resource issues through watershed processes. 5) Watershed process assessment and land management evaluation will recognize the distinction between natural and human-caused influences and will accommodate the variability of watershed conditions due to natural cyclical processes.
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-30 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The analysis of watershed processes and land management activities will be based on the distinction between natural processes and dynamics versus the overlay of anthropogenic influences and will consider the short and long term cycles in watershed process dynamics as they may influence the variability of watershed resource conditions. 6) The study will be conducted to be a complete evaluation on its own, be expandable to greater levels of analytic detail in the future, and so that it can relate to a subsequent watershed study on the SF American River. The Watershed Strategy study effort will be structured and conducted such that the result will serve as a stand alone watershed management strategy, can be expanded to a greater level of detail and analysis should needs warrant and future opportunities allow, and as one that can, at a later time, be either expanded to include the SF American River watershed or married with a separate watershed management strategy effort on the SF American River watershed as part of the ARWG-CRMP activities. 7) Watershed resource values to be studied will come from a review of agency concerns and objectives, the concerns and visions of private landowners, out-of- basin users, and business interests, potential issues in the SF American River watershed, and the watershed assessment/ evaluation of this study. Watershed resource issues to be the focus of the Watershed Strategy study effort will be identified through: a) the review of CALFED objectives, the objectives, concerns, and management policies of in-basin agencies, the objectives, concerns, and visions of watershed residents and landowners, out-of-basin watershed users, and representatives of economic interests; b) potential common watershed issues with the SF American River portion of the American River watershed, and; c) through, and a result of, a watershed resource analyses of the study area. 8) The basis for stewardship and stewardship programs will be from the identification of existing and potential watershed problems and will target the improvement and rehabilitation (restoration) and monitoring of watershed resource conditions. The Watershed Strategy will be an overall strategy for watershed and watershed resource management that will include as objectives the identification of watershed process related problems and potential problems and the development of strategies for the improvement and rehabilitation (restoration) of watershed resource conditions, strategies for avoiding identified potential watershed resource problems, and strategies for on-going monitoring of general watershed condition and health. 9) Resource issues addressed will be limited to those that have off-site (communal or adjacent landowner/management area, or out-of-basin) influences. Watershed resource issues addressed by the Watershed Strategy will be those related to watershed influences and processes as either basin export products (influences downstream and/or outside of the watershed) or within-basin influences. Those resource issues to be addressed will be those that have off-site (communal or adjacent landowner/management area, or out-of-basin) influences. 10) It is intended that there will be voluntary-based stewardship programs for agencies, private landowners, and the business sector. The Watershed Strategy will be a program for addressing identified watershed resource issues and watershed goals by: A) Developing an Interagency Stewardship Strategy for fostering the voluntary involvement of agencies in the interagency coordination of management and stewardship; B) Developing a Landowner Stewardship/Husbandry Strategy as an on-going program for education and fostering, facilitating and assisting with voluntary stewardship/husbandry by landowner and other private sector interests, and;
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-31 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
C) Developing a Business Sector Stewardship Strategy as an on-going program for education and fostering, facilitating and assisting with voluntary stewardship by businesses with direct or indirect interaction with watershed processes of concern. 11) Stewardship programs will be designed to be long-termed, on-going programs after the study effort and to be implementable through the ARWG-CRMP. The Watershed Strategy study effort will initiate a long term watershed stewardship program to be maintained and implemented through the ARWG-CRMP or another entity as may be identified through the study effort. 12) Stewardship programs will be designed to be implementable through interagency cooperation and without needs for additional funding. The on-going Watershed Strategy stewardship programs will be designed to be implementable through interagency cooperation and within the normal budgetary structure of the in-basin agencies. 13) The study is to be designed, executed, and managed to accomplish desired goals within the budget and schedule requirements of the Category III grant. The Watershed Strategy study effort will be designed and executed so as to meet the project goals and objectives within the study budget and time line framework and will not rely on the acquisition of additional funding for study completion. 14) The study will use existing in-basin resource information and watershed science. The Watershed Strategy will be based on the analyses of watershed process and function which will be conducted through the use and integration of existing and non- proprietary watershed resource information housed with relevant agencies and other sources, and the reliance on existing watershed process science. 15) As needed and as approved by the ARWG, additional funding may be sought to develop needed watershed resource and watershed science information, or to implement stewardship projects. If through the course of the Watershed Strategy study effort and as a result of the watershed resource analyses, needs for additional watershed resource information, special watershed research and science, or special watershed restoration/protection or stewardship projects are identified, additional funding outside of this study may be pursued for implementation after approval by the ARWG. 16) The Interagency Stewardship Strategy will: A. Include interagency cooperation in implementation, improvement, updating and expansion of the Watershed Strategy. Include an internal structure to maintain an on-going working relationship between in- basin agencies for the purpose of implementing the Watershed Strategy and on- going improvement, updating, and expansion of the Watershed Strategy as may be necessary. B. Include a GIS watershed data base openly accessible to in-basin agencies useful in providing watershed process information to on-going planning and decision making responsibilities. Include a GIS data base appropriate for the use of in-basin agencies for the purpose of providing usable watershed resource issue information for on-going agency planning, management, and ordinance responsibilities. Considerations for usability will include data needs, data scale, hardware, software, accuracy, and availability to the public, etc.
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-32 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
C. Develop voluntary recommendations for the various in-basin agencies concerning watershed issues. Develop voluntary, non-prescriptive, recommendations made by ARWG consensus for the various in-basin agencies targeted at identified watershed resource issues and overall watershed goals such that existing agency planning and management responsibilities and prerogatives are not usurped. D. Recommendations to agencies should encourage avoidance of administrative burdens to landowners and businesses except when necessary on funded projects. Recommendations to agencies should encourage avoidance of additional landowner and business administrative burdens except those that may be required by funded or cost-shared stewardship projects and activities. E. Develop recommendations to agencies for correction of existing watershed resource problems as well as planning and resource management decision- making. Recommendations to agencies will be directed at both the identification and resolution of existing watershed resource problems as well as future planning and resource management decision-making. F. Make recommendations to agencies based on the watershed analysis. Make recommendations to agencies based on the watershed analysis and targeted in accordance with agency responsibilities as planning, management, and ordinance enforcement entities. G. Make recommendations to agencies in accordance with reliability of resource information. Make recommendations to agencies in accordance with the precision and reliability of the watershed resource information and watershed process understanding. H. Provide a strategy for agency cooperation on watershed protection and rehabilitation (restoration) projects and the development of project funding sources. Provide a strategy for the identification of potential agency watershed protection and rehabilitation (restoration) projects, prioritization of projects for importance, interagency cooperation on projects or project components, and, as appropriate, the development of additional funding sources for project implementation. I. Include the identification of additional watershed resource information needs. Include the identification of additional watershed resource information needed to enhance the watershed analysis and to improve the precision and reliability of recommendations. J. Include a strategy for acquiring additional watershed resource information to satisfy identified needs. Include a coordinated interagency strategy for targeting, prioritizing, and acquiring the additional watershed resource information identified as needed. K. Include the identification of additional watershed research and science needs. Include the identification of additional watershed research and science needed to enhance the watershed analysis and to improve the precision and reliability of recommendations. L. Include a strategy for undertaking additional watershed research and science projects to satisfy identified needs.
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-33 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Include a coordinated interagency strategy for targeting, prioritizing, and undertaking additional watershed research and science projects to satisfy identified needs, and, as appropriate, the development of funding sources for research project implementation. 17) The Landowner Stewardship/Husbandry Strategy will: A. Be a CRMP-sponsored stewardship/husbandry program for private landowners. Be a program maintained by the CRMP, or other entities as may be identified, with the objective of fostering and encouraging an interest in, and assisting with the implementation of, watershed resource stewardship/husbandry on private lands by landowners and other private sector interests. B. Target resource issues limited by Plan Objectives 3 through 9 above. Target watershed resource issues within the objectives, resource concerns, and resource protection and rehabilitation (restoration) as defined in Plan Objectives 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above. C. Include the voluntary involvement of private landowners on private lands. Include the voluntary involvement of private landowners and other private sector interests on private lands. D. Include voluntary recommendations concerning watershed resource issues to landowners on private lands. Include voluntary, non-prescriptive, recommendations to landowners on watershed resource issues related to land use development, future planning and resource management decision making, and the resolution of existing watershed resource problems to landowners on private lands. E. Avoid administrative burdens to landowners except when necessary on funded projects. Avoid additional landowner administrative burdens except those that may be required by funded or cost-shared stewardship projects and activities. F. Include an educational outreach program. Include an educational outreach program to: a) inform private landowners and other private sector interests of watershed resource concerns; b) provide direct information on watershed stewardship/husbandry issues; c) provide information on the technical assistance available for resource protection/rehabilitation (restoration) from the ARWG-CRMP; d) provide a mechanism for the exchange of watershed resource management issues, concerns, and solution approaches among landowners and between landowners and agencies, and; e) to facilitate landowner understanding of existing agency watershed resource rules, regulations and assistance programs. G. Include a mechanism for fostering the involvement of one or more landowners in stewardship in sub-watershed areas. Include a mechanism for fostering the involvement of one or more landowners in watershed resource management planning in sub-watershed areas for the purposes of protecting and rehabilitation (restoration) watershed resource conditions. H. Include interagency technical on-site advice/assistance. Include a program of interagency assistance with resource specialists available to provide on-site and site specific advice on resource related activities as they may serve to address the objectives of the Watershed Strategy.
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-34 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
I. Include GIS data to facilitate planning decision making and cumulative impact evaluation concerning watershed processes and issues. Include an interagency developed, publicly available GIS data set useful to landowners and designed for use in land use planning, resource management decision making, and for the evaluating cumulative impacts with respect to watershed processes and watershed resource issues. J. Include agency technical support to landowners in stewardship planning. Include a program for providing technical support to one or more landowners in: a) the use of the watershed resource information base (GIS) as well as other products of the NF/MF Watershed Strategy, and; b) the development of sub-watershed plans for the protection and rehabilitation (restoration) of watershed resources. K. Include assistance to landowners in acquiring outside funding for stewardship projects. Include a program to provide direction and assistance to the private sector in acquiring outside funding for specific watershed protection and rehabilitation (restoration) projects that address Watershed Strategy objectives and identified watershed resource issues. 18) The Business Sector Stewardship Strategy will: A. Be a CRMP-sponsored stewardship for business interests active in the watershed. Be a program maintained by the CRMP, or other entities as may be identified, with the objective of fostering and encouraging an interest in, and assisting with the implementation of, watershed resource stewardship as appropriate for business interests. B. Target resource issues limited by Plan Objectives 3 through 9 above. Target watershed resource issues within the objectives, resource concerns, and resource protection and rehabilitation (restoration) as defined in Plan Objectives 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above. C. Include the voluntary involvement of businesses with relationship to watershed issues. Include the voluntary involvement of businesses that affect or are significantly affected by the objectives identified above. D. Include voluntary recommendations concerning watershed resource issues to the business sector. Include voluntary, non-prescriptive, recommendations to the business sector on watershed resource issues related to land use development, future planning and resource management decision making, and the resolution of existing watershed resource problems to the business sector. E. Avoid administrative burdens to the business except when necessary on funded projects. Avoid additional business sector administrative burdens except those that may be associated with funded or cost-shared stewardship projects and activities sponsored through the Watershed Strategy. F. Include an educational outreach program. Include an educational outreach program to: a) inform business interests of watershed resource concerns, b) provide direct information on watershed stewardship issues; c) provide information about the technical assistance available
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-35 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
for resource protection/rehabilitation (restoration) from the ARWG-CRMP; d) provide a mechanism for the exchange of watershed resource management issues, concerns, and solution approaches among business managers and between business managers and agencies, and; e) to facilitate business sector understanding of existing agency watershed resource rules, regulations and assistance programs. G. Include interagency technical on-site and in-office assistance. Include a program of interagency assistance with resource specialists available to provide advice on business related or resource related activities as they may serve to address the objectives of the Watershed Strategy. H. Include assistance to the business sector in acquiring outside funding for stewardship projects. Include a program to provide direction and assistance to the private business sector in acquiring outside funding for specific watershed protection and rehabilitation (restoration) projects that address Watershed Strategy objectives and identified watershed resource issues. Upon review of, and modifications to, the Draft Final Plan Objectives, the Final Plan Objectives presented above were approved on 9/16/99.
RESOURCE ISSUES The identification of key-resources or resource issues of concern in the watershed is the third step in the development of the watershed planning process. The first two are Plan Objectives and a general Workplan designed to execute the watershed planning project within the bounds and guides of the Plan Objectives. The Plan Objectives are resource neutral and only address the business rules of the study effort and identify what the project intents to accomplish and how the results are to fit into the institutional setting of the watershed. Key-resource issues define what components of the natural and/or institutional setting are of concern and what resource elements the watershed planning effort is to address. The list of key-resources will be the basis for developing the Workplan for the Watershed Assessment Phase which will drive the Watershed Evaluation Phase and ultimately the character of the Watershed Plan and Stewardship Program.
The following key-resources were identified through the public and agency Scoping Phase, the review of several relevant planning and resource management documents concerning the NF/MF watershed, and through review and modification by the ARWG at regularly held stakeholder meetings and through solicited feedback.
A) Lower American River: - Anadromous fishery resources (steelhead, chinook salmon) - Folsom Dam operations. - Improved streamflow regime. - Lower spring through fall water temperatures. - Unspecified water quality parameters. - Maintenance of Folsom Dam operational flexibility. - Inflow regime - Sediment accumulation
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-36 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
B) NF/MF American River Watershed area: - Protection of domestic water supplies (quality/quantity). - Protection and improvement of aquatic resources. - Improvement and maintenance of high water quality (unspecified) conditions of streams/lakes. - Improvement and maintenance of high stream channel and riparian habitat quality conditions. - The development and maintenance of a fire-safe, productive forest. - Reduction and maintenance of low erosion rates and sediment yields.
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS Issues The following list of issues were derived from discussions within the CORE Team deliberation of Plan Objectives, public and agency staff input received during the Scoping Phase, and the review of several relevant planning and resource management documents concerning the NF/MF watershed. These issues concern general views for the future of the watershed area that could be affected to one degree or another by a watershed plan and stewardship program and desired future conditions with respect to the plan/stewardship program itself. These desired future condition issues are listed in no particular order except that those that relate to the plan/ stewardship program itself are listed last. Have an adequate long term water supply (quality/quantity) for in-watershed users. Accommodate the potential for future population growth development in the watershed. Have an appropriate and balanced sharing of responsibilities for meeting overall water quality/quantity (and related) goals between in-watershed and downstream interests. Have and maintain a low level of land use pattern fragmentation. Have and maintain the general ‘open-space’ quality of the watershed area. Have and maintain the watershed area as a visual and recreation element for the regional population. Have and maintain an ongoing viable and flexible community economy. Have and maintain a high quality fishery for general watershed health and as a recreation resource. Have and maintain a fire-safe and resource-productive (ecologic and economic) forest. Have a stewardship program that is limited to identified existing or potential problems. Have a coordinated institutional environment to assist landowners in watershed resource management and in permitting processes. Have a voluntary-only stewardship program.
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-37 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Have a stewardship program that assists groups of landowner in addressing watershed resource issues made difficult and impractical under existing agency regulations. Have a stewardship program that is not prescriptive and does not burden landowners with unnecessary administration and with duplicative over-sight. Have a stewardship program that fosters a residency and user population informed on important watershed resource issues. Have a stewardship program that fosters coordinated agency resource planning and management with respect to watershed resource issues.
Assessment, stewardship, and resource recommendation “lens and filters” Where appropriate, the forgoing desired future condition issues have been incorporated into either Plan Objective elements or have been reduced to a set of “lens and filters” for the plan/ stewardship program product. Those desired future condition issues that are to serve as “lens and filters” are not suited to the direct objectives of the NF/MF American River Watershed Plan and Stewardship program either because they are at odds with Plan Objectives or are outside to the legal or funding purview of this project. The actual achievement of these desired future conditions are within the purview and jurisdiction of various agencies and political entities. These issues are however relevant to the Watershed Planning effort because the results of the plan/ stewardship program could adversely impact those desired future conditions. Therefore, while these desired future condition issues are not to be directly addressed by, nor achieved through, the Watershed Plan they are relevant issues to the community and the Watershed Plan should not foreclose the opportunity or potential for these desired future conditions. As appropriate these issues will be used as “lens” to focus and guide various elements of the project and as “filters” to evaluate the study products to ensure that these issues are accommodated in the proper context. Maintain landowner property rights and water rights. Allow for future watershed population growth. Maintain planning and resource management agency prerogatives. Maintain land use planning/resource management options for the control of land use/open space fragmentation. Maintain and improve the watershed as a regional (visual/active) recreational resource. Maintain diverse recreation opportunities for public enjoyment. Maintain “potentially-designated special natural areas” in conditions suitable for possible future formal designation. Maintain pristine areas of wilderness where natural systems exist without human disturbance. Provide for continued and flexible economic viability. Maintain the economic and practical viability of the productive forestland, agriculture, and mineral resource sectors. Maintain or improve an economically productive forest resource. Maintain or improve terrestrial-based wildlife habitat resources. Maintain balance between inferred “ecological costs/impacts” and inferred “ecological benefits.” Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-38 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Maintain balance between inferred in-watershed “costs” and inferred in- watershed “benefits.” Maintain balance between inferred in-watershed “costs” and inferred out-of- basin “benefits.”
Chapter 1 Introduction and Scoping Page 1-39 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
CHAPTER 2 Data Collection
Assessment Plan
To help organize the assessment effort, team consultant WRC Environmental developed an Assessment Tree, a sequence of linked concepts and activities, to help team members and watershed stakeholders identify, review and integrate information on watershed conditions, functions and processes from both the biological and institutional perspectives. First Order activity included identifying and examining general issues, objectives and key resources in the watershed. Second Order work included identification of specific assessment goals related to the issues identified in the first set of tasks. Third Order activity developed themes of inquiry to address specific assessment goals. And Fourth Order tasks included developing the actual approach to completing the assessment and answering the questions that arose during the first three sets of tasks. This Assessment Tree identifies the key stakeholders in the watershed and the information to be gathered from or discussed with each. The four levels of the tree compose a coherent approach to watershed stewardship. For example, “to protect domestic water supply” (Level One) uses “assessment limited to existing data: (Level Two) by looking at “flow regime” (Level Three) using “topographic categories” (Level Four). Another example might address “reduction of sediment” (Level One) through “assessment of sediment regime” (Level Two) by investigating “mass wasting” (Level Three) using “soil parameters” (Level Four). The Assessment Tree can be entered on any level and tracing routes up to Level One or down to Level Four will illuminate the watershed stewardship strategy, with its sometimes linear and sometimes networked connections, from which future analysis and planning and project identification and implementation might arise.
ISSUES/OBJECTIVES/RESOURCES FIRST ORDER - Issues / Objectives / Key-Resources
A. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation/RCD Contract: - Watershed process/function - Socioeconomic process/function - Develop approach to quantify watershed health measures - Track watershed health progress.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-1 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
B. NF/MF American Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy Scoping process: - Key Resources NF/MF American River Watershed area: - Protection of domestic water supplies (quality/quantity). - Protection and improvement of aquatic resources. - Improvement and maintenance of high water quality (unspecified) conditions of streams/lakes. - Improvement and maintenance of high stream channel and riparian habitat quality conditions. - The development and maintenance of a fire-safe, productive forest. - Sediment reduction and maintenance of low erosion rates and sediment yields.
Lower American River: - Anadromous fishery resources (steelhead, chinook salmon) - Folsom Dam operations. - Improved streamflow regime. - Lower spring through fall water temperatures. - Unspecified water quality parameters. - Maintenance of operational flexibility. - Inflow regime - Sediment accumulation - Desired Future Conditions: 1) Have an adequate long term water supply (quality/quantity) for in- watershed users. 2) Accommodate the potential for future population growth development in-watershed. 3) Have an appropriate and balanced sharing of responsibilities for meeting overall water quality/quantity (and related) goals between in- watershed and downstream interests. 4) Have and maintain an unfragmented watershed land use pattern. 5) Have and maintain the general ‘open-space’ quality of the watershed land area. 6) Have and maintain the watershed area as a visual and recreation element for the regional population. 7) Have and maintain ongoing community economic viability. 8) Have and maintain a high quality fishery for general watershed health and as a recreation resource. 9) Have and maintain a fire-safe and resource-productive forest. 10) Have a stewardship program that is limited to identified existing or potential problems. 11) Have a coordinated institutional environment to assist landowners in resource management and in permitting processes. 12) Have a voluntary-only stewardship program.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-2 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
13) Have a stewardship program that assists groups of landowners in addressing resource issues made difficult and impractical under existing agency regulations. 14) Have a stewardship program that is not prescriptive and does not burden landowners with duplicative over-site. 15) Have a stewardship program that fosters coordinated agency resource planning and management with respect to watershed issues.
C. CALFED Revised Phase II Report - “Mission Statement, Objectives, and Solution Principles” - Develop a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system. - Objectives for a solution; - Provide good water quality for all beneficial uses; - Improve and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve ecological functions in the Bay-Delta to support sustainable populations of diverse and valuable plant and animal species. - Reduce the mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies and current and projected beneficial uses dependent on the Bay-Delta system - Reduce the risk to land use and associated economic activities, water supply, infrastructure and the ecosystem from catastrophic breaching of Delta levees. - Solutions must satisfy the following Solution Principles: Reduce Conflicts in the System: Solutions will reduce major conflicts among beneficial uses of water. Be Equitable: Solutions will focus on solving problems in all problem area. Improvements for some problems will not be made without corresponding improvements for other problems. Be Affordable: Solutions will be implementable and maintainable within the foreseeable resource of the Program and stakeholders. Be Durable: Solutions will have political and economic staying power and will sustain the resources they were designed to protect and enhance. Be Implementable: Solutions will have broad public acceptance and legal feasibility, and will be timely and relatively simple to implement compared with other alternatives. Have No Significant Redirected Impacts: Solutions will not solve problems in the Bay-Delta system by redirecting significant negative impacts, when viewed in their entirely, within the Bay- Delta or to other regions of California - Watershed Management Strategy - Goals of Watershed Projects
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-3 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- Ecosystem Quality: To improver and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and to improve ecological functions in the Bay-Delta system to support sustainable population of diverse and valuable plant and animal species. - Water Quality: To provide good water quality for all beneficial uses. - Water Supply Reliability: To reduce the mismatch between Bay- Delta water supplies and current and projected beneficial uses dependent on the Bay-Delta system. - Projects types that meet CALFED objectives: - Improved water quality. - Improved riparian habitat along streams. - Increased water yield. - Beneficial time-shifting of accretion and runoff through non- structural methods. - Reduced sediment loads in streams. - Increased or improved fisheries habitat. - Restoration of meadows affecting downstream flows or species. - Restoration of stream banks affecting downstream flows or species. - Reduced pollutant loads in streams, lakes, and reservoirs. - Restoration of natural stream morphology affecting downstream flows or species. - Restoration of meadow groundwater tables affecting downstream flows. - Projects must show clear and demonstrated linkage to the correction of problems of the Bay-Delta system. - Adaptive Management: These principles will be used to adjust a project (during implementation) as new information becomes available. - Project will conform to the Comprehensive Monitoring, Assessment, and Research Plan (CMARP), an adaptive management tool to assure scientific products of value; data evaluation and decision making. - Watershed activities will comply with state and federal watershed initiatives (Apx B) - General Principles of Good Watershed Management: “should help guide the development of projects to achieve CALFED goals and objectives.” - Restoration must be consistent with watershed level assessment, analysis and evaluation; restoration includes protection of existing healthy conditions. - Restoration should assure the preservation of existing healthy conditions by removing known threats and protection from future threats. - Restoration must include eliminating continuing causes of watershed degradation.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-4 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- Restoration projects should be prioritized within each watershed for effectiveness on the basis of maximum ecological benefits and on the benefits to stable local community economics and/or revitalization. - Restoration and stewardship decisions should be based on explicit objectives and benchmarks from an approved watershed restoration plan. - Restoration that alters environments should give highest priority to project results that use natural processes. - Process of restoration must be effectively monitored, using explicit objectives and benchmarks, in order to evaluate ongoing restoration and stewardship efforts. - Restoration plans and/or projects must not sacrifice one ecosystem for another. - Restoration must be accomplished consistent with existing applicable environmental laws. - Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan Vol. 1 - Vision Summary (p.8) - Upper Watershed Processes: fire and erosion - Vision for health and function is to reduce the level of stressors including wildfire, erosion, excessive timber harvest and livestock grazing, and other damaging land use management practices that constrain watershed health and the ability to contribute to the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. - Linkages (p.70) - Linked to Bay-Delta system ecological health by water supply, water quality, sediment supply habitats, and Bay-Delta species, and sustain water and sediment supply and water quality essential to anadromous species in the lower watersheds when migration is blocked by dams. - Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan Vol 2 - Ecological Management Zone Visions - Lower American River Ecological Management Unit (p.315) - Restoring important fishery, wildlife, and plant communities to a condition in which the status of specific resources is no longer considered to be of concern within the unit. - Restoring or reinitiating important ecological processes and functions that create and maintain important habitats for fish, wildlife, and plant communities.
D. CV-RWQCB Basin Plan: Beneficial Uses (Table II-1) Watershed Area NF American River: - Municipal and domestic water supply - Agricultural water supply (irrigation) - Recreation (contact)
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-5 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- Recreation (flow dependent river boating) - Recreation (noncontact) - [Potential] Warm freshwater habitat (resident species) - Cold freshwater habitat (resident species) - Cold water species spawning, reproduction, and/or early development (salmon and steelhead) - Wildlife (water that support wetland, riparian, terrestrial ecosystems) MF American River: - Municipal and domestic water supply - Agricultural water supply (irrigation) - Agricultural water supply (stock watering) - Industrial (power production) - Recreation (contact) - Recreation (flow dependent river boating) - Recreation (noncontact) - [Potential] Warm freshwater habitat (resident species) - Cold freshwater habitat (resident species) - Cold water species spawning, reproduction, and/or early development (salmon and steelhead) - Wildlife (water that support wetland, riparian, terrestrial ecosystems) Downstream Areas Folsom Reservoir: - Municipal and domestic water supply - Agricultural water supply (irrigation) - [Potential] Industrial (non-water quality related industrial water supply) - Industrial (power production) - Recreation (contact) - Recreation (noncontact) - Warm freshwater habitat (resident species) - Cold freshwater habitat (resident species) - Warm water species spawning, reproduction, and/or early development (striped base, sturgeon, and shad) - Wildlife (water that support wetland, riparian, terrestrial ecosystems) Lower American River: - Municipal and domestic water supply - Agricultural water supply (irrigation) - Industrial (non-water quality related industrial water supply) - Industrial (power production) - Recreation (contact) - Recreation (flow dependent river boating) - Recreation (noncontact) - Warm freshwater habitat (resident species)
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-6 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- Cold freshwater habitat (resident species) - Warm water aquatic species migration (striped bass, sturgeon, and chad) - Cold water aquatic species migration (salmon and steelhead) - Warm water species spawning, reproduction, and/or early development (striped bass, sturgeon, and chad) - Cold water species spawning, reproduction, and/or early development (salmon and steelhead) - Wildlife (water that support wetland, riparian, terrestrial ecosystems) Water Quality Objectives Variable - pps. III-1 to III-10 (+tables) - Maintenance of high water quality conditions (non-degradation) (Page III-2)
E. Placer Legacy (Placer Legacy Open Space and Agricultural Conservation Program - Summary report: Resource issues; (pps. 16-17) - Initial species of concern; State and Federal Listed Species. - Areas of high biological value that may be sensitive or contain sensitive species habitat such as montane wet meadows and riparian zones. Implementation Measures (pages 26-32) - Protect and manage aquatic and riparian habitat for special status amphibians. - Protect wildlife corridors. - Protect important remaining wetlands, mountain meadow, and riparian areas as habitat for special status amphibians. - Protect important remaining wetlands, mountain meadow, and riparian areas as habitat. - Enhance stream zone vegetation for wildlife habitat and water quality. - Improve connectivity and quality of stream zone vegetation for wildlife habitat and water quality. - Reduce wildland fire potential using buffers and fuel load management.
F. USFS - Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment: - Aquatic Management Strategy Goals (ROD p. A-6) - Water quality: Maintain and restore water quality to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, providing water that is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment. - Species Viability: Maintain and restore habitat to support populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian- dependent species. Prevent new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work cooperatively to reduce impacts to native populations. - Plant and Animal Community Diversity: Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plans and animal communities in
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-7 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows to provide desired habitats and ecological functions. - Special Habitats: Maintain and restore the distribution and health of biotic communities in special habitat (such as springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes) to perpetuate their unique functions and biological diversity. - Watershed Connectivity: Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically, and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration, and reproduction. - Floodplains and Water Tables: Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute floodflows and sustain diverse habitats. - Watershed Condition: Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetation cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable conditions of streamflows. - Streamflow Patterns and Sediment Regimes: Maintain and restore streamflows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved. - Stream Banks and Shorelines: Maintain and restore the physical structure and condition of stream banks and shorelines to minimize erosion and sustain desired habitat diversity. - Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) (ROD p. A-7); - Intent of management direction; - Preserve, enhance, and restore habitat for riparian- and aquatic- dependent species. - Ensure that water quality is maintained or restored. - Enhance habitat conservation for species associated with the transition zone between upslope and riparian area. - Provide greater connectivity within the watershed. - Size parameters; - Perennial streams - 300 ft each side from bankfull edge. - Intermittent streams (with ephemerals with scour) - 150 ft. each side from bankfull edge. - Streams in inner gorges - top of inner gorge. - Special Aquatic Features - 300 ft from edge of feature or riparian vegetation edge. - Conservation Objectives (ROD p. A-53-59); - Ensure that identified beneficial uses for the water body are adequately protected. - Maintain or restore - the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs, - streams, including in-stream flows,
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-8 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic- dependent species. - Ensure a renewable supply of large down logs that can reach the stream channel and provide suitable habitat within and adjacent to RCAs. - Ensure management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. - Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes needed to recover or enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas. - Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain, restore, or enhance water quality and maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for riparian and aquatic species.
G. US Bureau of Reclamation Folsom/LAR Issues: - Folsom Reservoir operational sensitivity. - Sensitive to rain-on-snow event spills in May - would like to manage to reduce probability and magnitude of spills. - Reduced winter peak flood flows would benefit reservoir operations. - Prolonged spring runoff would benefit reservoir operations. - Need to release 60 degree water in summer-fall period for LAR fishery issues; would like to manage to reduce thermal loading in reservoir pool in the summer months. - Increased base flows with slightly low water temperatures could increase thermal loading in reservoir and decrease operational flexibility (relationship presently unknown). - Sedimentation of pool is not an important issue. - Unknown water quality issues.
H. Watershed Reservoir Operations: - Sensitive to rain-on-snow event spills in May - would like to manage to reduce probability and magnitude of spills. - Reduced winter peak flood flows would benefit reservoir operations. - Prolonged spring runoff would benefit reservoir operations. - Sedimentation in pools is a major issue. - Snowmelt runoff turbidity is a water quality issue.
WATERSHED ASSESSMENT GOALS
SECOND ORDER - Watershed Assessment Goals (assessment goals that address Order I issues, objectives, and key-resources, and Project Plan Objectives):
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-9 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
A. Assessment: - Basic parameters - Limited to existing data sources. - Maintaining a reference to resource data reliability. - Assessment elements (the assessment should address and lead to an understanding of); - Condition of aquatic habitat. - Condition of riparian habitat. - Location and life-cycle requirements of key-resource species. - Watershed sediment regime. - Watershed hydrology. - Watershed process and function. - Long-term natural variability of processes. - Trend in channel conditions. - Fire hazard/watershed sensitivity - areas of fuel loading problems where catastrophic fire would cause watershed resource problems (high soil erosion potential, hydrophobicity, etc.). - Present land uses and management areas - influences on watershed resource problems (sediment regime, flow regime, channel conditions, etc.). - Future land uses and management areas- potential influences on watershed resource problems (sediment regime, flow regime, channel conditions, etc.). - Identify ecosystem elements potentially at risk through stewardship actions.
B. Stewardship (the assessment should): - Provide a data basis useful for agency and landowner stewardship planning. - Provide the basis for recommending stewardship and BMP recommendations within information reliability limitations. - Provide the basis for recommending land use and resource management recommendations within information reliability limitations. - Provide the basis for assessing cumulative watershed resource impacts. - Provide the basis for estimating stewardship tradeoffs between improved and adversely affected ecosystem elements. - Provide the basis for estimating stewardship tradeoffs between socioeconomic and cultural sectors within the watershed. - Provide the basis for estimating stewardship tradeoffs between watershed area and downstream area improvements and watershed stewardship costs
C. On-going activities (the assessment should): - Identify additional resource information and research necessary to advance the Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-10 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- Identify resource parameters and criteria necessary to track watershed and key- resource condition trends.
RESOURCE ASSESSMENT THEMES
THIRD ORDER - Resource assessment themes (assessment themes that address Order II assessment goals and Order I issues, objectives, and key-resources):
A. Flow regime (issues; flow regime, channel stability/integrity, aquatic habitat, water temperature, reservoir management, water supply); - Major rainfall floodflow events. Manage to reduce human activity influences on flow magnitude. - Rain-on-snow runoff events. Manage to reduce magnitude and probability of events in May. - Bankfull flows. Manage to reduce human activity influences on flow magnitude. - Snowmelt runoff. Manage to prolong spring runoff recession. - Baseflow. Manage to protect and enhance baseflow magnitudes.
B. Sediment regime (issues; turbidity, sedimentation, channel disruption, future changes); - Mass wasting potential. Areas of possible mass wasting during extreme events and land use disturbance. - Road system sediment production Sediment production and impacts on channels due to road location and surface water management - Terrestrial erosion potential Sites of high erosion potential and sediment possibilities, direction for future land use and resource management, BMPs. - Channel degradation, aggradation. Stream reaches under going disruption due changed sediment regime, channel storage or net production of sediments. - Turbidity Snowmelt turbidity and reduced quality of domestic water supplies. - Reservoir sedimentation. Loss of pool capacity, flushing and excavation impacts/costs. - Long-term erosion regime. Landscape evolution processes, rates, cycles, stream channel evolution and trends. - Estimated changes due to stewardship practices, BMPs, and future land use and resource management direction
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-11 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
C. Wildlife (issues; association with aquatic resources; potentially adversely affected by stewardship); - Location and life-cycle requirements of aquatic, riparian, and special water features. - Significant wildlife habitat that could be adversely affected by stewardship actions (fuels management, etc.).
D. Aquatic Biota (issues; association with aquatic resources; potentially adversely affected by stewardship); - Location and life-cycle requirements of aquatic and special water feature species. - Significant aquatic habitat that could be adversely affected by stewardship actions (flow regime management, greater and cooler baseflows).
E. Fire/fuel (issues; watershed resource impacts due to catastrophic fire, fuel management stewardship); - Fuels loading. Vegetation flame length valuation, potential for catastrophic fire pattern - Fire hazards. Topography, elevation, fuels valuation of risk of catastrophic fire occurrence - Soil site susceptibility to fire impacts; hydrophobicity etc. and watershed resource impacts.
F. Present land use and resource management activities (issues; ongoing activities and potential for impacts to watershed resources); - Present land use and resource management jurisdictions. - Present land use and resource management restricted areas. - Present and recent land use and resource management activities. - Potential for uses to impact watershed resources.
G. Future land use and resource management activities (issues; possible activities and potential for impacts to watershed resources); - Land use and resource management jurisdictions. - Land use and resource management restricted areas. - Land use and resource management activities. - Potential for uses to impact watershed resources.
ASSESSMENT APPROACH
FOURTH ORDER - Assessment approach (approaches that address Order III assessment themes and Order I issues, objectives, and key-resources within the resource information limitations):
A. Physiography (used to regionally extrapolate information); - Predominant runoff categories (rainfall, rain-on-snow, snowmelt)
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-12 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- Developed be regionalization of topography (USFS) - Geologic categories by sediment and hydrologic factors. - Topographic categories by major features. - Geomorphologic process categories by major types.
B. Streams (A) Perennial, and Seasonal (USGS mapped); - Map USGS streams - Stream density (miles/sq.mi.) - Set-up dynamic segmentation - Stream Order (Map determination) - Gradient (DEM) - Channel type-categories (Professional/aerial-photo) - Confined bedrock - Confined terrace - Semi-confined terrace - Unconfined - Known areas of channel disruption. - Type - Cause - Trend - Riparian areas - Type - Extent - Condition - Aquatic resources - Types - Condition - Trend
C. Streams (B) Ephemeral (USFS mapped); - Map USFS ephemeral streams - Stream density (miles/sq.mi)
D. Watershed hydrology; - Model existing gage data into unit-area yield relations (PCWA). - Display unit area yield (USFS). - Annual average precipitation.
E. Baseflow elements; - Special aquatic features. - Stream reaches of observed flow accretion. - Stream reaches of observed flow losses.
F. Hydrography; - Streams (perennial, seasonal, ephemeral). - Stream density.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-13 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- Special aquatic features. - Baseflow elements. - Areas of shallow groundwater. - Mass wasting areas. - High erosion potential areas. - Hydrologic soil classes - Hydrologic groups - Soil moisture capacity - Hydrologic geology classes - Groundwater recharge - Rapid runoff
G. Terrestrial erosion potential; - Agreed to method (USFS/NRCS/RCD) - Soil parameters - Rainfall parameters
H. Mass wasting potential; - Geology/soils maps. - Known mass wasting areas and processes. - Regional mass wasting process/geologic relationships (other studies/reports, professional experience). - Map potential.
I. Soil Fire-Hydrophobicity; - Soil parameters. - Vegetation parameters. - Stream density.
J. Major (> bankfull) rainfall runoff events; - Road crossings - Mass wasting zones - Channel stability
K. Rain-on-snow events; - Rain-on-snow area for May. - Extend DC/LC snowmelt model to lower elevation. - Set slope aspect/angle sensitive to snow pack management by vegetation - Identify hydrologic soil classes for infiltration/storage capacity - Map areas by relative-susceptibility to snow pack management by vegetation.
L. Snowmelt recession extension; - Snowmelt areas for May. - Extend DC/LC snowmelt model to higher elevations. - Set slope aspect/angle sensitive to snow pack management by vegetation - Identify hydrologic soil classes for infiltration/storage capacity.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-14 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- Map areas by relative-susceptibility to snow pack management by vegetation.
M. Bankfull flow events; - Changes in unit-area infiltration rate. - Changes in subsurface flow interruption. - Changes in stream density. - Changes in time of concentration.
N. Baseflows; - Baseflow accretion/loss reaches. - Special aquatic features. - Hydrologic soil groups. - Geology by groundwater classes.
O. Wildlife habitat values; - Special species locations. - Vegetation. - Habitat/vegetation relationships. - Map wildlife habitat values.
P. Land use and resource management implications; - Categorize land use and resource management activity types - Relate land use and resource management activities types to watershed processes - surface disturbance - soil compaction - increased impervious area - changes in unit-area infiltration - changes in stream density - changes in time of concentration - soil water flow interruption.
Q. Present land use and resource management; - Overlay land use and resource management types and implications with watershed process information to estimate impact associations.
R. Future land use and resource management; - Overlay land use and resource management types and implications with watershed process information to estimate future impact associations.
Data Assemblage
PHASE 1 - FIRST GENERATION GIS PRODUCTS AND SYSTEM US Forest Service
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-15 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
To help accomplish Task 2 – Data Assemblage, under the North Fork American River Integrated Watershed Stewardship Strategy grant, the American River Watershed Group contracted with the US Forest Service to provide biophysical GIS data for the watershed evaluation process. In December 2001, the Forest Service delivered approximately 50 individual data layers (ArcInfo coverages) and 18 maps (PDF image files) describing various biophysical characteristics in the watershed, which together made up the first generation of products in our GIS system. All ArcInfo coverages provided by the US Forest Service are in UTM Zone 10, NAD 27 map projection.
Individual GIS Datalayers from the US Forest Service Coverage Description (provided by the USFS) 1 arwg_albers Albers Map Projection – a map projection commonly used for statewide covers. Useful for checking data from other sources. 2 big3d Three-dimensional shaded relief map – black and white image file. 3 campground Approximate location of campgrounds and day use areas. Source: data captured from Forest Recreation Visitor maps. 4 cat3_bndy American River Category III (watershed) Study Area – based on the North Fork and Middle Fork of the American River watershed basin as designated by the American River Watershed Planning Group. Last modified in August 2001 by Chuck Watson. 5 change_det Change Detection – changes in vegetation cover from 1991 to 1996, categorized by degree of increase or decrease in vegetation. Based on computer comparison of satellite imagery provided through California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Forest Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). 6 chip_parcel Placer County Prop. 204 fuel reduction chipping projects. 7 City Cities and towns in the watershed. 8 contour_80 80-foot contour lines. 9 County Counties in and adjacent to the North Fork and Middle Fork American River watershed. 10 eveg97 Existing vegetation as of 1997. Source: USFS. 11 fb_apple_cdf CDF Major Fuel Break System – Weimar/Applegate area and Foresthill/Todd Valley/Michigan Bluff area. Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 12 fb_cdf CDF Major Fuel Break System 13 fb_codfish Codfish area fuel breaks. Source: Foresthill Ranger District, Tahoe National Forest. 14 fb_forks_pla Forks/Codfish Area Plantation Thinning Project. Source: Foresthill Ranger District, Tahoe National Forest.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-16 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
15 fb_mb_fhrd Michigan Bluff Shaded Fuel Breaks. Source: Foresthill Ranger District, Tahoe National Forest. 16 fb_mb_pcrcd Michigan Bluff Shaded Fuel Breaks. Source: Placer County Resource Conservation District. 17 fire_freq01 Wildfire Frequency – number of times sites have burned. Includes Forest Service jurisdiction fires > 10 acres [1900 to 2001] and CDF/other jurisdictions’ fires > 300 acres [1950-2001]. 18 fire_hist00 Wildfire History – Forest Service jurisdiction fires > 10 acres [1900-2000] and CDF/other jurisdictions’ fires > 300 acres [1950-2000]. Region cover type. The FIRES subclass contains data including name, # of acres, cause, date, agency, and incident number. Source: joint project between USFS and CDF. 19 fire2001 Fires occurring within the watershed in the year 2001. Source: Star and Gap fire data from the incident management files. Ponderosa fire information from the Office of Emergency Management. Data includes # of acres, cause, date, agency and incident number. 20 folsom_lake Folsom lake. 21 Geology General bedrock geology. Source: data from the California Division of Mines and Geology, original data entry at 1:750,000 scale. 22 gov_admin Administrative boundaries of the governmental agencies within the watershed. Source: data from numerous sources of varying accuracies. Lands within national forest boundaries entered at 1:24,000 scale. Other ownerships derived using county parcel boundaries. Land administration reflects ownership as of mid-2001. 23 Hwy Primary and secondary highways in the watershed. Selected from road cover. 24 Lake Lakes and reservoirs in and adjacent to the watershed. Source: USFS Cartographic Feature Files. 25 Lookout Fire lookout tower sites, approximate location. 26 mines_line Topographically occurring mine sites – linear. 27 mines_point Topographically occurring mine sites – points. 28 mines_poly Topographically occurring mine sites – polygon. 29 prop204_bndy Watershed boundary for purposes of Proposition 204 projects. 30 quad_index USGS 7.5’ Quad Map boundaries. 31 rail_rd Railroad tracks, approximate location. Source: digitized from USGS quad maps. 32 Rainfall Average annual precipitation. Source: isohytal precipitation map from the State of California. 33 rain_snow Rain, rain-on-snow, and snow zones, based on elevation. Source: derived from 30-meter DEM. 34 rdls_wild Roadless, Wild and Scenic River and Designated Wilderness Areas. Source: USFS, Tahoe and Eldorado National Forest planning files. Data capture at 1:24,000 scale.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-17 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
35 ria_le38 CDF Residential Inspection Areas – Todd Valley and Weimar areas. Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 36 River Major rivers of the watershed. Source: selected from USFS Cartographic Feature Files. 37 road_arwg Roads within the ARWG Planning Area, including class codes and delineation between “trail” and “road.” Source: from county files, compiled by the State of California. 38 road_county Roads within Placer and El Dorado counties. Source: from county files, compiled by State of California. 39 shirt_meadow Shirt Tail Meadow Restoration Project. Source: selected from USFS Cartographic Feature Files. 40 shirt_trail Shirt Tail Interpretive Trail project. 41 slope_type Generalized slope data. 42 soil_enf Soils – Eldorado National Forest. 43 soil_tnf Soils – Tahoe National Forest. 44 Stream Perennial and seasonal streams and ditches. 45 take_line Bureau of Reclamation “take line” for the proposed Auburn Dam. 46 Trail Various trails and trail types. 47 trail_4wd Approximate location of selected 4x4 routes. Source: data captures from Forest Recreation Visitor Maps by R. Johnson. 48 trail_head Trail heads for various trails. 49 wtrshd_huc5 Fifth Field Watershed boundaries within the North Fork and Middle Fork American River watershed. Source: drawn by T. Biddinger. Data capture at 1:24,000 scale. 50 wtrshd_huc6 Sixth Field Watershed boundaries within the North Fork and Middle Fork American River watershed. Source: drawn by T. Biddinger. Data capture at 1:24,000 scale.
The Forest Service then combined various ArcInfo datalayers to create thematic maps to assist the American River Watershed Group in its watershed evaluation process. Descriptions of each map and the source data used to create it follow.
MAP 2-1 – CHANGE DETECTION (1991-1996) The Change Detection map (HYPERLINK) illustrates areas in the watershed where vegetation has changed over time due to large landscape disturbance such as fire, mining, timber harvesting, large developments, etc. The map helps us see areas of large- scale change (down to 100-acre minimum blocks) from 1991 to1996 and categorizes that change by degree (e.g. Moderate Increase in Vegetation, Small Increase, Little or No Change, Small Decrease, Moderate Decrease, Large Decrease). As we look at this map in combination with others, we can see that vegetation has decreased in pockets at the 4,000- to 6,000-foot elevation, most likely due to timber
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-18 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy harvesting and large fires. Vegetation increases appear to occur particularly in areas that have low to moderate road density. However, since the data on this map is presented at such a gross scale (100-acre minimum blocks), we decided to do more detailed analysis in Phase 2 of this project by looking at the change data in each sub-watershed to see which sub-basin areas have experienced the most change and, combined with other data, to draw conclusions as to why [see PHASE 2 – SECOND GENERATION GIS PRODUCTS later in this chapter for a description of this Phase 2 process]. The following, excerpted from the data source – the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Forest Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) – explains more about how change detection mapping is accomplished and what it tells us. Change Detection Mapping The USDA Forest Service and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection are collaborating on a statewide land cover monitoring program to assess changes in California's landscape and provide monitoring data for regional assessment across ownerships and vegetation types. This program uses Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite imagery to derive land cover change within five-year time periods across all vegetation types and ownerships. Change detection results answer different questions at a variety of scales. At a regional scale, users investigate ecosystem characteristics or function by examining the cause of change over time, the ratio of vegetation increase to decrease, and whether changes are temporary or permanent (e.g., fire versus development). Examining changes in vegetation at a more sub- regional or local scale can help resource managers to evaluate the impacts of disturbances on natural resources of local interest. This information is useful to monitor and assess the effectiveness of existing policies, programs, management activities and regulations, and to develop alternatives as needed (e.g., county voluntary guidelines for oak woodland management). It also provides an important opportunity for agencies to look across jurisdictions and programs. The project detects change over a five-year time interval. The difference in spectral reflectance between TM imagery dates determines whether change occurred or not. The term spectral reflectance refers to the amount of sunlight reflected from surface features to the satellite in space. For example, in the images below, the red areas indicate live vegetation, gray areas indicate an absence of vegetation and black areas indicate water. Between 1991 and 1996 a large fire (the Cleveland fire), which is shown by the yellow polygon, burned much of the vegetation and changed the spectral reflectance between images from red (the 1991 TM image) to gray (the 1996 TM image). The change detection process interprets these spectral reflectance differences and produces a map identifying a continuum of change classes. The classes range from little or no vegetation change to large increases or decreases in vegetation cover. Project Method The change detection method produces a product covering millions of acres within one year at less than one cent per acre. Cover increase can represent seasonal variations (moisture differences) in vegetation and/or successional characteristics (grass and shrub growth following a disturbance). Large changes in vegetation cover, such as those caused by harvests and wildfire, are easily detected.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-19 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Thinning, selective harvesting, brushing for fuel reduction and mortality are detectable, demonstrating an ability of the change detection procedure to detect more subtle changes in vegetation cover. Change data can capture fire perimeter and fire intensity. Changes in vegetation cover are detected through two phases. In the first phase we produce a preliminary project area change map that characterizes vegetation cover change into large, moderate and small increases and decreases. In the second phase, we correlate the preliminary vegetation cover changes to canopy and ground cover measurements from field surveys and aerial photography interpretation. This final change map represents change in canopy and ground cover between two image dates that are five years apart (i.e. 1991 and 1996). The change map is then assessed for accuracy and analyzed for cause using GIS coverages, ancillary information and field surveys. Final monitoring products from our program include a project area change map, a coverage of known cause for change areas and an annual statistical report documenting the area and effects of land cover change. An unsupervised classification on the region-level change in brightness, greenness and wetness change image reduces data and aids in image interpretation. This classification results in 50 change classes. Image appearance, photo interpretation, vegetation and topographic maps and bispectral plots (Figure 3) aid in identifying levels of change. Each change class is labeled according to its level of change based on a gradient of change classes from large decreases to large increases in vegetation. Change polygons are plotted on 7.5 minute quad maps to facilitate the interpretation of change and to focus field inventories on areas without readily identifiable sources of change. Resource managers interpret these maps in light of their local knowledge regarding sources of change. Spatial data on fire, harvest, plantation and urban development applied to the change map as masks, further identify sources of change and eliminate specific change polygons as potential sites for field validation. Polygons without a causal agent so identified become the focus of field efforts. Similarly, fieldwork and consultation of private landowners by UC Integrated Hardwood Rangeland Management Program (IHRMP) personnel identify declines in hardwood canopy cover due to fire, thinning, harvest, urban development and mortality. Vegetation maps for hardwood rangelands are used to calculate acreage loss and increase in hardwood vegetation types. Once areas and sources of change are validated, they are incorporated into a GIS database. Attributes of the database include location, cause and vegetation type of change. Basal area loss for decreasing vegetation change polygons is calculated for National Forest lands using regression analysis. Field data on basal area loss collected by Forest Service personnel in decreasing vegetation change polygons are regressed to changes in brightness, greenness and wetness. Basal area loss for all change polygons is then estimated from change in brightness, greenness and wetness with this regression equation. Source: California Land Cover Mapping & Monitoring Program, a project of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Forest Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/projects/land_cover/monitoring/index.html
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-20 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
MAP 2-2 – CITIES, TOWNS & OTHER LANDMARKS/HIGHWAYS AND MAJOR ROADWAYS The Cities, Towns map (HYPERLINK) shows settlements, major roads and other landmarks in the watershed, based primarily on US Forest Service Cartographic Feature files and the US Forest Service road coverage data. From this map we see the inherent challenge of conducting watershed assessment and planning activities solely within the state-proscribed watershed boundary – as many of the main settlement areas are right on the northern watershed boundary line; yet the impacts can be felt by area residents both in and outside the official watershed boundary. This problem is, in part, why we have modified our approach to conduct watershed assessment and planning on a more regional scale using Fire Safe Councils as our main organizing structure.
MAP 2-3 – 80-FT CONTOUR INTERVAL The 80-ft. Contour Interval map (HYPERLINK) shows contour lines, or topography, within the watershed at 80-foot intervals. The map was derived from a 30- meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) to show relative elevation and slope in different parts of the watershed. The darkest areas on the map indicate the steepest areas in the watershed, typically found surrounding the major rivers and tributary streams. The following, excerpted from the US Geologic Survey Topographic Mapping User Guide, explains more about how topographic contour mapping is accomplished and what it tells us.
Topographic Contour Mapping One of the most widely used of all maps is the topographic map. The feature that most distinguishes topographic maps from maps of other types is the use of contour lines to portray the shape and elevation of the land. Topographic maps render the three-dimensional ups and downs of the terrain on a two- dimensional surface. Produced at a scale of 1:24,000 (some metric maps are produced at a scale of 1:25,000), these maps are commonly known as 7.5-minute quadrangle maps because each map covers a four-sided area of 7.5 minutes of latitude and 7.5 minutes of longitude. The United States has been systematically divided into precisely measured quadrangles, and adjacent maps can be combined to form a single large map. The 7.5-minute quadrangle map series is popular as a base for maps of many different types and scales. The amount of detail shown on a map is proportionate to the scale of the map: the larger the map scale, the more detail shown. Since 1 inch on the map represents 2,000 feet on the Earth, 1:24,000-scale maps depict considerable detail. The first step in producing a topographic map is acquiring aerial photographs of the area being mapped. A pair of aerial photographs--each showing the same ground area taken from a different position along the flight line--are viewed through an instrument called a stereoscope, producing a three- dimensional view of the terrain from which a cartographer can draw a topographic map. Widespread acceptance of computers and related technologies has accelerated the demand for mapping information in computer-compatible form.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-21 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Government agencies and private businesses now require digital mapping information for their computer-based systems. The USGS is the principal agency developing standards and coordinating other matters related to Federal digital cartographic data. The National Digital Cartographic Data Base (NDCDB) was established by the USGS to distribute digital data that meet these standards for use in map production and in automated systems. NDCDB data provide a framework of reference for other data about the Earth and its resources. The NDCDB data consists of digital line graphs (DLG) and digital elevation models (DEM). DLG's are the digital representation of information typically found on a topographic map (point locations, lines and area outlines). DEM's are matrices of elevations for ground points spaced at regular distances. Geographic information systems (GIS) are at the forefront of the mapping revolution. A GIS makes it possible to combine layers of digital data from different sources and to manipulate and analyze how the different layers relate to each other. With a GIS, researchers can combine geographically referenced data from the NDCDB and many other sources and perform complex analyses that have not been possible before. Source: US Geologic Survey Topographic Mapping online edition. This online edition contains full text from the original publication. This document has undergone official review and approval for publications established by the National Mapping Division, U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Department of the Interior — U.S. Geological Survey — 509 National Center, Reston, VA 20192. URL: http://mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/booklets/topo/topo.html
Other maps created and described under Phase 2 of this project were also derived from this topographic DEM mapping process. According to the US Geologic Survey, Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data files are digital representations of cartographic information in a raster form (a raster image is a matrix of row and column data points whose values represent energy being reflected or emitted from the object being viewed). These values, or pixels, can be viewed on a display monitor as a black and white or color image. DEMs consist of a sampled array of elevations for a number of ground positions at regularly spaced intervals. These digital cartographic/geographic data files are produced by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as part of the National Mapping Program and are sold in 7.5-minute, 15-minute, 2-arc-second (also known as 30-minute), and 1-degree units. The 7.5- and 15-minute DEMs are included in the large scale category while 2-arc-second DEMs fall within the intermediate scale category and 1- degree DEMs fall within the small scale category. [Source: USGS Digital Elevation Model Data: http://edc.usgs.gov/glis/hyper/guide/usgs_dem.]
MAP 2-4 – MAJOR VEGETATION COVERTYPES (EXISTING VEGETATION 1997) The map of Major Vegetation Covertypes (HYPERLINK) was created from a US Forest Service dataset called Existing Vegetation 1997. This data came from 30-meter
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-22 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy satellite images that were analyzed and broken down into 9 primary vegetation classification types. According to the US Forest Service map and data, the watershed is composed of the following vegetation types and amounts (in acres), with Conifer and Mixed Conifer/Hardwood as the two predominant types.
Vegetation Type Acres % Description Agriculture 185 <1% Barren/Rock 23,775 4% less than 10 percent cover of any natural vegetation Conifer 333,395 51% greater than 10 percent conifer cover as the dominant type Hardwood 79,280 12% greater than 10 percent hardwood cover as the dominant type Herbaceous 10,485 2% greater than 10 percent grass cover as the dominant type Mixed 131,095 20% greater than 10 percent conifer cover and greater Conifer/Hardwood than 20 percent hardwood cover Shrub 55,820 8% greater than 10 percent shrub cover as the dominant type Urban/Residential 1,915 <1% Water & Major Rivers 16,855 2% TOTAL 652,805 100%
Because the Existing Vegetation 1997 dataset has not been cross-checked with more detailed aerial photographs of the area, it may be somewhat less accurate than some other vegetation datasets. We received permission to access other US Forest Service vegetation data, including Vegetation 1980 and Vegetation 2000, and were able to use those datasets to update our vegetation mapping for use in Phase 2 portion of the watershed analysis. The following, excerpted from the US Forest Service metadata file accompanying the original dataset, explains in more detail the components of the Existing Vegetation 1997 data.
USFS Existing Vegetation 1997 The existing vegetation map layer is the source for CALVEG types. The CALVEG Classification System is a statewide system developed by the USDA Forest Service in Region 5 to serve as a standard for existing vegetation maps. (USDA Forest Service. 1981. CALVEG: A Classification of California Vegetation. Pacific Southwest Region, Regional Ecology Group, San Francisco CA. 168 pp.). The following are the general mapping and classification rules for the existing vegetation layer.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-23 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Vegetation Mapping Criteria: Minimum Mapping Size - 2.5 acres for contrasting vegetation conditions based on vegetation type, tree canopy closure, and overstory tree size (see tables 38, 40, and 39) - No minimum mapping unit for lakes and conifer plantations Life Forms Life Forms are initially generated from classification of Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery into the following hierarchical classes: Conifer, Mix, Hardwood, Shrub, Grass, Barren, Agriculture, Urban, Ice/Snow, Water. Subsequently, the following items are mapped within Life Form classes: Vegetation Type (CALVEG): Rules have been developed by Vegetation Zone for setting parameters for CALVEG mapping. Complete CALVEG mapping keys can be obtained from the Remote Sensing Lab. Contact Hazel Gordon (916-454- 0812) for specific Zone keys for the CALVEG classification system. Tree Density: Conifer and hardwood tree density is mapped as a function of canopy closure in ten- percent classes. In conifer/hardwood mixtures, relative density of each is mapped as well as total tree canopy closure, with conifer tree density stored in item DENSITY, hardwood tree density stored in DENSITY2, and total tree density stored in DEN_TOTAL. Overstory Tree Size: Overstory tree size is mapped as a function of crown diameters of overstory trees as interpreted from aerial photography and satellite imagery. The plurality size condition of the predominant, dominant, and co- dominant trees in a stand is assigned a Regional size class (tables 39A and 39B). Additional Coverage Items: Ecological Tile: The basic units used to store existing vegetation layers within a statewide existing vegetation library. Source is from Goudey and Smith (1994), Ecological Units of California-Subsections (map), USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco CA. Scale 1:1,000,000. WHR Type, Size, Density, and Range: Corresponding parameters from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships classification system. Vegetation Cover Type Covertypes (or life forms, as they are often called) are defined under Life Form Classification Rules in the Existing Vegetation section. Description is a general category briefly describing the individual covertype classes, which include: conifer forest/woodland, hardwood forest/woodland, mixed conifer/hardwood woodland, shrub, herbaceous, barren/rock/snow, water, agriculture, urban/residential. All covertype labels are derived directly from CALVEG labels. The covertype label MIX is assigned when a primary vegetation type (conifer) and a secondary vegetation type (hardwood) was mapped in a given stand. Source: US Forest Service existing_vegetation.doc, a metadata file accompanying the original dataset.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-24 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
MAP 2-5 – FIRE FREQUENCY The US Forest Service Fire Frequency map (HYPERLINK) shows individual fires that have burned within the watershed, including California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) fires greater than 300 acres in size (1950 – 2000) and US Forest Service fires greater than 10 acres (1900 – 2001). Overlap areas that have burned more than once are shown in orange and red. Based on the areas of overlap – those that have burned two, three or four times in the past 50 to 100 years – we can see an elevational concentration of fire occurrences in the 4,000- to 6,000-foot range. There also appears to be a correlation between higher fire frequency and areas of greater disturbance, whether due to the disturbance itself or the fact that disturbed areas are more readily accessible to people and, therefore, ignitions. The Fire Frequency map is derived from data kept by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). FRAP maintains and integrates data from each forest and incorporates that data into a statewide dataset. Under a joint project, CDF and the US Forest Service also keep wildfire history data with roughly the same timeframe and size parameters. The following information from CDF further describes the data used to create the Fire Frequency map and history data. Note: fire data from 2001 was incorporated into the map through a separate dataset, called fires2001. This dataset includes information from incident management files and the Office of Emergency Services on the Star, Gap and Ponderosa fires that occurred in the watershed in 2001.
Fire Perimeter - Background As part of the California Fire Plan, the Fire and Resource Assessment Program compiled fire perimeter maps and established an on-going fire perimeter data capture process in order to update vegetative fuel rank maps. In an interagency effort FRAP compiled CDF fires 300 acres and greater in size and USFS fires 10 acres and greater into a statewide spatial database. Data attributes maintained in this layer include the date and name of the incident, lead agency, the incident number for linking to other fire related databases, cause and fire size. The process will integrate additional fire perimeter databases from Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service as they become available. FRAP will produce an annual statewide fire perimeter GIS data layer by combining digitized fire perimeters from CDF and USFS. The long-range goal for maintenance of fire perimeter data will decentralize the data capture process to the individual fire station level. Immediately following a fire event local fire station personnel will map fires into the database. This process will be facilitated by a user friendly computer application that connects the local field user to a client- server database in Sacramento. CDF implemented a similar process, Emergency Activity Reporting System (EARS), for non-spatial data in 1989. The fire perimeter database developed by CDF and USFS represents the most complete digital record of fire perimeters in California. However it is still incomplete in many respects. Users of the fire perimeter database must exercise caution to avoid inaccurate or erroneous conclusions. For more information on potential errors and their source please review the techniques section of these pages.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-25 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Fire History – Techniques CDF/FRAP and USDA Forest Service Region 5 Remote Sensing Lab are jointly developing a comprehensive fire perimeter GIS layer for public and private lands throughout the state. The data will cover the period 1950-1999 and include CDF fires 300 acres and greater in size and USFS fires 10 acres and greater. This project provides for annual updates. Whenever possible, CDF and USFS solicit additional fire perimeter data from other federal agencies (e.g., NPA, BLM, BIA, DOD) or local/county agencies for incorporation into the fire perimeter mapping project. The project produces an annual statewide fire history GIS data layer through four steps: 1. Standardize and combine existing digitized fire perimeters into a statewide GIS layer; 2. Identify and remove duplicate fires; 3. Fill in the gaps in data; and 4. Perform annual updates of the GIS layer. CDF ranger units fill in gaps in their fire perimeter data as part of the California Fire Plan. FRAP provides each ranger unit with a preliminary map of 1950-89 fire perimeters. Each ranger unit then generates a list of 300+ acre fires that started in the ranger unit since 1989 according to the CDF Emergency Activity Reporting System (EARS). The ranger unit uses this list to gather post- 1989 perimeter maps for digitizing. Unit personnel also verify the pre-1989 perimeter maps to determine if any fires are missing or need to be re-mapped. Finally, vegetation management project maps are digitized, with a 50 acre minimum project size (individual burns within a project area may be smaller than 50 acres). The final product is a statewide GIS layer spanning the period 1950- 1999. Annual updates will be made thereafter. CDF includes selected fire history attributes in its fire history GIS layer. These attributes include the date the fire started, the name of the fire, the incident number (for linking to EARS), the cause of the fire, lead agency and the total size of the fire in acres. The combined CDF/USFS GIS layer will include an incident number for USFS fires that will allow for linking to data tables derived from the National Fire Management Integrated Database (NFMID). The fire perimeter database developed by CDF and USFS is the most complete digital record of fire history in California. However it is still incomplete in many respects. Fires may be missing altogether or have missing or incorrect attribute data. Some fires may be missing because historical records were lost or damaged, were too small for the minimum cutoffs, had inadequate documentation or have not yet been incorporated into the database. Until the Fire Plan is fully implemented in all ranger units, some ranger units will only have data from 1950-1989. Furthermore, until the data capture process moves to the local level, the most recent fires will only be uploaded to the database at the end of every fire season. Other errors with the fire perimeter database include duplicate fires and over-generalization. While the data capture process attempts to identify duplicate fires resulting from multiple data sources (i.e. the USFS and CDF both captured and submitted the fire perimeter), some duplicates may still exist. Additionally, over-generalization, particularly with large old fires may show unburned "islands" within the final perimeter as burned. Users of the fire perimeter database must exercise caution in application of the data. Careful use of the fire perimeter
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-26 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
database will prevent users from drawing inaccurate or erroneous conclusions from the data. Ignition Source Codes: - Unknown (0) - Unidentified (1) - Lightning (2) - Campfire (3) - Smoking (4) - Debris or Garbage burning (5) - Arson (6) - Equipment Use (7) - Playing with Fire (8) - Miscellaneous (9) - Vehicle (10) - Railroad (11) - Power line (12) - Human (generic USFS) (13) - Prescribed (14) - Vegetation Management Project (VMP) (15) - Range Improvement Burns (16) - Escaped Prescribed Burn (17) - Management Ignited Prescribed Fire (18) Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection/Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP)
MAP 2-6 – BEDROCK GEOLOGY The Bedrock Geology map (HYPERLINK) provided by the US Forest Service shows at very gross scale the basic underlying geology within the watershed, including formation, description, and rock type. The data come from the California Department of Mines and Geology (now known as the California Geologic Survey) maps at 1:750,000 scale, which is very rough. Based on the map, the watershed is broken down into 13 different geologic categories, including: Glacial deposits – located primarily in the higher elevation areas of the Rubicon and Upper Middle Fork American drainages; Jurassic Marine – in both the upper and lower North and Middle Fork American and Rubicon drainages; Mesozoic Granitic – primarily in the upper Rubicon but also in the upper North and Middle Fork American drainages; Mesozoic Gabbroic – located in small pockets in the Upper North Fork American and very Upper Rubicon; Mesozoic Volcanic and Metavolcanic/Franciscan Volcanic – found largely in the lower watershed but also in pockets in the Upper North and Middle Fork American drainages;
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-27 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Paleozoic Marine, Undivided – located primarily in the middle elevation areas (4,000 to 6,000 feet) of the Upper North Fork American, North Fork of the Middle Fork American, and Rubicon drainages; Quarternary Volcanic Flow – located in one tiny pocket in the upper Rubicon drainage, right on the southeastern boundary of the watershed; Tertiary Pyroclastic/Volcanic Mudflow Deposits – scattered liberally throughout the watershed in all sub-basins; Tertiary Volcanic Flow – located exclusively in the upper reaches of the Rubicon drainage on the eastern boundary of the watershed; Triassic Marine – found in a narrow band running North-South in the Upper North Fork American drainage; Ultramafic Rocks – located in small pockets at the northern boundary of the watershed in the headwaters area of the Upper North Fork American, as well as in larger bands at the roughly 4,000-foot-elevation area in both the Lower North and Middle Forks of the American; Undivided Pre-Cenozoic Metasedimentary and Metavolcanic – found in a block just northeast of the confluence of the North and Middle Forks of the American; Undivided Pre-Cenozoic Metavolcanic – located in the 3,000- to 4,000-foot elevation in the Lower North Fork American drainage. With access to finer-scale data, we were able to look more closely at individual soil types and, coupled with other data such as precipitation and others, were able to create additional GIS products illustrating available water capacity, areas of fast and slow runoff, and areas of high erosion potential within the watershed. These products are described in more detail later in this section and in the PHASE 2 – SECOND GENERATION GIS PRODUCTS section later in this chapter. The California Geological Survey puts out educational backgrounders with answers to commonly asked questions about California’s geology. One such publication, Generalized Geologic Map of California, Note 17, provides additional information about the use of generalized geologic maps of the state.
GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC MAP OF CALIFORNIA [NOTE 17] California Geological Survey
Geologic maps show the distribution of rocks exposed at the surface of the earth as well as other geologic information. Rocks are grouped according to age and origin on the map. Age of the rocks is considered to be the geologic time at which the rock formed. Rocks are classified according to their origin:
1) sedimentary rocks form as accumulations of mineral material in oceans (marine) or on continents (continental);
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-28 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
2) igneous rocks form by crystallization of minerals from molten rock. Molten rock beneath the earth’s surface is called magma. Magma cools slowly to form coarsegrained igneous rocks such as granite. Molten rock erupted on the earth’s surface from volcanoes is called lava and forms volcanic rocks; 3) metamorphic rocks form from preexisting rocks by mineralogical, chemical, and/or structural changes. Other geologic information shown on geologic maps includes structural features such as faults. Faults are fractures in the earth’s crust where rocks have moved relative to each other. The map shown here is generalized from more detailed, larger scale maps. On this map, rocks exposed in California are placed in one of seven units:
Quaternary sedimentary rocks. Gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited mostly in valleys and lowlands onshore. There are some marine sedimentary rocks of this age in California. Tertiary sedimentary rocks. Sandstone, shale, and conglomerate usually deposited in relatively shallow marine water near the continental margin. These rocks are exposed mostly in the coastal regions of California. Tertiary and Quaternary volcanic rocks. Lava flowatershed erupted from volcanoes. These rocks make up much of the Cascade Range and the Modoc Plateau, and are widespread in eastern California. They also occur in coastal regions. Mesozoic sedimentary rocks. Sandstone and shale that were deposited mostly in the ocean. The rocks make up the bulk of the Coast Ranges. They also occur in coastal southern California. Mesozoic granitic rocks. A wide variety of coarse-grained igneous rocks formed when magma that intruded the earth’s crust cooled and was later exposed by erosion. Granitic rocks occur throughout the state, but are most common in the mountainous areas such as the Klamath Mountains, the Sierra Nevada, and the Peninsular Ranges. Some granitic rocks are Cenozoic, Paleozoic, and Precambrian. Mesozoic and Paleozoic metamorphic rocks. Metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks that make up much of the Klamath Mountains and the Sierran foothills. They are also common in the Basin and Range, the Mojave Desert, the Transverse Ranges, and the Peninsular Ranges. Serpentinized ultramafic rocks. A special type of rock that does not fit into the three common categories of rocks. The most common rock is serpentine, the California state rock (see CGS Note 14). Revised 4/2002 ©California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2002.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-29 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
MAP 2-7 – GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES The Government Administrative Boundaries map (HYPERLINK) gives a general overview of the primary land ownership in the watershed, including land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Parks & Recreation, State Lands Commission, USFS – Tahoe National Forest and Eldorado National Forest, and private lands. Public lands, including the Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests and specific roadless and wilderness areas, make up much of the upper two-thirds of the watershed, along with a checkerboard pattern of interspersed private lands. Additional analysis conducted for Phase 2 of the project also identified the percentage of public versus private lands in each sub-watershed [see PHASE 2 – SECOND GENERATION GIS PRODUCTS later in the chapter for more information]. Private lands, Bureau of Land Management recreation areas and Bureau of Reclamation lands associated with the Auburn Dam project comprise the lower elevation areas.
Agency Area Tahoe National Forest North Fork of the Middle Fork American Roadless Area North Fork American Roadless Area North Fork American Wild & Scenic River Duncan Canyon Roadless Area Granite Chief Wilderness and Roadless Area Fawn Lake Roadless Area Eldorado National Forest Desolation Wilderness Poison Hold Roadless Area Rubicon Roadless Area Bureau of Land Management North Fork American Wild & Scenic River Bureau of Reclamation Auburn Dam Recreation Area State Lands Commission Blodgett Experimental Forest
The administrative boundary data used to create this map are based on Cartographic Feature Files (CFF) from the US Geologic Survey, which have been updated by the Tahoe National Forest over the last 10 years to reflect land exchanges during that time period. Lands within the national forest boundaries were entered at 1:24,000 scale. Other ownerships were derived using county parcel boundaries and reflect ownership as of mid-2001.
MAP 2-8 – MINING SITES AND FEATURES FOUND ON USGS QUADS The Mining Sites map (HYPERLINK) illustrates the location of individual mines and mining claims, as well as mining features such as: buildings, pits, tailings, mining ponds, dumps, shafts, culverts, flumes, tunnels, etc. The map shows a good deal of
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-30 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
activity in the middle elevations of the watershed, with high concentrations northeast of present-day Foresthill in the North Fork of the Middle Fork American drainage and in the Upper Middle Fork American basin as well. The area of activity northeast of Foresthill coincides with areas that have burned two or three times. One issue for further investigation, therefore, might be determining the degree of cause and effect relationship between mined areas and wildfire. The data for this map comes from a California Department of Conservation dataset called Topographically Occurring Minesites, or TOMS. The TOMS datalayers are based on USGS quad maps for the watershed and US Bureau of Mines data that has been updated by the State.
MAP 2-9 – PLACER COUNTY PROP. 204 PROJECTS The Placer County Prop. 204 Projects map (HYPERLINK) shows the location of chipping, fuelbreak, thinning and residential inspection projects conducted under the auspices of the American River Watershed Group with funding from Proposition 204, California’s Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act passed by the voters in 1996. The majority of these projects are located in the western portion of the watershed where there is a high degree of urban-wildland intermix, defined in the California Fire Plan as the “interspersing of developed land with wildland, where there are no easily discernible boundaries between the two systems.” These areas typically pose more problems in wildland fire management because structure and vegetation are sufficiently close that a wildland fire can spread to structures or a structure fire can ignite vegetation, creating a wildfire. Project Type Project Name Fuel Breaks Placer Hill Rd. Ponderosa Way Apple Codfish Yankee Jims Rd. McKeon Pond Way Michigan Bluff Fuel Breaks/Monitoring Cerro Vista Road Yankee Jims Rd. Foresthill Rd. Restoration/Monitoring Shirt Tail Meadow Residential Inspection Weimar Residential Inspection Area Foresthill Residential Inspection Area Thinning Forks Plantation Chipping Many unnamed sites
The data for this map came from a variety of sources, as well. For example, chipping project data originated as street address reporting from the California
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-31 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection cross-checked against the Placer County Assessors Parcel coverage. The fuel break data came from three separate sources, including: CDF – for coverage of the Weimar/Applegate Area and the Foresthill/Todd Valley/Michigan Bluff Area; Tahoe National Forest Foresthill Ranger District – covering the Codfish, Forks, and Michigan Bluff areas; and Placer County Resource Conservation District – for additional coverage of the Michigan Bluff shaded fuel break area.
MAP 2-10 – QUAD INDEX The Quad Index map (HYPERLINK) simply shows the boundaries of the 7.5 minute US Geological Survey and US Forest Service Region V quadrangle maps that comprise the North Fork/Middle Fork American River watershed. Data for this map were provided by both the USGS and the US Forest Service Region V.
MAP 2-11 – AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION The Average Annual Precipitation map (HYPERLINK) shows at a very gross scale the average rainfall throughout the watershed, which ranges from a low of 23 – 28 inches per year in the westernmost portion of the watershed, near Folsom Lake, to a high of 75 – 85 inches in the Upper North Fork American drainage east of Emigrant Gap. Annual average rainfall shows up in approximately 8 bands covering the watershed west to east: Average Annual Location In The NF/MF American Watershed Rainfall 23-28 in/yr Southwestern-most portion of watershed around Folsom Lake 28-35 in/yr From the inflow to Folsom Lake to below Applegate 35-45 in/yr From below Applegate to Iowa Hill, Foresthill, and Volcanoville, including the confluence of the Upper Middle Fork/North Fork Middle Fork/Rubicon rivers 45-55 in/yr From Iowa Hill, etc. up the Upper North Fork American to Emigrant Gap and covering the Ramsey Crossing, Zuver, and McCullen areas of the Upper Middle Fork and Rubicon drainages 55-65 in/yr A wide band covering most of the upper watershed over to Diamond Crossing and including a small band in the southeastern-most portion of the watershed in Desolation Wilderness 65-75 in/yr From Diamond Crossing over to the eastern boundary of the watershed, plus two pockets around the headwaters of the Upper North Fork and the North Fork Middle Fork drainages 75-85 in/yr One small pocket at the headwaters of the Upper North Fork east of Emigrant Gap
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-32 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Data for this map came from a statewide database kept by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program. The database contains information on average rainfall tracked from 1900 to 1960 and digitized from a map created in 1988. Because the map scale is 1:1,000,000, the data is not very accurate when looking at individual watersheds and sub-basins within the state. Therefore we have chosen to use daily prism data available from other sources to create a more accurate map for further assessment in this watershed. The following more detailed information about the original data is excerpted from the CDF data library.
Average Annual Precipitation CDF Metadata Record
California Mean Annual Precipitation Zones, 1900-1960 Publication Date: 1990 Scale: 1:1,000,000 Map projection is Albers Equal Area, NAD27
Abstract: Isohyetal lines of equal average rainfall were digitized from a 1:1,000,000 source map compiled by the U.S. Geological survey, 1969, 1972. The map is based on data covering the period 1900-1960. Average rainfall zones were created by averaging the rainfall for isohyetals bounding each polygon.
Purpose: Average rainfall is useful as one factor in defining unique ecological zones, bioregions, etc.
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data.html
MAP 2-12 – RAIN ON SNOW ZONE The Rain on Snow Zone map (HYPERLINK) identifies broad areas within the watershed that receive precipitation primarily as rain, as rain-on-snow, or as snow. The ranges were determined using the Digital Elevation Model, with the Rain Zone defined as areas below the 4,000-foot elevation; Rain-on-Snow Zone as areas in the 4,000- to 6,000- foot elevation; and Snow Zone as areas located above 6,000 feet. Precipitation, including form and timing, is an important component of other analyses, such as water availability, fast and slow runoff, erosion potential, and others.
MAP 2-13 – WILDERNESS, WILD & SCENIC RIVERS AND ROADLESS AREAS The Wilderness, Wild & Scenic Rivers and Roadless Areas map (HYPERLINK) illustrates some of the natural values in this watershed that have been recognized through a variety of designations, including: state and federal Wild & Scenic river designation, wilderness areas, roadless areas, and Wild Trout Stream designation.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-33 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Wild & Scenic Designation In 1972 the California Legislature recognized the scenic and habitat values of the North Fork American River by designating it as a state Wild & Scenic river from its headwaters near The Cedars down to the Colfax-Iowa Hill Bridge, a total of 21 miles. The U.S. Congress later followed suit, designating the same stretch of river a federal Wild & Scenic River. In these areas the river is managed to protect and enhance its wilderness characteristics.1 In addition, because of the outstanding scenic, recreational, historic, cultural, and natural values of the Middle Fork American, 23 miles of this river have been found by the Bureau of Reclamation and other agencies as eligible for National Wild & Scenic River status, according to Friends of the River.2
Wilderness/Roadless areas The watershed contains a number of designated roadless and wilderness areas, including the Granite Chief and Desolation Wilderness areas in the headwaters of the Upper Middle Fork and Rubicon drainages and the North Fork American, Duncan Canyon, Granite Chief, North Fork of the Middle Fork American, Fawn Lake and Poison Hole roadless areas.3
Wild Trout Stream The California Fish & Game Commission in 1982 designated the North Fork as a Wild Trout Stream. Under this designation, the river is managed for wild trout rather than for hatchery trout.4
Managed Areas The University of California – Santa Barbara uses another measure of watershed protection – total and percent river lengths within managed areas – which can help estimate the degree of potential human impact based on the management levels enforced within a percentage of a given watershed. For example, the North Fork/Middle Fork American River watershed has approximately 87 miles of river flowing through “managed areas,” or areas with active management plans designed to maintain the river in its natural state. Another 723 miles of river traverse public lands that are managed for multiple uses, including but not limited to biodiversity. And 504 miles of river run through private lands with no specific management agreement to maintain native species or natural communities. Based on these figures, the percentage of river miles within protected lands in this watershed is approximately 5%.5
1 The American River: North, Middle & South Forks, Protect American River Canyons, Auburn, CA (1998 edition); p. 303-4. 2 River Gems of California, “The American River, North and Middle Forks,” Friends of the River: www.friendsoftheriver.org. 3 “Wilderness, Wild & Scenic Rivers and Roadless Areas map,” Tahoe National Forest GIS, Dec. 2001. 4 The American River: North, Middle & South Forks, Protect American River Canyons, Auburn, CA (1998 edition); p. 303-4. 5 “Watershed Statistics – North Fork American: Total River Length within Protection Level,” California Rivers Assessment: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-34 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Altogether these protected lands – including those under specific biodiversity- focused management by the Eldorado National Forest, Tahoe National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, State Lands Commission, California Department of Fish & Game and California Department of Parks & Recreation – comprise almost 8% of the total watershed acreage. Another 352,100 acres of public land are managed for multiple use by the same public agencies. This totals approximately 54% of the total land mass in the watershed. The balance, some 246,700 acres, or 38%, is in private ownership.6 The Wilderness, Wild & Scenic Rivers and Roadless Areas map shows areas of public land within the watershed that are designated, proposed for designation or are being studied for designation as wilderness, roadless or wild & scenic areas. Most of these areas are located in the higher elevations, including the Granite Chief Wilderness and Roadless Area, the Desolation Wilderness, and the Duncan Canyon and North Fork American River Roadless areas. The Rubicon, North Fork of the Middle Fork and lower portions of the North Fork American have smaller areas with roadless and wild & scenic designation. This map was created with datasets from the Remote Sensing Lab, including Wilderness – Existing and Proposed; Wild and Scenic Rivers – Existing, Proposed and Study; and Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II (RARE II). It is important to note that the roadless information on this map only covers designations and proposed designations identified under the RARE II process, mandated by Congress around 1980. These potential roadless areas were defined by the US Forest Service, in response to Congressional mandate, to be 5,000 acres or more in size and to be approved by the local Forest Supervisors on each national forest. Since many potential roadless areas were eliminated from the RARE II study for size or other considerations, the Forest Service conducted a new roadless area evaluation that identifies additional areas for study. The Clinton Administration also conducted its own public lands roadless review, as have various private organizations over time. But only those identified under the RARE II process appear on this map. Information from the metadata forms accompanying the datasets used in this map explain in slightly more detail the sources and use of the data.
Wilderness - Existing and Proposed
This layer consists of existing and proposed wilderness boundaries.
Scale of Capture: 1:24,000
Source: United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle maps and/or Cartographic Feature Files (CFFs) for existing wilderness; proposed wilderness is from areas mapped on 7.5 min. quads from each National Forest.
6 “Watershed Statistics – North Fork American: Breakdown of Management Level and Ownership,” California Rivers Assessment: www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-35 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Wild and Scenic Rivers - Existing, Proposed and Study
This layer consists of existing, proposed and under study wild, scenic and recreational river areas. Beginning and ending locations are provided for each line segment identified on each stream and subsequently buffered 1/4 mile on each side in GIS.
Scale of Capture: 1:24,000
Source: Existing river areas are from USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps and/or Cartographic Feature Files (CFF's); proposed and study river areas are provided by each National Forest on 7.5 min. quads.
Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE)
The basis of this layer is the 1979 RARE II Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and reflects the status, both spatially and administratively, of inventoried roadless areas for Region 5 forests at that point in time. Other inventoried roadless areas unique to individual forest plans have been added though various update episodes.
Source: 7.5 minute quadrangle maps, Cartographic Feature Files and forest plan maps
Scale of Capture: Variable by forest, as follows: Angeles-1:126,720 Cleveland - 1:24,000 Eldorado - 1:24,000 Inyo - 1:63,360 Klamath - 1:24,000 Lassen - 1:24,000 Los Padres - 1:24,000 Mendocino - 1:24,000 Modoc - 1:24,000 Six Rivers - 1:24,000 Plumas - 1:24,000 San Bernardino - 1:126,720 Sequoia - 1:24,000 Shasta-Trinity - 1:126,720 Sierra - 1:24,000 Stanislaus - 1:24,000 Tahoe - 1:24,000 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) - 1:96,000
The team used additional data from the Forest Service and other independent sources as part of the Phase 2 watershed analysis and ranking process described later in this chapter.
MAP 2-14 – ROAD SYSTEM The Road System map (HYPERLINK) is another first generation GIS product showing major highways, roads and trails based on US Forest Service road data and local
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-36 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
road data from the state. As one might expect, roads and highways are more concentrated in the lower and middle-elevation portions of the watershed. Trails, on the other hand, are more prevalent in the higher elevations of the watershed, primarily on the public lands in the Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests. Some of the major roads include: Interstate 80, which runs along the northern boundary of the watershed; Foresthill Road, which runs along the Foresthill Divide between the North Fork and Middle Fork drainages; Mosquito Ridge Road, which runs from Foresthill to French Meadow Reservoir, dividing the North Fork Middle Fork American and the Upper Middle Fork American; Ralston Ridge Road, dividing the Middle Fork American and the Rubicon drainages. The watershed is also home to a number of hiking, biking, horseback riding and OHV trails, including: the American River Trail, the Western States Trail, the Tevis Cup Trail, portions of the Pacific Crest Trail, the Five Lakes Trail, and many more. Looking at the Road System map, it appears that the highest road concentration is in the lower-elevation private lands between the North and Middle Forks (in and around Foresthill) and along Interstate 80 – especially between Weimar and Colfax – which roughly coincides with the northern boundary of the watershed. There are additional concentrations around Georgetown, along the southern boundary of the watershed. Another area of concentration occurs along Mosquito Ridge and Pine Nut areas between the North Fork Middle Fork and the Upper Middle Fork American, west of French Meadows Reservoir. More detailed information on the individual data layers used to create this map appears below.
USFS ROADS This layer consists of roads and trails. Source: Cartographic Feature Files (CFF's), Digital Line Graph (DLG) or United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle maps. Scale of Capture: 1:24,000
LOCAL ROADS This dataset is one from a series of transportation layers are derived from the US Census Bureau Tiger 2K (June 7, 2002 Version) information. All the layers are statewide and are arranged by their major Census Feature Class Code (CFCC). All data layers are reprojected into the CaSIL standard projection, and only a small subset of the attribution is included. Zip Code, and address information is NOT included. CaSIL has divided these transportation layers to help users choose the appropriate level of detail for their project. Users requiring further TIGER information, are encouraged to use the native TIGER files (also on CaSIL) or directly from the Census Bureau.
The following transportation layers are included in the series:
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-37 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
us_highways - CFCC A11-A28 – 6[Mb] - Primary Highway With Limited Access – interstate highways and some toll highways are in this category (A1) and are distinguished by the presence of interchanges. - Primary Road Without Limited Access – this category (A2) includes nation-ally and regionally important highways that do not have limited access as required by category A1. It consists mainly of US highways, but may include some state highways and county highways that connect cities and larger towns. state_highways - CFCC A31-A38 - 10[Mb] - Secondary and Connecting Road – this category (A3) includes mostly state highways, but may include some county highways that connect smaller towns, subdivisions, and neighborhoods. local_roads - CFCC A41-A48 - 340[Mb] - Local, Neighborhood, and Rural Road – a road in this category (A4) is used for local traffic and usually has a single lane of traffic in each direction. In an urban area, this is a neighborhood road and street that is not a thorough-fare belonging in categories A2 or A3. In a rural area, this is a short-distance road connecting the smallest towns; the road may or may not have a state or county route number. vehicular_trails - CFCC A51-A58 - 7[Mb] - Vehicular Trail – a road in this category (A5) is usable only by four-wheel drive vehicles, is usually a one-lane dirt trail, and is found almost exclusively in very rural areas. other_thoroughfare - CFCC A61-A78 - 15[Mb] - Road with Special Characteristics – this category (A6) includes roads, portions of a road, intersections of a road, or the ends of a road that are parts of the vehicular highway system and have separately identifiable characteristics. - Road as Other Thoroughfare – a road in this category (A7) is not part of the vehicular highway system. It is used by bicyclists or pedestrians, and is typically inaccessible to mainstream motor traffic except for private-owner and service vehicles. This category includes foot and hiking trails located on park and forest land, as well as stairs or walkways that follow a road right-of-way and have names similar to road names. railroad - CFCC B?? - 6[Mb] - Railroad Main Line – a railroad in this category is the primary track that provides service between destinations. A main line track often carries the name of the owning and operating railroad company. - Railroad Spur – a railroad in this category is the track that leaves the main track, ending in an industrial park, factory, or warehouse area, or forming a siding along the main track. - Railroad Yard – a railroad yard track has parallel tracks that form a working area for the railroad company. Train cars and engines are repaired, switched, and dispatched from a yard. - Railroad with Special Characteristics – a railroad or portions of a rail- road track that are parts of the railroad system and have separately identifiable characteristics. These data are intended for geographic display and analysis for California. They should be displayed and analyzed at scales appropriate for 1:100,000-scale data.
Source: This dataset has been made available through the California Spatial Information Library URL:http://gis.ca.gov. The data has been subsetted to California, and reprojected into a common statewide projection. To find out more about TIGER/Line files and other Census TIGER database-derived data sets visit http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-38 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The team used additional roads data at the subwatershed scale to more accurately define road densities in the various sub-basins within the North Fork/Middle Fork American River watershed. This information was then used as one of the inputs into the Phase 2 watershed analysis and subwatershed ranking process described in the PHASE 2 – SECOND GENERATION GIS PRODUCTS section of this chapter.
MAP 2-15 – GENERAL LANDSCAPE INCISION The General Landscape Incision map (HYPERLINK) is derived from the 80- foot Contour Interval map described earlier, including data captured from general lines drawn by the US Forest Service and Chuck Watson on the contour map. This map takes the contours and colors them based on degree of contour density or “incision,” from gentle to moderate to deep. Such a depiction is useful for large-landscape visualization. To effectively evaluate slope and steepness at a sub-watershed scale, however, the team looked at slopes of greater than 30% within smaller subwatershed areas as part of the Phase 2 subwatershed ranking process described in PHASE 2 – SECOND GENERATION GIS PRODUCTS.
MAP 2-16 – STREAMS The Streams map (HYPERLINK) shows lakes and reservoirs of greater than 25 acres in size, perennial (or year-round) streams, as well as intermittent (or seasonal) streams and water diversions in the watershed. Based on the map the heaviest concentration of perennial streams is right in the middle of the watershed, feeding into the North Fork Middle Fork and the Upper Middle Fork American. Intermittent streams are more prevalent in the southern and western portions of the watershed, along the Rubicon and Lower Middle Fork American drainages. Only four diversions appear on the map: one along the northern boundary of the watershed that comes off the Upper North Fork American northeast of Emigrant Gap and three along the southern border of the watershed near Balderson Station and Georgetown. Both the lake/reservoir and river/stream data for public lands came from US Forest Service Cartographic Feature files. Although not cited, it is likely that the private land lake and stream data was pulled from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), a project of the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Geological Survey. US Forest Service data is typically captured at 1:24,000 scale, while the NHD data is in 1:100,000. Due to the differences in scale, the American River Watershed Group further developed a single, comprehensive stream dataset for the entire watershed. This process is described further in PHASE 2 – SECOND GENERATION GIS PRODUCTS. The following contains more detailed information on the US Forest Service stream data as well as the National Hydrography Dataset.
Streams – US Forest Service Representation of perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams and some man- made water conveyance features. Ephemeral streams will likely be added to
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-39 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
existing Cartographic Feature File (CFF) data through contour crenulation techniques and will lack CFF codes. Source: CFF's or 7.5 minute quadrangle maps if CFF's are not available. Scale of Capture: 1:24,000
Streams – Private National Hydrography Dataset – published in 1999 by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) is a feature-based database that interconnects and uniquely identifies the stream segments or reaches that comprise the nations surface water drainage system. It is based initially on the content of the U.S. Geological Survey 1:100,000-scale Digital Line Graph (DLG) hydrography data, integrated with reach-related information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Reach File Version 3.0 (RF3). More specifically, it contains reach codes for networked features and isolated lakes, flow direction, names, stream level, and centerline representations for areal water bodies. The NHD also incorporates the National Spatial Data Infrastructure framework criteria set out by the Federal Geographic Data Committee. The National Hydrography Dataset combines elements of the DLG and RF3: spatial accuracy and comprehensiveness from the DLG and network relationships, names, stream level, and a unique identifier (reach code) for surface water features from RF3. The NHD supersedes DLG and RF3 by incorporating them, not by replacing them. Users of DLG and RF3 will find the National Hydrography Dataset both familiar and greatly expanded and refined. The NHD provides a national framework for assigning reach addresses to water- related entities, such as industrial dischargers, drinking water supplies, fish habitat areas, wild and scenic rivers. Reach addresses establish the locations of these entities relative to one another within the NHD surface water drainage network in a manner similar to street addresses. Once linked to the NHD by their reach addresses, the upstream/downstream relationships of these water-related entities and any associated information about them can be analyzed using software tools ranging from spreadsheets to geographic information systems (GIS). GIS can also be used to combine NHD-based network analysis with other data layers, such as soils, land use and population, to help better understand and display their respective effects upon one another. Furthermore, because the NHD provides a nationally consistent framework for addressing and analysis, water-related information linked to reach addresses by one organization (national, state, local) can be shared with other organizations and easily integrated into many different types of applications to the benefit of all. The National Hydrography Dataset is designed to provide comprehensive coverage of hydrologic data for the U.S. While initially based on 1:100,000-scale data, the NHD is designed to incorporate - and encourage the development of higher- resolution data required by many users. It will facilitate the improved integration of water-related data in support of the application requirements of a growing national user community and will enable shared maintenance and enhancement.
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1997, Standards for National Hydrography Dataset(http://mapping.usgs.gov/standards/)
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-40 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
MAP 2-17 – FIFTH FIELD WATERSHED BOUNDARIES Different state and federal agencies have, in the past, used different methods for delineating and naming watersheds and sub-watersheds – usually based on a nested hierarchy of varying size parameters – for purposes of watershed mapping and analysis. However, state agencies, federal agencies and counties recently agreed to use standard definitions for subwatershed delineations.
HUC LEVEL NAME AVERAGE SIZE 1 Region 183,233 sq. mi. 2 Sub-region 16,844 sq. mi. 3 Basin 10,606 sq. mi. 4 Sub-basin 1,735 sq. mi. 5 Watershed 40,000-250,000 acres 6 Sub-watershed 10,000-40,000 acres
The Fifth Field Watershed Boundaries map (HYPERLINK) shows HUC Level 5-sized watershed delineations within the North Fork/Middle Fork American, as drawn by hand at 1:24,000 scale. According to this system, there are six fifth-field-sized watersheds that make up the North Fork/Middle Fork American, including: 1. Upper North Fork American 2. Upper Middle Fork American 3. North Fork Middle Fork American 4. Lower North Fork American 5. Lower Middle Fork American; and 6. Rubicon. One can also define watersheds using the state’s Calwater system, which was developed jointly by a number of state agencies for watersheds located in California. Or, one can use tools, such as GRID, associated with GIS technology to demarcate sub- watersheds based on Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). The American River Watershed Group tried both methods during Phase 2 analysis and preferred the DEM-generated sub- basin map because it allowed for more precise and accurate analysis of various watershed health issues of concern to the American River Watershed Group. The Calwater process, used to create the intermediate sub-basin mapping product, is described in more detail below based on information from the California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL). CaSIL is a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) web portal designed to provide information on State government GIS activities, access to statewide GIS data, and links to the larger California GIS community. The following provides more detailed information on the CalWater watershed boundary delineation system, as outlined in the CaSIL data index under the Physical Geography heading, California Watersheds (Calwater 2.2):
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-41 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Calwater Coverage Description: The California Watershed Map (CALWATER version 2.2) is a set of standardized watershed boundaries meeting standardized delineation criteria. The hierarchy of watershed designations consists of six levels of increasing specificity: - Hydrologic Region (HR), - Hydrologic Unit (HU), - Hydrologic Area (HA), - Hydrologic Sub-Area (HSA), - Super Planning Watershed (SPWATERSHED), and - Planning Watershed (PWATERSHED).
The primary purpose of Calwater is the assignment of a single, unique code to a specific watershed polygon. While there are 7,022 polygons in the ARC/INFO coverage, there are actually fewer watershed codes. This is due to cases of multiple polygons bearing the same watershed code (Channel Islands, split polygons due to other boundary integration, e.g. ground water basins). Another confusing factor is that not all Hydrologic Units are subdivided into Hydrologic Areas, not all Hydrologic Areas are subdivided into Hydrologic Sub-Areas, and so on. Therefore, a nominal count of watershed codes in Calwater 2.2 is:
Hydrologic Regions: 10 Hydrologic Units: 190 Hydrologic Areas: 522 Hydrologic Sub-Areas: 655 Super Planning Watersheds: 1,623 Planning Watersheds: 6,271
Primary purposes for Calwater 2.2 include but are not limited to mapping, reporting, and statistical analysis of water resources, water supply, water quality, wildlands, agriculture, soils, forests, rangelands, fish habitat, wildlife habitat, cross-referencing state and federal hydrologic unit or watershed codes and names.
CALWATER version 2.2 is the third version of Calwater (after versions 1.2 and 2.0), and is a descendent of the 1:500,000-scale State Water Resources Control Board Basin Plan Maps drawn in the late 1970s.
Version 1.2 was completed in 1995 by Tierra Data Systems (Jim Kellog). Linework was captured by overlaying the Basin Plan Maps on 1:24,000-scale USGS quad sheets, redrawing and digitizing lines to match 1:24,000-scale watershed boundaries, and subdividing the 4th level Hydrologic Subareas (HSAs) into 5th level Super Planning Watersheds (SPWATERSHED) and 6th level Planning Watersheds (PWATERSHED).
Version 2.0 called for the removal of the 5th level Super Planning Watersheds and 6th level Planning Watersheds, introduction of the groundwater line around the Central and Salinas valleys, and was subject to an extensive cooperative planning and review effort by the Interagency California Watershed Mapping Committee (ICWMC), which includes the following agencies state and federal agencies with water resources, water quality, soils, forest, watershed, fish, and wildlife habitat responsibilities:
- California Department of Water Resources (DWR) - California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF)
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-42 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) - California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) - USDA Forest Service (USFS) Pacific Southwest Region (R5) - USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) - USDI Geologic Survey (USGS) - USDI Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) - USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) - US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IX - Stephen P. Teale Data Center (Teale).
These agencies plan to adopt a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) titled "Regarding the Use and Maintenance of the California Watershed Map" (DWR 3/5/97) which has been prepared for the purpose of promoting the use, management, and maintenance of a common watershed map of California.
In Calwater version 2.2 the Super Planning and Planning Watersheds were reinstated and verified to properly nest within the watershed hierarchy. All Super Planning Watershed and any missing Planning Watershed names were populated, and where suitable, watershed boundaries were adjusted to linework provided by the following National Forests:
- Klamath - Lassen - Mendocino - Shasta Trinity - Six Rivers.
The following are subjective comments regarding this data: CALWATER boundaries were digitized on a 1:24,000-scale base and thus very accurately divide surface water features depicted on 1:100,000-scale Digital Line Graph hydrography. However, CALWATER delineations are primarily designed to be administrative reporting units, and the boundaries should not be used to define authoritative drainage area above a given point as a portion of their definition includes non-physical boundaries, particularly in valley floor and urbanized coastal regions. Attribute completeness is good. Compatibility with existing state and federal watershed delineations is good, except where explicitly different boundary configurations are applied.
Source: California Spatial Information Library data index, Physical Geography, “California Watersheds (Calwater 2.2) - www.gis.ca.gov
More information on the DEM-generated sub-basin maps produced as part of Phase 2 is included in the PHASE 2 – SECOND GENERATION GIS PRODUCTS section.
MAP 2-18 – ROAD DENSITY FOR SIXTH FIELD WATERSHEDS The Road Density for Sixth Field Watersheds map (HYPERLINK) provides a general quantification of road density by 6th Field watersheds, a nomenclature established by the US Geological Survey and various state agencies that identifies sub-watershed boundaries based on average size. In the 6th Field sub-watersheds identified here, road densities of greater than 3 miles per square mile of watershed are considered “high;” 1.5
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-43 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
to 3 miles per square mile are “Moderate;” and less than 1.5 miles of road per square mile of watershed is “Low.” Based on such a delineation, road densities in the sub-watersheds sort out elevationally, with the highest density sub-watersheds (3.5 – 5.6 miles of road per square mile of watershed) occurring in the low elevations, moderate density sub-watersheds (1.67 – 3.05 miles of road per square mile of watershed) in the middle elevations, and the lowest density sub-watersheds (.66 – 1.44 miles of road per square mile of watershed) in the higher elevations.
Additional First Generation GIS Products
SOIL-WATER ANALYSIS Recognizing that the soil-water relationship – that is, the soil’s capacity to absorb and transport water – is one of the key elements in the hydrologic process (along with climate, land surface condition/degree of impervious surface and topography), the American River Watershed Group also contracted with WRC Environmental of Sacramento to conduct a pilot analysis of soils and soil composition as they relate to water storage, runoff, and erosion hazard potential in the North Fork/Middle Fork American River watershed. The goal of this early assessment work was to use the soil-water relationship to: a.) help refine the group’s understanding of key hydrologic processes in the watershed, and b.) begin identifying which processes (runoff vs. groundwater recharge) are likely to occur in which locations throughout the watershed. To do this work, the team first identified and assembled the major soils databases that existed for the watershed area. At the time the team undertook this part of the assessment, there were a number of completely different GIS soil databases covering the watershed, including Tahoe National Forest (TNF), Eldorado National Forest (ENF), and two Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) databases. Each database had a slightly different structure, making it hard to use them in concert to provide soils information across the whole watershed. WRC Environmental worked with the Sierra Biodiversity Institute to use hand computations and calculations to create a “crosswalk” system that would allow the team to use the separate databases together as one usable data layer. Although this system led to certain data inconsistencies as a result of trying to mesh four different databases into one, it provided a way for the team to see the range of conditions in the watershed. WRC Environmental and Sierra Biodiversity Institute used the combined dataset to create additional GIS products for use in Phase 1 of this watershed evaluation process, including: Relative Fast Runoff Potential, Available Water Capacity, Delayed Runoff Potential, Groundwater Recharge and Erosion Hazard Potential. These products and the processes used to develop them were superceded by later data received in electronic form from the agencies. The description of how the new data were used and the new and additional maps created from those data appear later in this chapter under the PHASE 2 – SECOND GENERATION GIS PRODUCTS section.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-44 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
For more detailed information on how each step of the initial hand analysis was done, please refer to Appendix A Soil-Water Routing Hand Calculations (HYPERLINK) and Appendix B Available Water Capacity (HYPERLINK). A brief description of the maps created as part of this initial analysis is included below. However, these maps are superceded by those included later in this chapter under Phase 2.
MAP 2-19 – RELATIVE FAST RUNOFF POTENTIAL MAP [SUPERCEDED BY MAP 2-43] In the first Relative Fast Runoff Potential map (HYPERLINK), characteristics of different hydrologic soils group categories were used to identify areas of different fast runoff potential, which are illustrated on the map in colors ranging from bright red, indicating high potential, to cool green, indicating very low potential.
Value Quick Runoff Potential 0.00 – 0.75 High (red) 0.76 – 1.25 High (dark orange) 1.26 – 1.75 Moderate (light orange) 1.76 – 2.25 Moderate (yellow) 2.26 – 2.75 Moderate (yellow-green) 2.76 – 3.25 Low (light green) 3.26 – 3.75 Low (medium green) 3.76 – 4.0 Very Low (dark green)
The resulting map shows high potential for quick runoff primarily in higher elevation, barren or steep areas in the southeastern portion of the watershed (Desolation Wilderness area), as well as along steep westerly portions of the lower North Fork, the Middle Fork and Rubicon rivers and some of the upper watershed areas that are located in designated roadless areas along the North Fork American and Rubicon rivers. Areas with lower potential for quick runoff are found primarily in the southern portion of the watershed south of the Rubicon River.
MAP 2-20 – AVAILABLE WATER CAPACITY I MAP [SUPERCEDED BY MAP 2-44] Available water capacity is a derived measurement used as one parameter in the evaluation of watershed response to vegetation management alternatives and other possible future scenarios, such as global warming, etc. Available Water Capacity indicates the amount of water that is available at different soil depths. For purposes of this initial assessment, the soil depths were defined as 0-4 inches, 4-6 inches, and greater than 6 inches. The Available Water Capacity I map (HYPERLINK) shows that, for the most part, areas with the highest water availability capacity occur in the western portion of the watershed, especially on the north side of the Middle Fork American and along a portion of the lower North Fork American.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-45 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
MAP 2-21 – DELAYED RUNOFF POTENTIAL MAP [SUPERCEDED BY MAP 2-45] The Delayed Runoff Potential map (HYPERLINK) shows areas of Very High (dark blue) to Very Low (orange) Delayed Runoff potential in the watershed. The areas of very high or high delayed runoff potential occur primarily in the middle elevations northeast of French Meadows reservoir on the Middle Fork American and south/southwest of Hell Hole reservoir down into the Rubicon drainage. Moderate to high infiltration and permeability characteristics provide relatively quick drainage to toe slope and valley margin areas where soil water reaches the surface. When surface saturation occurs, both surface and subsurface water is translated to drainage courses. These saturation sites vary in size and location depending on variable total precipitation in events and existing soil moisture conditions. Most of the western portion of the watershed and the area along Interstate 80 up to and along the northern boundary of the watershed have either very low or low potential for delayed runoff.
MAP 2-22 – GROUNDWATER RECHARGE MAP [SUPERCEDED BY MAPS 2-46 & 2-47] Groundwater recharge potential is the potential for soils to provide deep percolation and make precipitation available for bedrock groundwater recharge. Within this runoff concept, the groundwater recharge potential bears an inverse relation to delayed runoff potential. The source areas of soil - groundwater recharge are generally shallow to moderate slopes with deep, somewhat lower-permeability soils. Infiltration is moderate to high and the lower permeability provides slower drainage to toe slope and valley margin areas, which increases the relative probability for groundwater recharge. The Groundwater Recharge map (HYPERLINK) shows that most of the western portion of the watershed, in the lower elevations, has very low to moderate potential for groundwater recharge – especially those areas right along the river courses. The areas with the highest potential for groundwater recharge occur along the southern edge of the watershed south of the Rubicon and in the area west of Loon Lake. There are other scattered spots along Ralston Ridge and north of French Meadows reservoir, as well as in the northeastern corner of the watershed.
MAP 2-23 – EROSION HAZARD POTENTIAL MAP [SUPERCEDED BY MAPS 2-52 & 2-54] As an additional step in the initial analysis, the consultant looked at potential soil erosion hazards. Hazards were organized into nine categories constructed from categories found in the two USFS and two NRCS soil surveys that estimate maximum potential soil erosion risk should vegetative cover be removed and the soil surface be left undisturbed. The qualitative relative soil erosion hazard rating attributed to each of the principle soils of each soil mapping unit was given the following numerical values. Low = 1 Moderate = 2 High = 3 Very High = 4 For rock outcrop units = 0 was assigned.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-46 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Similarly to the Quick Runoff calculations, numerical erosion hazard values were assigned to each principle soil constituent of each mapped unit in a possible range of 0.00 to 4.00. The continuum of numerical values was organized into the following categories. 0.00-0.75 0.76-1.25 - Low 1.26-1.75 1.76-2.25 - Moderate 2.26-2.75 2.76-3.25 - High 3.26-3.75 3.76-4.00 - Very High However, later in the process, after this initial analysis was completed, the team got access to a new version of soils data provided by the NRCS that allows for consistency in terms of data structures across different jurisdictions. This new dataset was used to recreate the maps described above to provide more specific and accurate analysis as part of Phase 2 of this project.
Phase 1 Conclusion Together these Phase 1 US Forest Service and WRC Environmental/Sierra Biodiversity Institute products provided the American River Watershed Group with the solid beginnings of a GIS system and an overview of basic watershed conditions that helped us characterize the watershed and identify areas where we needed more information. In order to integrate data and information to evaluate various watershed conditions, functions and processes, the group needed more detailed and specific analytic capabilities. That led us to Phase 2 of our data assemblage, research and assessment, in which we gathered more fine-grain data and combined it in ways that allowed for more detailed and accurate analysis. Our Phase 2 efforts and resulting products are described below.
PHASE 2 – SECOND GENERATION GIS PRODUCTS Working with consultants WRC Environmental and the Sierra Biodiversity Institute, the American River Watershed Group gathered additional data and created a second generation of GIS products to assist with further evaluation and assessment of the watershed. This second generation assessment was geared toward using more specific and compatible biological, geological and other electronic data to evaluate the relative conservation value of smaller subwatersheds within the larger North Fork/Middle Fork American watershed area. This was also the point at which the project team decided to take a slightly more regional approach, looking at areas immediately adjacent to the North Fork/Middle Fork American watershed boundary, as well, for the evaluation and potential stewardship strategy phases. Scientists typically prefer to consider management alternatives based on
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-47 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
watershed boundaries (ridgetop to ridgetop). However, the stressors in this watershed – including development, transportation and other considerations – cross ridgetops. In many cases, especially along the western portion of the watershed, the ridgetop-based watershed boundaries bifurcate key population centers, such as Colfax, splitting human communities in half. Since community involvement is critical for any stewardship strategy to be effective, the project team chose to broaden its evaluation and stewardship area slightly to incorporate communities within existing Fire Safe Council jurisdictions in the watershed. The watershed is covered by six Fire Safe Councils, including (from north to south): Alta Fire Safe Council Greater Colfax Fire Safe Council Iowa Hill Fire Safe Council Placer Hills Fire Safe Council Greater Auburn Area Fire Safe Council Foresthill Fire Safe Council. After deciding on the slightly more regional approach, the team chose to assess the North Fork/Middle Fork American River watershed area based on an analysis of subwatershed health (versus, for example, species or habitats only) for a number of reasons, including: the degree of biological diversity associated with subwatersheds; the number of special status species and sensitive habitats that are associated with subwatersheds and aquatic areas; the fact that many important ecological processes, such as surface water flow and nutrient flow function within subwatershed boundaries; the existence of a growing body of scientific work that has already been conducted at the subwatershed scale, including work in Placer and Nevada counties; and the fact that aquatic and riparian systems are good indicators of the health of the overall ecosystem. By looking at a number of environmental indicators across subwatersheds, we were able to gain a better understanding of the condition of the watershed as a whole as well as being able to identify high value areas within the larger watershed for more focused stewardship activity.
Subwatershed Delineation
For the first iteration of subwatershed analysis under Phase 2, the team used State- defined Calwater subwatershed boundaries, which generated subwatersheds in the 3,000- to 5,000-acre size range. This scale did not allow the team to conduct analysis at the level of detail desired. Areas with disparate characteristics were still being lumped together, thereby losing the detail necessary to conduct the evaluation with the degree of specificity the team desired.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-48 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
As a result, the evaluation team chose as the next step under Phase 2 to create its own subwatershed boundaries that would better reflect hydrological functioning in the watershed and impacts on the ground. The team used a specific GIS tool called GRID, designed by ESRI specifically to conduct surface hydrologic analysis. Information on how GRID works is included below.
Surface Hydrologic Analysis In Grid The shape of a surface determines how water will flow across it. The hydrologic analysis tools in GRID provide a method to describe the physical characteristics of a surface. Using a digital elevation model as input, it is possible to delineate a drainage system and then quantify the characteristics of that system. These tools let you determine, for any location in a grid, the upslope area contributing to that point and the downslope path water would follow. Watersheds and stream networks, created from DEMs using GRID, are the primary input to most surface hydrologic models. These models are used for such things as determining the height, timing, and inundation of a flood, as well as locating areas contributing pollutants to a stream, or predicting the effects of altering the landscape. An understanding of the shape of the Earth’s surface is useful for many fields such as regional planning, agriculture and forestry. These fields require an understanding of how water flowatershed across an area, and how changes in that area may affect that flow. Source: ESRI website www.esri.com
In this iteration, the team used GRID to delineate subwatersheds in the 2,000-acre average size range. In some cases, the subwatershed boundaries generated by the GRID software coincided fairly closely with the CalWater boundaries. But the CalWater boundaries were originally drawn by hand from 7.5-minute quad maps based on ridgelines and streams, whereas the DEM-based GRID software uses a more consistent computer-generated delineation process, which provides for more accurate analysis within the individual subwatersheds.
MAPS 2-24 – AMERICAN RIVER REGION CALWATER WATERSHEDS & 500-ACRE SUBWATERSHEDS After the team produced the 2,000-acre Subwatershed Boundaries map) and used it to conduct some preliminary indicator analysis, including percent of rare plant soils per subwatershed, road density, road density by elevation zone (including valley, foothill, mixed oak/conifer forest, and alpine), density of mines, percent of blue oak woodland, percent public lands, stream density, and percent urban, team members decided that the 2,000-acre size still didn’t provide enough resolution for the planning exercises and analysis the team wanted to undertake. So they used the same GRID process but changed the parameters to create Map 2-24 American River Region Calwater Watersheds & 500- acre Subwatersheds map (HYPERLINK). With this new system of subwatersheds defined, the team was able to apply the same data layers at a finer scale to better understand the physical, chemical and biological processes and conditions in and around the watershed.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-49 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
GIS-Based Subwatershed Analysis/Ranking
In the GIS-based ranking system used by the project team, analysts evaluate and rank individual subwatersheds in the larger North Fork/Middle Fork American River based on the overall goals of identifying significant watershed-related resources and developing an incentive-based stewardship plan to protect and restore those resources in the fast-developing North Fork/Middle Fork American River watershed. The ranking process looks at physical, biological and other parameters in each subwatershed – including the presence of rare vegetation types, low road density and development in streamside zones, larger parcel sizes and lower population densities, extensive public land ownership, and existing populations of special status plant or animal species – and uses these “value” indicators to rank each subwatershed based on its relative potential for future stewardship and conservation.
Qualities of “High Value” Watersheds7
Presence of rare vegetation types, such as blue oak woodland or old growth; Low road density/development in streamside zones; Large parcel sizes and low population density; Extensive public lands; Extent of unmodified small-patch ecosystems (fens, bogs, springs, etc. that don’t show up on map); Populations of several red- and/or yellow-listed plant and animal species (RED = state or federally listed; YELLOW = on some other biological list, ie: CNPS, Audubon, etc.).
The scores for the individual parameters are then added up within each subwatershed, leading to both a set of individual parameter scores and an overall composite ranking for each subwatershed, indicating its relative environmental/ stewardship value as compared to other subwatersheds in the basin. The subwatersheds with higher overall scores can then be considered to be higher priorities for whatever intended action the group is considering, such as further detailed survey work, specific restoration work, or other stewardship activities. The different value indicators, or parameters, chosen by the team are described below.
Subwatershed Analysis Parameters The indicators of environmental health chosen for the Subwatershed Analysis/ Ranking process were modeled, in part, on the strategy developed for Placer and Nevada
7 As developed and approved by the Scientific Advisory Committee to Nevada County’s Natural Heritage 2020 program, September 2001.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-50 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
counties which had already undergone extensive scientific and peer review and approval by citizen, interagency and scientific working groups as well as County staff and Boards of Supervisors in Nevada and Placer counties. The analysis strategy used in Placer and Nevada counties, and for this project, is based on looking at broad-scale “coarse-filter” data (such as land cover composition, land ownership, slope, protection status, disturbance history, etc.) coupled with finer-scale information such as location of unique soil types, special topographic features like caves or cliffs, or small hydrologic features such as seeps or springs. This combined analysis allowed the project team to examine biological diversity and environmental health at all relevant scales throughout the entire watershed. It also helped to identify potential locations of unique communities and species that might be considered for more focused stewardship. And it provided baseline data that could be used to model potential changes under different stewardship strategies. [See Appendix C for the Placer Legacy Draft Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Resources (HYPERLINK) and Appendix D for Nevada County’s A Watershed-Based Approach for Setting Conservation Priorities in Nevada County, California (HYPERLINK).] Data was collected to represent the various course-filter and fine-scale parameters. Top priority items included: 1. General watershed statistics to provide necessary background information, including: area, elevational range, ecological subregion, average annual precipitation; 2. Land cover composition and pattern to discern where human-modified ecosystems may reflect land use pressure or potential for erosion or other impacts, including: vegetation cover, acreage and percentages of urban/agricultural/natural vegetation, different seral stage habitats in coniferous and forested areas, oak woodland areas, areas of different slope degree, and parcel sizes and General Plan designations; 3. Land use and disturbance history to understand ecosystem composition, structure, and functional organization (for example, certain supposedly “pristine” oak woodlands in Placer County were orchards as recently as 60 years ago, according to aerial photographs taken in 1938), including: timber harvest history, agricultural history, mining history, fire history; 4. Land cover patch sizes as important predictors of habitat value, including: cover types and frequency histograms of cover type patch sizes; 5. Small patches of sensitive habitat types that serve as habitat for many rare plants, invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians with low dispersal powers, including: soils, geology, serpentine/gabbro substrate and caves/cliffs/rock outcrops; 6. Land ownership and protection status, including: administrative boundaries, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness areas, roadless areas, etc.; 7. Roads and transportation corridors to identify where habitat is or isn’t fragmented and where erosion may or may not be a problem, including: road network, miles of roads by road type per square mile of watershed area, miles
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-51 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
of major transportation and utility corridors, and erosion potential of major soil types and slope gradients; 8. Aquatic resources since a majority of sensitive species are associated with aquatic/riparian areas, including: miles of permanent and intermittent streams, extent of lakes and reservoirs, number of dams and diversions, miles of free- flowing versus impounded streams, ditches/canals and other modifications to the natural flow regime, extent of Aquatic Diversity Areas and Critical Aquatic Refuges, and isolated springs/wet meadows/fens/bogs/seeps; 9. Riparian extent and distribution as a key indicator of habitat quality, including: extent of riparian habitat; 10. Special status species in the watershed, including: Natural Diversity Database records, other special status species records, and total vertebrate species richness by habitat type as estimated from Wildlife Habitat Relationship models. The data layers assembled for this project to represent these parameters included:
COVERAGE DESCRIPTION (Provided By Sierra Biodiversity Institute) 1 ADS Subalpine Dwarf Scrub 2 ALSESNEP SNEP-identified Areas of Late Successional Growth
3 ASPEN Aspen stands (from USFS Vegetation coverage) 4 BARREN Barren areas 5 BASIC Metabasic and metavolcanic substrates 6 BOW Blue Oak Woodlands 7 CANAL Canals (from State’s Teale Data Center) 8 DAMS Dams (detailed coverage from SNEP) 9 FISHER Pacific Fisher Conservation Areas 10 FRI Foothill Riparian Forest 11 GABBRO Gabbrodiorite Substrates 12 LAKE Lakes and Reservoirs 13 MARTEN American Marten Conservation Areas 14 MINES Mines: surface and shafts 15 MRI Montane Riparian Forest 16 NDDB Natural Diversity Data Base Records 17 OWL_NET California Spotted Owl Conservation Areas 18 PARCSZ Mean parcel size 19 PUBLIC Public Lands 20 RDDENS Road density (previous wash5kI analysis – SNEP)
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-52 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
21 RDS_CE Summed Road length in Streamside C/E zone 22 SERP Serpentinite Substrate 23 SLPGT30 Slopes greater than 30% 24 SNADA Sierra Nevada Aquatic Diversity Areas (as modified by PRC) 25 SNCR Pacific Rivers Council Critical Aquatic Refuges 26 SPRINGS Spring locations 27 STRDENS Stream density (from wash5kI) 28 TNCPORT The Nature Conservancy Portfolio Sites 29 TRANSP Transportation Corridors 30 URBAN Urban Areas 31 VOW Valley Oak Woodland 32 VP Vernal Pools (from Placer Legacy and DFG) 33 WET_Z3 Wetlands (from soil data) 34 WTM Montane Meadowatershed
With the ranking strategy and the watershed health indicator data layers in hand, the team next defined elevation zones in the watershed based on vegetation type and plant community characteristics. This zone system divided the larger regional watershed area into five distinct ecological or elevational areas, including Valley (with no topographic relief at all); Transition Zone (designed for statistical purposes to include resources typically associated with either Valley or Blue Oak Woodland habitats but that couldn’t be separated into one or the other category); Blue Oak Woodland (foothill area that encompasses the blue oak woodland habitat); Westside Conifer (from the crest of the Sierra Nevada on the east to the start of the Blue Oak Woodland on the west); and Eastside Zone (located just outside the watershed boundary but useful for certain analyses). Map 2-25 American River Region: Watershed Zones illustrates the zone distinctions in the watershed region. Within each of these zones there are specific groupings of habitat types, such as aquatic and wetland habitats, valley grasslands, oak woodlands, vernal pools, and Sierra Nevada habitats, each with its own plant and animal communities, distribution and management needs. [For more detailed information on ecological/ elevational zones, please see Appendix E for A Guide to Placer County Ecological Zones (HYPERLINK).] These zones were used to adjust certain data from the watershed health indicator data layers to allow the team to distinguish individual characteristics and their relative value in different areas of the watershed. This was important in the scoring system later applied to each subwatershed (and described in more detail later in this section). Once the team had the elevational zones and GIS themes identified, team members worked together to determine which themes had occurrences in each of the elevational zones. And within each zone, they identified whether the individual theme elements would be considered net positives or net negatives with respect to the overall
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-53 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
goal of protecting important natural resources in the watershed. To do this, the team looked at each individual data layer listed above, such as, for example, serpentine soils, and asked the question: if this element (serpentine soils) is present in the subwatershed at this elevational zone, is that a good thing or a bad thing for the purpose of integrating protection of resources with human development over the long term? Determining whether a given data layer should be considered a net positive or net negative in each zone was not meant to be a pejorative exercise; rather, it was part of a ranking process based on the specific goal of this project and this analysis. In some cases, depending on the analysis goal, a given data layer is a positive; in other cases, it may be a negative. But these judgments are for the purposes of the specific analytic goal only; they are not meant to indicate value outside of the specific analysis being undertaken.
EXAMPLE: In looking at irrigation canals and their potential impact on habitat values in the watershed, the canals in the lower elevation subwatersheds would likely be considered a positive, as they introduce more water into an otherwise dry habitat. Canals in the upper elevation subwatersheds, however, might be considered a negative, as they rapidly move water out of the habitat. In other words, not all subwatersheds are equal in the context of conserving biological diversity, which is the underlying goal of this project. It was the purpose of this analysis and ranking process, therefore, to identify which subwatersheds in the larger North Fork/Middle Fork American would lend themselves more to potential stewardship activities based on the number of “value indicators” that are present in each one. The places where more values stack up are likely places that would be considered higher priority for stewardship. In most cases these determinations were made based on work already done by the science teams involved in the Placer and Nevada county projects. The following describes the actual ranking process or model in more detail.
Subwatershed Ranking Process 1. Look at one elevation zone at a time and one GIS indicator data layer at a time in that elevation zone. Note: in the North Fork/Middle Fork American River watershed study area there were five zones identified: valley floor, transition zone, blue oak wood, Westside conifer, and eastside. 2. Taking one GIS data layer at a time, identify the total variation of presence of that element in each elevation zone (for example, oak woodland habitat may have occurrences of between 0 acres in some parts of the zone to hundreds of acres in other parts of the zone.) 3. Use statistics to divide the total abundance of that element in that elevation zone into 10 equal-sized categories. So, for example, the 10 categories for blue oak woodland might be: (1) 1-50 acres, (2) 51-100 acres, (3) 101-150 acres, (4) 151-200 acres, (5) 201-250 acres, (6) 251-300 acres, (7) 301-350 acres, (8) 351-400 acres, (9) 401-450 acres and (10) 450-500 acres. The 10 categories for a different layer, for example the number of mine sites in the zone, might be: (1) 0-1, (2) 2-3, (3) 4-5, (4) 6-7, (5) 8-9, (6) 10-11, (7) 12-13, (8) 14-15, (9) 16-17, and (10) 18-19.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-54 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
4. Assign a score for each data layer in each subwatershed in the elevation zone based on the relative presence of that element in each subwatershed as determined by the categories outlined under Step 3. Scores will be positive 1 through 10 for data layers considered to be “net positives” in that elevation zone; scores will be -1 through -10 for data layers considered to be “net negatives” for the purposes of this analysis. For example, assume that presence of blue oak woodland has been determined to be positive and presence of mine sites has been determined to be negative in a given elevation zone. If Subwatershed A has 364 acres of oak woodland, that subwatershed would get a score of 8 for oak woodland based on the categories outlined above. If Subwatershed A has 4 mine sites, it would get a score of -3 for mine sites. 5. Within each elevation zone, repeat Steps 2, 3 and 4 for each GIS data layer in each subwatershed in that zone. 6. Once you have done the above for all the data layers in all the subwatersheds that occur in a particular elevation zone, calculate a single composite score for each subwatershed by adding together all the positive and negative individual data layer values or “scores” for that subwatershed. For example, if Subwatershed A from the above example had only oak woodland and mine site data layer scores, it would end up with a composite score of 5. [8 for oak woodlands plus -3 for mine sites, equaling 5]. Note: the simplest way to do this is a straight sum – where all data layer scores are weighted equally. But there are other ways to determine the composite score, including weighting certain individual data layers more heavily than others. For example, oak woodlands may be so important for purposes of your analysis that you choose to weigh its score double the score of any other data layer. So in that case, Subwatershed A would end up with a composite score of 13 [8 x 2 = 16 for weighted oak woodlands plus -3 for mine sites, equaling 13]. Every other subwatershed that had a score for oak woodlands would have to use the same weighting factor. But for purposes of this analysis, the assumption was that all themes are equally weighted. 7. Repeat Step 6 in each elevation zone. Now you have one composite score for each subwatershed in each elevation zone that reflects that subwatershed’s relative value in that elevation zone. However, each elevation zone has a different number of GIS data layers that apply to it. In Placer Legacy’s countywide analysis, for example, Zone 1 had 30 layers per subwatershed, Zone 2 also had 30 layers, but Zone 3 had 21 layers, Zone 4 had 25 layers, and Zone 5 had 22 layers. Since each zone has a different number of layers being used to create the composite score for the subwatersheds, the composite scores across elevation zones are not directly comparable. In other words, if a subwatershed in Placer Legacy’s Zone 1 got the highest score of 10 for every data layer considered, it would end up with a composite score of 300 [30 layers times a score of 10 per layer]. If a subwatershed in Placer Legacy’s Zone 3 got the highest score for every data layer considered, its composite score would only be 210 [21 layers times a high score of 10 per layer]. Each subwatershed represents the highest quality in its zone. But to compare them across zones, the second subwatershed would seem of lesser quality since it only received a total score of 210. In order to be able to compare all subwatersheds across all elevation zones, then, we had to use a process called “normalizing” which turns individual scores into percentages of a total. 8. Normalize composite scores across elevation zones by figuring out what the highest or “perfect” score could be in each elevation zone, given the number of input themes and the positive/negative scoring factors for each. Then calculate what each subwatershed’s score is in that zone as a percent of the perfect score. So the raw number score is translated into a percent of perfect total. The “percent of perfect” score now provides a statistically valid way to look at subwatersheds across the whole area instead of just within each zone.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-55 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Although this process may seem complicated given the number of variables and steps required, it is relatively simple in the world of watershed modeling. The whole point was to have a relatively objective, resource-based way to identify what areas in the North Fork/Middle Fork American River watershed were important in terms of potential stewardship activity. The ranking results are shown on Map 2-26 – American River Region Subwatershed Scores (HYPERLINK). We wanted a model that used good science, could be replicated if new information became available and could have its results verified on the ground. And, we thought it was an added benefit that independent scientific and citizen-based advisory teams had reviewed and approved of this system in other local efforts, including one in our own county. The beauty of this process is that once a specific subwatershed has been determined to be important or valuable overall, you can work the process backwards to identify what specific characteristics contributed to that subwatershed’s ranking. Those factors can be quantified based on the scoring of the individual GIS data themes. And once you know what the contributing scoring factors are, you can take the individual analysis even further by field-checking in that subwatershed location to: a.) verify that the GIS data indicators on the map match what is on the ground, and b.) identify more specifically within the subwatershed where those indicator resources are located. It helps to also have an understanding of which individual data layers were used and why and where the data came from. The following list provides a brief description for each layer used.
Data Layers Used in Ranking Process
SUBALPINE DWARF SCRUB This dataset was chosen because there are a number of plants that live in this habitat type that are considered rare but are not yet state- or federally listed as threatened or endangered. So by focusing stewardship efforts on areas that contain this habitat, we can protect at-risk plants and potentially head off official listings which could lead to additional use restrictions in areas where these plants live. Data for this GIS layer came from datasets compiled by Placer County for Placer Legacy. The specific plant community type, subalpine dwarf scrub, was selected out from a larger vegetation cover dataset showing wildlife habitat relationships.
AREAS OF LATE SUCCESSIONAL EMPHASIS (ALSE) Information on Areas of Late Successional Emphasis, or ALSEs, came from the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Report dataset. ALSE areas identified by subwatershed are shown on Map 2-27 American River Watershed Region: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Areas of Late Successional Emphasis. This datalayer was used because the ALSE system was designed by preeminent scientists in the field using good data to determine how best to manage late successional old growth forests in the long-term across the Sierra Nevada.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-56 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Citation Information Title: Areas of Late Successional Emphasis (ALSEs) Polygon Id List Originator: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Edition: 1 Publication 19960000 Date: Information Format: Computer file Resource Type: Content: Geographic information Scale: variable Other Citation Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, vol. I, Assessment Details: Summaries and Management Strategies. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996. Franklin, J.F. and J.A. Fites-Kaufman. 1996. Analysis of late successional forests. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II, chap. 21. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Davis, F. W., D. M. Stoms, R. L. Church, B. J. Okin, and K. N. Johnson. 1996. Selecting biodiversity management areas. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, chap. 58. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Franklin, J.F. et al. Alternative Approaches to Conservation of Late- Successional Forests in the Sierra Nevada and Their Evaluation. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, Addendum, chap. 3. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Cousar, P., J. Sessions, K.N. Johnson. 1997. Individual Stand Projection Under Different Goals to Support Policy Analysis for the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, Addendum, chap. 4. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Sessions, J., K. N. Johnson, D. Sapsis, B. Bahro, J. Gabriel. 1997. Methodology for Simulating Forest Growth, Fire Effects, Timber Harvest, and Watershed Disturbance Under Different Management Regimes. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, Addendum, chap. 5. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Johnson, K. N., J. Sessions, J.F. Franklin. 1997. Initial Results from Simulation of Alternative Forest Management Strategies for Two National Forests of the Sierra Nevada. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, Addendum, chap. 6. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Identification Information Abstract: ALSEs are made up of multiple late-successional old growth (LSOG) polygons on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada. The is an info file of all of the LSOG polygons. This is a binary file, so for the item, alse 1=alse and 0=not an alse. The purpose of these areas is to maintain concentrations of high-quality late- successional forest function. They were identified by using existing high-ranked polygons (4s and 5s) as cores. This approach incorporates both reserves and areas managed intensively to reduce the potential for catastrophic fire. Purpose: To identify late-successional (LSOG) polygons which make up the Areas of Late Successional Emphasis (ALSEs). Supplemental Data in the SNEP GIS catalog have not been updated since the end of the Info: SNEP project. This layer is most likely out of date. Layers are always subject to change as new data are added, errors are found and corrections are made. For current information contact the originator of the layer. For those layers created
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-57 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
by SNEP no updates are planned. Time Period: Start: 1996-01-01 End: 1996-12-31 Currentness: Publication Date Progress: Complete Update None Planned Frequency: Place: Sierra Bioregion (bioregion) Geographic West: -121.0600 East: -120.0000 North: 39.7800 South: 39.4000 Region: Themes: Ecosystem management; Trees; Vegetation User Keywords: Access No Restrictions Limitations: Use Limitations: No Restrictions Distribution Information Distribution ARC/INFO Export Format: Distribution Karen Beardsley Willett Contact: Metadata Information Date: 1998-08-09 Metadata Karen Gabriel Contact: Metadata FGDC Standard: Last Updated: 2002/06/28 14:34:42 GMT Source: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project SNEP Map/Data Site at http://www.ice.ucdavis.edu/snep/download.asp.
ASPEN STANDS Aspen stands are also quite rare, but they support a high number of animals that use the habitat for breeding and other parts of their lifecycles. Unlike the subalpine dwarf scrub, aspen habitat is important for all species, not just at-risk species. The information for this data layer came from US Forest Service vegetation data layer based with information on Wildlife Habitat Relationship type.
BARREN Knowing where the barren areas are in the watershed can help assess relative erosion hazards and other key watershed health indicators. The bulk of the watershed’s barren areas – defined as subwatersheds with barren areas making up 45% or more of the watershed – occur in the high elevation areas of the watershed at the northern and eastern boundaries. This type of habitat area is very important for at-risk or “watch list” plants – also called “yellow list” in the Nevada County analysis – that are not yet state- or federally listed as threatened or endangered but are on watch lists for potential future
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-58 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
listing. This data came from the US Forest Service’s Vegetation 1980 data layer described earlier under Phase 1.
METABASIC AND METAVOLCANIC SUBSTRATES Metabasic and metavolcanic substrates represent gabbro and serpentine soils, which are described later in this list. They are included because they typically host an important assemblage of rare plants.
BLUE OAK WOODLANDS Blue Oak Woodlands data came from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program oak woodland mapping project first published in 1989 and then revised in 1993. Based on the data, it appears that only 17 subwatersheds within the overall watershed boundary have any degree of blue oak woodlands left [see Map 2-28 American River Region: Blue Oak Woodlands]. The amount of blue oak woodland habitat is less than 25% in almost half of those areas. The areas with the most habitat left – 26% or higher – are located primarily in the southwestern end of the watershed, east of Auburn. These areas are part of a larger regional belt of blue oak woodland habitat that runs roughly along the Highway 49 corridor from Grass Valley down to Placerville. Blue Oak Woodland, in general, is an extremely diverse habitat equaled only by streamside vegetation in terms of the number of species that use the habitat. Blue Oak Woodland is also endemic to California, making it of special concern.
CITATION INFORMATION
Identifier: hardwoods Title: California Hardwood Rangeland Vegetation (polygons) Originator: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Publication Date: 1994 Information Resource Type Format: Computer file Content: Geographic information system Scale: 40 acre mmu Other Citation Details: Map projection is Albers Equal Area, NAD27
IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION Abstract: Hardwood rangelands below 5000' elevation were originally mapped by Dr. Norm Pillsbury (Cal Poly SLO) under contract by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). Polygons were delineated on 1981 1:24,000 scale black and white air photos, transferred to 1:100,000 scale base maps, and digitized. The data were updated by Pacific Meridian Resources under contract from CDF using 1990 LANDSAT TM imagery. Polygons are coded based on hardwood species group, tree size, and canopy closure class.
Purpose: In response to concerns over the extent and condition of California's hardwood rangelands, the Board of Forestry asked the University of California, California Department of Forestry and Fire
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-59 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Protection, and the California Department of Fish and Game to develop a program of research, education, and monitoring designed to conserve hardwood rangelands. The resulting Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program (IHRMP) began in 1986. To analyze the extent and nature of hardwood changes, CDF instituted this project and others as part of a long-term monitoring program of IHRMP.
Supplemental Info: 1) Pillsbury, N. et. al. 1991. Mapping and GIS Database Development for California's Hardwood Resources. Available from: CDF-FRAP. 1920 20th St., Sacramento, Ca. 95814 62 p. 2) Pacific Meridian Resources, 1994. California Hardwood Rangeland Monitoring Final Report. CDF-FRAP, 1920 20th St. Sacramento, Ca. 95814. 85 p.
Time Period Start: 1/1/1990 Time Period End: 12/31/1990 Currentness: Ground Condition Progress: Complete Update Frequency: None Planned Place: California
Access Limitations: No Restrictions Use Limitations: FRAP disclaimer Read disclaimer within data dictionary supplied when data are downloaded from FRAP site
Contact Information Data Contact: LCMMP Vegetation Mapping Coordinator Organization: CDF-FRAP Phone: 916-227-2658 Fax: 916-227-2672 Email: [email protected] Url: http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/ Address: 1920 20th Street City: Sacramento State: California Postal Code: 95814 Country: USA
CANALS Canals basically function as perennial streams, especially in the lower elevations of the watershed. Leakage from the canals also provides habitat. Given the importance of streamside areas to a wide variety of species and processes, canals take on importance like annual and perennial streams. Data for this layer was also collected from the State’s Teale Data Center.
DAMS Dams are an important analysis element because of the impacts dams typically have on riparian and aquatic habitat. The addition of a dam into the stream ecosystem usually changes the flow regime, water temperature, sediment environment and fish species composition. Often these impacts result in the destruction of native species. For
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-60 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy this reason, presence of dams is considered a negative for purposes of this watershed health analysis. Data on dams within the watershed and subwatersheds came from the detailed dam data layer produced as part of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) Report:
Citation Information Title: Dams Within the Jurisdiction of the State of California Originator: CA Department of Fish and Game Publication 19960000 Date: Information Format: Computer file Resource Type: Content: Geographic information Scale: 250000 Other Citation Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, vol. I, chap 2. Details: Assessment Summaries and Management Strategies (Davis: University of California, Centers of Water and Wildland Resources, 1996).
Erman, Nancy A. 1996. Status of Aquatic Invertebrates. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, chap. 35. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Identification Information Abstract: Point coverage of "Dams within the jurisdiction of the State of California" (Bulletin 17-93, California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Division of Safety of Dams, Sacramento). Jurisdictional Dams are defined as "artificial barriers, together with appurant works, which are 25 feet or more in height or have an impounding capacity of 50 acre-feet or more. Any artificial barrier not in excess of 6 feet in height, regardless of storage capacity, or that has a storage capacity not in excess of 15 acre-feet, regardless of height is not considered jurisdictional." (DWR Bulletin 17-93). The coverage was prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division GIS Staff from a database file provided by Floyd Brooks, DWR, containing latitude/longitude coordinates and descriptive data for each dam. Purpose: This information was referred to in the SNEP chapters listed under other citation details. Supplemental Data in the SNEP GIS catalog have not been updated since the end of the Info: SNEP project. This layer is most likely out of date. Layers are always subject to change as new data are added, errors are found and corrections are made. For current information contact the originator of the layer. For those layers created by SNEP no updates are planned. Time Period: Start: 1996-01-01 End: 1996-12-31 Currentness: Publication Date Progress: Complete Update None Planned Frequency: Place: Sierra Bioregion (bioregion) Geographic West: -121.0600 East: -120.0000 North: 39.7800 South: 39.4000 Region: Themes: Dams
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-61 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
User Keywords: Access No Restrictions Limitations: Use Limitations: No Redistribution Distribution Information Distribution Karen Gabriel Contact: Metadata Information Date: 1998-08-10 Metadata Karen Gabriel Contact: Metadata FGDC Standard: Last Updated: 2002/06/28 14:34:42 GMT Source: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project SNEP Map/Data Site at http://www.ice.ucdavis.edu/snep/download.asp.
FISHER AND MARTEN HABITAT The fisher and the marten are two of the most important late succession forest species in the Sierra Nevada. There are too few individuals and they range across too much territory for counties to be able to plan adequately for their needs. That is why we chose to use potential fisher and marten habitat data from independent work done by the US Forest Service’s Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment team. Their analysis assessed the vulnerability status of these and other native terrestrial vertebrates within the Sierra Nevada Bioregion and determined how species in the different vulnerability groups were distributed among the high priority environments at risk, including Westside foothill oak woodland, late-seral/old-growth forest and riparian, meadow and aquatic habitats (Graber 1996). More information on how the vulnerability status was calculated appears below:
Terrestrial Vertebrates – Methods The analysis used the boundaries of the entire SNEP study area to define the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. Then it queried the CWHR to develop a list of species reported to occur within the bioregion. This resulted in a total of 493 species. This list was examined to eliminate “edger” species from further detailed analysis. Edger species were species whose distribution only extended into the edges of the Bioregion and whose primary ranges encompassed vegetation types that predominantly occur in adjacent bioregions to the Sierra Nevada, such as the Mojave Desert, Great Basin, Pacific Northwest and some Central Valley species. A total of 427 species were retained for further analysis after this initial filter. The study assessed the vulnerability status of these 427 native vertebrate species that currently occur or previously occurred prior to European colonization of the Sierra Nevada Bioregion using three variables: population size, population trend, and change in distribution. The study focused on these three variables for determining the vulnerability status of a species because they have been widely acknowledged in the scientific literature to be associated with extinction risk. The data for each of these variables were obtained via questionnaire to a single, recognized taxa expert with expertise specific to the Sierra Nevada Bioregion [Small mammals: Dan Williams; Carnivores: William Zielinski]. Categories within each variable were scored from 1-10 with higher scores
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-62 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy associated with categories of greater conservation vulnerability (Millsap et al. 1990). The study summed the scores for the three variables to calculate a distribution-trend-abundance (DTA) score that was used to generate a linear ranking of the vulnerability status for each of the 427 species.
Variable Score 1. Sierra Nevada Population Size – The estimated number of adults of the species throughout the Sierra Nevada. a) Species has not been reported for a number of years but may still exist 10 b) 1-100 individuals 7 c) 101-1,000 individuals, or population size is unknown but suspected to be small 4 d) 1,001-10,000 individuals 1 e) >10,000 individuals, or population size is unknown but suspected to be large 0 2. Sierra Nevada Population Trend – Overall trend in the number of individuals of the species throughout the Sierra Nevada since 1900, or later depending on the date of the earliest information for the species a) Population size known to be decreasing 10 b) Trend unknown but population size suspected to be decreasing 7 c) Population formerly experienced serious declines but is presently stable 4 d) Population size stable or suspected to be stable or increasing 1 e) Population size known to be increasing 0 3. Sierra Nevada Range Change – Percent change in the area occupied by the species since historic times. This is an estimate of change in the proportion of the total range that is occupied or utilized; it may or may not equal the change in total range. For example, a species may still be found throughout its historic range yet within that range it may currently occupy only 50% of the area historically occupied. a) Area occupied suspected to have declined by 90-100% 10 b) Area occupied suspected to have declined by 50-89% 7 c) Area occupied unknown but suspected to have declined by >50% 4 d) Area occupied suspected to have declined by 1-49% 1 e) Area occupied unknown but suspected to have declined by <50% 1 f) Area occupied suspected to be stable or has increased 0
Whereas the linear ranking provides an overall vulnerability score, the study further explored inter-relationships among the variables using cluster analysis and classification decision tree-based models in an exploratory multivariate analytical framework (Dawkins et al. 1994) to identify vulnerability status groups (VG) based on the same three variables and scoring system described for the linear ranking method. Dawkins et al. (1994) recommend that the combined use of cluster analysis to suggest groups based on the data itself, and the use of classification decision trees to provide characterizations of the groups, leads to a more effective analysis. The study used procedure QUICKCLUSTER in SPSSPC+ (SPSS 1990) to separately cluster species into three clusters after sorting the species in descending order based on DTA scores. Procedure QUICKCLUSTER is a useful procedure for clustering large data sets and is based on the nearest centroid sorting method and clusters species into an apriori defined number of clusters (SPSS 1990). The study then used classification decision tree-based models in S-PLUS (Venable and Ripley 1994) to assess the characterization of the three clusters based on the three population variables to aid in the final decision-making step of determining the vulnerability group membership for each species.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-63 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The study identified species hypothesized to be dependent on each of the high-risk environments in the Sierra Nevada (late-seral/old-growth (LSOG), western foothill (WF), riparian/meadow (RM), and aquatic (AQ)) as identified in SNEP (Graber 1996). The study started with the information in Graber (1996), in which he used the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) database to assign species to one of three categories designating the degree of a species habitat association with the LSOG, WF, and RM environments. The CWHR database ranks the habitat suitability of each vegetation type and structural stage for each species as “high,” “medium,” “low,” or “none” and is based on expert opinion (Ziener 1990a, b, c). A species was scored a “1” when it was hypothesized to be dependent on the environment, a “2” if it was hypothesized to use the environment, and a “3” if it does not use the environment. A species was hypothesized to be dependent on one of the environments if the overall suitability ranking was “high” for that environment and not ranked “high” for any other environment. Aspecies was deemed to use one of the environments it it was ranked “high.” A species was determined not to use an environment when the overall suitability was ranked “non” for that environment (Graber, pers. comm.). The AQ association variable was developed by the Biosphere Working Group of the Sierra Nevada Province Assessment and Monitoring Team (USDA Forest Service). Each species was subjectively scored as to their use of aquatic environments in the Sierra Nevada. A species was scored a “1” if the species is an aquatic species, a “2” if it is a “semi-aquatic” species, and a “3” if it does not use aquatic habitats based on a general review of the species biology. A species was deemed “semi-aquatic” if it was dependent on aquatic habitats for some portion of its life cycle. For example, m amphibian species lay their eggs in aquatic environments but live in terrestrial environments as adults. These species cannot persist without some form of aquatic habitat. Results The DTA (distribution – trend – abundance) scores for the 427 species ranged from 0 – 30. Twenty-five species had scored greater than 20. Five species, consisting of three extirpated species (California condor, grizzly bear, gray wolf) and two species apparently extirpated as breeders that have not been reported for a number of years (harlequin duck, Barrow’s goldeneye), had the maximum score of 30. Eighty-nine species had DTA scores ranging from 10 – 19. Finally, 313 species had DTA scores less than 10. Common Scientific Vulnera- DTA Pop Pop Range LSOG WF RM AQ Name Name bility Score Size Trend Change Group Fisher Martes High 15 4 7 7 1 3 3 1 pennanti Marten Martes Medium 9 1 7 1 1 3 2 1 Americana Source: Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-3 – Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization
FOOTHILL RIPARIAN FOREST Foothill Riparian Forest is perhaps the most important habitat for vertebrates in entire watershed. In Nevada County alone, 172 species live in this habitat and 100 more use it for breeding. This habitat features a good deal of water, insects, and diverse vegetation. It is used for feeding, resting, breeding, and foraging. So by protecting this particular habitat, we can get more “bang for the buck” in terms of overall species protection.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-64 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
GABBRO/SERPENTINE (RARE PLANT) SOILS Gabbrodiorite-based and serpentine-based soils both host a suite of rare plants that don’t grow anywhere else. Again, by protecting areas with these specialized soil formations, we can protect a substantial number of these special status plant species. The data for these layers came from Natural Resource Conservation Service and US Forest Service soil maps. Analysts created these specific layers, in consultation with regional botanists and biological consultants, by developing a list of soils underlain by serpentine and gabbrodiorite bedrock. Then they merged these specific soil types to create one single data layer for the watershed.
LAKE Lakes (or “lacustrine” ecosystems) were included because they provide important habitat for several federally listed and watch-list species, including primarily the bald eagle and osprey. The data came from the State of California’s Teale Data Center. Based on the original data source, natural lakes can be separated out from artificial reservoirs if that level of detail is necessary for a given analysis. But we did not choose to make a distinction for purposes of this study.
MINES The presence of mines in the watershed is considered to be a negative in this study of subwatershed health and stewardship value. Such a determination is complicated, because mine shafts can actually provide habitat to watch list bats, and a number of rare plants can be found in hydraulic diggings. But in this case the team decided mines were a negative due to impacts on water quality from contaminated water emanating from mines and the overall disturbance of vegetation communities from historic mining activity. Data for the mines layer used in this analysis [see Map 2-29 American River Region: Mines in Subwatersheds] came from the State’s Department of Conservation Office of Mine Reclamation: Mines Dept of Conservation – Office of Mine Reclamation Topographically Occurring Mine Symbols/Sites
About the AML Unit
The Abandoned Mine Lands Unit was created in 1997 to prepare a report to the governor and legislature on the "scope and magnitude" of the abandoned mine lands issue in California. This report was completed in June 2000 and is available electronically from this website.
In the development of the report, the Abandoned Mine Lands Unit instituted a field inventory program to accurately locate abandoned mines and to provide a preliminary assessment of any health and safety hazards observed. This program is ongoing and we are working with partners in the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, CALFED, State Water Resources Control Board,
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-65 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Delta Tributaries Mercury Council, and others to identify and remediate abandoned mines.
We have a toll free number, 877-OLD-MINE, where members of the public may call to report abandoned mines. While we try to perform field visits to reported sites as soon as possible, resource constraints and other obligations limit the availability of staff.
TOMS: Topographically Occurring Mine Symbols
About
In 1998, the Office of Mine Reclamation began inventorying abandoned mined lands as part of a program to produce a report describing the "scope and magnitude" of abandoned mine issues in California. To support this effort, the Office began digitizing mining features from scanned USGS topographic quadrangles. In 2001, we completed the digitizing process for all 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles covering the state.
The Office of Mine Reclamation is pleased to be able to release this data for public use. We hope it will prove to be a valuable resource to other government agencies and interested parties working towards the reclamation of California's abandoned mine lands. However, the State of California, Department of Conservation makes no warranty as to the accuracy of this data nor its suitability for any particular use. Spatial Data
The spatial data is available as a set of ESRI shapefiles compressed in a ZIP archive file (approx. 3.6 mb). The archive contains shapefiles for point, line and polygon features. Additionally, as a convenience, an ArcView legend file is provided for each shapefile. The archive also contains this html file, FGDC metadata, and the textual metadata for the scanned DRG's which were the source for the "TOMS" data set. FGDC metadata is included for all the formats listed below. Contact Information
Office of Mine Reclamation Abandoned Mine Lands Unit 801 K St., MS 09-06 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 323-9198 Email: [email protected]
Metadata
NAME : DRG - Digital Raster Graphic USGS 7.5' Quad Images (trimmed)
COVERAGE DESCRIPTION: Trimmed Digital Raster Graphics are PackBit-compressed tiff images of USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps that have been trimmed down to their neat line, or in the case of irregular DRGs, to their outer map extent, removing the
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-66 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
map collar that contains legends and descriptive text. This enables side by side display without map areas being overlapped by adjacent map collars. There are 2,851 images covering the entire state. Trimmed DRGs are directly derived from the full sheet DRGs that Teale Data Center scanned on behalf of the USGS.
BRIEF METHODOLOGY: - Image is scanned at 400 dpi, and colors normalized to 13 RGB values. - Image is converted to Arc Info grid file - Grid file undergoes descreening to eliminate scatter and enhance solid fills in areas such as water bodies and forests. - Grid file is registered to albers projection. - Grid file is trimmed to its neatline or outer map extent. - Trimmed grid file is converted to .tif image with PackBit compression option.
VITAL STATISTICS: Resolution: 400 d.p.i. Projection: Albers Units: Meters Datum: NAD 27 Spheroid: Clarke 1866 Source: U.S.G.S. Source Media: Map sheets Source Projection: vary Source Units: Meters Source Scale: 1:24,000, 11 DRGs are 1:25,000 Capture Method: Scanned Conversion Software: ARC/INFO rev. 7.2.1 Data Structure: Raster Size of DRGs: Range 2 - 40 MB, 13 MB on average per image 40 Gigabytes statewide Use limitation: Value added product for purchaser's use only Data Updated: December 1998
DATA CONTACT:
Contact Name: Roger Ewers - Teale GIS Contact's Phone: 916-263-1488
DOCUMENTATION DATE: 12/15/1998
Source: California Department of Conservation, Office of Mine Reclamation, Topographically Occurring Mine Symbols : http://www.consrv.ca.gov/OMR/abandoned_mine_lands/toms/
MONTANE RIPARIAN FOREST Montane riparian habitat is second only to foothill riparian forest habitat in terms of the number of species that call it home for some or all of their life cycles. Yet Montane riparian forests occupy only a very small percentage of the area. While such forests are very rare, they support such a high number of species that they are key
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-67 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy elements in an overall stewardship plan. Information for the Montane Riparian Forest data layer came from vegetation work done for Placer County.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES In caring for watersheds and the creatures living in them, it is important to recognize which areas are crucial in promoting the survival of species, especially those species that have some special status due to being threatened, endangered or otherwise impacted. This data layer and accompanying Map 2-30 American River Region: California Natural Diversity Database Threatened and Endangered Species] illustrates the total number of occurrences of special status species within each subwatershed based on the California’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The data is somewhat limited, however, since this list only identifies where we already know these species exist; it doesn’t show where they might be. To get at that question, we can look at actual species occurrences along with habitat data to get an idea of where certain species prefer to live. The overlap between the two data sources gives us better information for future stewardship planning purposes.
SPOTTED OWL CONSERVATION AREAS We looked at spotted owl conservation areas in the same light as fisher and marten habitat. The needs of these species can’t be adequately met by planning on a watershed scale. So we chose to incorporate good science and data from other sources that have addressed these species on a more regional level. The descriptions below outline how the spotted owl conservation area data was gathered and analyzed as part of the US Forest Service’s Forest Plan Amendment process.
Information on the historic distribution, abundance, and habitat associations of California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada is unavailable (Verner et al. 1992). Thus, it is not possible to determine how current populations’ numbers and distribution may have changed relative to historic conditions. Based on records from the California Department of Fish and Game recorded through 1999, a total of 1,323 owl sites are known on FS lands within the project area, with another 129 owl sites reported on non-FS lands within the boundaries of the project area. The Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests have major populations of spotted owls, with 99 percent of the total known owl sites on FS lands in the project area occurring within these forests. These seven National Forests include the vast majority of suitable habitat for spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada…. Private land comprises a portion of the home ranges of some owl sites on FS lands, with more than 15 percent of the owl sites on FS lands having greater than 15 percent of their home range within privately owned lands. Four National Parks, scattered Bureau of Land Management lands, industrial timberlands, and private timberlands provide the remainder of the estimated suitable habitat and additional spotted owl pairs. - According to a chart printed in the FEIS, the Eldorado National Forest has 160 pairs, 36 territorial singles and 13 singles within its jurisdiction. Another 12 pairs, 5 territorial singles and 5 singles appear to live on nearby non-FS lands, for a total of 231 owls.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-68 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- The Tahoe has 107 pairs, 26 territorial singles and 24 singles on FS land, and another 17 pairs, 4 territorial singles and 8 singles on nearby non-FS land, for a total of 157 owls. Source: Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.4 page 69-70. Conservation measures for the California spotted owl must provide the environmental conditions needed to establish a high likelihood of maintaining populations of the California spotted owl, well-distributed across the National Forests within the Sierra Nevada planning area. A primary concern for California spotted owls is the effects of vegetation management on the distribution, abundance, and quality of habitat (Verner et al. 1992, Gutierrez and Harrison 1996, Noon and McKelvey 1996). Conservation measures must consider habitat distribution, abundance, and quality at the landscape, home range, and stand- level scales. At the landscape scale the issue is to provide for sufficient amounts and distribution of high quality habitat to facilitate natal and breeding dispersal among territories and to maintain California spotted owls well-distributed throughout their historic range in the Sierra Nevada. For this purpose, protecting occupied, as well as suitable but unoccupied habitat, over the long-term is important at this scale. A species with obligate dispersal and experiencing habitat limitation would be expected to show a pattern of less than full occupancy of habitat due to the uncertainty of the search process and the survival costs associated with searching for low-density habitat (Noon, pers comm.. 2000). Conservation efforts should therefore consider not only occupied habitat, but also suitable unoccupied habitats, in developing conservation strategies for species for which dispersal may function as a primary limiting factor (Lande 1987, 1988). At the spatial scale of the individual home range, the issue is to manage for high quality territories that provide sufficient amounts and distribution of nesting and foraging habitat to provide for adequate survival and reproduction rates needed to contribute to stable or increasing populations. At finer scales, conservation measures must also address the amounts and distribution of important habitat elements. Specifically, canopy cover and layering , and large trees and their derivatives, large snags and logs, are important habitat elements that influence the distribution, abundance, and availability of California spotted owl prey species. Individual large trees, and often snags, are used as nesting trees by California spotted owls. Spotted owl foraging success is likely to be improved in stands with high tree height diversity, providing perches at varying levels in the canopy. Source: Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.4 page 82.
MEAN PARCEL SIZE Mean parcel size [see Map 2-31 American River Region: Mean Parcel Size] serves as an index of several key elements, including relative disturbance and relative ease of stewardship. In general, larger-sized parcels are less disturbed because they not likely to have as many roads, built areas, impermeable surfaces, etc. In addition, it is easier and more efficient to launch volunteer stewardship activities with fewer landowners, each of whom owns or manages more land.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-69 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
PUBLIC LANDS In general public lands already have some degree of stewardship protection and are governed by different laws regarding conservation than are private lands. As a result, it can be more valuable in some cases to work in areas with larger portions of public land because there is likely to be more opportunity to employ various stewardship activities or strategies. Data for this layer came from land ownership data assembled by Placer County for the Placer Legacy project.
ROAD DENSITY Road density serves as an index of potential watershed and wildlife disturbance, since roads provide increased access and road/stream crossings serve as likely entry points for increased sedimentation in streams and rivers. As a result, road density was an important indicator for stream condition, especially since we didn’t have the time or funding under this project to conduct on-the-ground stream surveys. To determine road density we used GIS to measure how many road miles occur per square mile of subwatershed [see Map 2-32 American River Region: Subwatershed Road Density]. One might guess that road density would be lower in the higher elevation areas, which is, indeed, what the data showed. But what was also interesting was the relatively low density on the western edge of the watershed, which is more significant since that is where the more populated areas are located. When road density is normalized by zones [refer to Map 2-25 Watershed Zones], it gives a different profile of the region because road density in the mountain area (Zone 4) would no longer be directly related to the urban areas of the foothill zone (Zone 3) or the even more densely roaded urban areas of the Valley (Zone 2). See Map 2-33 American River Region: Relative Road Density Normalized by Ecological Zones.
ROAD DENSITY/STREAMSIDE COMMUNITY/ENERGY ZONES From an aquatic perspective, the location of roads within a subwatershed makes big difference in actual stream disturbance and sediment input. So road density in the riparian or so-called streamside community and energy zones is an even more important indicator of potential sedimentation and disturbance than road density in general. To do these calculations the team used GIS to determine how many miles of road occurred in the streamside community and energy zones [see Map 2-34 American River Region: Roads in Streamside Zones], as described below. Streamside Community/Energy Zones Riparian ecological functions and physical processes take place in three areas at varying distances from the aquatic system: a community area, an energy area, and a land-use influence area. The size of these areas depends on the local characteristics that define them…. Community Area: For any aquatic habitat there is a suite of species that depend on the combination of land and water. Some spend most of their life in the water, some on the land…. From a knowledge of the habitat requirements and life connections of the dependent species, we should be able to define the
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-70 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
general dimensions of this community area in the various regions and elevation zones of the Sierra…. Thus, to provide for the living requirements of those organisms dependent for their survival on the special conditions of the riparian area, the primary management should be maintenance of these conditions. Energy Area: Major scientific understanding of the energy linkages between upstream and downstream and exchanges between the land area and aquatic systems has emerged in the last two decades. Riparian energy areas contribute a year-round supply of organic material that ranges from nearly the total supply of food at the base of the food chain to critical quality food…. The dimensions of this region vary be the season, by the hydrologic conditions, by the contributing area, and by the species mix. A useful summary index of this area is the slope distance around the aquatic system equivalent to the height of the site potential tree (i.e., the height a mature tree can attain given the soil and other conditions at its location) (Chapel et al. 1992). For the Sierra Nevada, that height in many forest types is approximately 46 m (150 ft). Riparian Buffer Area: The effects of land-use disturbance are reduced by keeping such activities at a distance from the aquatic system and by maintaining a buffer area capable of absorbing disturbance. The likelihood of disturbance to a stream from most land uses increases as a function of proximity to a stream, the steepness of surrounding hillsides, and the erodibility of soils. These relationships, as in many risk factors, are probably multiplicative and therefore a doubling of slope has more than twice the risk of disturbance to the stream (i.e., an exponential change). Variable Width Buffers: Current practice for designing buffer systems based on risk rely on classification of the aquatic system and the creation of three or four categories of slope. As a consequence, a fixed width is chosen even though conditions on the land and requirements of the community would suggest a variable width (Bisson et al. 1987). We propose a more direct system for estimating a variable-width buffer system based on the community and energy area in combination with slope and other measurable risk factors…. The SNEP GIS team has prepared a program that will calculate slope at 30 m (98.5 ft) increments along a stream channel. At each point, slope from five successive 30 m segments out from a channel are computed from the 30 m Digital Elevation Model. Slopes are then weighted 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, from closest to farthest away, and divided by 5 to produce a weighted average slope over the 150 m (slopes closest to the stream have the greatest effect on the average). Let’s also assume that the stream has a community area defined by species as 110 ft (33.5 m) and an energy area that is 150 ft (46 m). Thus, a minimum region with maintenance of forest structure and minimal land disturbance is 150 ft for these two areas. This distance is then multiplied by the base of natural logs (e) raised to a power equal to 1+slope (in decimal form). If, for example, the slope were 25%, the equation would be Buffer width (ft)=150 * e(1+.025) giving a value of 524 ft (160 m). If the average slope were 50%, the buffer would be 672 ft (205 m). In the first case, an additional 374 ft (114 m) of buffer would be needed…. This additional area beyond 150 ft would not have the same land- use restrictions as the community and energy areas. Its purpose is to highlight a region in which probability of disturbance may affect the community or energy areas and the aquatic system…. Describing the buffer zone as a “probability of disturbance region” places the responsibility on managers for designing practices that have higher standards and are more carefully matched to conditions where mistakes will matter more.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-71 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Most forest and land manager today could determine first approximations based on habitat requirements, energy inputs, and hillside slope calculations to produce a logical, ecologically based riparian management-protection system along these lines. It would lead to better protection of riparian-dependent organisms and of energy linkages between the land-water systems, and would assist managers in tailoring land-use activities to regions of greater need than is presently the case. Source: G. Mathias Kondolf, Richard Kattelmann, Michael Embury, Don C. Erman, “Chapter 36: Status of Riparian Habitat,” Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options (Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996).
SLOPE Slopes of greater than 30 % indicate likely erosion hazard areas. These are places that are most sensitive to grading and road construction. Knowledge of where these high- angle slope areas occur in the subwatershed is important. All other things being equal, we can accomplish more stewardship in these areas since other uses are less likely to occur in these areas.
SIERRA NEVADA AQUATIC DIVERSITY AREAS The Sierra Nevada Aquatic Diversity Area data, as modified by the Pacific Rivers Council’s similar Critical Aquatic Refuges study, comes from a Sierra-wide science- based study looking at what small portion of the landscape would have to be protected to maintain native reptile and amphibian populations (salamander, newts, frogs, etc.). The study identified a couple of key habitat areas in each county of the Sierra Nevada. It was important to the team to know where these sites were in our watershed so we could see how they might overlap with areas that met other stewardship goals.
SPRINGS Natural springs serve as centers of endemism for aquatic organisms, meaning they support many organisms that are restricted or peculiar only to that particular locality. Very little survey data exists on springs; but it is important to consider any that we do know about for protection through some kind of stewardship activity because of the unique suite of organisms supported by springs.
STREAM DENSITY Like road density, stream density is an indicator of the extent of aquatic environment in each subwatershed. Subwatersheds with more streams generally have a higher stewardship value than those with fewer simply because of the importance of riparian habitat and aquatic habitat to the overall health of the ecosystem. In the absence of comprehensive mapping for riparian areas in the watershed, this data became an important index. Data for stream locations came from a streams layer produced by Placer
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-72 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
County for the Placer Legacy project. Density was determined by using GIS to measure the number of miles of stream per square mile for each subwatershed.
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY PORTFOLIO SITES The Nature Conservancy (TNC), a national conservation organization with programs in California, interviewed some 60 professional biologists to identify how best to protect biodiversity in the Sierra Nevada on a limited landscape. With the help of these experts, TNC identified a number of important areas that, if protected, would conserve a high percentage of existing plants and animals. The organization published its findings in its Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan. For purposes of our analysis, we simply identified the location of any of the TNC proposed conservation areas within our watershed. We did not look at the individual attributes for individual sites but, instead, were interested in whether our high priority sites correlated at all with the sites identified by TNC as important. And we found they did indeed correlate. So the presence or absence of TNC sites in a particular subwatershed didn’t change the outcome of our analysis; instead, it served simply as a tool to validate our own results.
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS We tracked major transportation corridors – especially Interstate 80 – because they typically have sizable ecological impacts on the watershed in terms of dispersal, pollutant inputs, sedimentation, etc. So generally speaking, it is less valuable to focus stewardship efforts along these corridors. The presence of large transportation corridors, therefore, was considered a negative across all elevation zones for purposes of this study.
URBAN AREAS Like transportation corridors, urban areas present barriers to long-term conservation because they are areas that are typically already fairly disturbed and they represent the areas where additional growth is most likely (and most appropriately) to take place. So it doesn’t make sense to spend too much stewardship capital in these areas; therefore, urban areas where considered a negative theme across all elevation zones for purposes of this stewardship-oriented analysis. Data for this layer came from a combination of three state-compiled land use databases, including Teale Data Center, Department of Conservation and Department of Water Resources.
VALLEY OAK WOODLAND Valley Oak Woodland, along with Blue Oak Woodland, is an incredibly diverse habitat type. It grows within existing Blue Oak Woodland stands and along streamside zones, making it the “best of the best” in terms of supporting high numbers of species types, including special status species. Data for this part of the analysis came from existing vegetation layers in combination with Wildlife Habitat Relationship typing.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-73 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
VERNAL POOLS Although only one subwatershed in the area supports vernal pools, it was important to consider in the calculations because of the suite of endangered plants and invertebrates that live in vernal pools. This was, therefore, considered a positive theme for purposes of stewardship strategy development. Data for vernal pool locations was derived from work done by the County and the California Department of Fish & Game for the Placer Legacy project.
WETLANDS Like vernal pools and riparian areas, wetland habitat supports an important range of plant and animal species, including a number of watch-list species that are not yet listed as threatened or endangered but are on the brink of such listing due to reductions in their populations. Wetland areas also provide important ecological services, such as water filtration, so they are important components of the landscape. Wetland areas were identified using a combination of soil-based data and specialized wetlands data from the National Wetlands Inventory.
MONTANE MEADOW Montane meadows also contain a large number of species on the brink of listing for threatened or endangered status. Given the particular species that are most likely candidates for listing in the next wave, montane meadows become one of the most important habitat types for future stewardship relative to these species. Information for this layer came from existing vegetation layers, including that of the US Forest Service.2
Watershed Assessments8 Geology Background Bedrock Geology The understanding of the bedrock geology of the Sierra Nevada and the processes by which the present bedrock geologic framework came to be in the region has been evolving since the second half of the 19th century. While many aspects of geologic development of Sierra Nevada are well established and accepted, many of its details are still subject to ongoing field investigation which will lead inevitably to more detailed understanding and perhaps to a modified or a new interpretation of the broad construct. Therefore while the following is a brief synopsis of the present understanding of bedrock geology of the watershed, it should be kept in mind that some aspects are still in contention in the literature and that new information may overturn some descriptions contained here.
8 Researched and written by Chuck Watson of WRC Environmental
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-74 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The bedrock geology of the NF/MF American can be best understood as generally composed of: 1) an older sequence of complexly arranged metamorphic rock units generally deposited in ocean settings which were faulted and tilted into their existing distribution when they were added to the western edge of the continental margin (collectively known as the Western Metamorphic Belt); 2.) an intermediate-aged suite of granitic magma intrusions under the older metamorphic rocks (collectively known as the Sierra Nevada Batholith); and 3.) a younger-aged suite of extrusive volcanic ash and volcanic mudflow material (collectively known as the Superjacent Series) that generally buried the older and intermediate-aged rocks. The following discussion of geology in the watershed relates to Map 2-35: Geology [HYPERLINK]. General Sketch of Bedrock Geologic History; It is generally understood that the suite of metamorphic rocks of the Western Metamorphic Belt in the watershed range in age between nearly 400 and 120 million years before the present (m.y.). The depositional environments that led to these rocks were in tectonically active areas. The specific depositional settings varied between terrestrial sites and marine sites varying in depth, distance from shore, and submarine bed slopes. During protracted periods there were active nearby volcanic sources that provided considerable sedimentary material to the units that would later become metamorphosed. Over a protracted period of time the relatively flat lying metamorphic units came under lateral pressures by the western migrating continental plate. These pressures resulted in the complex arrangement of the various metamorphic rock units and their attitudes found today. These complexities include most rocks having very steep to near vertical bedding planes, adjacent metamorphic units have very different ages and the ages of rock units are not sequentially progressive across the total of the metamorphic rocks, the rocks units are often separated by very steep faults, and the degree of metamorphism of the rock units vary but not necessarily in accord with rock ages. The actual specific timing and spatial sequences of events are uncertain and several models for the Western Metamorphic Belt have been presented by researchers to explain the specific rock and age relationships among the metamorphic units of the western Sierra. As summarized by Day (1992), a general sketch of the metamorphic units is best understood by lumping the various metamorphic rocks into three belts: 1.) the Eastern Belt, all metamorphic rock east of the Melones Fault to the headwaters; 2.) the Central and Feather River Belts together, all the metamorphic rocks between the Melones Fault and the Wolf Creek Fault zone; and 3.) the Western Belt, all metamorphic rocks west of the Wolf Creek Fault zone. The Eastern Belt metamorphic rocks have several units that are among the oldest in the watershed (400-180 m.y.). They represent a thick sequence of near-continental deposition and several episodes of volcanic material deposition with intervals of surface erosion. These rock units probably became metamorphosed in place, became attached to the edge of the continental plate, and variably folded by lateral pressures early in their history. The older rocks of the Shoo Fly Complex (400-370 m.y.) in the watershed are most commonly of moderate to highly deformed and recrystallized sandstone, siltstone, and slate (DSs). Along the eastern edge of the Shoo Fly Complex is the “Duncan Peak Unit” which is composed of massive bedded chert and minor amount of shale (DSc).
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-75 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The younger metamorphic rocks (370-180 m.y.) located to the east of the Shoo Fly Complex and in the watershed crest area are less deformed and recrystallized. They are a mix of metamorphic rocks including the volcanic rocks of the Sierra Buttes Formation (DBv), slates and sandstones of the Sailor Canyon Formation (SCs), volcanic conglomerate and breccias of the Tuttle Lake Formation (TLv), the volcanic rocks of the Taylor Formation (MTv), and a wide range metasedimentary rocks of the Tahoe Sequence (TSs). In addition to these formations there are several other metamorphic units of variable age and composition (metasedimentary and volcanic, metavolcanic, and chert) but their relation to other rocks remain uncertain (Unassigned Usv, Umv, and Umc). In much of the area covered by these various non-Shoo Fly Complex rocks, particular in areas at the higher elevations of the upper watershed, these rocks are underlain and relatively shallow depths by granitic rocks of the Sierra Nevada batholith (discussed below). These underlain units are known as roof pendents; that is the remaining portions of the metamorphic rocks that overlay the granitic rocks that have been eroded at the surface to the point of near disappearance The location of the units of the Eastern Belt rocks shown on the watershed geology map was developed by using the geology presented on the draft geology maps of the Tahoe National Forest and the Eldorado National Forest. During the period of Eastern Belt deposition and continental plate attachment, deep marine deposition was on-going to the west within a sequence of volcanic arc settings associated with plate tectonics. These depositional settings led to thick sequences of sedimentary and volcanic metamorphic rocks of the Central, Feather River, and Western Belts. These rocks largely became metamorphosed in their depositional settings resulting from variable pressures and temperatures after burial by overlying deposits. Most of the rock units have moderate to lower grade metamorphism. Between about 140 and 120 m.y. (dates are uncertain) the relatively flat lying and gentle folded metamorphic units of all the belts came under lateral pressures by the western migrating continental plate. However, within uncertainty on the specifics, through this generalized process: 1.) the deep marine metamorphic rocks of the Central and Western Belts were rafted and attached against the older Eastern Belt rocks; and 2.) these rock units were gently folded by lateral compression forces and then fractured by low angle faults which developed into the complex Foothill Fault System (Day, etal. 1985). To accommodate the general shortening of the area induced by the motion of the continental plate, the metamorphic units slipped past each other along the low angle faults with younger rocks often but not always overriding older rocks. Folding was locally more intense. Low angle faulting in some of these rock units may have carved slivers of metal-rich material from the earth’s upper mantle and incorporated it into the faulting and rotating system As the process of rafting, attachment to the continental margins, and deformation of the rock units proceeded, both the rock units and the faults became steeper until both the original bedding planes of the rocks and the faults were nearly vertical. During this complex process the metamorphic rock units have come to be oriented north and south in
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-76 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy long bands often separated by the nearly vertical faults of the Foothill Fault System, and to be complexly banded east to west without a consistent age gradation. The Feather River Belt is interpreted as the remnant of a deep ocean basin that separated the near-continental rocks to the east and the island arc rocks to the west. The basin was floored by plutonic rocks from upper mantle sources which were very high (>90%) in iron, magnesium, and related minerals. The rocks of this belt are a complex of metamorphic serpentine (um), gabbros (gb), and related mafic and ultramafic rocks (mafic; ferromagnesian minerals). These rocks have some of the highest grades of metamorphism present in the watershed. The locations of the units of the Feather River Belt rocks shown on the watershed geology map were developed though a variety of steps. First the locations of the various major metamorphic units (um and gb) developed by using the geology presented on the draft geology maps of the Tahoe National Forest and Eldorado National Forest and supplemented west of the National Forest boundary by reported soil parent material in soil surveys for serpentine and gabbro. West of the National Forest boundary, the boundary between the underlying metamorphic rocks of the Feather River Belt and the overlying Superjacent Series material was delineated using the Superjacent Series soil parent material information. The faults along the boundaries of the Feather River Belt were developed primarily from the mapping of Saucedo and Wagner 1992, Loyd 1995, Kohler 1983, and Wagner etal 1981. The Central Belt is divided east to west into different metamorphic rock suites by three north-south faults. East of the Gillis Hill fault, the rocks (Calaveras Complex) are dominated by metavolcanic material (PCv) adjacent to the boundary faults on the east and west. In the central portion it is dominated by metasedimentary rocks and chert weakly to moderately metamorphosed (PCS). West of the Gillis Hill fault to the Weimar fault, the Central Belt is composed of rocks of the Mariposa Formation (JMm) which is an assemblage of marine depositional material including slate, sandstone, conglomerate, and some metavolcanic rocks. West of the Weimar fault to the unnamed fault near Bowman the rocks are mainly of the highly disrupted Clipper Gap Formation (TCs) composed of very weakly metamorphosed shale along with isolated bodies of limestone (ls) of mappable size. West of the unnamed fault near Bowman to the Wolf Creek Fault zone are rocks of the Lake Combie Complex (JLv) which are typically metavolcanic material. There are scattered isolated serpentine bodies (um) along several of the faults and contacts within the Central Belt. The location of the units of the Central Belt rocks shown on the watershed geology map was developed though a variety of steps. First the locations of bounding faults and the locations of the various major metamorphic units (Calaveras Complex (PCs and PCv), Mariposa Formation (JMm), Clipper Gap Formation (TCs), and Lake Combie Complex (JLv)) were determined primarily from the mapping of Saucedo and Wagner 1992, Loyd 1995, Kohler 1983, and Wagner etal 1981. The boundary between the overlying Superjacent Series material (Tg, TVr, and TM) and the underlying metamorphic rocks was determined from the reported soil parent material found on the soil surveys. The inclusions of isolated bodies of serpentine (um) and limestone (ls)
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-77 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
were also determined using the reported soil parent material found on the soil surveys which means that many other smaller bodies could be shown on geologic maps but were too small to be mapped as soil polygons. The boundary location of the Central Belt and Western Belt units in the vicinity of the watershed has been variously reported in the literature (Loyd, 1995, Day 1992, Beiersdorfer and Day 1992, Springer etal 1992, and Wagner etal 1981). We here follow the approach reported in Beiersdorfer and Day (1992). The Western Belt rocks are located west of the Wolf Creek Fault zone. In the watershed the Wolf Creek Fault zone is about 2 miles wide (NE to SW), which includes the downstream most mile or so of the watershed study area. Within the fault zone the rocks have ben variously reported but we are following Day (1992) by assuming this material is the “chert argillite unit” (CAu) composed of fine grained sedimentary and volcanic rock, highly intruded by serpentine bodies. About a mile downstream of the lower end of the watershed, the canyon of the National Forest leaves the Wolf Creek Fault zone and enters the rocks of the Western Belt. The Western Belt is composed of the Smartville Complex. In the vicinity of the watershed the Smartville Complex is represented by only the harder “Diabase Unit” (diabase; a medium-grained intrusive material with 60-65% mafic [ferromagnesian] minerals) which is composed almost entirely of basaltic sheet dykes that intruded metavolcanic material (Springer etal 1992). The mapped CAu on the watershed geology map was determined using Springer etal 1992, and the location of the fault system using Springer etal 1992, Saucedo and Wagner 1992, Loyd 1995, and Wagner etal 1981. The boundary between the overlying Superjacent Series material (Tg, TVr, and TMa) and the underlying metamorphic rocks (CAu) was determined from the reported soil parent material found on the soil surveys. Following the placement of the metamorphic rock units in their present orientation about 120 m.y., oceanic plate subduction under the continental plate led to the melting of the oceanic crust and entrained sediments forming magma bodies about 30 miles below the surface. From about 120 to 90 m.y., this material bubbled up into overlying metamorphic rocks in a vast array of separate magma bodies, occurring at slightly different times. In the process of upward migration the magma bodies melted into and incorporated metamorphic material. The separate magma bodies solidified into a wide range crystalline bodies of varying mineralogical mixes (James 1971, Ague and Brimhall 1988a, 1988b, Wiebe etal 2002). The rocks of this type found in the watershed are coarse-grained and range from gabbro (60-65% mafic [ferromagnesian] minerals), diorite and granodiorite (30-60% mafic), and granite (<30% mafic). As mapped here the gabbroic rocks have been mapped as gb and the diorite, granodiorite, and granite rocks are combined into “granitic rocks” and mapped as gr. The mapped gb and gr units were developed from a variety of “gabbro,” “diorite,” “granodiorite,” and “granite” units found on draft bedrock geology maps of the Eldorado National Forest and Tahoe National Forest. West of the National Forest boundary the geologic mapping was undertaken by identifying by soils noted has having the appropriate parent material. Before reaching the earth’s surface, the magma bodies reached an equilibrium pressure and solidified relatively slowly at depth forming various types of granite and
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-78 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
gabbro. Near the end of each magma body’s solidification process, remaining fluids rich in silica and often metals were shot under pressure into the surrounding metamorphic rocks. The veins formed from these fluids were the initial sources of the gold of the Mother Lode. The various intrusive granite and gabbro masses together form the Sierra Nevada batholith which at that time was deeply buried below the surface of the metamorphic rocks. Following the placement of the intrusive Sierra Nevada batholith, this region of the Sierra Nevada probably had a geography similar to that of the modern Andes of South America (Loomis 1981, Day etal. 1985) with an off-shore trench created by converging crustal plates, inland a large volcanic mountain system generating both increased surface elevations and sediment source material, and the deposition of erosionally derived sediment across the landscape and in the trench to the west. After about 90 m.y. this region of the Sierra Nevada was in a process of continued uplift and erosional downcutting. Loomis (1981) notes that during this process, much of material making up the 40,000 to 60,000 ft. thick Great Valley Sequence of the Central Valley, must have been eroded from the Sierra Nevada. The type of mineralization in the metamorphic rocks seen around the intruded granitic rocks imply a depth range at which the magma bodies stabilized and solidified. By inference during this period of continual uplift and surface erosional phase, by the time they were exposed at the surface, from 10 to 20 miles of rock were removed (Day etal. 1985). This effective surface lowering brought much of the deeply positioned Sierra Nevada granitic batholith to the land surface. The vertical sequencing of minerals found in the Great Valley Sequence may reflect an early- sequence of erosion sources of volcanic rock origin and a later-sequence of erosion sources of metamorphic and granitic rock origin (Loomis, 1981). The uplift and surface erosion process also brought the deep slivers of incorporated metal-rich upper mantle material to the land surface. As the upper mantle material became positioned nearer the surface, reduced pressure and increased hydration caused this material to metamorphose to serpentine and related rocks. By about 60 or 50 m.y. the Sierra Nevada batholith was continuously exposed in the Rubicon River headwaters area and south of the watershed to the southern extreme of the Sierra Nevada, while through most of the watershed headwaters and to the northern extreme of the Sierra Nevada, the batholith was discontinuous at the surface but is presumed to underlie most of the metamorphic rocks at varying depths. This period marks the end of the development of the crystalline metamorphic and granitic bedrock in the watershed. From about 33 to about 5 m.y. the watershed area was progressively buried by a series of depositional units referred to collectively as the Superjacent Series. By about 50 to 34 m.y. the watershed region had become an eroded metamorphic and granitic bedrock surface with local topographic relief of about 2500-3000 ft. The area was coursed by large rivers carrying gravel and sand materials in low gradient, wide channels. Topographic relationships indicate that the headwaters of the river systems were positioned significantly east of the present Sierra Nevada crest. The present watershed area of the Sierra Nevada was at a very low elevation (fossils of low elevation
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-79 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
plants have been found along the present crest at elevations that are now at about 9000 ft.) and the average elevation of the northern Sierra may have been at about 3000 ft. (Loomis, 1981). These rivers carried gravel and sand material as well as the metals from the eroded silica and metal rich veins in the metamorphic rocks. The main channels of these river systems had stable alignments within the topography. In locations such as Gold Run, channel deposits ranged up to 5000 ft wide and 500-600 ft deep. At other locations they ranged down to about 50 ft. in depth. This material is contemporaneous with the Ione Formation of the foothills and eastern Central Valley. Where this material has been preserved from subsequent erosion and removal, it is referred to as “pre-Tertiary River Gravels,” “Tertiary Gravels,” “Eocene River Channels,” or “Auriferous Gravels.” These gravel deposits are mapped here as Tg. We have also included in this map unit the terrace deposits found on present ridge top locations adjacent to the gravel deposits. These were identified as the Horseshoe soils in the Placer County area. We excluded the Horseshoe soils of the El Dorado County because these are noted as formed in Quaternary age deposits located on the canyon sides within the major canyons. In the watershed area this river system had channels aligned southwesterly along the Georgetown and Foresthill Divides and along Moody Ridge/Blue Canyon portion of the I-80 corridor. In a south to north alignment, positioned at a transect from about Georgetown, to Foresthill, and on to Gold Run, these separate southwesterly channels were tributary to a main north draining channel, referred to as the South Fork of the “Tertiary Yuba River.” This channel coalesced with other ancient Yuba system channels in the vicinity of North Bloomfield in the modern Yuba River watershed. Bateman and Wahrhaftig (1966) indicate that this north trending trunk channel was forced by a north- south trending unit of massive greenstone bedrock (which would appear to be the metavolcanic unit of the Calaveras Complex, PCv located immediately east of the Gillis Hill Fault) and channel erosion into softer shale material (apparently the metasedimentary unit of the Calaveras Complex, PCs). At about 33 m.y. this extended period of progressive surface erosion in the watershed area was interrupted by the initiation of the Superjacent Series material deposition. This series started with rhyolite ashfall deposition followed by a period of about 13-17 million years within which several separate major rhyolite ashfall events occurred. The sources of the rhyolite ash were explosive eruptions from vents located along and east of the present Sierra Crest (Slemmons 1966). This depositional material (the Valley Springs Formation, mapped as TVr) reached a total depth of a little more than 1000 ft in the NF/MF headwaters area and thinned progressively to about 200-300 ft. at the foothill margins west of the watershed. The thicknesses reached 3000 ft in western Nevada. The proximity of the source vents were not only reflected by the thickening to the east but also by its depositional condition. In the watershed headwaters area, the ash was hot enough during landfall that it welded into hard tuff units, while to the west the material progressively grades into fluvial deposits. During each ashfall event, the material covered the terrain of the watershed area, but with long intervals between events, much of the ash material was eroded to lower topographic positions and new channels formed in the rhyolite terrain. The stream- eroded rhyolite terrain developed rough relief and stream courses developed gravel-rich
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-80 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
channel deposits interlaced in the fluvially dominated western portion of the rhyolite. The pre-ashfall regional channel network was largely buried and the new stream courses developed running downslope to the southwest instead of a northward direction to the Yuba system. At the end of the ashfall event sequence and the subsequent erosional redistribution of material, the terrain was discontinuously covered by the rhyolite with many of the local higher elevation sites stripped of the ash. Where present the rhyolite varied in thickness, and there was local relief of about the same magnitude as the pre- rhyolite terrain. The new stream courses of the rhyolite re-worked much of the gravels of the pre-ash Tertiary channels, many were rich in gold and in some areas had gravel depths of 200 ft. or greater (Bateman and Wahrhaftig 1966). The mapped TVr units were developed from a variety of “Valley Springs Formation” and “rhyolitic” units found on draft bedrock geology maps of the ENF and TNF. West of the NF boundary the geologic mapping was undertaken by identifying the rhyolite by soils noted has having rhyolite parent material. No soils in either the Placer and the El Dorado County soil surveys had rhyolite parent material so no rhyolite units were mapped. However both Saucedo and Wagner 1992, and Loyd 1995 show outcrops of Valley Springs rhyolite along the edges of the over lying Mehrten Formation in this area. Although the Valley Springs rhyolite is not show in areas west of the NF boundary, it can be assumed that it is present under the Mehrten Formation material in most places and outcrops most often as a near vertical section below the Mehrten and in places outcrops over larger areas but not mapped. At about 20-16 m.y. andesite eruptions commenced near to and east of the present location of the Sierra Nevada crest and continued in many separate eruption events until about 5 m.y. (generally can be referred to as the Mehrten Formation). Because of the chemical character of andesite, the eruptions were not explosive but rather formed surface flows that, when mixed with even low amounts of water (possibly as little as 10%), could flow substantial distances on relatively low slope angles. These events are often formally referred to as lahars or more commonly as “mudflows” (Thouret and Lavigne 2000). The deposits can be generally referred to as “mudflows” but the nature of specific depositional units can vary widely. Nearer the eruption sources, upon cooling, these andesite flows could congeal into very hard and welded breccia units (TMa), while at greater distances the flows could grade into fluvial dominated units and conglomerate (TMc). Some of the last eruptive events in this sequence resulted in basaltic lava flows which formed columnar units that now are present as small ridge-capping units scattered in various portions of the upper elevation areas of the watershed. The Mehrten eventually accumulated materials to over 2000 ft. in thickness in the headwaters area of the watershed and progressively less to the west to about 500 ft. in the vicinity of Foresthill and Georgetown. Over the approximately 14 million year period, many separate eruptions and flows occurred with as many as 40 separate events discernable in single vertical sections. The inter-eruption intervals were long enough that considerable erosion occurred and the andesite material could be eroded and reworked into subsequent fluvial deposits. With each eruption, the lower terrain areas would be preferentially filled and channel alignment disruption would occur followed by renewed terrain development. Exposed sections of the Mehrten reflect this history with generally near horizontal beds of original
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-81 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
flow material of varying physical characteristics, along with a complex of inset weathered, erosional, and fluvial features. These inset features include zones of intensely weathered flow material that now resembles thick clay-rich units, eroded hillsides in older material with newer infilling material in contact, and gravel lenses of buried stream courses. In many locations the initial andesite flows buried gravels associated with the stream courses on the pre-andesite, rhyolite terrain. The mapped units were developed from a variety of “Mehrten Formation” and miscellaneous units such as “volcanic rocks,” “andesite volcanic rocks,” and “basaltic volcanic rocks” found on draft bedrock geology maps of the ENF and TNF. West of the NF boundary the geologic mapping was undertaken by identifying the soils noted has having andesite parent material. These soils were separated into those predominated by lahars and other flow deposits (TMa), and those predominated by fluvial deposits and conglomerate material (TMc) based on reported soil parent materials. At the end of the andesite flow period at about 5 m.y., the terrain of the watershed was essentially a nearly flat lying landscape composed of complexly interbedded andesite material. The land surface had a gentle westerly slope and the channel network of the watershed area had been entirely re-directed to a westerly and southwesterly direction. The watershed divide between the modern American River and the Bear-Yuba River basins to the north were essentially established. During the last portion of the andesite eruption period, lahar mudflows occurred along the ancestral NF and MF American River channels to points near modern Roseville, about 13 miles west of the watershed. These flows buried the river gravel channels of the separately aligned NF and MF American River channels which, in the area just east of Roseville, lie north and south of I-80. This indicates that the development of the combined NF/MF American River system near modern Auburn and the combined NF/SF American River systems near modern Folsom developed in the last 5 m.y. The final eruptive event that resulted in bedrock units in the watershed was basaltic eruption that occurred in locations east of the present Sierra Nevada crest. These rocks (Qb) are presently limited to small areas in the headwaters area of the SF Rubicon River. Several detailed studies of the Mehrten Formation and of other related non- explosive extrusive rocks of the central and northern Sierra Nevada indicate that most of the present Sierra Nevada uplift and present elevation of the Sierra crest has developed since the cessation of the andesite eruptions at about 5 m.y. (Loomis 1981, Wakabayashi and Sawyer 2000, Huber 1981, 1990, House etal. 1998, and Unruh 1991). Wakabayashi and Sawyer (2000) summarize the present understanding of dynamics in the watershed region of the Sierra Nevada over the past 5 m.y. or so from various elevational relationships that have developed between the Mehrten (and related) rocks and erosional features. At about 5 m.y. there was a relatively abrupt change in the geologic processes in this region of the Sierra Nevada. For the 20-30 million years prior to 5 m.y. ago, this area had a subducting oceanic plate to the west which, upon melting below the region, was the origin of the extrusive volcanic material that had buried the watershed. At about 5 m.y. the generally northward migrating Mendocino Triple Junction (presently located off the coast near Eureka) reached a latitude sufficient to cut off the subducting melt material source to the watershed region. At that time, relative plate motion between the north and
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-82 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
northwest moving oceanic Pacific Plate and the west moving continental American Plate resulted in a local shift from subduction to right-lateral faulting. From about 10 m.y. to about 5 m.y., the complex Frontal Fault system progressively advanced westward from western Nevada to roughly the present location along the eastern scarp of the Sierra Nevada. The migration of this faulting system represents the western migration of the Basin and Range province into the Sierra Nevada microplate. From the western edge of the Frontal Fault system eastward, both modern block faulting with significant up and down block movement, and modern normal faulting with substantial right lateral movement has occurred. From the western edge of the Frontal Fault system westward, although there are many faults in the Sierra Nevada microplate, on a geologic scale only minor modern relative movement has occurred. The western migration of the block faulting processes of the Basin and Range system resulted in cutting off a portion of the headwater area of the ancestral NF and MF American River watershed. The size of the pre-faulting watershed area which was severed is unknown. Faulting on the Frontal Fault system has also led to uplift of the Sierra Nevada microplate along the eastern scarp. A review of the volcanic rocks along and across the Sierra Nevada crest between the Feather River and Stanislaus River systems, indicate that the most of the present elevation of the crest developed through uplift over the past 5 million years. Wakabayashi and Sawyer (2000) report that in the Feather River crest area, about 4900-6200 ft. of the present average elevation of 6300 ft. is due to this late uplift. Along the Stanislaus River crest area, the late uplift is estimated to be about 5600-6200 ft. of the present average elevation of about 10,500 ft. If intermediate relationships can be inferred for the NF/MF American River crest area, the late uplift could account for about 5200-6200 ft. of the average crest elevation of about 8400 ft. Most of the uplift of the Sierra Nevada has occurred along the eastern scarp while most of the movement on the western slope has been in the form of increased western tilting. A review of channel incision within the youngest of the andesite Mehrten and related rocks of the main river systems of the western Sierra Nevada slope showed substantial downcutting over the past 5 m.y. In the NF/MF American River watershed, the modern drainage system channel network came to be organized after 5 m.y. as presented above with the nearly complete burial of the terrain by Mehrten and related mudflow materials, the severing of headwaters areas by block faulting, and the confluence of the three main stems of the American River system either by stream capture by the SF American River or by channel blockage and overflow diversion from the NF and MF to the SF American River. Following the cessation of andesite unit deposition and the initiation of increased elevation and western slope tilting, the erosional development of the watershed has been an on-going process. Over the past 5 m.y. or so, the streams of the watershed area have been actively incising into the terrain. The greatest degree of incision have occurred along the mainstems of the watershed channel network system. Along the NF of the American River the incision is on the order of about 780 ft. near Auburn and about 3700 ft. in the vicinity of Snow Mountain (Wakabayashi and Sawyer 2000). These are equivalent to rates of incision of about 0.2 inch and 0.9 inch per 100 years respectively.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-83 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Incision along the MF in the same elevation bands are probably comparable to that of the NF. Map 2-35: Geology [HYPERLINK] The geologic map prepared for the watershed assessment used three primary sources: 1.) the draft geology maps prepared by the TNF and the ENF; 2.) the California Division of Mines and Geology 250,000 scale geologic maps (Saucedo etal 1992 and Wagner etal 1981) and the geologic maps of the Mineral Land Classification of Placer County (Loyd 1995) and of the Georgetown quadrangle (Koloer 1983); and 3.) the soil parent material assignments of the five watershed soil surveys. These mapping sources were supplemented by information referred to in the foregoing text and material found in the bibliography. In preparing the geology map, several steps were made to correlate geologic units across the map sources and facilitate the use of the geology map with other basic resource maps, such as soils, in subsequent watershed assessment for stewardship. The first step was a spot check of the two draft NF geologic maps against a full range of detailed, research scale, geologic maps found in the research literature and special geologic field map releases from the USGS and the California Department Mines Geology (CDMG). The review found that the draft NF maps contained geologic unit delineations of detail and accuracy comparable to the other research grade mapping and to be appropriate for use in this assessment. The geology for portions of the watershed west of the NF boundaries was developed primarily from the CDMG Mineral Land Classification publication geology maps as well as smaller scale CDMG mapping. In order to make a geology map that would be useful is other watershed assessment steps we elected to use the more detailed mapping of the soil parent material to represent the extent of the Superjacent Series geologic units (Tertiary gravels, the Valley Springs rhyolite, and the Mehrten andesite and conglomerate). These units shown on the source geologic maps are somewhat generalized and their boundaries did not align with the soil units that have these geologic units as parent materials. These soils generally have different soil-water routing attributes from those soils derived from metamorphic and granitic materials. Mapping the Superjacent Series geologic units using the soil parent materials allowed the watershed soil-water routing assessment to proceed with common boundaries along this important geologic unit boundary. This approach though masks many improvements made to the geologic mapping particularly in the ENF area. These improved geologic mapping was sacrificed to advance the assessment. Generally important soil type boundaries are carefully plotted because often important resource management decision are based on soil attributes. Usually this is particularly the case when the important boundary can be easily determined by ground and aerial photo interpretation. Conversely geologic mapping boundaries are often more generalized than for soils because the applications of geologic information are usually more generalized. Geology maps vary considerable in degree of detail and precision used in delineating units. These variations result from the variety purposes for which the geologic maps were developed. Most often this leads to decisions to limit the manpower
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-84 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
that would be needed for detailed field site and aerial photo interpretation in geologic mapping at a scale commensurate to soils mapping. As a result of these mapping approaches the important resource management boundary of the Superjacent Series, as they overlay the crystalline country bedrock, was generalized on the geologic maps and do not align with the soil-map boundaries. In this watershed these soil boundaries are important for interpreting soil-water routing processes. In these assessments is it preferable that the mapped boundaries for the Superjacent Series soils and the Superjacent Series geologic units have common boundaries. To facilitate watershed assessment processes, one critical modification was made to the geologic maps. In this assessment we have modified the geologic maps by using soils that were reported to have parent material associated with Superjacent Series geologic units for mapping these units. In that way geologic unit and soil unit boundaries for these units will match. Unfortunately this approach has “over-written” many of the improvements made to the geologic mapping of the Eldorado National Forest (ENF) accomplished by the latest draft ENF geologic map. This process also “over-wrote” some of the more detailed Tahoe National Forest (TNF) geologic mapping but in the case of the TNF, the changes in the geologic mapping to conform to soil-based Superjacent Series units was mostly in the form of the assumed greater detail for boundary location represented by the soils mapping. In addition the geologic unit mapping approach was modified from the typical age-based litany used in geologic mapping. Here we have lumped units into major age and position categories in the hope that this approach will be more easily understood by the expected non-technical users of this material. References to geologic units emphasize as much as possible the rock characteristics of the units rather than formation names and age relationship. Also the presentation of the Western Metamorphic Belt units is organized generally from west to east with the metamorphic rocks of the Bear Creek Fault Zone and the Central Belt from west to east, then the metamorphic rocks of the Eastern Belt from west to east. Geology and geologic history leads to three aspects of watershed assessment. These include watershed terrain evolution, groundwater resources, and potential geochemical hazards.
Watershed Hillslope Processes The discussion of the geologic history presented above shows a very long developmental history of the crystalline metamorphic and granitic country bedrock and Superjacent Series volcanic bedrock units of the watershed area while the erosional evolution of the watershed terrain is relatively very short. Almost all of the present elevation of the watershed, almost all of its western tilt, and almost all of its relief is due to erosional processes in effect only over the past 5 m.y. or so. The very young age of the watershed, and its extreme elevation range of about 500 to 9000 ft, imply that terrain evolutionary processes of the watershed have been and are presently very active in landscape development. These processes include; 1) rapid
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-85 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy channel incision and downcutting into the lower relief of the general terrain, 2) the development of narrow, deep, and steep canyons along the incising channel, 3) the sediment delivery and slope adjustment of canyon slopes to incision through low occurrence-rate shallow mast wasting processes, 4) the intrusion of channel incision and mast wasting processes into complexly dissected terrain, 5) the intrusion of dissected channel and hillslope processes into original low relief terrain of the broad ridge areas, and 6) the on-going channel forming processes on the original low relief terrain. These processes are generally displayed on Map 2-36: Generalized Watershed Incision [HYPERLINK]. This map was prepared by the Tahoe National Forest to reflect generalized areas of similar relief and was designed to provide a representation of generalized geomorphology as inferred simply by broad slope categories. The areas notes as High incision along the major canyons reflect areas of advanced channel incision and hillslopes that are actively adjusting to incision often by mass wasting processes. Crystalline bedrock dominates these settings and rates of mass wasting are limited to weathering rates resulting in low recurrence rates. Areas noted as High in the upper elevation areas are over-steepened slopes resulting from glaciation. These slopes are prone to rockfall and talus formation processes. The areas noted as Moderate on this map, reflect mainly the complexly dissected terrain where channels are actively incising into crystalline bedrock units. The incision process ranges from initial stages near the Low incision areas, to very advanced stages near the High incision areas. In this complexly dissected terrain area, hillslopes and channels are closely linked by sediment delivery from hillslope and landscape evolution processes with the sediment transportation and storage processes in the channels. Hillslope processes that include slope adjustment and sediment delivery include a wide range of small scale, higher recurrence rate, mass wasting processes. The areas noted as Low on this map, reflect terrain that is little changed from that at the start of the watershed incision processes. Local channel development processes seem to dominate these areas with little evidence for mass wasting. The Generalized Watershed Incision map is only a generalized approach to hillslope processes and the linkage to channel processes and dynamics. It should be used with considerable caution. The Eldorado National Forest and Tahoe National Forest are presently in the process of completing a geomorphology layer for their EUI assessment process. The value of this data layer is as yet unclear. For an adequate watershed assessment and to develop a solid stewardship approach to watershed key-resources an assessment of, and the linkages between hillslope processes, landscape evolution, and channel processes, is essential. The link to channel processes relates hillslope processes to watershed key-resources. For appropriate application, the assessment of hillslope processes and landscape evolution should be undertaken at a scale that would discern direct process linkages and include such issues of process mechanics, recurrence rates, mass wasting probabilities, episodic event cycles, channel adjustments to evolutionary trends and to episodic event cycles. This assessment should many subcategories of processes within each of the incision levels shown on the Generalized Watershed Incision map.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-86 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Additional hillslope process and landscape evolution assessment was beyond the scope of the present study. Groundwater Resources The results of this assessment element are presented by Map 2-37: Bedrock Permeability: first approximation [HYPERLINK]. The groundwater system of the watershed includes the deep, subsoil percolation of rain and snowmelt water, entry and movement through pores and fractures of the geologic units of the watershed, and the eventual discharge of water from the groundwater system to support streamflow and maintain aquatic features. The watershed does not have substantial groundwater basins and major geologic units from which groundwater is extracted for domestic or other uses. The climate of the watershed is however dominated by a Mediterranean climate and, except for elevation above about 6500 ft, much of the late season baseflows in the watershed are derived from the groundwater draining of the geologic units. In large measure it is the late season baseflows that are critical to the distribution and quality of aquatic habitat. Several major factors inter-relate to control the watershed groundwater character and regime. The geologic units of the watershed are very important with respect to the nature of the permeability of the rock and cracks and joints that are involved in the transmission of water once it has entered the rock units. The seasonal timing and total annual input water available for recharge to the groundwater system controls the potential region of greater recharge. The depth and character of soils, in conjunction with potential recharge water controls the amount of water that can drain through the soil columns and enter the geologic units and where, and to what magnitude, groundwater recharge may occur. The geologic history of the watershed develops the topographic relationship among the geologic units as well as the weathering histories of the rock units which contributes to recharge, storage, and discharge characteristics of the groundwater system. The groundwater characteristics of geologic units can be reasonable described, along with measures of a range of characteristics, if sufficient wells exist and well tests have been conducted. During this study no compilation of well log information in the watershed were discovered which could be used to characterize the groundwater conditions of the geologic units. Similarly no well log based studies were found on the groundwater characteristics of the geologic units of the west slope of Sierra Nevada region which could have been use in this study. The groundwater characteristics of the watershed were generalized from Livingston (1976), a wide range of general reports on the groundwater characteristics of geologic units similar to the rocks of the watershed, and field work and observations associated with this study. As explained in the Geology Section, the watershed is composed of: 1.) folded, fractured, and often fault-bounded metamorphic rocks of various ages and of various lithologies; 2.) a series of individual and adjacent granitic and related rock intrusive units, exposed mostly in the headwaters area; and 3.) a series nearly flat lying extrusive volcanic units that lie above the foregoing geologic units. From a groundwater regime consideration, the first two of these groups are considered as “hardrock” geologic types and later is a mix of hard rock components within a more of less an unconsolidated unit.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-87 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The groundwater regimes of hard rock geologic units depend on the depth and character of surface weathering, jointing and fracturing patterns, and geomorphology and topographic relationships that have recently developed. The groundwater regimes of the overlying mixed and unconsolidated volcanic series depends of the layering of internal hard rock members, the porosities and permeabilities of the unconsolidated members, and the boundary effects of basement contacts with the underlying hardrock geologic units. Beyond the basic structural nature of the rocks of the geologic units, the weathering history and geomorphic evolution associated with these units are important. In some areas hardrock units are deeply weathered having been exposed for protracted periods while slope evolution has not stripped material from the surface. These areas have deep soils and well developed bedrock fracture systems. In other areas these same bedrock units are exposed to relatively high rates of landsliding and other forms of slope adjustment where active stream incision and canyon formation are on-going. These areas have shallow weathering and small and shallowed fracture systems. The overall groundwater characterization used in this assessment was Krasny’s “T/V” parameter (Krasny 1993, 1997). This method is designed to use well logs and well tests to characterize groundwater performance of geologic units based on transmissivity and the variability of transmissivity within water bearing rocks applicable at a regional and/or landscape scale. Transmissivity is a measure of water production under well pumping per unit of aquifer thickness. This measure is related to the hydraulic conductivity of geologic units which refers to the velocity of water movement irrespective of aquifer thickness; in turn this is related generally to permeability. The Krasny approach has been modified here to reflect relative geologic unit permeability and the expected variability of permeability. Following Krasny, estimates of permeability are given classes of I through VI reflecting very high to extremely low permeabilities, and classes of a through f reflecting a range of permeabilities from homogeneous to extremely heterogeneous. The Krasny Class system, as modified in this study, is presented in the following table.
Krasny Bedrock Groundwater Classification (Modified for this study)
Permeability Variation of Permeability
Coefficient of Class of Class Standard Class of Class transmissivity transmissivity description of deviation of transmissivity description of (sq m/d) magnitude permeability transmissivity variation permeability (Permeability) index (Permeability) variation
>1,000 I(S) Very High <0.2 a Insignificant (Shallow) 1000-100 II High 0.2-0.4 b Small
100-10 III Intermediate 0.4-0.6 c Moderate
10-1.0 IV Low 0.6-0.8 d Large
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-88 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
1.0-0.1 V Very Low 0.8-1.0 e Very Large
<0.1 VI Imperceptible >1.0 f Extremely Large
General groundwater characteristics of the various geologic units in the watershed are presented in the Bedrock Series - Table of Groundwater Attributes table below. The regime descriptors were derived through the material found in Livingston (1976) and field observations during this study, and various studies that report on the range of permeabilities of geologic materials (Weight and Sondereregger 2000, Freeze and Cherry 1979, Davis 1969). The Krasny Classes that were assigned were developed using a range of groundwater permeability and hydraulic conductivity references found in the above mentioned reports and by field observation made in the watershed during this study. Since these Krasny Class assignments are not based on well log information, as specified by Krasny, they should be considered as “first approximations.”
Bedrock Series - TABLE OF GROUNDWATER ATTRIBUTES Geologic Unit Permeability GW Recharge GW Storage GW Discharge “Krasny” T/V topo-relations first approx. Lava Flow cap High in joints High Low Low [IVe] - flat capping Lava Flow cap High in joints Low Low Scattered [IVe] - steep edges seeps / springs Lava Flow / Infiltration to NA Mehr. contact Mehrten Mehrten Lahar High High High Scattered [IIb] High elevation, seeps / springs shallow slopes Mehrten Lahar High Low - shallow High Freq. seeps / [IIb] High elevation, regolith, freq. springs with steep slopes impervious direct layers discharge to channels Mehrten Lahar High - deeply High High Freq, direct [IIb] Mid. weathered discharge to elevations, channels shallow slopes Mehrten Lahar High- deeply High High Early season [IIb] Mid. weathered baseflow elevations, maintenance steep slopes Mehrten Lahar VV Low - VV Low VV Low VV Low [Va] Low impervious elevations, shallow slopes Mehrten Lahar VV Low - VV Low VV Low VV Low [Va] Low impervious elevations, shallow slopes Mehrten Lahar NA / Mehrten
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-89 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Congl. contact
Mehrten Congl. Moderate - Mod. High - Low - thin Low - [IIIb] variable variable deposit percolates to lower units Mehrten Congl NA / Valley Springs contact Valley Springs High - with High - variable Moderate to Local perching, [IIb] Tuff. impermeable Low - thin and seeps to ash beds perching slopes
Valley Springs V. Low V. Low Perching Seeps and NA Sandst. / Ione springs Congl. contact Ione V Low - clay V. Low V. Low V. Low [IVb] Conglomerate cementation in (Tertiary beds gravel) Superjacent Reduction Perching Mod. abundant NA units / Granitic seeps & contact springs, support of baseflow at channels Granitic - Low to Mod. - Moderate - Moderately Occasional [IIId] shallow slopes fractures and deeply Low fractures seeps and joints weathered, and joints to springs fractures & about 200 ft. joints to about 200 ft. Granitic - steep Low - glaciated Low - shallow Low - shallow Low - event [IVd] slopes or slopes weathering, fracturing, recession stripped of shallow quick draining flows, colluvium fracturing occasional seeps & springs, baseflow support Superjacent Reduction Perching Mod. - NA units / abundant Gabbroic seeps & contact springs, support of baseflow at channels Gabbroic - Low to Mod. - Moderately Low - limited Low - limited [IIId] shallow slopes limited Low limited weathering, seeps & weathering, weathering, fractures & springs fractures & fractures & joints joints joints Gabbroic - Low VV Low VV Low V Low - [IVd] steep slopes occasional
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-90 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
seeps and springs Superjacent Reduction Perching Mod. - NA units / abundant Metamorphic seeps & contact springs, support of baseflow at channels
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-91 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Metamorphic - Low to Mod. - High - deep High - deep Moderate - [IIIc} shallow slopes deep weathering, weathering, seeps & weathering, fractures to fractures to springs, fractures to 200 feet 200 feet baseflow 200 feet support Metamorphic - Low - glaciated Low - shallow Low - shallow Low - event [IVd] steep slopes or slopes with weathering, fracturing, recession shallow shallow quick draining flows, colluvium fracturing occasional seeps & springs, baseflow support Country Moderately Moderate Moderate - Low - small NA crystalline / High very local and units of small Ultramafic small units seeps contact Ultramafic - Moderate - Moderately Moderate - V Low - little [IIId] shallow slopes variable Low- clay-filling local fracturing discharge to fractures surface flows Ultramafic - Moderate - Low - shallow Low - shallow V Low - little [IIId} steep slopes variable fracturing fracturing with discharge to surface flows
In the watershed it is likely that permeabilities within any given geologic unit or rock type will vary. The watershed elevation ranges from about 500 to 9000 ft with an attendant range of weathering patterns and hillslope processes. In addition the canyon portions of the incising channel network has higher landsliding potential and there are extensive areas of glaciation. All of these factors can result in variation in regolith processes, fracturing patterns and depth of fractures. These and other factors can cause variation in permeabilities. Therefore, subsequent to this report, a review of local well log data as well as regional data in the same geologic units, can be used to develop a more accurate representation of geologic unit permeability and variation in permeability. Potential Geochemical Hazards Potential geochemical hazards refers to the possible relationship between mining activities and water quality. Although water quality sampling has been very limited throughout the watershed there is some potential for geochemical hazards to water quality conditions and key-resources at least at the local scale due to past mining activities. The following assessment element only presents possible locations of geochemical hazards and was derived directly from the work presented in SNEP (Diggles etal 1996). Mine location information was taken directly from Causey (1998). The following is a general review of this issue. More detailed min inventory information may be available for assessment that may allow a more refined identification of mines that represent potential geochemical hazards. GIS task budget limitations prevented further evaluation of this issue at this time.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-92 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Map 2-38 Potential Geochemical hazards: Low-sulfide gold-quartz deposits [HYPERLINK] refers to vein deposits containing gold in massive persistent quartz veins mainly in shear zones in regionally metamorphosed volcanic rocks and volcanic sedimentary rocks of the Mother Lode. The low to moderate grade regional metamorphism of these rocks occurred through the intrusion of the plutonic rocks of the Sierra Nevada Batholith. The potential geochemical hazards may be associated with acid mine drainage, high sulfide concentrations, arenates, arsenits and methylarsenic species, cyanide and mercury. The map represents bedrock, bedrock or surface, and unknown-type mines that could be the sources of these geochemical hazards. Where these mines are located in the prescribed bedrock geologic units they are within the “Potential Presence” zone. Where they are located in Superjacent Series units, these mines have the potential to access the buried prescribed bedrock types. They could also be considered as sites of “Potential Presences.” Where located in other geologic units, the mines have an “Unlikely Presence” for geochemical hazards of this type. Map 2-39 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Sulfide deposits, kuroko type [HYPERLINK] refers to localized areas with high concentrations of copper and zinc, as well as gold and silver, in massive sulfide deposits. The areas subject to these deposits include marine volcanic rocks in the Sierra Foothill system of Triassic and Jurassic age. The potential geochemical hazards may be associated with acid mine drainage and high sulfide concentrations. These attributes can alter streamflow water chemistry and leads to elevated toxicity to aquatic organisms. The map represents bedrock, bedrock or surface, and unknown-type mines that could be the sources of these geochemical hazards. Where these mines are located in the prescribed bedrock geologic units they are within the “Potential Presence” zone. Where they are located in Superjacent Series units and located in proximity to the prescribed geologic units, these mines have the potential to access the buried prescribed bedrock types. They could also be considered as sites of “Potential Presences.” Where located in other geologic units, the mines have an “Unlikely Presence” for geochemical hazards of this type. Map 2-40 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Copper porphyry deposits [HYPERLINK] refers to localized areas with high concentrations of veins containing copper as well as gold, silver, magnetite, tourmaline, actinolite, chalcopyrite, bornite, and other sulfide. The areas subject to these deposits include all of the metamorphic rocks of the watershed, particularly where hydrothermal alteration has occurred in association with gabbroic to granodioritic intrusions. On a watershed basis there are very low probabilities for this type of deposit, however, local occurrences to the north of the watershed indicate that there is a greater potential in association with these intrusions when they are older than the Sierra Nevada Batholith. In the watershed these older gabbroic and ultramafic oriented intrusions occur in the headwaters area of the North Fork of the North Fork of the American River (see Map 2-27 Geology).
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-93 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The potential geochemical hazards may be associated with acid mine drainage and high sulfide concentrations. These attributes can alter streamflow water chemistry and lead to elevated toxicity to aquatic organisms. The map represents bedrock, bedrock or surface, and unknown-type mines that could be the sources of these geochemical hazards. Where these mines are located in the prescribed bedrock geologic units they are within the “Potential Presence” zone. Where they are located in Superjacent Series units and located in proximity to the prescribed geologic units, these mines have the potential to access the buried prescribed bedrock types. They could also be considered as sites of “Potential Presences.” Where located in other geologic units, the mines have an “Unlikely Presence” for geochemical hazards of this type. Map 2-41 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Copper skarn deposits [HYPERLINK] refers to localized areas with veins containing copper as well as gold, silver, magnetite, tourmaline, actinolite, chalcopyrite, bornite, and other sulfide. The areas subject to these deposits include metamorphic rocks that have high proportions of lime-bearing silicates derived from limestone and dolomite when in the vicinity of intruded Sierra Nevada batholithic material. There are few areas in the metamorphic rock assemblage of the Western Metamorphic belt that lack carbonate or other reactive rocks or are not subject intrusive originated veins. Therefore the entire metamorphic section is included. The potential geochemical hazards may be associated with acid mine drainage and high sulfide concentrations. These attributes can alter streamflow water chemistry and lead to elevated toxicity to aquatic organisms. The map represents bedrock, bedrock or surface, and unknown-type mines that could be the sources of these geochemical hazards. Where these mines are located in the prescribed bedrock geologic units they are within the “Potential Presence” zone. Where they are located in Superjacent Series units and located in proximity to the prescribed geologic units, these mines have the potential to access the buried prescribed bedrock types. They could also be considered as sites of “Potential Presences.” Where located in other geologic units, the mines have an “Unlikely Presence” for geochemical hazards of this type. Map 2-42 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Anthropogenic mercury [HYPERLINK] refers to areas of elevated mercury concentration associated with mining activities. This excludes natural sources and anthropogenicly elevated levels in the watershed that may be associated with atmospheric deposition. As a by-product of mining, elevated mercury can be associated with the mining and processing of gold. Therefore the presence is associated with the vein deposits containing gold in massive persistent quartz veins mainly in shear zones in regionally metamorphosed volcanic rocks and volcanic sedimentary rocks of the Mother Lode, as well as areas of placer deposits in buried Tertiary gravels (Tg) and along modern channels. The map represents all mining activity locations that may involve the use of mercury: bedrock, surface, bedrock or surface, processing sites, and unknown-type mines. Where these mines and activity sites are located in the prescribed bedrock geologic units they are within the “Potential Presence” zone. Where located in other
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-94 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
geologic units, the mines have an “Unlikely Presence” for geochemical hazards of this type.
Stewardship The foregoing assessment of geology and geologically related watershed issues indicate that there are three main areas in which future actions can achieve the ARWG’s stewardship goals. These areas generally include: 1.) advancing to a detailed watershed- scale assessment of hillslope and landscape evolution processes that can be coupled to an understanding of channel conditions and their trends in characteristics in adjustment to watershed terrain processes and the implications to the conditions of watershed key- resources; 2.) advancing and improving on the groundwater regime characterization of geologic units to facilitate greater understanding of watershed process and function and soil-water routing; and 3.) advancing and refining information on potential geochemical hazards by future research Watershed Hillslope Processes There is no watershed-scale assessment of hillslope processes that is adequate to either: 1.) use as part of a watershed assessment that can relate slope processes to landscape evolution, to channel conditions and dynamics, to conditions of watershed key- resources, to progressive trends in conditions, and to cyclic patterns in processes and conditions, etc.; or 2.) provide a reasonably predictive slope stability and erosion hazard evaluation usable for land use and resource management agencies and private land managers in resource decision-making.
STRATEGY 1: Review the pending NF geomorphology EUI data layers and explore if the assessment approach can be extended the non-NF lands of the watershed and explore its adequacy in assessing hillslope processes such that the above applications are possible.
STRATEGY 2: In the case that the NF geomorphology data layer is inadequate to realize all of the process, dynamic interaction, and application objective above, the ARWG should collaborate in developing a watershed-wide hillslope process assessment designed to achieve the above objectives. Groundwater Resources The present groundwater evaluation conducted in this study is the only one in the watershed that addresses the relationship between geology units, groundwater permeability, groundwater recharge potential. It does not however extend to a watershed- wide evaluation of the groundwater regime relationships to the support of baseflow and the relations of baseflows to the support of key-resources. These extensions were not possible in this study because there is no reliable inventory of late season baseflow spatial patterns and baseflow sources, and no existing assessment that relates watershed key- resources, their occurrence, distribution, and condition, as they may be affected by baseflow regimes. Several stewardship steps are included below as suggestions to help improve the reliability and usefulness of groundwater resources.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-95 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
STRATEGY 3: The “first approximations” of the Krasny Classes could be improved by using well log data in maintained by the Counties in the watershed to compute transmissivity by geologic units and to modify the geologic unit permeability classes appropriately.
STRATEGY 4: The development of a better Krasny Class assessment of geologic unit permeability could be greatly enhanced (and have wider application) if the ARWG collaborate with other westslope Sierra Nevada watershed groups in an effort to increase the well log data points for the geologic units of the westslope Sierra Nevada.
STRATEGY 5: Use the improved Krasny Classes, WEHY based soil-water parameters, vegetation, and precipitation and evapotranspiration parameters in a WEHY based evaluation of watershed soil-water routing, the identification of groundwater based baseflow support area, and the influences of land uses, resource management, stochastic climatic patterns, and climate change scenarios on water resources, channel conditions, and watershed key-resources. Potential Geochemical Hazards The present evaluation of potential geochemical hazards was a very generalized treatment resulting from a limited GIS budget. This assessment could be extended to a greatly level of potential risk assessment by a more thorough sort of the possibly available mine information data bases. Once a better hazard risk sort has been conducted targeted site visits and water quality sampling could be undertaken to identify actual geochemical risks to watershed key-resources.
STRATEGY 6: The ARWG should proceed with a more thorough sort of the mining information to better identify those mines that are more likely to represent potential geochemical hazards. New mining information can be used in conjunction with the geologic units used above to establish potential hazards.
STRATEGY 7: After a more thorough sort for potential hazards, the ARWG should organize a collaborative water quality sampling program to assess the actual geochemical hazards associated with these mines and assess the relationship of these hazards to watershed key-resources. Geology References Allison, G.B., P.G. Cook, S.R. Barnett, G.R. Walker, I.D. Jolly, and M.W. Hughes, 1990; Land clearance and river salinisation in the Western Murray Basin, Australia. Journal of Hydrology, v.119, p.1- 20. Ague, J.J and G.H. Brimhall, 1988a; Regional variation in bulk chemistry, mineralogy, and the compositions of mafic and accessory minerals in the batholiths of California. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.100, p.891-911. Ague, J.J and G.H. Brimhall, 1988b; Magmatic arc asymmetry and distribution of anomalous plutonic belts in the batholiths of California: Effects of assimilation, crustal thickness, and depth of crystallization. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.100, p.912-927. Athavale, R.N., C.S. Murti, and R. Chand, 1980; Estimation of recharge to the phreatic aquifers of the lower Maner Basin, India, by using the titrium injection method. Journal of Hydrology, v.45, p.185-202.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-96 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Bateman, P.C., C. Wahrhaftig, 1966; Geology of the Sierra Nevada, p.107-172. In Bailey, E.H. (ed) Geology of Northern California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 190, 508 p. Beiersdorfer, R.E., and H.W. Day, 1992; Metamorphic features of the Smartville Complex, northern Sierra Nevada, California, p. 29-47. In Schiffman, P., and D.L. Wagner, (eds), 1992; Field guide to the geology and metamorphism of the Franciscan Complex and Western Metamorphic Belt of northern California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 114, 78 pp. Beverly, C.R, R.J. Nathan, K.W.J. Malafant, and D.P. Fordam, 1999; Development of a simplified unsaturated module for providing recharge estimates to saturated groundwater models. Hydrological Processes v.13, p.653-675. Bredenkasmp, D.B, L.J. Botha, G.J Van Tonder, and H.J Van Rensburg, 1995; Manual on quantitative estimation of groundwater recharge and aquifer storativity. Report TT 73/95. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, 419 pp. Brooks, E.R and L.T. Dida (eds), 2000; Field guide to the geology and tectonics of the northern Sierra Nevada. California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 122, 212 pp. Causey, J.D., 1998; MAS/MILS Arc/Info point coverage for the Western U.S. (Excluding Hawaii). US Geologic Survey Open-File Report 98-512. Chilton, P.J. (Ed), 1999; Groundwater in the urban environment. Vol 2: Selected city profiles. IAH International Contributions to Hydrogeology #21. 342 pp. Chilton, P.J. (Ed), 1997; Groundwater in the urban environment. Vol 1: Problems, processes, and management. In: Proceedings 27th IAH Congress. 682 pp. Davis, S.N., 1969; Porosity and permeabilities of natural materials. In De Wiest, R.J.M. (Ed) Flow through Porous Media. Academic Press. p. 53-89. Day, H.W., 1992; Tectonic setting and metamorphic of the Sierra Nevada, California, p.12-28. In Schiffman, P., and D.L. Wagner, (eds), 1992; Field guide to the geology and metamorphism of the Franciscan Complex and Western Metamorphic Belt of northern California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 114, 78 pp. Day, H.W., E.M. Moores, and A.C. Tuminas, 1985; Structure and tectonics of the northern Sierra Nevada. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.96, p.436-450. de Vries, J.J., and I.Simmers; 2002; Groundwater recharge: an overview of processes and challenges. Hydrogeology Journal, v.10:5, p. 5-17. Diggles, M.F. etal (nine others), 1996; Geology and minerals issues. Chapter 18, p.529-556. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. V.II. University of California, Davis. Dodge, F.C.W. and P.V. Fillo, 1967; Mineral resources of the Desolation Valley Primitive Area of the Sierra Nevada, California. US Geological Survey Bulletin 1261-A. 27 p. Edelman, S.H. and W.D. Sharp, 1989; Terranes, early faults, and pre-Late Jurassic amalgamation of the western Sierra Nevada metamorphic belt, California. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.101, p.1420-1433. Fisher, G.R., 1989; Geology map of the Mount Tallac roof pendant, El Dorado County, California. US Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1943, (map and text). Fisher, G.R., 1990; Middle Jurassic syntectonic conglomerate in the Mount Tallac roof pendant, northern Sierras Nevada, California, p.339-350. In Harwood, D.S. and M.M. Miller (eds) Paleozoic and early Mesozoic paleogeographic relations. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 255. Freeze, R.A., and J.A Cherry, 1979; Groundwater. Prentice-Hall. Foster, S.S.D., B.L. Morris, and A.R. Lawrence, 1994; Effects of urbanization on groundwater recharge. In Proceedings ICE International Conference on Groundwater Problems in Urban Area. P. 43-63.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-97 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Gehrels, J.C, 2000; Recharge assessment: comparing tracers, micro-meteorology and soil water models. In: Sililo, O., etal. (Eds) Groundwater: past achievements and future challenges. P. 147-152. Harwood, D.S., 1980; Geologic map of the North Fork of the American River Wilderness Study Area and adjacent parts of the Sierra Nevada, California. US Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1177-A, (map and text). Harwood, D.S., 1981; Geologic map of the Granite Chief Wilderness Study Area and adjacent parts of the Sierra Nevada, California. US Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1273-A, (map and text). Harwood, D.C., 1983; Stratigraphy of upper Paleozoic volcanic rocks and regional unconformities in part of the northern Sierra terrane, California. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.94, p.413- 422. Harwood, D.S., 1992; Stratigraphy of Paleozoic and Lower Mesozoic rocks in the Northern Sierra terrane, California. US Geological Survey Bulletin #1957, 78 p. plus map. Hendrickx, J.M.H., and G.R.Walker, 1997; Recharge from precipitation. In: Simmers, I. (ed) Recharge of phreatic aquifers in (semi)-arid area. IHA. P. 19-111. House, M.A., B.P. Wernicke, and K.A. Farley, 1998; Dating topography of the Sierra Nevada, California, using apatite (U-Th)/He ages. Nature v.396, p.66-69. Huber, N.K., 1981; Amount and timing of late Cenozoic uplift and tilt of the central Sierra Nevada, California-evidence from the upper San Joaquin river basin. US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1197, 28 pp. Huber, N.K. 1990; The late Cenozoic evolution of the Tuolumne River, central Sierra Nevada, California. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.102, p.102-115. Issar, A.S. and R.Passchier, 1990; Regional hydrogeological concepts. In: Lerner, D.N. etal. (Eds), p. 21- 98 James, O.B., 1971; Origin and emplacement of the ultramafic rocks of the Emigrant Gap area, California. Journal of Petrology, v.12, p.523-560. Kohler, S.L., 1983; Mineral Land Classification of the Georgetown 15' Quadrangle El Dorado and Placer Counties, California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report, 83-35, 85 p. with maps. Krasny, J., 1997; Transmissivity and permeability in hard rock environment: a regional approach, p.81-90. In Pointet, P. (Ed) Hard Rock Hydrosystems. IAHS Publication #241, 170 pps. Krasny, J. 1993; Classification of transmissivity magnitude and variation. Groundwater, v.31, p.230-234. Kruseman, G.P., 1997; Recharge from intermittent flow. In: Simmers, I. (ed) Recharge of phreatic aquifers in (semi)-arid areas. IHA. p. 145-184. Kohler, S.L., 1984; Mineral Land Classification of the Auburn 15' Quadrangle El Dorado and Placer Counties, California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report, 83-37, 48 p. with maps. Lerner. D.N., 1997; Groundwater recharge. In: Saether, O.M., and P. De Caritat (eds) Geochemical processes, weathering, and groundwater recharge catchments. P.109-150. Lerner, D.N., A.S. Issar, ad I.Simmers, 1990; Groundwater recharge. A guide to understanding and estimating natural recharge. IAH International Contributions in Hydrogeology, 345 pp. Livingston, J.G., 1976; Handbook of environmental geology; Placer County, California. Placer County Planning Department. 90 pp. w/appendices. Loomis , A.A, 1981; Geology of the Fallen Leaf 15-minute quadrangle, El Dorado County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 32, (with text, 24 p.[dated 1983])
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-98 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Loyd, R., 1995; Mineral Land Classification of Placer County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report, 59-10, 65 p. with appendices and maps. Mayfield, J.D., and H.W. Day, 2000; Ultramafic rocks in the Feather River Belt, northern Sierra Nevada, California, p.1-15. In Brooks, E.R and L.T. Dida (eds) Field guide to the geology and tectonics of the northern Sierra Nevada. California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 122, 212 pp. Rawls, W.J., T.J. Gish, and D.L. Brakensiek, 1991; Estimating soil water retention from soil physical properties and characteristics. In: Stewart, B.A. (Ed) Advances in soil science, Vol 16, p. 213-234. Russell, L.R., 1978; The Melones Fault Zone and the tectonic framework of the western Sierra Nevada between the Middle and South Forks of the American River, California. Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Abstracts with Programs, p.145. Saucedo, G.J and D.L. Wagner, 1992; Geologic map of the Chico Quadrangle, California. California Division of Mines and Geology. Saleeby, J., 1978; Paleo-basement geology of the Sierra Nevada foothills metamorphic belt and its implication on the Nevadan Orogeny. Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Abstracts with Programs, p.145. Schiffman, P., and D.L. Wagner, (eds), 1992; Field guide to the geology and metamorphism of the Franciscan Complex and Western Metamorphic Belt of northern California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 114, 78 pp. Simmers, I. (ed), 1997; Recharge of phreatic aquifers in (semi)-arid area. IHA International Contributions to Hydrogeology #19, 27 pp. Slemmons, D.B., 1966; Cenozoic volcanism of the central Sierra Nevada, California, p.199-208. In Bailey, E.H. (ed) Geology of Northern California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 190, 508 p. Sophocleous, M. and C.A. Perry, 1985; Experimental studies in natural groundwater - recharge dynamics: the analysis of observed recharge events. Journal of Hydrology v.18, p. 297-332. Springer, R.K., H.W. Day, and R.E. Beiersdorfer, 1992; Prehnite-pumpellyite to greenschist facies transition, Smartville Complex, near Auburn, California. Journal of Metamorphic Geology, v.120, p.147-170. Stewart, B.A. (Ed), 1991; Advances in soil science, Vol 16, p. 213-234. Stephens, D.B, 1994; A perspective on diffuse natural recharge mechanisms in areas of low precipitation. Soil Science Society of America Journal, v.58, p.40-48. Thouret, J-C. and F. Lavigne, 2000; Lahars: Occurrence, deposits and behavior of volcanic-hydrologic flows, p. 151-174. In Leyrit, H and C. Montenat (eds), Volcaniclastic Rocks, from Magmas to Sediments. 267 pps. Tokunaga, T.K, and J.Wan, 2001; Surface-zone flow along unsaturate rock fractures. Water Resources Research, v.37, p.287-296. Tuminas, A.C., 1980; Structural relation in the eastern part of the Smartville ophiolite block, northern Sierra Nevada, California. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v.10 p.156. Tuminas, A.C., 1983. Geology of the Grass Valley-Colfax region, Sierra Nevada, California (Ph.D thesis), University of California, Davis. 415 p. Unruh, J.R., 1991; The uplift of the Sierra Nevada and implications for late Cenozoic epeirogeny in the western Cordillera. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.103, p.1395-1404. Vaitl, J., 1980; Geology of the Cherokee area, northern Sierra Nevada, California (M.S. thesis): University of California, Davis. 93 p.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-99 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Van Genuchten, M.th., F.J. Leif, and L.J. Lund (eds), 1992; Indirect methods for estimating the hydraulic properties of unsaturated soils. In: Proceedings 1989 International Workshop, California. 719 pp. Wagner, D.L., C.W. Jennings, T.L. Bedrossian, and E.J. Bortugo, 1981; Geologic map of the Sacramento Quadrangle, California. California Division of Mines and Geology. Wakabayashi, J, and T.L. Sawyer, 2000; Neotectonics of the Sierra Nevada and the Sierra Nevada-Basin and Range transition, California, with field trip stop descriptions for the northeastern Sierra Nevada, p. 173-212. In Brooks, E.R and L.T. Dida (eds) Field guide to the geology and tectonics of the northern Sierra Nevada. California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 122, 212 pp. Wiebe, R.A., K.D. Blair, D.P. Hawkins, and C.P. Sabine, 2002; Mafic injections, in situ hybridization, and crystal accumulation in the Pyramid Peak granite, California. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.114, p.909-920. Weight, W.D., and J.L. Sonderegger, 2000; Manual of Applied Field Hydrogeology. McGraw-Hill. Zhang, L., W.R Dawes, T.J. Hatton, P.H. Reece, G.H.T. Beale, and I. Packer, 1999; Estimation of soil moisture and groundwater recharge using the TOPOG_IRM model. Water Resources Research v.35, p.149-161.
Soil-Water Routing Background Most of the key-resources and key-resource categories identified in the watershed are related either directly or indirectly to the timing, seasonality, and magnitude of streamflows. The direct relations may be the presence and/or magnitude of streamflows as a component of late season aquatic habitat. Indirect relations may include a variety in interactions. The influence of streamflow magnitude can influence water temperature and DO which can affect aquatic habitat. Land management practices can influence erosion potential and sediment delivery to channels which can affect aquatic habitat. Land management and land use practices can influences changed runoff mechanisms and influence changes in the timing of storm flows which can affect channel stability and influence changes to riparian and aquatic habitat. Because so many aspects of the key-resources of the watershed are affected by the nature and character of streamflows, the nature of runoff processes and mechanisms were an essential element in the watershed assessment and are an essential element in stewardship. Runoff processes and mechanisms are largely a result of soil characteristics as the characteristics influence the storage and translation of soil-water. While soil characteristics are integral to the movement of water in the watershed, the soils of the watershed and their physical characteristics are closely related to other soil forming process factors such as precipitation, vegetation, slope, geology, and geomorphic patterns of the watershed. Within the context of these various factors, soils and their characteristics can be thought of as currently reflecting the landscape processes and evolutionary trends of the watershed. Therefore the distribution of soils and their fundamental characteristics are not random across the landscape nor are they homogeneous; they should be thought of as closely related to soil development factors
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-100 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
and landscape processes. Primary among the relevant landscape processes are the various hydrologic processes within the soil that influence soil-water routing, runoff, and the erosion development regimes of the landscape. The expression “soil-water routing” used in this study refers to the various mechanisms of runoff to the channels of the watershed as they are influenced primarily by soil characteristics. These characteristics, in conjunction with some other elements, are largely responsible for overland flow, subsurface stormflow, and groundwater recharge. The separation of these runoff mechanisms and their influences on streamflow magnitude and regime are addressed by soil-water routing. These processes are not only important for understanding watershed process and function, but the influences of land use and resource management, or even climate change, can have variable effects on these runoff processes and variably influence streamflow magnitude and regime. The analysis of soil-water routing and processes of the watershed was understood as a primary approach to understanding watershed process and function and influences of management actions. In watershed assessments it is important to understand soil-water routing and runoff processes as concepts that are evolving as detailed research is on-going. Anderson and Burt (1990) and Bonell (1993) provide very readable reviews of runoff physics which generally reflects the current understanding of the processes and should be consulted for further explanation (and additional references). There are several important reasons for understand that runoff process concepts are evolving. First it should be noted that until as recently as the late 1960s watershed runoff and streamflows from precipitation events was thought of as coming through really only one process. During precipitation, runoff to the channels was understood to result when the rainfall rate exceeded the infiltration capacity of the soil surface. This condition resulted in the precipitation water in excess of that infiltrated by the soil being routed to channels by overland flow. The combination of the areal distribution of precipitation rates and the infiltration capacity of the soils dictated the source areas of storm flows. Water that infiltrated the soil surface either percolated slowly to channels and became streamflow much later, deep-percolated to groundwater to support baseflow, or remained in the soil for use by plants. This concept was introduced by Horton (1933, 1945) and fully adopted by the watershed science, land resource management, and engineering hydrology communities through to the early 1970s. This understanding of runoff processes was easily accepted by the science community because it was intuitively straight forward, simple to understand, explained the spatial variability of runoff generation areas, and reflected much of the field work that showed that overland flow was not typically observed on some soils, often those that are coarse and on slopes. This concept became embedded in the science and resource management communities during the period of time in which many of the standard soil and soil-water analytic approaches used today were developed (such and the Curve Number approach to runoff estimate and the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)); Rallison (1980) states that the infiltration-excess concept of runoff was the bases of the Curve Number approach. This was also a period when many of the first watershed scale
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-101 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
engineering hydrology models were developed for decision-making in water resource management. In the early 1960s it was recognized that the overland flow areas that contributed to storm water flows did not change notably in extent, with respect to the entire watershed, even in heavy precipitation events. The concept of partial-area runoff was introduced to show that direct runoff in storms occurred in fairly consistent portions of the watershed where and when precipitation rates exceeded infiltration (Betson 1964 [see Anderson and Burt (1990) and Bonell (1993) for other references]). The observation was that runoff areas were typically on flatter slopes adjacent to stream courses and along the apex of swales rather than scattered through the watershed on the basis of infiltration capacities. The runoff mechanisms were still understood to be precipitation in excess of infiltration capacity and overland flow to channels, but the sources were seen as more consistently restricted to specific topographic relations. Starting in the early 1970s it came to be recognized that with increasingly intense rainfall there was typically greater streamflow response to the rain than could be accounted for solely by greater precipitation on the partial-areas of the watershed. Detailed hillslope and hillslope-scale studies showed that there were multiple runoff processes and mechanisms ongoing during a rainfall/runoff event and that these processes were variable in time through the event, and variable in space through the watershed (Dunne and Black 1970a, 1970b [see Anderson and Burt (1990), Bonell (1993) for other references]). This concept of runoff processes and mechanisms came to be known as variable source. Variable source runoff recognized the topographic relations of overland flow applied in the partial-area concept, however, detailed studies showed that the overland flow was not a result of excess precipitation at the soil surface. It was due rather to the quick saturation of the soil column and the lack of space in the soil for additional precipitation water. Studies showed that these soils saturated quickly because they infiltrated rain water at the surface, took subsurface water inflow from adjacent steeper slope soil-body areas, and translated soil-water relatively slowly to nearby channels because of a low hydraulic gradient. Flows on the surface were often a combination of precipitation that could not infiltrate and excess soil water that came to the surface from processes associated with adjacent soil bodies. The runoff process on these sites is overland flow similar to the partial-area concept, however the mechanism was not precipitation in excess of infiltration capacity but rather results from the saturated soil conditions and was referred to as saturated overland flow. The driving runoff process on these sites is input water in excess of the saturation conditions. Further, detailed examinations of small watersheds and hillslope-swale systems showed that, with respect to the channel network, the areas of saturated overland flow could vary dramatically during a rainfall event with the extent of spatial variability sometimes limited by notable slope breaks. The subsurface inflow of water to these areas of saturated overland flow from adjacent steeper soil bodies indicated that precipitation infiltrating soil surfaces on hillsides and at larger distances from the channel could contribute to storm flows in the channels to a much greater extent than had been conceived of by the infiltration excess
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-102 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
concept of Horton or by the partial-area concept. This runoff component that included relatively fast runoff to stream courses without the saturation of the hillside soils to their surface was termed subsurface flow or subsurface stormflow (sometimes, but mostly in the engineering community, also known as interflow). This runoff mechanism has the potential to involve many hillside areas in contributing significant storm water flows to channel during rainfall events. The water that eventually reaches the soil surface in saturation-excess areas after subsurface hillslope flow delivery is often referred to as return flow. At that time the concept of significant hillslope subsurface storm flow contributions to runoff was intuitively difficult. This was because the hydraulic characteristics of soils were in general, cast in terms of water flow through homogeneous soil bodies using standard porous medium hydraulic equations (such as Darcy’s law of water flux). This approach to soil-water transport through soils was based on considerable roughness resistance to water movement which in turn required substantial hydraulic gradients to result in the kinds of water velocities necessary to contribute to streamflow responses to rainfall events. The calculated porous medium flow velocities for soils were most often seen as too low to contribute storm water flows to channels. Detailed studies at the hillslope-scale were conducted through the 1990s to improve the understand the flow mechanisms and processes of subsurface flow. These studies have developed a fairly complete understanding at least in general of the runoff processes involved. On-going and additional work will no doubt add additional resolution in the future. Presently the main mechanisms involved in subsurface stormflow are understood to be of several main types. First is subsurface saturation flow in which flows occur in a saturated soil horizon above some impeding layer or across the surface of bedrock at the base of the soil column (Buttle and McDonald 2002, Anderson etal 1997). Second is fractured bedrock saturation flow in which substantial flow occurs in shallow and friable bedrock and is not related to soil physical characteristics (Anderson etal 1997, Montgomery etal 1997). Third is bypass flow (or macropore flow) in which soil water moves rapidly through the soil column in large (on a soil matrix scale) pores and can occur without the development of saturation zones (bypassing areas of saturation). This flow can route overland flow on soil surfaces adjacent to impervious surfaces to infiltration into the soil body and greatly enhance the overall infiltration capacity of soil surfaces. When located at depth in a soil, macropores can be important conduits of flow above the subsurface saturation flow zone by allowing water from the saturation zone to skip ahead downslope through overlying unsaturated horizons (Buttle and McDonald 2002, Kirnbauer and Haas 1998, Weiler etal 1998). Fourth is piping flow which is the very rapid translation of water in large nearly continuous voids associated with large- scale (relative to soil processes) plant and animal activity that often requires soil saturation zones at the point of piping flow origin (Ziemer 1992, Swanson etal 1989). A second attribute of soil-water runoff processes has come to be more clearly understood over the recent period of research. During specific rainfall/runoff events not all the water that reaches the channel network is attributable to that particular rainfall event. Field research has shown that in many environments the “new water” that is added to the watershed and hillslopes by infiltration during a rainfall event may actually
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-103 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
displace water that is in soil storage residual from previous rainfall/runoff events. The “old water” is stored in the soil body at field capacity which is that water held by the surface tension of soil particles against the forces of gravity. New water input during subsequent infiltration can quickly bring soil bodies to soil-water saturation levels and initiate runoff processes. The process has been called displacement flow (or piston-flow) and it can initiate any of the four basic runoff processes discussed above (Collins etal 2000, Anderson etal 1997, Montgomery etal 1997, Turton etal 1995, Buttle and Peters 1997, Rawlins etal 1997, Abdul and Gillham 1984, Pearce etal 1986, and Sklash etal 1986). Detailed studies have shown that during rainfall/runoff events, much of the water that reaches the channel network can be the “old water” residual from previous events. In fact it may be possible that substantial “new water” contributions to streamflows occur in only a few of the larger annual storms (Collins etal 2000). Even is a very steep watershed with high annual rainfall, it has been estimated that the residence time of ‘old water” may be as long as 6 months before reaching stream courses and exported from the hillslope system (Anderson etal 1997, Montgomery etal 1997). These and potentially other mechanisms are responsible for the contribution of hillside infiltrated rain water to storm water runoff in watersheds and the delivery of subsurface flows to the saturated-excess overland flow areas. It is expected that each of these mechanisms are available to contribute to runoff processes in any non-arid watershed but that the relative runoff contributed by each may vary due to; 1) the physical nature of hillslopes and soils of a particular watershed, 2) the magnitude and duration of the rainfall event, and 3) the progressive input of moisture during particular events which can result in progressive variation of runoff mechanisms in space and time. Over the span of research starting in the early 1960s, watershed runoff processes have become fundamentally classified as: 1.) Hortonian or infiltration-excess runoff, with partial-area runoff as a special conceptual subset of Hortonian runoff; and as 2.) an inter- related variable source runoff with two related process components, 2a) saturation overland flow (or saturation-excess runoff), and 2b) subsurface flow (or subsurface stormflow) with many possible mechanisms (Anderson and Burt 1990, Bonell 1993). Over the same time span, the idea of the occurrences of these watershed runoff processes have changed from an initial view that Hortonian runoff occurs exclusively and in all watersheds, to a present view that variable source mechanisms are predominant over most watersheds during most events. Hortonian runoff is presently seen as restricted to areas of rock and other impervious surfaces, and in watersheds of arid and near arid climates. The processes and functions of most forested watersheds are now understood to operate nearly exclusively within variable source runoff processes and mechanisms. Anderson and Burt (1990) provide a general review of the timing and magnitude of storm flow runoff from the three main processes described above. The flows from Hortonian or infiltration-excess overland flows can reach a peak flow nearly at the initiation of rainfall that occurs at rates greater than infiltration for small watersheds, to a lag time of an hour for larger watersheds. By comparison over the same watershed size range, the lag time to the occurrence of peak flows derived from saturation-excess overland flow processes may range from a half hour to 5 hours, and subsurface stormflow
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-104 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
peak flow lag times may range between 5 and 100 hours. In very small watersheds, some without channels, subsurface stormflows may have lag times as short as an hour. Conversely over the same range of watershed sizes, the peak runoff rates (on a unit-area basis) derived from these processes are inverted with saturation-excess overland flows generally about 10% of the Hortonian infiltration-excess rates and subsurface stormflow runoff about 1% of the infiltration-excess runoff rate. In spite of the foregoing peak runoff rate comparisons, most of the runoff volume within the total storm streamflow hydrograph is derived from subsurface stormflows because the source areas of infiltration excess overland runoff processes are usually a very small portion of watersheds. The watershed management implications of these runoff processes can become significant should land uses, resource management practices, or other changes lead to a change in the balance in runoff processes. This can result in changed precipitation/streamflow response relationships, particularly in smaller watersheds, and in turn lead to a change in streamflow energies and the disruption of channel dynamics and associated key-resources. It is well recognized that soil survey information is generally the most useful data set typically available for understanding the nature of soil mantle of watersheds and that the physical characteristics of soil are among the most important to the basic routing of soil-water and runoff processes. Soil surveys are typically designed to meet the needs of agriculture, vegetation management, and site development. Hydrologists concerned with watershed runoff processes note that the soil characteristics and physical attributes assigned to soils in soil surveys are typically inadequate for direct use in developing an understanding soil-water routing at the site scale or for the understanding the spatial interaction among various soil bodies at the watershed scale (Frankenberger etal 1999). Besides the ongoing research in specific watershed runoff processes and mechanisms, relatively new research focuses have developed regarding soil-water routing. First, additional research is ongoing to identify specific soil characteristics relevant to identifying and describing runoff mechanisms. Starting in the late 1970s and the 1980s there was a research focus on developing general soil-water relationship using soil survey information and soil textures. This was based on the assumption that soil textures may be useful in characterizing general soil-water relationships at the plot scale and that these relationships could be useful at the site and field scale for plant management and site development interpretations of suitability and limitations (Rawls etal. 1983, McKeague etal. 1984, Bouma 1986, Guptra and Larson 1979, McCuen etal 1981, Smith and Parlange 1978, Steenhuis and Van der Molen 1986, and Clapp and Hornberger 1978). These researches were focused on the use of typically available information within soil surveys for understanding various aspects of soil-water relationships by using general soil parameters to overcome the soil parameter variation at the plot scale. The applications however were designed to develop site scale soil-water interpretations rather than for hillslope and landscape scale soil-water routing relationships necessary for watershed assessment.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-105 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Recently soil-water research germane to watershed assessment has had several focuses. First, some soil-water research as become much more based on specific soil physical and soil column relationships such as saturated and unsaturated hydraulic capacity and permeabilities at the soil horizon scale that not only include horizon thicknesses but the vertical distribution of these physical characteristics (Wildenschild and Hopmans 1997, Parlange etal 1999, and Alphen etal 2001) . These more recent detailed physical characterizations are at least in part due to interests in the movement of pollutants in the soil environment. Another area of relevant research has been efforts to understand the uncertainties of physical characteristics assigned to a soil in a soil survey and the variability of soil physical characteristics over the soil mapping unit (Goovaerts 2001, Meyer etal 1997, Cazemier etal 2001). This is an important first step in efforts to up-scale the plot scale soil characterizations used to develop soil surveys, such that they can be used at the hillslope and landscape scales. A third area of research and investigation has been processes and mechanisms to up-scale the soils information from the plot scale to the field, hillslope, and landscape scales and to make the soils information applicable both at the appropriate spatial scale (level of generalization), as well as applicable to the types of decisions under consideration and the decision-makers at each spatial scale (Wagenet and Bouma 1999). For application to watershed planning at the scale of the NF/MF watershed, the issue of scaling is significant because the soil-water routing interchange between soils dictates that soil-water information is needed at least three spatial scales. These scales include: 1) the landscape and watershed scale which leads to general management objectives that may be applied across a large spatial area (such as general planning or resource zones) by looking at large-scale, generalized runoff process information and broad categories of process type variation on the landscape - this required up-scaled and generalized runoff process information from the hillslope scale, 2) the hillslope scale which addresses the issue of soil-water relationships between specific hillslope characteristics and streamflow responses by addressing the interaction of soil-water attributes of soils (and other physical process factors) and the interchange among land units, specifically routing soil-water through the hillslopes which relates land use and resource management practices on land areas to runoff processes and to streamflow responses - this requires up-scaling from the plot and field scales and includes issues of area-weighted averaging of field scale interpretations, variability and uncertainty of plot scale information, and, 3) the field scale which addresses on-site, project level considerations and the influences of land uses and resource management practices on the initial soil-water routing separation and the routing changes that may occur due to these activities - this requires up-scaling from the plot scale information found in soil survey and includes issues of accommodating variability and uncertainty of plot scale information.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-106 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Further, Wagenet and Bouma (1999) note that at these various soil information application scales, there is a sliding scale of trade-off between degrees of complexity and computation, and generalization and uncertainty, as well as varying suitability for application in various soil-water and watershed modeling approaches. The implications are that up-scaling of soil-water information should be tailored to meet the intended application at each scale. Specific research in soil-water parameter up-scaling for appropriate application at hillslope and landscape scales from plot scale characterization is relatively limited but highly significant if watershed planning is to include the use of soil survey data. This is particularly true when the soil information scales needed to meet the varying needs of watershed assessment as presented above include the landscape, hillslope, and field scales. Soil-water and runoff process up-scaling research that approaches the foregoing concerns for accommodating uncertainty and variabilities of soil-water characteristics, and variable assessment and application scales are limited to a series of separate papers (Chen etal 1994, Kavvas and Govindaraju 1992, Tayfur and Kavvas 1994, and Kavvas etal 1998) on an as yet unpublished watershed model (Kavvas etal submitted for publication). The basic structural approach of this up-scaling effort is to conduct soil- water modeling for each referenced soil in a soil-map unit using a suite of soil-water physical characterizations. The soil-water parameters assigned to each particular soil are based on the attributes of the range of variability of the physical characterizations that are present at the plot scale. The various soil-water attributes of each soil are then used to develop a soil-water routing assessment for that specific soil. The soil-water routing assessment of each soil is used to develop an area-weighted average soil-map unit soil- water routing attribute for the entire soil-map unit. This approach provides for an up- scaling of soil-water parameters from specific soils to soil-map units and further can be up-scaled to hillslope, landscape, and watershed scales by additional area-weighted averaging. It can also be down-scaled to the site scale should site scale soils mapping be conducted. The final area of relevant current research on soil-water routing for watershed management is the development of runoff and watershed models designed to understand runoff processes and streamflow. This research effort has been targeted at developing watershed hydrology models using information at various scales from site to landscape and applying various level of generalization in the attempt to reduce high degrees of soil and slope variabilities to meaningful interpretations of runoff processes. To varying degrees the watershed modeling research has addressed: 1.) describing the variability of processes through the watershed area; 2.) developing predictive tools to anticipate the influences of resource management practices, land uses, and changed natural processes (catastrophic fire, climate change, etc.) on runoff processes and streamflow response; and 3.) providing appropriate resource management decision-making tools. Watershed-scale engineering hydrology models, designed for water resource evaluation (reservoir operations, floodflow forecasting etc.), have been developed over the past 50 years and are currently under use and further development. Most often these models basically follow the Hortonian concept of runoff and calibrate the watershed runoff regime derived from the model by making “black box” precipitation-excess
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-107 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy assignments until calculated streamflows of the model match observed streamflow regime for specific rainfall events. This approach is not concerned with specific runoff processes that are occurring in the watershed, with the spatial and temporal distribution of processes, nor the relationship between land management practices at runoff. This approach to watershed modeling may be appropriate for large scale water resource evaluation but is not suitable for watershed planning and resource management because without a spatial and temporal incorporation of variable runoff processes the nexus cannot be established between land use and resource management practices on the one hand with runoff processes, streamflows, channel processes, and key-resource conditions on the other. To incorporate variable runoff processes, several (many) models have been developed over the past 30 years for use in the assessment of watershed processes and function, and watershed management. To varying degrees these watershed models attempt to be “physically based” in that they approach watershed processes and runoff mechanisms in terms of the physical characteristics of landscape conditions and dynamics. Only a few of the most prominent variable runoff process models are discussed below. TOPMODEL (Beven and Wood 1983) is a topographically, or DEM-based model designed to model watershed runoff by predicting the size and distribution of variable contributing saturated-excess overland flow areas. It uses topography on a grid-cell basis and site scale input information to develop a semi-distributed water balance of the soil mantle over the hillslope areas to estimate timing, location, and magnitude of overland flow. It can be calibrated on small, well instrumented watersheds and can predict watershed output flows for various events at various time-scales. However it requires substantial initial state soil-water assumptions, cannot be up-scaled and generalized to landscape-scale determinations, and relies on non-physically based assumptions about runoff mechanisms within the subsurface stormflow component. It could serve as a first approximation of topographically controlled saturated overland flow areas. SHE (Systeme Hydrologique Europeen; Abbott et al 1986a, 1986b, and Bathurst 1986) is a physically based watershed model designed to use a grid- cell approach to predict watershed output flows for various events at various time scales. Similar to TOPMODEL, it requires considerable initial state soil- water condition descriptions, site scale information, and calibration with observed flows and cannot be up-scaled. Once calibrated it can provide for predicted output flows for a given storm event but is very sensitive to the assigned initial state conditions. Therefore it may be better applied to the evaluation of specific changes with specific rainfall events than as a watershed assessment and planning tool. PRMS (Precipitation Runoff Modeling System; Leavesley etal 1983) is a US Geological Survey model that approaches watershed output flow prediction based on discretely defined Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs) which are prescribed sets of spatial areas described by similar soils, vegetation, aspect, elevation, etc. This model uses a water balance approach for each HRU to
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-108 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
predict the timing and magnitude of HRU flow contributions to the watershed outlet. It requires calibration against observed flows and provides output flows on a daily time scale. It does not directly incorporate the spatial relations among the various HRUs, does not consider topography, stream channel distribution, nor the various processes of runoff generation. It can be set up at any scale from site to watershed but cannot be up-scaled nor down- scaled from the scale used in developing the model application. Therefore it may be better applied to the evaluation of specific changes with specific rainfall events than as a watershed assessment and planning tool. SMR (Soil Moisture Routing model; Frankenberger etal 1999) is a GIS-based attribute distributed water balance model designed to predict soil-water balance on a gird-cell basis and routed through the watershed by routing the soil-water through the various grid-cells in accordance with topographic relationships. The model uses six site scale soil characteristics, topography, vegetation and cover, geologic factors and a variety of climatic parameters to develop the grid-cell water balance on a daily time scale and routes “excess water” to adjacent cells using topography, and uses that “excess water” input as part of the water balance of those cells. Finally, once calibrated to streamflow observations, the model provides a daily average output streamflow estimate and an inventory of areas of the watershed (grid cells) that experienced saturation-excess overland flows. The SMR is structured to model runoff processes on a hillslope scale but currently is not structured to accommodate uncertainty and variability of soil-water parameters and, while it can be down-scaled to the site or field scale, it cannot be up-scaled to landscape and watershed scales. While it is an improvement from the PRMS, it still may be better applied to the evaluation of specific changes with specific rainfall events than as a watershed assessment and planning tool. WEHY (Watershed Environmental Hydrology; Kavvas, personal communication) is a GIS-based runoff process model that has been under development for about 15 years. To-date it has had limited applications in the region and has been submitted for publication in the scientific literature (Kavvas etal, submitted) along with several supporting papers addressing components of the model (Chen etal 1994, Kavvas and Govindaraju 1992, Tayfur and Kavvas 1994, and Kavvas etal 1998). The basic structural approach of the model is to conduct soil-water route modeling for each referenced soil in a soil-map unit using a suite of soil-water parameters based on soil texture and Green-Ampt parameters (Rawls etal 1983), soil depth, climatic factors cover/vegetation, geology, topography, and a channel network. After a soil-water routing routine is developed for each soil type, an overall soil-map unit soil-water characterization is developed using an area- weighted averaging technique. The model is mainly used to represent runoff process variations under a range of changed meteorological, land use, and land cover conditions, can separate hydrographs by contributions from various runoff source processes reflecting time and space variations, and predict floodflow hydrographs at various user-selected locations. This approach is then suited to up-scaling to the landscape and watershed scales, and down-
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-109 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
scaling to the hillslope and field scales for a range of applications. The model’s suitability for up-scaling make it well suited for the evaluation of specific changes with specific rainfall events and for as a tool for watershed assessment and planning. It is beyond the scope and budget of this project to delve into the current realms of the research fields described above. Conversely, it is important to understand watershed process and function of the watershed and the spatial variation of processes in the watershed within the limitations of the data sets available and the reliable soil-water characterizations appropriate for drawing generalized results. For the present assessment which is a non-modeling approach, the present understanding of useful soil-water parameters, and the needs for up-scaling these parameters to the landscape scale, a highly abbreviated approach was developed. The watershed assessment approach developed was based on several easily derived soil-water parameters and some general topographic relationships presented by Anderson and Burt (1990, p.370). For the purposes of this assessment, the soil-water routing approach was designed to provide a generalized understanding of the range of runoff processes in the watershed, to draw general conclusions as to the variability of processes across the watershed, to relate those variabilities to watershed processes and function, to suggest the implications of resource management practices and land uses on watershed processes, and to identify additional data and modeling needs necessary to further appropriate watershed stewardship. The assessment of soil-water routing used in this study is not designed to be used as it is for watershed modeling, stormwater and floodflow estimates, or for land use decision-making at the project scale. These uses and others must await a more sophisticated assessment involving elements from each of the three research elements presented above. Anderson and Burt present several triangle diagrams that reflect the variation between: 1.) infiltration-excess overland flow, 2.) saturation-excess overland flow, and 3.) subsurface stormflow with respect to a) topographic circumstances, b) soil thickness, c) soil hydraulic conductivity, d) vegetation cover, and e) valley floor slope.
Figure 2-1 Origin of Stormflow in relation to catchment characteristics. Figure 2-2 Cumulative relative frequencies of different samples of transmissivity values
This assessment is designed to use existing soil surveys (Tahoe National Forest 1994, Eldorado National Forest n.d., NRCS 1974, 1980, and 1975), and the basic information therein, to best develop soil-water routing analyses in a watershed processes context at a watershed scale. At the time of the assessment we had developed a common soil-map unit data layer for the watershed but did not have common attribute tables or interpretations for the four soil surveys and the attribute and interpretation tables available were in hard-copy form. This dictated that the soil-water routing assessment would have to be
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-110 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
accomplished by hand. This was a serious time and cost limitation and the assessment had to be designed to reasonably accomplish the overall objectives of understanding watershed processes and function and to defer detailed soil-water routing until such time as efficient GIS database soil attribute tables were available. To accomplish this a series of generalizing assumptions were required such that the data management of the assessment was reasonable. “Soil-water routing:” As understood here refers to the separation of input water (precipitation) into various runoff processes and local groundwater recharge potential using (for the present) only soil and topographic parameters. Variable-source and partial- area runoff processes are the basic premises for the soil-water routing approach. The assessment will develop landscape- and watershed-scale interpretations of the dominant or characteristic soil-water routing or runoff processes as spatially distributed across the watershed as a function of soil characteristics. Soil-Water Routing Elements: In this assessment the main soil-water routing spatial areas include: Direct Flow source areas; these are land areas that contribute flows directly or very nearly directly to channels and are likely to contribute flows to the channel network early in rainfall events by: - overland flow due to Hortonian or infiltration-excess processes, - overland flows due to saturation-excess processes and return flows derived from subsurface stormflows - areas of high infiltration capacity immediately adjacent to streams which deliver water to channel by subsurface flows Subsurface stormflow source areas - areas with relative preference for soil-water to be routed to subsurface stormflows Soil parameter groundwater recharge potential - areas with relative preference for soil-water to be deep percolated to groundwater. Groundwater recharge potential using both soil and geologic parameters - areas of relative groundwater recharge potential considering soil-water attributes and geologic unit permeability. Assessment Steps: The present approach was developed using a relatively minimal set of soil survey attribute information and therefore includes a relative large set of assumptions. The soil-water assessment was conducted first by joining five separate soil survey GIS maps into a common coverage and second conducting the following soil- water routing assessment steps on separate soil attribute tables found in NRCS’s National Soil Information System (NASIS) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. The NASIS SSURGO database, which supports detained soil survey maps, was used to conduct the soil-water routing assessments that follow. The SSURGO provides NRCS attribute assignments for the soil map units of the five published soil surveys. These attribute assignments were used, combined and, in some cases, to develop the following watershed assessment component and analysis of watershed processes and function. It is important to note that the NRCS considers the soil-map polygons and the assigned soil attributes of the NF soil surveys to not be SSURGO certified: That is until
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-111 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
they are edited and attributed to NRCS SSURGO standards, both the map unit boundaries and the soil attribute assigned should be considered as draft material. During a SSURGO certification process there could be some changes in NF soil attributes. For the present these “draft” soil surveys and attribution are probably adequate for watershed-scale assessment (Stanislewski, per. comm). There are basically five steps in the analytic approach, each of which is illustrated by an individual GIS map, as noted below. 1) Soils: Relative Direct Runoff Potential (Map 2-43). [HYPERLINK] Relative direct runoff potential represents soil map units in terms of their potential for generating infiltration excess overland flow (or Hortonian runoff) during rainfall events and/or very fast subsurface flow through the soils to channels. These soil units then represent a range of Hortonian runoff process and other fast runoff process sources. Collectively these are the source areas of rapid runoff and streamflow response rainfall events. The assessment was based on assigning a “direct flow” potential to soil map units based on Hydrologic Soil Group ratings provided in the NASIS SSURGO database. The NRCS assigns soils to hydrologic soil groups based on runoff producing parameters assuming no vegetation influences and a thoroughly wetted soil mantel and includes factors such as infiltration, depth to seasonally high water table, intake rate and permeability, and depth of a very slow permeable layer (Ogrosky and Mockus 1964, NRCS 1951, 2001). These are defined uniformly across the various soil surveys as: A: Soils that have high infiltration rates, high rate of water transmission, and low runoff potential. They are deep, are well drained or excessively drained, and consist chiefly of sand, gravel, or both. (Saturated hydraulic conductivity is very high or in the upper half of high and internal free water occurrence is very deep.) B: Soils that have a moderate infiltration rate, moderate water transmission, and moderately low runoff potential. They are moderately deep or deep, are moderately well drained or well drained, and are moderately fine to moderately coarse textured. (Saturated hydraulic conductivity is in the lower half of high or in the upper half of moderately high and free water occurrence is deep or very deep.) C: Soils that have a slow infiltration rate, slow rate of water transmission, and moderately high runoff potential. They have a layer that impedes downward movement of water, or they are moderately fine to fine textured. (Saturated hydraulic conductivity is in the lower half of moderately high or in the upper half of moderately low and internal free water occurrence is deeper than shallow.) D: Soils that have a very slow infiltration rate, very slow water transmission rate, and high runoff potential. These soils can be; 1) clay soils that have high shrink- swell potential, 2) soils that have a permanent high water table, 3) soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. (Saturated hydraulic conductivity is below the upper half of moderately low, and/or internal free water occurrence is shallow or very shallow and transitory through permanent.)
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-112 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
In this assessment, the NRCS assigned hydrologic soil group class for each soil component was used as reported except: Soils near and in active drainage were given a D or an artificial “F” rating (which reflects essentially immediate overland flow or flow translation to a water course). Bedrock areas and rock outcrops were assigned an artificial “F” rating (which reflects essentially immediate overland flow or flow translation to a water course either on the surface of rock outcrops and on saturated soils near channels or by subsurface flow in coarse materials adjacent to channels). Soil units with mixed characteristics and were unassigned in the soil survey were assigned a neutral C rating. After each soil component was assigned a hydrologic soil group class (A-F), the ratings were assigned a numerical value of 0 through 4 (A=4, F=0), and an area-weighted average value was developed for each of the soil-map units based on the major soil constituents. The continuum of area-weighted average values were classified into eight categories ranging from very high to very low “direct runoff potential.” 0.00-0.75 - Very High (equivalent to the artificial “F”) 0.76-1.25 - High (equivalent to “D”) 1.26-1.75 1.76-2.25 - Moderate (equivalent to “C”) 2.26-2.75 2.76-3.25 - Low (equivalent to “B”) 3.26-3.75 3.76-4.00 - Very Low (equivalent to “A”) These values and interpretations apply to the entirety of each mapped polygon regardless of the specific soil components and provide a area-weighted average of “direct runoff” potential and when mapped as a mosaic at the watershed scale represents source areas with a range potential for this runoff process from very low to very high. The use of hydrologic soil groups in this way along with the modifications made are used to develop categories of what is termed here as “direct runoff” and the source areas of various types of quick runoff and streamflow response to rainfall. Portions of the watershed vary in importance as source areas for these runoff processes; Those soil map units predominated by bedrock outcrops are portions of the watershed where overland flow occurs by precipitation in excess of infiltration and water is quickly delivered to areas of concentrated flow and the channel network. Soil map units predominated by D Hydrologic Soil Group soils are areas prone to overland flow due to both precipitation in excess of infiltration and precipitation in excess of saturation, as well as overland return flow from subsurface stormflow from adjacent hillslope areas.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-113 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Soil map units predominated by riverwash conditions, lower permeable soils located along swales and drainage courses, and highly permeable soils and other units adjacent to channels are generally areas which translate soil-water from precipitation to channels by subsurface flows or short reaches of overland flow to areas of concentrated flow as part of the channel network. Soil map units predominated by C, B, and A Hydrologic Soil Group soils have varying and increasing potential for subsurface stormflow runoff and therefore have decreasing potential for contributing to “Direct Runoff.” 2) Soils: Available Water Capacity II (Map 2-44). [HYPERLINK] Soil types were assigned a total available water capacity (AWC) in inches using the representative horizon values provided in the NASIS SSURGO database. This data was made available late in the study period and this analysis replaces an earlier approach undertaken using hard-copy tables and hand calculations. An area-weighted average AWC in inches was derived for each soil-map unit using the total AWC (up to 60 inches of depth) calculated for each of the major map unit soil component. The continuum of area-weighted average AWCs of the soil-map units were assigned to three categories; Low (<3"), Moderate (3- 6"), and High (>6"). These categories were selected as a shorthand approach to the watershed soil’s character for potential groundwater recharge (Davis, pers. comm.). AWC was also developed as an assessment steps to support the application of the PRMS runoff model that has been developed for the area. One parameter for that model is AWC. 3) Soils: Relative Subsurface Stormflow Runoff Potential (Map 2-45). [HYPERLINK] The third step in soil-water routing analysis is to separate source areas for their potential for “relative direct runoff” from their potential to produce “subsurface stormflow runoff.” This soil-water routing attribute is associated with the hydrological group soils prone to higher infiltration characteristics under saturated conditions and, more indirectly, AWC. AWC is influenced by both total soil depth (increasing with soil depth) and texture (decreasing with coarseness); Lower AWC may be interpreted to imply shallower, coarser textured soils. This results, in combination with hydrologic soil group factors, in reduced potential for total input water translation to subsurface stormflow. As a “relative” parameter, the following analytic approach and set of matrices that were used to define a range of relative magnitudes of subsurface stormflow rather than quantitative magnitudes. This provides a basis for mapping the spatial variability at the watershed scale. The following matrix was developed to derive a parameter that relates both direct runoff potential and AWC to reflect the relative probability that soil-water routing may be towards subsurface stormflow runoff. The matrix is constructed so that very high direct runoff areas, mainly those predominated by rock outcrops, have very low potential for subsurface stormflow runoff regardless of AWC. In order to follow the implications of these rockland dominated soils throughout the assessment, including groundwater recharge, this category is labeled as “Rockland” in the matrix. Similarly both high and very low direct runoff areas will have, respectively, low and high potential for subsurface stormflow runoff regardless of AWC. Only for low and moderate direct runoff categories does AWC modify the results with areas with lower AWCs having slightly greater
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-114 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
potential for subsurface stormflow runoff. Shallower and coarser soils have a greater potential to reach subsurface saturation conditions and to translate soil-water both laterally and vertically. The matrix was initially constructed with relatively even fields of high to low Potential Parameters. The fields were then adjusted progressively until the Potential Parameters resulted in a representative distribution of subsurface stormwater runoff sources. The following matrix represents the result of this iterative process.
Matrix used to determine a “Potential Parameter” for Subsurface Stormflow Runoff
“Direct Runoff” Categories
AWC Categories V.Low ---- Low ---- Mod ---- High ----
High (>6")| High High High. Mod. Mod. Low Low Rockland
Mod. (3-6")| High High High High Mod. Mod. Low Rockland
Low (<3") | High High High High High Mod. Mod. Rockland
The resulting “Potential Parameter” is not a mappable attribute. It is used in the following step for assigning relative subsurface stormflow runoff potential or likelihood for source areas across the watershed. The next step in the relative subsurface stormflow analysis at the watershed scale was to relate the foregoing “potential parameters” for subsurface stormflow runoff to slope which is also a factor in subsurface stormflow process potential. Soil map-units with any given “potential parameter” will tend to have a greater subsurface stormflow runoff potential with increasing slope. The slope categories were selected from a natural distribution selection of the pixel slopes found in the 30 meter DEM, and rounded slightly to the following category breaks.
Matrix used to estimate “Relative Subsurface Stormflow Runoff Potential”
“Potential Parameter” (from above)
Rockland Low Mod. High
0>20 | Rockland V. Low Low Mod. Slope Categories 20-50| Rockland Low Mod. High (Percent) >50 | Rockland Mod. High V. High
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-115 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
4) Soils: Relative Groundwater Recharge Potential (Map 2-46). [HYPERLINK] The fourth step in the soil-water routing analysis at the watershed scale was to develop “relative groundwater recharge potential”. The watershed typically receives sufficient annual winter precipitation each year for fully saturating all of the soil types present in the watershed. AWC is related to both total soil depth and soil texture with finer, clay dominated soils having higher AWC because of high porosity and small soil voids. In situations where total soil-water saturation occurs during the winter season regardless of soil texture, total AWC can reflect the relative potential for soil-water to translated to deep percolation and be available for groundwater recharge (Davis, pers. comm.). As a result, the factors used to identify relative groundwater recharge potential was total AWC and slope. The AWC categories used were the AWC categories used above; Low (>3"), Moderate (3-6"), and High (<6"). Soil map-units with any given groundwater recharge potential parameter will tend to have a greater “relative groundwater recharge potential” with decreasing slope. The same slope categories used for “relative subsurface stormflow potential” were used for “relative groundwater recharge potential” since to some degree these two soil-water routing functions are paired by routing separation.
Matrix used to estimate “Relative Groundwater Recharge Potential”
Rockland AWC Categories from above
Low Mod. High
0<20 | Rockland Low Mod. V. High Slope Categories 20-50| Rockland V. Low Low High (Percent) >50 | Rockland V. Low Low Mod.
5) Potential Groundwater Recharge: Soil and Geologic Parameters (Map 2-47). [HYPERLINK] The fifth step in the soil-water routing analysis at the watershed scale was to overlay soil based groundwater recharge potential with the permeability characteristics of the geologic units. When excluding additional issues such as the soil- water routing influences of precipitation input variability and vegetation and climatic losses due to evapotranspiration, soil and geologic parameters can provide a watershed scale range in groundwater recharge potential. The assessment of soil and geologic parameter groundwater recharge potential was developed using the following matrix. The value field of groundwater recharge potential for both soil and geologic parameters ranged from “Rockland” to reflect an expected low degree of fracturing, shallow fracturing, and lack of soil-water storage in the soil mantle, to “Very High” where soils have high AWC and the underlying geology is highly permeable.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-116 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Matrix used to determine “Potential Groundwater Recharge: Soil and Geologic Parameters”
Soils: Relative Groundwater Recharge Potential
Rockland V.Low Low Mod High V.High
IS | Rockland V.Low Mod. High V.High V.High
II | Rockland V.Low Mod. High High V.High Krasny III | Rockland V.Low Low Mod. High High Classes IV | Rockland V.Low V.Low Low Mod. Mod.
V | Rockland V.Low V.Low V.Low Low Low
Assessment Interpretations The watershed-scale results of the foregoing soil-water assessment follows. It should be clearly understood that this assessment was designed to provide a watershed scale review of soil-water routing so that the pattern of variability at that scale could be determined. The watershed scale assessment was designed to reveal the range of soil- water routing processes and the degree of variability in order to determine: 1.) if there were resource management implications at this scale, and 2.) if there is warrant in conducting a more detailed field and hillslope scale assessments of soil-water routing using more sophisticated approaches and analytic techniques as part of an ongoing collaborative stewardship program. It is essential to understand that the assessment approach and scale used here is not appropriate for land use planning, or project level planning or review. 1) Relative Direct Runoff Potential (see Map 2-43) The assessment of “relative direct runoff potential” represents soil map units in terms of their potential for generating infiltration excess overland flow (or Hortonian runoff) during rainfall events and/or very fast subsurface flow through the soils to channels. These soil units, as source areas, are then represented by a range of potential for Hortonian runoff process and other fast runoff processes. Collectively these are the source areas of the watershed presented by their potential for rapid runoff and streamflow response in rainfall events. The assessment includes only soil attributes and does not consider the spatial or temporal patterns of precipitation in the watershed. It provides results that represent the range of conditions in relative terms with no attempt to quantify runoff magnitudes or to relate the variability in by magnitude quantities. Therefore the assessment only addresses the potential of soils to route water by direct runoff and does not provide information on where specifically the direct runoff sources areas are for any given rainfall event. This step can only be made by extending this assessment into a modeling environment. Overall the areas of highest direct runoff potential are areas long streams (typically not shown at this soil-mapping not at this map display scale, and in areas
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-117 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
dominated by bedrock and rocklands. These rockland areas tend to be in the glaciated uplands and in canyon areas where incision rates and slope retreat rates are high enough that soil development is retarded. In the canyon settings there is a slight tendency for greater direct runoff potential on south facing slopes where soils can be thinner due to reduced soil development rate because of higher temperatures and more arid soil- moisture conditions. The areas of lowest potential for direct runoff tend to be located on flat lying ridges dominated by Mehrten Formation andesite mudflow material and deeper soil on metamorphic terrain. It is worth also noting that many of the soil-mapping units on the ENF show relatively low potentials as source areas for “direct runoff.” This may be an artifact of the Order 3 and 4 soils mapping conduced in that area and perhaps more generalized characterization of soil-water attributes. 2) Available Water Capacity (see Map 2-44). Soil-map units were assessed for area-weighted average AWC and for mapping and assessment purposes were assigned to three categories; Low (<3"), Moderate (3-6"), and High (>6"). This categorization provide a relatively narrow range of possibilities among the soils of the watershed but it does result in a watershed scale pattern of variability. Soil-map units with High AWC tend to occur on mid and lower elevation broad ridges and upland terrain of lower overall relief dominated by Mehrten Formation andesite mudflow material and deeper soil in metamorphic areas. Areas of Low AWC are the generally those dominated by rockland, rock outcrop and thin soils along canyons where terrain incision and erosion rates are higher. The lack of High AWC at the very lowest elevation and throughout the upper elevation areas is probably due, in the former case, to diminished areas of broad ridge setting, and in the latter case, to more severe climate-driven soil forming environments as well as recent glaciation and steeper slopes. 3) Relative Subsurface Stormflow Runoff Potential (see Map 2-45). This step identifies the various runoff source areas of the watershed for their potential to generate “subsurface stormflow runoff.” This soil-water routing process typically provides for the vast majority of the total volume of storm runoff. Assessments of this runoff process is a highly complex undertaking involving may soil attributes, sometimes at the plot and soil horizon scale, and involving the inter- relation of many soil related features. These may include the underlying geologic weathering regime, geomorphology, slope patterns and shapes, locations and densities of non-channeled drainages, vegetation, and intra-storm precipitation variation. These aspects of subsurface stormflow runoff soil-water routing are beyond the scope of this assessment. This assessment includes only soil and coarse slope attributes and does not consider the other complicating features listed above not the spatial or temporal patterns of precipitation in the watershed. It provides results that represent the range of conditions in relative terms with no attempt to quantify runoff magnitudes or to relate the variability in by magnitude quantities. Therefore the assessment only addresses the potential of soils to route water by subsurface stormflow runoff and does not provide information on where specifically the runoff sources areas are for any given rainfall event. This step can only be made by extending this assessment into a modeling environment.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-118 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The source areas for Very High and High subsurface stormflow runoff potential are areas with lower “direct runoff” potential, lower AWC, and steeper slopes. These source areas tend to be mid and upper elevation canyon slopes with a slight tendency for greater potential on northern aspect slopes which may have advanced soil development and deeper soils. They also occur on the steeper sideslopes of rounded Mehrten Formation andesite mudflow units located on the broad ridges of the mid and lower elevations. Moderate subsurface stormflow runoff potential is across scattered areas of the watershed apparently dominating many terrain areas including general sloping terrain in upper elevation areas and in mid and lower elevations, the flatter ridge areas. Source areas with Low potential occur on gentle slopes and flatter ridges in metamorphic rock terrain. Similar to the discussion for “direct runoff potential” above, it is worth also noting that many of the soil-mapping units on the ENF show relatively high potentials as source areas for “subsurface stormflow runoff.” This may be an artifact of the Order 3 and 4 soils mapping conduced in that area and perhaps more generalized characterization of soil-water attributes. 4) Relative Groundwater Recharge Potential (see Map 2-46). This step identifies the various source areas of the watershed for groundwater recharge considering only soil and slope attributes. This assessment uses AWC as the sole soil attribute and as such is an extremely abbreviated approach that ignores many significate attributes and conditions that have a bearing of soil based groundwater recharge potential. Some of these factors include soil depth, bulk density, bulk density minus AWC, wilt-point, AWC minus wilt-point, depth to and permeability of limiting horizon, and soil attributes above limiting horizon. Other non soil factors that are important to soil based groundwater recharge potential include annual precipitation pattern over the watershed, variation in annual precipitation, vegetation, and evapotranspiration potential. The consideration of these soil based and non-soil based factors are beyond the scope of this assessment so the foregoing abbreviated approach to groundwater routing was developed and applied. As a result the assessment provides results that represent the range of conditions in relative terms with no attempt to quantify recharge magnitudes or to relate the variability in by magnitude quantities. Therefore the assessment only addresses the potential of soils to route water to groundwater and does not provide information on where specifically the recharge sources areas are for any given annual pattern of precipitation and evapotranspiration scenario. This step can only be made by extending this assessment into a modeling environment. The abbreviated assessment approach, which ignores the distribution of annual precipitation and precipitation regime over the watershed, shows that Very High and High soil-based groundwater recharge potential dominates the broad ridge uplands in the lower and mid elevations of the watershed. These include the areas dominated by Mehrten Formation andesite mudflow material and deeper soils on gentler areas of metamorphic terrain. Very Low and Low soil-based groundwater recharge potential occurs mainly within the canyon settings of the watershed and in general slope areas of the higher elevations, probably due main to moderate AWC and steeper slopes. The “Rockland” areas are assumed to have essentially nil soil-based groundwater recharge potential as there is essential no soil to store soil-water. These areas are the glaciated
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-119 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
higher elevations and portions of the canyon settings of the mid and lower watershed elevations. 5) Potential Groundwater Recharge: Soil and Geologic Parameters (see Map 2- 47). This assessment step overlays the foregoing soil-based groundwater recharge potential with the first approximation of geologic unit permeability (see Geology) to derive a combined assessment of soil and geologic based groundwater recharge potential. The assessment results in a range of relative potential over the watershed. Because it is based on both the soil-based groundwater recharge potential that was derived from the foregoing approach, as well as the first approximation of geologic unit permeability, the results are constrained by the suite of assessment conditions presented under those two assessment steps. As a result the assessment provides results that represent the range of conditions in relative terms with no attempt to quantify recharge magnitudes or to relate the variability in by magnitude quantities. Therefore the assessment only addresses the potential of soils and geologic units to route water to groundwater and does not provide information on where specifically the recharge sources areas are for any given annual pattern of precipitation and evapotranspiration scenario. This step can only be made by extending this assessment into a modeling environment. The assessment approach, which ignores the distribution of annual precipitation and precipitation regime over the watershed, shows that High and Moderate soil and geologic unit based groundwater recharge potential dominates the broad ridge areas in the lower and mid watershed elevations. These include the areas dominated by Mehrten Formation andesite mudflow material and deeper soils on gentler areas of metamorphic terrain. Very High potential areas are limited to where high AWC soils and very permeably geologic units occur together. These are the deeper soils mainly on Mehrten Formation andesite. Very Low and Low soil-based groundwater recharge potential occurs mainly within the canyon settings of the watershed and in general slope areas of the higher elevations, probably due main to moderate AWC and steeper slopes. The “Rockland” areas are assumed to have essentially nil soil and geologic unit based groundwater recharge potential as there is essential no soil to store soil-water and, when compared to these geologic units under a weathering soil mantel, bedrock fractures are assumed to be scattered, tight, and shallow. These areas are the glaciated higher elevations and portions of the canyon settings of the mid and lower watershed elevations.
Stewardship The foregoing assessment of soil-water routing indicates that there is considerable watershed scale variability in processes and magnitudes of processes in the study area. This supports the early contention in this study that soil-water routing in a watershed is not random nor homogeneous. Soil-water routing various across the watershed as associated with slope, soil, geologic geomorphologic, and vegetation parameters. The variability of patterns both spatially and temporally, and both seasonally and as annual conditions vary on a decade-scale, can dictate streamflow regimes, erosion cycles, sediment routing, channel dynamics and condition. This in turn can influence aquatic and channel related key-resources and their conditions.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-120 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The assessment implies that land use and resource management practices can have varying effects on soil-water routing based on the specific hydrologic response configurations of the land under consideration. It also implies that each of the many hydrologic response land areas found in the watershed may have varying tolerances to land use and resource management changes before notable changes to soil-water routing occurs and streamflow regimes change. Most of the watershed key-resources are associated with streamflow regime and channel dynamics. These aspects of the watershed are partially driven by the soil-water routing processes and how these processes are influenced by land uses and resource management practices. Most, if not all of the watershed land use and resource management agencies are concerned about the condition and status of streams and channel related resources. This is turn is related to streamflow regimes of the watershed and the influences of land uses and resource management practices on soil-water routing. Therefore an important element in the stewardship strategy would be the completion of a more detailed and thorough soil-water routing attribute assessment for the entire watershed. This assessment should be designed to facilitate resource planning and evaluation at any scale from plot to watershed or regional. This will allow use by any entity and allow soil-water routing assessments and their relations to watershed-wide concerns even when developing assessments of single properties. It should also be developed so that it can assess watershed process and function at any sub-watershed scale to serve many possible resource management applications. It should also be suited for coupling to climate and weather scenarios so that the streamflow regime implications of land management practices can be reviewed in a dynamic modeling setting. If this more refined assessment achieves the foregonig, it will also be useful when coupled with as assessment of channel processes and dynamics so that potentially changed streamflow regimes in specific reaches can be assessed for their possible influence of channel conditions.
STRATEGY 1: Encourage the ENF to update their soil mapping to conform to the ENF geologic mapping such that there are common boundaries in the GIS data base when soil-water routing assessments need to couple soil-map parameters with geologic unit parameters.
STRATEGY 2: Create a common soil attribute table which deals with each identified soil type found in the watershed. Assign WEHY soil-water routing parameters to each soil type.
STRATEGY 3: Upgrade the Krasny permeability class assignments to the geologic units of the watershed by evaluating well-log data maintained at the counties. These geologic units are common to many of the main westslope Sierra Nevada watersheds and occur at similar elevations. Well log data from other counties could enhance this update by providing more well log data points. This map approach may be useful to planning and watershed assessments in the Sierra Nevada.
STRATEGY 4: Develop another watershed-scale soil-water routing assessment similar to that done as part of this study but using the WEHY soil-water routing parameters and using the WEHY area-weighted averaging approach. This should
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-121 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
result in a much improved watershed-wide review of spatial process variation which could enhance the overall understanding of watershed process and function.
STRATEGY 5: Maintain the individual soil type WEHY soil-water routing attribute table and make it available for use at the field and site planning scale when more detailed site soils mapping has been undertaken. This will allow the use of soil- water routing information to be used and area-weighted averaged at any scale for any application.
STRATEGY 6: To extend the usefulness of Strategies 4 and 5, use the WEHY soil- water parameters and climatic parameters to develop a WEHY watershed model that can be used to evaluate specific land management implications on watershed runoff and streamflow regime processes under a variety of climate scenarios. This will be useful as a planning and evaluation tool as well as a method to review cumulative impacts. It can be used to evaluate the streamflow implications of a wide range of vegetation and fire management scenarios, as well as land use alternatives. It can be used to determine the variable sensitivity of hydrologic response areas to land use influences of soil-water routing and streamflow responses. This can be used to evaluate implications to channel conditions and key-resource conditions.
Soil-Water Routing References Abbott, M.B., J.C. Bathurst, J.A. Cunge, P.E. O’Connell, and J. Rasmussen, 1986a; An introduction to the Euopean Hydrological System - Systeme Hydrologique Europeen, “SHE,”1: History and philosophy of a physically-based, distributed modeling system. Journal of Hydrology, v. 87, p. 45- 59. Abbott, M.B., J.C. Bathurst, J.A. Cunge, P.E. O’Connell, and J. Rasmussen, 1986b; An introduction to the Euopean Hydrological System - Systeme Hydrologique Europeen, “SHE,”2: Structure of a physically-based, distributed modeling system. Journal of Hydrology, v. 87, p. 61-77. Abdul, A.S. and R.W. Gillham, 1984; Laboratory studies of the effects of the capillary fringe on streamflow generation. Water Resources Research, v.20, p.691-698. Alphen, B.J., H.W.G. Booltink and J. Bouma, 2001; Combining pedotransfer functions with physical measurements to improve the estimation of soil hydraulic properties. Geoderma, v.103, p.133-147. Anderson, M.G, and T.P. Burt, 1990; Subsurface runoff, p. 365-400. In Anderson, M.G, and T.P. Burt (eds.) Process Studies in Hillslope Hydrology. John Wiley & Sons.530 pps. Anderson, S.P., W.E. Dietrich, D.R. Montgomery, R. Torres, M.E. Conrad, and K. Loague, 1997; Subsurface flow paths in a steep, unchanneled catchment. Water Resources Research, v.33, p.2637-2653. Bathurst, J.C., 1986; Physically based distributed modeling of an upland catchment using the Systeme Hydrolgique Europeen. Journal of Hydrology, v.87, p.79-102. Betson, R.P., 1964; What is watershed runoff? Journal of Geophysical Research, v.69, p.1541-1552. Beven, K. and E.F. Wood, 1983; Catchment geomorphology and the dynamics of runoff contributing areas. Journal of Hydrology, v.39, p.365-382. Bonell, M., 1993; Progress in the understanding of runoff generation dynamics in forests. Journal of Hydrology, v. 150, p. 217-275.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-122 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Bouma, J., 1986; Using soil survey information to characterize the soil-water state. Journal of Soil Science, v.37, p.1-7. Buttle, J.M. and D.J. McDonald, 2002; Coupled vertical and lateral preferential flow on a forested slope. Water Resources Research, v.38, p.18-1-18-17. Buttle, J.M. and D.L. Peters, 1997; Inferring hydrological processes in a temperate basin using isotopic and geochemical hydrograph separation: A re-evaluation. Hydrological Processes, v.11, p.557-573 Cazemier, D.R., P. Lagacherie, and R. Martin-Clouaire, 2001; A possibility theory approach for estimating available water capacity from imprecise information contained in soil databases. Geoderma, v.103, p.130-132. Chen, Z.-Q., R.S. Govindaraju, and M.L. Kavvas, 1994; Spatial averaging of unsaturated flow equations under infiltration conditions over areally heterogeneous fields, 1, development of models. Water Resources Research, v.30, p.523-533. Chow V.T. (ed), 1964; Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill. Clapp, R.B., and G.M. Hornberger, 1978; Empirical equations for some soil hydraulic properties. Water Resources Research, v.14, p.601-604. Collins, R., A. Jenkins, and M. Harrow, 2000; The contribution of old and new water to a stream hydrograph determined by tracer addition to a whole catchment. Hydrological Processes, v.14, p.701-711. Davis, Sid; Personal Communitication. Consulting soils scientest, Georgetown. Dunne, T. and R.D. Black, 1970a; An experimental investigation of runoff production from permeable soils. Water Resources Research, v.6, p.478-490. Dunne, T. and R.D. Black, 1970b; Partial area contributions to storm runoff in a small New England watershed. Water Resources Research, v.6, p.1296-1311. Eldorado National Forest, No Date; Soil Survey. 217 pps. plus tables and maps. Frankenberger, J.R, E.S. Brooks, M.T. Walter, M.F. Walter, and T.S. Steenhuis, 1999; A GIS-based variable source area hydrology model. Hydrological Processes, v.13, p.805-822. Goovaerts, P., 2001; Geostatistical modeling of uncertainty in soil science. Geoderma, v.103, p.3-26. Gupta, S.C. and W.E. Larson, 1979; Estimating soil water retention characteristics from particle distribution, organic matter percent, and bulk density. Water Resources Research, v.15, p.1633- 1635 Horton, R.E., 1933; The role of infiltration in the hydrologic cycle. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v.14, p.446-460. Horton, R.E., 1945; Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: hydrophysical approach to quantitative geomorphology. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America. V. 56, p.275-370. Kavvas, M. Levvent, personal communication: Department of Environmental and Civil Engineering, Univ. California Davis, Davis, CA. Kavvas, M.L., Z.-Q. Chen, E.C. Dogrul, J.Y. Yoon, L. Lan, H. Axsoy, M.L. Anderson, J, Yoshitani, K. Fukami, and T. Matsuura, submitted for publication; Watershed Environmental and Hydrology (WEHY) model based on up-scaled conservation equations I: Hydrologic model. To appear in ASCE, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. Kavvas, M.L., Z.-Q. Chen, L. Tan, S.-T. Soong, A. Terakawa, J, Yoshitani, and K. Fukami, 1998; A regional-scale land surface parameterization based on areally-averaged hydrologic conservation equations. Journal of Hydrological Sciences, v.43, p.611-631.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-123 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Kavvas, M.L. and R.S. Govindaraju, 1992; Hydrodynamic averaging of overland flow and soil erosion over rilled hillslopes, p.101-111. In Walling, D.E., T.R Davies, and B. Hasholt (eds.) Erosion, Debris Flows and Environment in Mountain Regions. IAHS Publication #209, 480 pps. Kirnbauer, R. and P. Haas, 1998; Observations on runoff generation mechanisms in small alpine catchments. , p.239-247 in IAHS Publication #248, Leavesly, G.H., R.W. Lichty, B.M. Troutman, and L.G. Saindon, 1983; Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System: User’s manual. US Geological Survey, Water Resource Investigations Report 83-4238. McCuen, R.H., W.J Rawls, and D.L. Brakensiek, 1981; Statistical analysis of the Brooks-Corey and the Green-Ampt parameters across soil textures. Water Resources Research, v.17, p.1005-1012. McKeague, J.A., R.J. Eilers, A.J. Thomasson, M.J. Reeve, J. Bouma, R.B. Grossman, J.C. Favrot, M. Renger, and O. Strebel, 1984; Tentative assessment of soil survey approaches to the characterization and interpretation of air-water properties of soils. Geoderma, v.34, p.69-100. Meyer, P.D., G.W. Gee, M.L. Rockhold, and M.G. Schaap, 1997; Characterization of soil hydraulic parameter uncertainty, p. 1439-1450. In van Genuchten, M.T., F.J. Leuij, and L. Wu (eds) Characterization and Measurement of Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Porous Media: Part 2. USDA, US Salinity Laboratory Riverside, CA. Montgomery, D.R., W.E. Dietrich, R. Torres, S. P. Anderson, J.T. Heffner, and K. Loague, 1997; Hydrologic response of a steep, unchanneled valley to natural and applied rainfall. Water Resources Research, v.33, p.91-109. NRCS, (Soil Conservation Service), 1951; Soil Survey Manual. 503 pp. NRCS, 2001; National Soil Survey Handbook NRCS; 2002; Soil Survey Manual NRCS (Soil Conservation Service), 1974; Soil Survey of Placer County, California, western part. 204 pps. plus maps. NRCS (Soil Conservation Service), 1980; Soil Survey of El Dorado Area, California. 89 pps. plus maps. NRCS (Soil Conservation Sevice), 1975; Soil Survey of Nevada County Area, California. Ogrosky, H.O, and V. Mockus, 1964; Hydrology of agricultural lands, p.21-1-21-97. In Chow V.T. (ed) Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill. O’Loughlin, E.M., 1986; Prediction of surface saturation zones in natural catchments by topographic analysis. Water Resources Research, v. 22, p. 794-804. Parlange, M.B, and J.W. Hopmans (eds), 1999; Vadose Zone Hydrology; Cutting Across Disciplines. Oxford University Press.443 pps. Parlange, J.-Y. etal, 1999; Soil properties and water movement, p. 99-129. In Parlange, M.B, and J.W. Hopmans (eds) Vadose Zone Hydrology; Cutting Across Disciplines. Oxford University Press.443 pps. Pearce, A.J., M.K. Stewart, and M.G. Sklash, 1986; Storm runoff generation in humid headwater catchments. 1. Where does the water come from? Water Resources Research, v.22, p.1263-1272. Rallison, R.E, 1980; Origin and evaluation of the SCS runoff equation, p.912-924. In ASCE, Symposium on Watershed Management 1980, 1100 pps. Rawlins, B.G., A.J. Baird, S.T. Trudgill, and M. Hornung, 1997; Absence of preferential flow in the percolating waters of a coniferous forest soil. Hydrological Processes, v.11, p.575-585. Rawls, W.J., D.L. Brakensiek, and N. Miller, 1983; Green-Ampt infiltration parameters from soil data. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v.109, p.62-70.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-124 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Sklash, M.G., M.K. Stewart, and A.J. Pearce, 1986; Storm runoff generation in humid headwater catchments. 2. A case study of hillslope and low-order stream response. Water Resources Research, v.22, p.1273-1282. Smith, R.E. and J.-Y. Parlange, 1978; A parameter-efficient hydrologic infiltration model. Water Resources Research, v.14, p.533-538. Steenhuis, T.S. and W.H. Van der Molen, 1986; The Thornthwaite-Mather procedure as a simple engineering method to predict recharge. Journal of Hydrology, v.84, p.221-229 Steenhuis, T.S, M. Winchell, J. Rossing, J.A. Zollweg, and M.F. Walter, 1995; SCS runoff equation revisited for variable-source runoff areas. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, v.121, p.234-238. Swanson, M.L., G.M. Kondolf, and P.J. Boison, 1989; An example of rapid gully initiation and extension by subsurface erosion: coastal San Mateo County, California. Geomorphology, v.2, p.393-403. Tahoe National Forest, 1994; Soil Survey. 377 pps. plus maps Tayfur, G. and M.L. Kavvas, 1994; Spatially averaged conservation equations for interacting rill-interrill area overland flows. Journal of hydraulic Engineering, v.120, p.1426-1448. Turton, D.J., D.R. Barnes, and J. de Jesus Navar, 1995; Old and new water in subsurface flow from a forest soil block. Journal of Environmental Quality, v.24, p.139-146. van Genuchten, M.T., F.J. Leuij, and L. Wu (eds) Characterization and Measurement of Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Porous Media: Part 2. USDA, US Salinity Laboratory Riverside, CA. Wagenet, R.J. and J. Bouma, 1999; Customizing soil-water expertise for different users, p. 418-431. In Parlange, M.B, and J.W. Hopmans (eds) Vadose Zone Hydrology; Cutting Across Disciplines. Oxford University Press. 443 pps. Weiler, M., F. Naef, and C. Leibundgut, 1998; Study of runoff generation on hillslopes using tracer experiments and a physically-based numerical hillslope model, p. 353-360. In IAHS Publication 248. Wildenschild, D. and J.W. Hopmans, 1997; Flow rate dependence of hydraulic properties if unsaturated porous media, p.893-904. In van Genuchten, M.T., F.J. Leuij, and L. Wu (eds) Characterization and Measurement of Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Porous Media: Part 2. USDA, US Salinity Laboratory Riverside, CA. Ziemer, R.R, 1992 Effects of logging on subsurface pipeflow and erosion: coastal northern California, USA, p.187-197. In IAHS Publication #209.
Channels Background In broad-scale mountainous areas such as the Sierra Nevada, channel-related watershed key-resources may typically include resource values at mid and lower elevations of major watersheds as well as in higher elevation areas. Some of the key- resources may be directly related to headwater stream reaches such as cold water fish habitat while others may be only distantly related (in space and by process) such as water quality parameters and power supply/domestic water supply closer to population centers, and lower elevation fish habitat. Within the context of watershed processes, all portions of a watershed can be said to have some incremental influence on channel related watershed key-resources irrespective of relative locations.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-125 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
However, when headwater streams may have flows on the order of one to several cubic feet per second (cfs) and be located from 10 to 60 miles distant from the specific sites of other watershed key-resources, it is very difficult to meaningfully attribute magnitudes of influence of specific conditions on individual small headwater streams to downstream watershed key-resources located on major main stem reaches. This is true even when flow itself is a primary parameter. The difficulty in attaching values of site-specific channel conditions in small headwater stream reaches to distant downstream watershed key-resources is made immeasurably more difficult and abstract if the site-specific measures of condition are related to secondary on-site circumstances such as biotic or geomorphic parameters which are not directly related to distant watershed key-resources. While site-specific circumstances such as the biotic diversity or the geomorphic character of a small portion of a small, low stream order headwater channel may reflect on-site resource quality, the site quality may have no or only negligible influence on watershed key-resources conditions at distance downstream. When those watershed key-resources are located on or near the channel site of concern, the relationship between on-site stream conditions may be directly or at least more closely related to the status of watershed key-resources. In these circumstances, secondary condition parameters may be more appropriately related to the condition of those Beneficial Uses. Besides the significant bearing that scale and spatial relationships have between on-site channel conditions and watershed key-resources, another important attribute in mountainous regions relates to present, past, and future channel dynamics. This issue is particularly important when attempting to relate site-specific channel conditions on lower order stream reaches (0, 1, 2, and 3) to watershed key-resources resources on higher order stream reaches (4 through 6+). Many historical land uses and resource management actions have had various influences and impacts to channels of all stream orders in the watershed. These activities may include road building, culvert placement and maintenance, historic timber practices that directly impact stream courses, historical mining, and grazing, etc. Some of these activities may only influence reaches of stream not much larger than the area of direct disturbance while others can impact significantly larger segments of streams as channel adjustment processes propagate impacts downstream and/or upstream from the disturbance sites. When these land use and resource management impacts occur to channels at or near the locations of identified watershed key-resources, attribution is generally not difficult. At the large watershed-scale, when the channel impacts are on small headwater segments and the watershed key-resources are on higher stream order main stem segments, the magnitude of influence or impact are not known and not easily understood in quantitative terms. In addition to anthropogenic influences on stream conditions, mountainous areas such as the Sierra Nevada are notably regions of ongoing natural stream channel adjustments. These adjustments result from driving factors associated with landscape evolution and processes related to both present and past circumstances. The Sierra Nevada is a tectonically active region with a long history of uplift and consequential
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-126 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
channel downcutting and hillside adjustment processes. Under landscape evolutionary processes the channel network, channel conditions, and hillslope processes are closely interrelated. Depending on specific geologic and geomorphic conditions, the corresponding evolution of channels and hillslopes may be progressive and uneventful or may be cyclic, episodic, and dramatic being driven by mass wasting and extreme variation (in space and time) in channel conditions and the channel network adjustment to varying sediment regimes. Past and present climates can also be important factors in the channel conditions of mountainous regions. The watershed, between the foothills and the crest, ranges from about 500 to 9,000 feet. Over the entire elevation range, the Sierra Nevada has been subject to many past climatic cycles. The significance of these climatic cycles on watershed and channel geomorphology include the balances between chemical and mechanical weathering processes of bedrock materials, the delivery rates and size characteristics of materials delivered to channels from hillsides, and the balance of hillside delivery regimes and material transport capacity of streams. Many factors may have bearing on the rate and character of watershed and terrain evolution, including treeline elevations. Elevation zones in and around treeline can be areas of significant transitions in weathering regime, hillside delivery characteristics, and hillside delivery/channel transport balances. In mid to higher elevation ranges of the Sierra Nevada past climatic cycles have led to variations in treeline elevation. As a result of past climates and the varying weathering and sediment regimes, many of the small, low stream order headwater channels of the mid to high elevations of the watershed have relict geomorphic characteristics distinctly different from those that would develop within present hillslope and landscape processes. Even separate from the landscape evolutionary attributes addressed above, channel conditions in low order, higher elevation stream reaches exhibit a wide range of geomorphic characteristics and conditions as channel segments progressively transition from relict conditions associated with past climates to conditions and channel processes associated with present climatic conditions. Field work in the watershed has discovered several circumstances where natural channel evolutionary processes are resulting in channel segments with significant evidence of instability but which are really products of present climate-channel processes headcutting into channel segments formed under prior climatic conditions where in the past hillside delivery of sediment to channels was greater than the stream’s capacity to mobilize. Presently this headcutting is generating sediment at rates in excess of the stream’s capacity to effectively transport and instability results in downstream channel segments. These adjustments, regardless of driving factors, may be long-term and progressive through a one-time cycle or can be episodic and repetitious with many-cycles of a specific suite of adjustment processes. Anthropogenic influences and these natural influences on channel conditions can occur on all stream orders and have the same relative contributions to on-site, near-site, and at-distant watershed key-resources as presented above. Finally and with some interest, the character of stream adjustments due to natural processes can have similar character and degree of magnitude of influence on channels as do anthropogenic causes.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-127 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The foregoing discussion indicates that six main issues should be considered when addressing the question of channel processes, conditions, and change regimes for channels reaches at all stream orders in the watershed: 1) relative importance of small order headwater channel conditions to on-site, near-site, and at-distance watershed key-resources, 2) cumulative effects of circumstances on relatively common small, low order channel conditions to at-distance watershed key-resources at the large watershed-scale, 3) the character of landscape and channel network evolutionary processes, natural channel adjustment processes, and channel stability characteristics in specific reaches, 4) the nature of anthropogenic causes of channel disruptions and the relationship between these issues and natural channel adjustment processes, 5) the trends (at various time-steps) in channel conditions as channels adjust to driving landscape evolution and hillslope process factors and anthropogenic factors, and 6) the appropriate on-site channel condition metrics for assessing watershed key- resources conditions. Due to project scope limitations and limitations imposed by the lack of existing information on stream channel conditions in the watershed, the following consideration of watershed channels addresses only the latter four issues. Issues 3, 4, and 5 are necessary considerations for determining the nature of the specific channel reaches, developing an understanding of channel disruption processes and the attribution to natural or man-inducted causes, an understanding the overall trend in channel forming processes due to watershed evolution, an understanding of the disruption propagation and/or relaxation processes, and an understanding of stable channel configuration following adjustments to changed conditions. Issue 6 relates to the nature of establishing a measure of adequate or desired watershed key-resource conditions in a setting in which driving factors are changing and which can alter the watershed key-resource conditions. Channels and channel segments should be understood to be in a constant process of change to accommodate present and past circumstances. Some of these circumstance may be natural, others anthropogenic. In addition, any “symptom” perceived as an channel morphology problem such as bank retreat and channel enlargement, may be either a temporary attribute as channel segments progress through cyclic dynamic responses to driving factors, or be an initiation of a new channel pattern with long term and large scale consequences. As such any evaluation of channel conditions should deals with issues of channel maintenance and response dynamics, watershed processes, channel network evolution, terrain evolution, long term and short term channel condition trends, potential channel conditions following adjustment to the present channel condition and adjustment factors, and the time scale of adjustment processes. A primary concept in channel dynamics which is related to the foregoing elements is “dynamic equilibrium.” It is an accepted conceptual premise upon which consideration of channel dynamics and conditions are predicated. Generally this concept characterizes
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-128 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy stream channel conditions by embodying two related attributes. First it recognizes that channel segments are dynamic and the dynamism imparts changing geomorphic features and channel morphology. Second it recognizes that over an unspecified but protracted time frame the varying pattern of geomorphic features and channel morphology found in stream segments is repetitious in time and space and therefore reasonably consistent within segments over time. The concept envisions that channel segments may have a specific set of geomorphological characteristics, and that while specific characteristics at specific locations in that channel segment may change with time, over time the set of characteristics in that channel segment remain unchanged. A necessary predicate for this concept is that input regimes of flow, energy, and sediment to the channel segment remain relatively constant. This implies an additional conceptual premise that watersheds, the terrain, and the channel network are in states of suspended evolution. This would require that while the streams are transporting sediment from somewhere to somewhere else, no work is being accomplished. However terrain and watershed evolution are ongoing processes even within landscapes of very low relief and, over time, channels will change as the flow, energy, and sediment input regimes to specific segments change. Therefore the concept of channel dynamic equilibrium should be understood as a human conceptualization of channel processes that may have some application on the scale of human observations of stream segments but overlooks both subtle changes not understood as meaningful as well as longer time scale patterns of evolutionary trend. When considering the process-related “causal” elements of identified “symptoms” and for considering restoration actions, it is more appropriate to envision channels as in a state of progressive evolution (albeit perhaps very slowly). As evolving units, stream segments constantly lag behind and are constantly working to accommodate past changes to the input regimes of flow, energy, and sediment as dictated by watershed and terrain evolutionary processes. In areas with greater tectonic activity and uplift, and changed watershed circumstances (climate change, land use change, roadedness, etc.), rates of channel segment evolution may be expected to increase. At mid and higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada many circumstances lead toward support of this evolutionary conceptualization. From the natural process side, among others, there are three main factors that may impart evolutionary trends to channel segments. First is the pervasive regional uplift of the Sierra Nevada and the general bedrock downcutting regime in most of the steam channels of the region. Second are glacial material deposits that may be positioned within the erosional prism of some channel segments and to which streams under present circumstances are adjusting through patterns of erosion and deposition. Third are relict valley-fill channel segments associated with past colder climates into which present channel erosional processes are headcutting and inducing discrete channel pattern shifts. From the anthropogenic side there are several factors of local importance to channel evolutionary trends. Among others are first, past in-channel mining activities that have altered channel sediment and stream gradients, second, culvert placement on roads that have introduced upslope erosional nickpoints and downslope increased flow, energy, and sediment regime inputs to channel segments, third, in-channel engineered structures that may change flow, energy, and sediment regime inputs to stream segments,
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-129 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
and fourth, are changes in land uses and infrastructure that can result in both increased total runoff volume to channels and decreased time of concentration of runoff events leading to increased peak flows and to downstream channel enlargement to accommodate increase peak flows. In addition to these past and present factors that impact channel evolutionary processes, future climate change in the region may induce considerable changes to trends. This is particularly true in small, low stream order headwater streams in the present snow accumulation zones. As snowline increases in elevation in the future, streams adjusted to snow-melt runoff regimes may transition to rainfall and rain-on-snow runoff regimes. These channels will be subjected increased floodflow patterns with attendant increased flow, energy, and sediment regime inputs to stream segments. Addressing the “causal” process-related elements of the identified “symptoms” of channel conditions within the context of watershed, terrain, channel network, and channel segment evolution provides for the differentiation between “cause” and “symptom,” present process trends in the channel conditions, expected future channel conditions, the identification of possible stewardship project, restoration approaches that conform to trends, appropriate time frame for the restoration fix, restoration solution (final solution, progressive, or training), and watershed key-resource condition objectives for restoration. The limitations of the dynamic equilibrium concept in developing conceptual restoration approaches and identify appropriate watershed key-resource conditions raises questions as to the use of several channel assessment approaches that depend on dynamic equilibrium as a basic premise. These assessment approaches include channel classification systems, some of which have become more or less institutionalized by agencies. The reason for concern with descriptive stream channel classification schemes when addressing channel condition is that in ignoring the process-causes of channel morphology, they cannot accommodate the issues of changing process relationships. This can lead to the idea that all occurrences of channel disruption are channel problems and it makes it particularly difficult to relate channel condition changes in particular segments to watershed circumstances. These quasi-institutionalized descriptive schemes have led to their use to define and identify site-specific conditions perceived as in need of resolution, define the appropriate post-restoration channel conditions, and define metrics for assessing success without an understanding of channel processes and the relation of channel conditions to watershed processes. General treatments of descriptive and process-based stream channel classification schemes can be found in Mosley (1987), Kondolf (1995), and in several individual papers in Naiman and Bilby (1998). These sources should be reviewed for thorough discussions and additional references. An abbreviated discussion of these summary papers and the misapplication of classifications schemes to site-specific channel restoration projects follows. Stream channel classification schemes are usually based on the physical nature of channel reaches as they may be controlled by bed and bank conditions, sediment supply, sediment types, streamflow energies, and other factors. It has been known in fluvial geomorphology that there are about a dozen or so physically based relationships among the forgoing listed factors that have a bearing on the nature of any particular channel
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-130 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
reach at any particular time. It is also understood that these various physically based relationships interact to create a complete continuum of channel conditions from high gradient scoured bedrock channels of glaciated headwater streams to the slow, sediment rich mud and sand bottomed sloughs of the Delta. These factors can interrelate in such ways as to result in a smooth and basically uninterrupted continuum of potential channel conditions and channel characteristics and it is possible to observe specific channels that reflect this continuum in the field. Although it is possible to have a wide range of conditions on any given stream, general field observations indicate that certain combinations of conditions may be found more commonly than others. The general observations of stream channel tendencies to exhibit some sets of conditions more than others leads to the idea of channels as subject to “typing” and “classification.” For application to specific channel restoration projects, channel classification schemes have three main shortcomings. First, they rely on the concept of dynamic equilibrium. As discussed above, an appropriate approach to channel restoration should include a specific treatment of natural and anthropogenic channel-process driving factors relating to the identified problem, incorporate the concept of channel segments as evolving due to present and past circumstances, and the idea that channel segments are tending toward some new condition. An important element in restoration is developing approaches to conform to or accommodate trending conditions. Therefore for applicability in restoration channel typing schemes need to be oriented toward evolutionary tendencies. Second, any generalized channel typing carved from the continuum of channel segment conditions are developed from scatter plots of the various physically-based channel hydraulic relationships referred to above. Field studies and laboratory experiments of these specific relationships, even on channels with a high degree of observed similarity, show a wide range of point data products through which a best fit line may be drawn or correlation tendencies may be established. These relationship findings are often used as a basis for establishing channel type categories. This approach implies that various relationships should naturally cluster by which typing into channel categories would logically result. Kondolf (1995) reports that in several studies designed to evaluate natural clustering tendencies of channel attributes found, through objective clustering indices, no clearly defined clusters. These findings indicate that channel typing may be a product of human intuition and that at the very least channel segments identified by type may have hydraulic characteristics with a wide range of internal variability related – or possibly not related – to channel type processes. Third, and related to the second point, with respect to site-specific restoration projects, the issue of multiple possible quantitative products between the various physically-based hydraulic relationships indicate that even if a stream segment is appropriately typed and the restoration design conforms to that typing, the hydraulic parameters at the site could have a wide range of variation. In a discussion on the relationship between sediment and flow regimes as they are primary factors driving channel configuration and dynamic response, Montgomery and Buffington (1998) note that there is:
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-131 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
.... a fundamental problem in predicting or reconstructing channel response: there are seven variables, but only two relationships - thus specific channel response is somewhat indeterminate. As a result, channel typing schemes developed from generalized geomorphic relationships with the inherent high on-site variability and basic unpredictability, should not be used to develop the hydraulic geometry design parameters for restoration sites. For the same reason, hydraulic geometries resulting from channel typing schemes should not be used to establish desired or adequate channel conditions. (Details on the foregoing are found in Montgomery and Buffington 1993.) While field research recognizes stream dynamics as leading to a continuum of possible characteristics, there is a natural tendency for humans, a basic pattern- recognition species, to visualize and conceptualize stream channels as belonging to classes or types. In the hands of stream channel geomorphologists, channel typing can be a convenient tool for organizing generalized parameters for specific channel segments and for communications and discussions relating to stream channel characteristics. In the hands of non-specialists, channel typing can lead to the misconception that channel types are discretely differentiated, are internally consistent realities, are unities similar to organic genera and species, represent the natural or preferred channel configuration at a site, and have consistent and predictable responses to changed input regimes. Because of the foregoing issues, Kondolf (1995) notes that most channel classification schemes are best limited in use for either area-wide inventories of channel characteristics where these characterizations can be left at a generalized level of accuracy, and for communications between non-geomorphic specialists and resource managers dealing with stream issues. This is particularly true of Rosgen’s approach (Rosgen 1994) which does not relate stream characteristics to watershed and terrain evolutionary processes nor does it accommodate condition variability with time and channel condition evolution. It has become quasi-institutionalized by the USFS most likely because this agency deals with stream management throughout the western USA and few stream resource managers are technically trained in fluvial geomorphology. Using the Rosgen approach the agency may at least be assured of a common language and channel-type nomenclature between the resource units and the resource staff. This common language may have a higher value to the agency than alternative process-based and, less standardized and more site- specific inventory and condition status methods more appropriate to specific resource management concerns. Unfortunately the strength of this method, its availability for use by resource managers without specific fluvial geomorphology training, is its weakness as it is subject to misapplication for channel classification and restoration projects. Another quasi-institutionalized channel condition inventory method is the Bureau of Land Management’s (USDI) “Proper Functioning Condition” assessment of streams and riparian corridors (Bureau of Land Management 1993).
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-132 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
By definition in the assessment method “proper functioning” stream segments are those which have stability characteristics necessary to maintain basic structural integrity under the stresses of “moderate” sized floodflows on the order of a 30 year event. This definition of proper functioning is very narrow when one considers the significance of landscape and channel network evolution on changing channel conditions discussed above. Following some of the foregoing discussion, in areas where landscape and channel network evolution is active the nature of stream segments can be expected to be progressively adapting to accommodate changing circumstances. These adaptations could be minor and progressive or major, dramatic, and episodic. In evolving terrain, regardless of the findings of a stream segment assessments using this method, whether “proper functioning, ”functional-at risk,” or “nonfunctional,” a review of evolutionary and dynamic adjustment trends would be necessary to assure that any potentially identified problem is indeed a restoration issue. Channel segments found to be ”functional-at risk” or “nonfunctional” may in fact be undergoing necessary changes to adjust to natural landscape evolutionary processes. Typing channel segments or designing restoration projects in accord with the concept of proper functioning stream segment without the considering wider issues presented above, could result in identifying natural stream channel adjustments as possible problem areas and in a design approach and success objectives that are counterproductive to channel condition trends and natural adjustments. A more hopeful stream segment classification scheme for channel restoration efforts on small, low stream order headwater channels in mountainous terrain and for the development of appropriate or desired channel conditions may be a system similar to, or a minor modification of, that of Whiting and Bradley (1993), Montgomery and Buffington (1997), and of Frissell and others (1986). Their schemes provide a more generalized classification approach but emphasize the relation of stream segment characteristics to watershed and terrain evolution and evolutionary processes. While they may offer fewer category types than a descriptive system such as Rosgen’s, they provide the organizational framework to review channel segment characteristics on a watershed basis, in accordance with stream order position in the watershed, and can relate these conditions to landscape evolution by incorporating time-series issues such as, episodic events, progressive adaptation, and sediment routing that may result in segment characteristic cycling. An important attribute of stream segment classification systems that are process- based (not descriptive) and incorporate watershed and landscape evolutionary aspects, is that they recognize the dynamic and changing conditions of these segments necessary to accommodate evolutionary processes. This allows channel classification and restoration projects to incorporate trends in channel conditions with time, considers a time-step component to the restoration project, assists in determining “ultimate” channel conditions within the time line of the restoration actions, assists in determining a conceptual restoration approach (final solution, progressive, or training), and therefore assists in establishing appropriately founded desired or adequate channel conditions. Following the foregoing discussion concerning channel geomorphology and process dynamics, the measures for determining a specific channel conditions should be selected with a great deal of care. Recall first that descriptive channel classification
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-133 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
schemes generally develop channel categories from a series of hydraulic relationships there are in fact scatter-plot relationships and at any particular actual location the interrelationship of two factors can result in a wide range of possible products. Second, recall that descriptive stream classification schemes generally rely on the concept of dynamic equilibrium and recall that dynamic equilibrium of a stream segment in an evolving landscape and watershed may not be a reliable premise. Third, recall that generally descriptive stream classification schemes do not accommodate watershed scale evolutionary processes and sediment routing factors that may have considerable bearing on channel stability issues and changing channel conditions. Therefore descriptive channel classification schemes can not be used to reliably predict the future and ultimate channel configuration at a site if adjustment processes were allowed to proceed nor to reliably predict an appropriate restoration channel configuration. For these reasons it should be generally accepted that stream condition parameters that relate to descriptive channel classification schemes are not reliable for use in characterizing the process and changing process nature of channels. Another aspect of channel dynamics presented in the foregoing is the natural variability of channel morphological features both in space and time. Following the basic discussion on channel processes and dynamics there is the expectation that conditions at specific locations are constantly changing. These can be changes through a constant cyclic regime (within “dynamic equilibrium”), an episodic cyclic regime (within an evolving landscape associated with episodic mass wasting and abrupt channel changes), or a progressive trending regime as channels adjust to progressive landscape evolution. With these kinds of channel changes and variabilities over time and space, the data required to reliably characterize the status of on-site channel conditions would need to be either collected at a large spatial scale or on-site over a long-term duration. Large spatial or time scales are necessary to overcome the natural tendency for condition variability. These variability parameters may have different significance on different stream segments. Considering only the relative size (by channel width or flow regime) of stream segments, the influences of hillslope processes and landscape evolution can impart greater levels of on-site channel condition variability to lower stream order segments than to higher stream order segments. In addition, with respect to the hierarchy of stream orders and associated nested watershed areas, on-site variability on higher stream order segments can be further muted due to the tendency of larger watershed areas to integrate small watershed variability. This results in larger watersheds and higher stream order channel segments having generally lower magnitudes of variability over time and space and less susceptible to progressive change in condition from landscape evolutionary processes. Conversely, lower stream order headwater channel segments are generally more susceptible to these variations (Nakamura etal 2000). Whiting and Bradley (1993) recognized that most descriptive stream classification schemes address higher stream order segments in lower portions of watersheds which may be generally more alluvial and more given to consistency of characteristics. Their proposed process-based scheme is designed to address specifically the greater dynamics and variability of mountainous, low stream order headwater channel segments. These factors have significant bearing on establishing appropriate desired or adequate channel conditions on small, low stream order headwater channels in
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-134 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
mountainous areas such as in the watershed. On these streams it is most likely that restoration projects will be small in physical scale with respect to the potential variability of on-site channel conditions when assuming either dynamic equilibrium or some progressive landscape and channel network evolution. As a result “secondary” measures of the changes that may be due to restoration project structures and/or actions can be overwhelmed by normal spatial and temporal variability in channel conditions at the site. This is particularly true when pre- and post- restoration project condition assessments are limited to less than several years. The US Forest Service’s Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) (US Forest Service 1996), an application of Rosgen (1994), is a rigorous approach for developing reproducible measures of these “secondary” channel characteristics. It addresses many channel geomorphic parameters that can indicate the nature or characteristics of a channel segment. When appropriately applied, the SCI can be used to reliably track the nature and character of a channel segment over time. However “character” may not be the same as “condition” as “condition” implies the status of stream channel character relative to some preferred benchmark condition or some assumed proper condition. This point can become significant if the “condition” of a channel segment characterized through the descriptive SCI is viewed within the context of process-based stream channel dynamics, and if conclusions are drawn as to the “condition” relative to some expected condition derived from that descriptive classification scheme. When one considers both the natural variability in small, low stream order headwater channel segments, and the sensitivity of these channel segments to change due to landscape evolutionary processes, the SCI, while rigorous, measures of “secondary” attributes may not be appropriate for separating project effects from background channel change.
Watershed Assessment The watershed assessment of channels and channel conditions in this study was severely limited by scope, available GIS budget, and the notable lack of existing information of channels in the watershed with any of the resource management agencies. Given these constraints the watershed assessment approach to channels is limited to an analysis of possible channel forming flow regimes and possible changes to channels that may result in the future from climate change through global warming. GIS budget limitations prevented the development of a land use map that could have been used to evaluation changes to stream channels that possible are, and possibly will in the future, change due to changes in surface conditions and channel routing. Many other aspects of channel would normally be part of a watershed evaluation were not developed in this study because of scope limitations. These were significant limitations because the lack of existing relevant channel related information prevented the development of channel process relationships to watershed processes, and prevented the development of relationships of channel conditions and processes to channel-related watershed key- resources. 1) Channel Forming Flow Regimes. Channels and their size, shape, overall morphology and range of variability in condition at a location over time, and along a reach over space, are related to many factors of streamflow regime, sediment delivery
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-135 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
and hillslope interaction. Many of these issues are introduced above. In a mountainous watershed such as the NF/MF with elevation ranges of 500 to 9000 ft, the dominant precipitation regime is significant factor in determining floodflow magnitudes on a per square mile basis and on channel forming processes. In fact this factor, along with storm precipitation intensity factors, has been reported to dominate over other factors such as channel densities (Pitlick 1994, Patton and Baker 1976, Costa 1987, Carlston 1963). The following is an assessment of channel forming conditions in the watershed. Map 2-48: Precipitation Regime [HYPERLINK] was developed by the Tahoe National Forest as a representation of the dominate precipitation regimes of the watershed. Above about 6000 ft most runoff events are controlled by snowmelt processes. It has also been reports that rain-on-snow runoff events can occasionally occur even to the highest elevations but these occur so rarely that these runoff events may not influence channel morphology. Between about 4000 and 6000 ft rain-on-snow runoff events can occur frequently enough that runoff magnitudes may influence channel morphology. Below about 4000 ft, the precipitation regime is dominated by rainfall processes. These elevation breaks were somewhat arbitrarily draw based on the professional experience of Tahoe National Forest staff. Similar representations of dominant precipitation regimes for the Eldorado National Forest area made by Eldorado National Forest staff was slightly different. Neither was constructed from the statistical analysis of representative data. Map 2-49: Dominant Channel Forming Runoff Regime [HYPERLINK] represents four categories of channel regimes: 1. Channel segments within the Snow Zone should have the smallest channels on a per watershed area basis because snowmelt runoff results in the lowest peak and channel forming flows. 2. Channel segments within the Rain on Snow Zone should have the largest channels on a per watershed area basis because rain on snow runoff results in the highest peak and channel forming flows. This map does not show that the main trunk streams that route runoff to the base of the watershed are also dominated by rain on snow circumstances. 3. Channel segments within the Mixed Zone should have the second largest channels on a per watershed area basis because, while these segments are in the rain zone, they have headwater areas in the Rain on Snow zone and channel should respond to a mix of these two runoff factors. The elevation selected to define the downslope extent of this zone was arbitrarily selected as at about 3000 ft and was regionally smoothed across the watershed. 4. Channel segments within the Rain Zone should have the third largest channels on a per watershed area basis because rainfall runoff results in the third greatest peak and channel forming flows. Map 2-50: Dominant Channel Forming Runoff Regime: Global Warming Scenario [HYPERLINK] represents possible changes in channel regimes, and areas of
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-136 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
possible channel adjustments, should global warming affect the watershed climate as has been variously predicted. A general review of possible global warning influences on watershed processes in the watershed indicate that: 1.) average annual temperatures will increase by several degrees occur over the next 50-100 years; 2.) progressive temperature increases over the past several decade may reflect global warming; 3.) average annual precipitation changes at the latitude of the watershed are predicted to range from about a 5% decrease to about a 5% increase over the next 50-100 years; 4.) individual precipitation events are likely to become severe with greater intensities and a change in the floodflow frequency- magnitude relationships. These general possible global warming influences on watershed processes were used to develop a possible global warning runoff scenario for the watershed. First we assumed that the general atmospheric warming would lead to about a 500 ft elevation increase in all of the precipitation zones as presented on the Precipitation Regime Map. Second we have assumed that rainfall intensities will be greater in the future but to an unknown magnitude of change. The possible global warning runoff scenario of the foregoing paragraph was used develop an assessment of the possible changes in channel conditions that global warming may entail. To the degree that recent changes in temperature and precipitation in the region may be related to global warming, this assessment may represent present changes in channel regime processes. To the degree that this scenario is based on assumptions, the results of the assessment should be viewed as offering a view of possible trends but that these trends may not to specifically related to the indicated elevation zones. Channel segments within the Snow Zone (above 6500 ft) should see essentially no change in channel forming flow magnitudes and remain largely unchanged during global warming. Channel segments within the Global Warming Rain on Snow Zone (6000-6500 ft) should have the greatest change in forming flow magnitudes as these segments will shift from snowmelt to rain on snow runoff regimes. These channel segments should undergo substantial channel enlargement and overall channel adjustments. This condition will be particularly evident in channel segments with bordering fluvial terraces and with channel margins otherwise subject to erosion, channel enlargement, and channel lateral migration. To the degree that channel changes entrain elevated levels of sediment production, these changes could be propagated downstream a cause secondary channel adjustment processes. Channel segments within the Rain on Snow Zone (4500-6000 ft) should see little change in channel forming flow magnitudes and remain largely unchanged during global warming because this area is a rain on snow zone in both present and potential global warming scenario. To the degree that future rain on snow runoff events may be more severe in the futures, there could be some increase in channel sizes. Channel segments within the Mixed Zone (3500-4500 ft) should see a reduction in channel forming flow magnitudes because this is a zone that changes from rain
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-137 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
on snow to rainfall regimes which should result in a decrease in floodflow magnitudes. These segments should and remain largely unchanged during global warming but with some possibility for aggradation and narrowing. Channel segments within the Rain Zone (below 4500 ft) should see increased rainfall intensities and increased floodflow frequencies and therefore leading to an enlarged channel network, increased floodflows, enlarged channels, and increased sediment production. These changes would be aggravated by land use development in this area with increased impervious cover and artificial channel density.
Stewardship Little information currently exists on the stream channels of the watershed. Similarly this information is among the most important for understanding of watershed processes and function and for stewardship of watershed key-resource in land use planning, resource management decision-making, and key-resource restoration. The following is a list of further work and tasks to improve the status of knowledge of channel conditions of the watershed that would facilitate the collaborative stewardship efforts of the ARWG.
STRATEGY 1: Develop a first approximation of the channel network of the watershed using methods of Montgomery and Dietrich (1988, 1989, 1992, 1994) which can be accomplished with the GIS data base and incorporates factors that will provide a reasonable approximation of the extend of the present channel network.
STRATEGY 2: The ARWG should initiate a collaborative effort to, and complete over several years, an inventory of hydrographic information to include baseflow presence, springs, seeps, and areas of later season streamflow support, etc., using a structured, protocol-driven process. This will support other efforts to develop a watershed -wide understanding of watershed process and function and in conjunction with a WEHY modeling effort.
STRATEGY 3: the ARWG should initiate a collaborative effort to, and complete over several years, an inventory of channel conditions and channel forming processes following a process-based system such as that of Montgomery and Buffington (1993, 1997, 1998) so that the inventory can: 1.) support and supplement the various channel classification methods used by various agencies; 2.) be related to hillslope and watershed evolutionary presses; 3.) be integrated into the general watershed assessment by using a several-tiered hierarchical approach; 4.) be integrated into inventories of watershed key-resources and the channel-related dependent key-resources; 5.) be used independently for land use and resource management by agencies without agencies-specific methods; 6.) be used as the basis for mitigation and restoration projects and as an element in a WEHY modeling effort of the watershed to characterize watershed processes; and 7.)be used as a portion of a cumulative impacts assessment that any agency may undertake.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-138 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
STRATEGY 4: The ARWG should work with the land use agencies to combine land uses found on SACOG’s regional land use map into categories reflective of development density; rank these development densities by their relative potential to modify channel characteristics. A map of this ranking should be developed to show portions of the watershed that may be presently, and/or may in the future, experience changed channel conditions which may be adversely influencing watershed key-resources, to identify areas of potential restoration project, and to use in conjunction with other analytic elements in an advanced watershed assessment.
Channels References Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Riparian Area Management; Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. USDI/BLM Technical Reference 1737-9 (revised 1995). 51 p. Carlston, C.W., 1963; Drainage density and streamflow; physiographic and hydraulic studies of rivers. US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 422-C, p. C- to C-9. Costa, J.E., 1987; Hydraulics and basin morphometry of the largest flash floods in the coterminous United States. Journal of Hydrology, v.93, p.313-338. Frissell, C.A, W.J. Liss, C.E. Warren, and M.D. Hurly. 1986. A hierarchial framework for stream habitat classification; viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management, v.10, p.199- 214. Kondolf, G.M. 1995. Geomorphological stream channel classification in aquatic habitat restoration: uses and limitations. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 5, p.127-141. Montgomery, D.R and J.M Buffington. 1998. Channel processes, classification, and response. In Naiman, R.J. and R.E. Bilby (Eds.). River Ecology and Management; Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecosystem, Springer-Verlag, New York, p.13-42. Montgomery, D.R and J.M Buffington. 1997. Channel reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.109, p.596-611. Montgomery, D.R and J.M Buffington. 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel response, and assessment of channel conditions. Washington State Timber/Fish/Wildlife, Report TFW-SH10-93- 002. 84 pp. plus figures. Montgomery, D.R., and W.E Dietrich, 1988; Where do channel begin? Nature, v.336, p.232-234. Montgomery, D.R., and W.E Dietrich, 1989; Source areas, drainage density, and channel initiation. Water Resources Research, v.25, p.1907-1918. Montgomery, D.R., and W.E Dietrich, 1992; Channel initiation and the problem of landscape scale. Science, v.255, p.826-830 Montgomery, D.R., and W.E Dietrich, 1994; Landscape dissection and drainage-slope thresholds. P.221- 246. In: Kriby, M.J. (Ed) Process Models and Theoretical Geomorphology. J. Wilry. Montgomery, D.R., and E. Foufoula-Georgiou, 1993; Channel networks source representation using digital elevation models. Water resources research, v.29, p.1925-1934. Patton, P.C, and V.R. Baker, 1976; Morphometry and floods in small drainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controls. Water Resources research, v.12, p.941-952. Rodriguez-Iturbe, I, and A. Rinaldo, 1997; Fractal river basins; chance and self-organizations. Cambridge Univ. Press. 547 pp.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-139 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Mosley, M.P. 1987. The classification and characteristics of rivers. In Richards, K. (Ed.), River Channels, Environment and Process, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p.295-320. Naiman, R.J. and R.E. Bilby (Eds.). 1998. River Ecology and Management; Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecosystem, Springer-Verlag, New York, 705 p. Nakamura, F., F.J. Swanson, and S.M. Wondzell, 2000; Disturbance regimes of stream and riparian systems - a disturbance-cascade perspective. Hydrological Processes, v.14, p.2849-2860. Pitlick, J. 1994. Relation between peak flow, precipitation, and physiography for five mountainous regions in western USA. Journal of Hydrology, v.158, p.219-240. Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena, v.22, p.169-199. US Forest Service. 1996. Stream Condition Inventory (Version 3.4), Pacific Southwest Region. 113 p. Whiting, P.J. and J.B. Bradely. 1993. A process-based classification system for headwater streams. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v.18, p.603-612.
Erosion Hazards Background Erosion hazards and sediment production has been assumed to be significant aspects of channel conditions of the watershed and the relationship of channel conditions to aquatic habitat, aquatic watershed key-resources and other watershed key-resources associated with channel conditions. As explained in other portions of this watershed assessment section, too little information exists in the watershed related to many of the watershed key-resources and the relationship of channel conditions to key-resource presence, conditions and status. This factor and the budget limitation for GIS efforts, the assessment of erosion hazard and sediment production in this assessment has been limited to risks associated with wildland fire. Wildland fire threat and catastrophic fires was considered an important concern of the ARWG. This assessment was designed to fit into fuels management stewardship projects by the ARWG. Even though this assessment targets erosion hazard and sediment production associated with wildland fires, the assessment has been structures such that in the future, many other erosion hazard potential can be developed using the GIS data base.
Watershed Assessment The watershed assessment for the watershed was developed by combining fuel and potential wildland fire intensity, with erosion potential to identify a range of threats to erosion and sediment production across the watershed as a result of possible wildland fires. The following discussion was taken from a statewide assessment and conversations with CDF Forest Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) specialist Dave Sapsis, who prepared the base data files for this watershed assessment. Catastrophic wildland fire is an important watershed stewardship issue. Within the modern-era forest stand regimes, that is, those with a long history of aggressive fire suppression, uncontrolled wildland fires can lead to stand-replacing fire events and fires that can have severe consequences along the urban/forest interface. Therefore in the
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-140 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
watershed, wildland fires can have important consequences to wildlife habitat, watershed hydrological values, and can be a major threat to life and property. The watershed Stewardship Strategy for fire and fuels depends on an assessment of fire intensity, fire rotation, and fire risk. These factors inter-relate to determine relative risk to fires and the impact of fires on the landscape or on specific natural or cultural resource assets. Fire intensity is representative of potential fire behavior which is estimated from fuelbed, slope, and severe fire weather conditions. Fire rotation is representative roughly of expected fire frequency, or likelihood or risk of fire occurrence, in a given modern-era vegetation land-type in a given bioregion. Fire risk is a single composite index that integrates both fire likelihood (rotation) and fire intensity (potential fire behavior) within the context of some specific asset or resource that may be affected by wildland fire. As background on the wildland fire conditions in the watershed, CDF FRAP conducted wildland fire modeling using the existing vegetation in the watershed, and assessed “fire intensity” using the DEM of the watershed and characteristic severe fire weather. “Fire rotation” was assessed using the several vegetation land-types found in the watershed region and as applied to the Sierra bioregion. “Fire threat” was assessed by combining “fire intensity” and “fire rotation.” 1) Map 2-51 Wildland Fire: Potential Intensity [HYPERLINK]. Fire intensity refers directly to the energy released from combustion at the fire front. It is based on “potential fire behavior” which in turn refers to the characteristics of the fire itself including its spread rate, flame length, amount of fuel consumed, and smoke produced. As a measure of intensity, it reflects the difficulty of fire suppression and the manner with which they are fought. Intensity also generally defines fire severity because with greater intensity, fires result in greater degrees of affect on biological and physical conditions and resources. For example, low intensity, slow moving, understory fires are not only more easily suppressed, they are unlikely to kill large mature trees or cause significant changes to soil structure. In the CDF assessment, estimated fire intensity results from a two-step process. First, fire-front combustion energy estimates are generated from a relation between a surface fuel model and slope classes under conditions of severe fire weather. This provides an estimate of fire behavior in terms of flame length and rate of fire spread. The continuum of possible combinations of flame length and rate of spread are placed into classes based on how these factors inter-relate to derive fire suppression strategies. These classes rank fire intensities and are generally the basis for ranking fires for potential severity depending on the resource or asset at risk. The second step of this assessment relates measures of ladder fuels and forest crown conditions to incorporate the consequences on fire front intensity if a ground fire (first step) climbs into the forest crown. These factors were incorporated using the initial vegetation map. Where crown fire potential was determined to exist, the fire intensity classes from the first step were increased by one class. With this second step, flame length is no longer an explicit factor because crown fires can have flame lengths up to hundreds of feet and any crown fire entails limited suppression strategies as well as the very high potential severity to any particular asset.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-141 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
This modeling process results in most of the areas of the watershed with Very High and High potential fire intensities are in the mid and lower elevations. 2) Map 2-52 Erosion Hazard: Soil and Slope Parameters. [HYPERLINK] The determination of soil erosion hazards associated with wildland fire was developed from the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) NASIS SSURGO data base. It is important to note that the NRCS considers the soil-map polygons and the assigned soil attributes of the National Forest soil surveys to not be SSURGO-certified; that is, until they are edited and attributed to NRCS SSURGO standards, both the map unit boundaries and the soil attribute assigned should be considered as draft material. During a SSURGO certification process there could be some changes in National Forest soil attributes. For the present, these “draft” soil surveys and attributions are probably adequate for watershed-scale assessment (Stanislewski, personal communication). The fuzzy attribute values for erosion risk assigned by the NRCS to soil-map units for “Hazard of Off-Road or Off-Trail Erosion” were used in this assessment. This factor was selected because it is functionally defined as erosion hazards when 50-75% of the soil-cover has been removed. This closely represented the post-wildland fire condition when crowning fires have occurred. These values are found on the SSURGO database Table FOR-2. These fuzzy logic values incorporate a variety of soil-physical attributes and slope. These values are assigned to the entire soil-map units and no subsequent are-weighted averaging was necessary. These values range form 0.0001 for rockland areas, to 1.00 for areas with very high erosion susceptibility. This assessment step as mapped indicates that the areas of the watershed most susceptible to erosion hazards from a removed vegetation cover are in the main canyons of the mid elevations of the watershed. Very Severe and Severe erosion hazards occupy broad regions of these canyon settings and indicate that slope factors are more significant to the results than soil parameters. Moderate erosion hazards make up most of the rest of the watershed. 3) Map 2-53 Precipitation Intensity: 2 year-6 hour Storm [HYPERLINK]. An element that contributes to erosion hazard that was not incorporated by the soil and slope parameters (above) was the rainfall energy associated with the detachment of surface soil particle that are then available for downslope transport. NOAA’s 2 year-6 hr rainfall map for the watershed shows that total precipitation events for this storm type range from less than 1.6 inches at the lowest elevations to about 2.5 inches in the higher uplands of the mid to higher watershed elevation. There was a slight reduction in storm total along the crest. The areas of greatest storm total occur on the ridges north of the NF American and between the NF and MF American subwatersheds. 4) Map 2-54 Erosion Hazard: Soil & Precipitation Parameters. [HYPERLINK] Combining soil (and slope) and precipitation parameters to develop a single value representing potential soil erosion due to the loss of vegetation cover was a two-stepped process.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-142 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
First, the 2 year-6 hr rainfall map for the watershed produced by NOAA was converted into a “rainfall energy” factor by using the conversion used by the NRCS in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). The “rainfall energy” was calculated as follows: 2yr/6hr precip. rainfall energy factor 1.2 25 1.3 30 1.4 35 1.5 40 1.6 45 1.7 50 1.8 60 1.9 65 2.0 75 2.1 85 2.2 90 2.3 100 2.4 110 2.5 120 2.6 130 2.7 145 2.8 155
This resulted an individual rainfall energy value for each GIS 30-meter pixel in the watershed. Second for each GIS 30-meter pixel, the rainfall value was multiplied by the fuzzy erosion hazard assigned by the NRCS for each soil-map unit. The result of this second step was a range in values from nearly 0 to 130, which were associated with each GIS 30-meter pixel. These values were categorized into 4 groups based on an even value range. The mapped result of these steps show that the greatest potential erosion hazard for areas with lost vegetation cover is largely driven by the rainfall energy and where slopes and soil parameters are also are more highly prone to erosion. These areas are largely in the mid to higher elevations of the North Fork of the North Fork American, the NF American, and the North Fork of the Middle Fork drainages. Medium to higher hazards occur across most of the watershed of the mid and higher watershed elevation. At lower watershed elevation erosion hazards are lower due to low rainfall energies. 5) Map 2-55 Wildland Fire: Potential Erosion Hazard. [HYPERLINK] This step combines the relative erosion hazards in #4 above with potential fire intensity in #1 above. This was accomplished with a matrix that directly relates these two factors as follows.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-143 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Matrix used to develop Wildland Fire: Potential Erosion Hazard
Wildland Fire: Potential Intensity
Rockland Moderate High V. High
0-33 | Rockland Rockland Rockland Rockland Erosion Hazard 34-67 | Mod. Mod High High Soil & Precipitation 68-100 | Mod. High V. High V. High Parameters 101-130 | Mod. High V. High Extreme
These matrix values were mapped using GIS. The result refines areas of Extreme wildland fire erosion risks are in the steeper portion of the North Fork of the North Fork, scattered locations along the NF American and limited areas of the North Fork of the Middle Fork American drainages. High wildland fire erosion risks occupy larger areas and mostly on south-facing canyon slopes in the mid elevations of the watershed. This map should provide a good watershed-scale assessment of target stewardship project sites for effective fuel load reduction.
Stewardship While erosion hazards for wildland fire was the only erosion issue addressed in this assessment, in the process of developing this assessment the GIS data have been developed to the point that many other erosion hazard assessment can now be easily undertaken by the ARWG. The following are some follow-on stewardship strategies for erosion hazards.
STRATEGY 1: Conduct a peer review of the foregoing assessment with technical staff of CDF, USFS, and NRCS.
STRATEGY 2: Collaborate with CDF and USFS fire scientists to determine whether and, if so, how to incorporate fire likelihood into the foregoing assessment and to develop as a more refined fuels stewardship project prioritization process.
STRATEGY 3: Work with NRCS to reduce the soil-map unit combined soil-type erosion hazard values to those associated with each of the soil-types in the watershed. This will allow this assessment process to be used at finer site scales for fuels projects when site soil information is known at more detail than the soil- map units.
STRATEGY 4: Use the Wildland Fire: Potential Erosion Hazard assessment for identifying and prioritizing possible fuel modification projects.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-144 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
STRATEGY 5: The ARWG should encourage other agencies concerned with fires and fuels to use this assessment as a representation of ARWG watershed assets.
STRATEGY 6: The ARWG should use the GIS and the SSURGO data bases to develop similar assessment for many other erosion hazard risks.
STRATEGY 7: The ARWG should work with the NRCS to use the SSURGO database to develop estimates of natural sediment production to integrate with other ongoing watershed assessment steps such as hillslope processes and channel conditions and processes, etc.
PHASE 3 – THIRD GENERATION GIS PRODUCTS Placer County Fire Safe Council GIS Assessment Fire Safe Councils are voluntary organizations that steward fire safety issues within communities, and act as conveners for dialogue on this issue among citizen stakeholders, business interests, nonprofit and other organizations, and agencies which either have authority in fire related areas or are generally concerned about the fire issue. Placer County has experienced over the past several years the blossoming of six community Fire Safe Councils, with several additional communities in the organizational phase of FSC development at the time of this writing. Fire Safe Councils have organized in the following areas: Auburn, Placer Hills (Meadow Vista, Applegate, Weimar), Colfax, Alta, Iowa Hill, and Foresthill. Organizational efforts are underway in Loomis, Granite Bay, and the Rocklin areas. The Firesafe Ecosystem Strategy is the highest priority for the American River Watershed Group. Fire Safety is the key resource issue that is embedded in the mission of the organization. As its primary Stewardship Strategy (refer to Chapter 4-14 through 4- 24) ARWG has supported the creation of Fire Safe Councils as the principle mechanism of outreach to local landowners and businesses in the watershed. Simultaneously, ARWG was instrumental along with PCRCD, NRCS, CDF, BLM, and the various fire departments and districts in forming the Placer County Fire Safe Alliance (PCFSA). Several of ARWG’s Standing Committees merged into the PCFSA (refer to pages 4-14 through 4-16). The Firesafe Ecosystem Strategy of addressing key watershed issues through the Fire Safe Councils and PCFSA had a fundamental impact on the approach to the GIS data assemblage. Because most Placer County foothill communities literally straddle the American River watershed and the Bear River watershed or Auburn Ravine/Coon Creek watershed boundaries, the scope of the data assemblage changed from a data base bounded by the American River Watershed to a regional data set that could provide the needed information. The human communities that are the social and economic components of the American River Watershed encompass areas broader than the American River. Hence the decision was made to use the regional approach to data. This approach was brought to ARWG in a series of presentations in Fall 2001.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-145 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Map 2-56 Placer County Fire Safe Councils: Vegetation Types (HYPERLINK) shows the six currently formed Fire Safe Councils. The map also shows the broad vegetation types over the six FSC’s. All six councils are primarily Sierran Mixed Conifer zone, with some Urban-Agriculture zone around the Auburn area, and Montane Hardwood zone and Mixed Chapparal zone on the south facing canyon slopes. Map 2-57 Placer County Fire Safe Councils: Fuel Hazard Ranking (HYPERLINK) shows all of the six FSC’s are in the medium to very high fuel hazard ranking. A band of Very High Fuel Hazard ranking runs from Foresthill through Iowa Hill to Alta/Dutch Flat following an elevational line. Very High Fuel Hazard ranking dominate the American River canyonlands, and upper elevation portions of the Bear River Canyon. Next Steps: The GIS capacities that have been developed for this Category III CALFED grant are now available to ARWG, PCFSA, the six Fire Safe Councils, and any organization within the areas of the regional data set described in Phase II. The PCFSA Coordinator and the ARWG Coordinator should develop programs focused on site specific applications that assist landowners, businesses and agencies to implement the Stewardship Strategies indicated in Chapters 4 and 5.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-146 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Greater Auburn Area Fire Safe Council GIS Map Assessment Map 2-58 Greater Auburn Area Fire Safe Council Base Map (HYPERLINK) indicates locations of roads, streams, highways, railroads, GAAFSC boundary and waterways on a shaded relief background. Map 2-59 GAAFSC: Contour Map (HYPERLINK) shows the waterways, and uses shaded relief and contour lines to present changes in elevation. The notable feature is the steep canyonland along the American River which serves as the southeast boundary of the FSC. Map 2-60 GAAFSC: Elevation Schematic (HYPERLINK) uses a relative color scheme to indicate elevation. The notable feature is the network of smaller streams canyons that run throughout the FSC. Small stream canyons can be associated with vegetation patterns which can contribute to a fire hazard factor known as the “chimney effect”. Map 2-61 GAAFSC: Fire History (HYPERLINK) catalogs historical fires over the past century. It can be inferred that fires are concentrated in the steep American River canyonlands. Map 2-62 GAAFSC: Fuel Model (HYPERLINK) for the Auburn area shows principally grassland and brush at this lower elevation, with areas of oak woodland and mixed conifer. Map 2-63 GAAFSC: Fuel Hazard Ranking (HYPERLINK) is a CDF analytic tool that uses a number of factors to assign a fire hazard ranking to areas, including vegetation, slope, climatic factors, etc. The Auburn area has three levels of hazard, with the following acreage: Medium 3290 acres, High 6028 acres, and Very High 6107 acres. The Very High Hazard ranking occurs sporadically throughout the entire FSC, with high concentration in the American River Canyon. This hazard ranking can be correlated with other data such as parcel location and density, jurisdiction patterns, and roads to identify priority areas of need. Map 2-64 GAAFSC: (HYPERLINK) indicates the City of Auburn boundary coincides with federal agency ownership (Bureau of Reclamation) on the edge of the American River Canyon. Auburn is otherwise surrounded by privately owned land. The partnership among BOR, CA State Parks, CDF and City of Auburn began meeting intensively during the summer of 2001 to address this critical urban/wildland interface fire safety issue. Ongoing meetings among the agencies and with the GAAFSC planning process will result in a Canyonland plan for fire safety. Map 2-65 GAAFSC: Placer County General Plan Zoning Designation (HYPERLINK) shows the relative high urban density zoning in the urban Auburn area. The urban/wildland interface boundary is notably abrupt, with no zoning buffer indicated.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-147 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Placer Hills Fire Safe Council GIS Map Assessment Map 2-66 Placer Hills Fire Safe Council: Base Map (HYPERLINK) indicates locations of roads, streams, highways, railroads, PHFSC boundary and waterways on a shaded relief background. Interstate 80 is a notable feature that bisects the PHFSC. Map 2-67 PHFSC: Contour Map (HYPERLINK) shows the waterways, and uses shaded relief and contour lines to present changes in elevation. The notable feature are the steep canyonlands along the American River and the Bear River which serve as the southeast and northwest boundaries, respectively, of the PHFSC. Map 2-68 PHFSC: Elevation Schematic (HYPERLINK) uses a relative color scheme to indicate elevation. The notable feature is the network of smaller streams canyons that run throughout the FSC. Small stream canyons can be associated with vegetation patterns which can contribute to a fire hazard factor known as the “chimney effect”. These stream canyons run primarily from the two major river boundaries up toward the transportation and population corridor that bisects the PHFSC. Map 2-69 PHFSC Fire History (HYPERLINK) catalogs historical fires over the past century. It can be inferred that fires are concentrated in the steep American River and the Bear River canyonlands. Clipper Creek and Bunch Canyon are notable fire area that illustrate the “chimney effect”. Map 2-70 PHFSC: Fuel Model (HYPERLINK) for the Meadow Vista to Weimar area generally shows mixed areas of oak woodland and mixed conifer throughout. Mixed conifer covers the north facing canyonlands Map 2-71 PHFSC: Fuel Hazard Rank (HYPERLINK) is a CDF analytic tool that uses a number of factors to assign a fire hazard ranking to areas, including vegetation, slope, climatic factors, etc. The Meadow Vista to Weimar area has three levels of hazard, with the following acreage: Medium 5830 acres, High 13,715 acres, and Very High 8226 acres. The Very High Hazard ranking occurs sporadically throughout the entire FSC, with high concentration in the American River Canyon. This hazard ranking can be correlated with other data such as parcel location and density, jurisdiction patterns, and roads to identify priority areas of need. Very high hazard ranking can be seen in the tributaries to the American River running up toward the dense population areas of the ridgetop. Map 2-71 PHFSC: Ownership (HYPERLINK) indicates federal ownership (BOR) of the American River canyonlands. Map 2-73 PHFSC: Placer County General Plan Zoning Designation (HYPERLINK) shows the relative high urban density zoning for the entire corridor between the Bear River and the BOR owned and managed American River Canyonlands. The urban/wildland interface boundary is notably abrupt, with no zoning buffer indicated. The parcel information shows open spaces areas zoned for relatively high residential density. This map suggests that the buildout pattern of the PHFSC will be identical to the pattern in the Auburn area, where dense urban areas meet high fire hazard wildland with no interface or buffer zone indicated.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-148 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Greater Colfax Area Fire Safe Council GIS Map Assessment Map 2-74 Greater Colfax Area Fire Safe Council: Base Map (HYPERLINK) indicates locations of roads, streams, highways, railroads, GCAFSC boundary and waterways on a shaded relief background. Interstate 80 is a notable feature that bisects the GCAFSC; the second highway corridor of State Highway 174 goes north toward Grass Valley. The Interstate 80 and railroad corridor is located on a ridgeline, the watershed boundary between American and Bear Rivers. Map 2-75 GCAFSC: Elevation Schematic (HYPERLINK). uses a relative color scheme to indicate elevation. The notable feature is the network of smaller streams canyons that run primarily from the two major river boundaries up toward the transportation and population corridor that bisects the GCAFSC. Small stream canyons can be associated with vegetation patterns which can contribute to a fire hazard factor known as the “chimney effect”. The notable features are the steep canyonlands along the American River and the Bear River, similar to the Placer Hills Fire Safe Council. Map 2-76 GCAFSC: Historical Fires (HYPERLINK) catalogs historical fires over the past century. It is notable that historical fires have not occurred on the Colfax sides of either the American River or the Bear River canyons. Map 2-77 GCAFSC: Fuel Model (HYPERLINK) for the Colfax area generally shows mixed areas of oak woodland and mixed conifer throughout. Mixed conifer covers the north facing canyonlands and the higher elevations to the northeast of the FSC. Map 2-78 GCAFSC: Fuel Hazard Ranking (HYPERLINK) is a CDF analytic tool that uses a number of factors to assign a fire hazard ranking to areas, including vegetation, slope, climatic factors, etc. The Colfax area has three levels of hazard, with the following acreage: Medium 3294 acres, High 6028 acres, and Very High 6107 acres. The Very High Hazard ranking occurs sporadically throughout the entire FSC, with high concentration in the American River Canyon, as well as the entire northern portion of the FSC in the Cape Horn/Magra area. This hazard ranking can be correlated with other data such as parcel location and density, jurisdiction patterns, and roads to identify priority areas of need. Very high hazard ranking can be seen on the north facing slopes of Rollins Lake. The steep grade on Interstate 80 between Colfax and Magra/Dutch Flat is a very hazard ranked area. Map 2-79 GCAFSC: Ownership (HYPERLINK) indicates federal ownership (BOR and BLM) of the American River canyonlands, and scattered BLM ownership in the Bear River Canyon. Map 2-80 GCAFSC: Placer County General Plan Zoning Designation (HYPERLINK) shows the relative high urban density zoning for the entire corridor between the Bear River and the BOR and BLM owned and managed American River Canyonlands. The Bear River Canyon shows an area managed for recreation and open space along the river. The urban/wildland interface boundary is notably abrupt, with no zoning buffer indicated. This is an extension of the high density buildout zoning that is located on the ridgetop between Metropolitan Sacramento through Auburn to Magra. The parcel information shows areas of low buildout which are zoned for future relatively high residential density. This map suggests that the buildout pattern of the GCAFSC will be similar to the pattern in the Auburn Area FSC and the PHFSC, where dense urban areas meet high fire hazard wildland with no interface or buffer zones along the canyonlands.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-149 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Alta Fire Safe Council GIS Map Assessment Map 2-81 Alta Fire Safe Council: Base Map (HYPERLINK) indicates locations of roads, streams, highways, railroads, AFSC boundary and waterways on a shaded relief background. Interstate 80 is a notable feature that bisects the AFSC. The Interstate 80 and railroad corridor is located on a ridgeline, the watershed boundary between American and Bear Rivers. The ridgetop area where the transportation corridor and population centers are located is more narrow in the AFSC than on lower elevation FSC’s like Colfax or Placer Hills. Map 2-82 AFSC: Elevation Schematic (HYPERLINK). uses a relative color scheme to indicate elevation. The notable feature is the network of smaller streams canyons that run primarily from the two major river boundaries up toward the transportation and population corridor that bisects the AFSC. On the narrow ridgetop, the population centers of Alta, Gold Run, Secret Town and Dutch Flat are perched above very steep terrain and at the headwaters of tributaries which can serve as fire chimneys. Map 2-83 AFSC: Fire History (HYPERLINK) catalogs historical fires over the past century. The fires followed the stream and steep canyons, illustrating the “chimney effect”. Map 2-84 AFSC: Fuel Model (HYPERLINK) for the AFSC area generally shows mixed conifer throughout, with brush dominating the south facing American River Canyonland. Map 2-85 AFSC: Fuel Hazard Map (HYPERLINK) is a CDF analytic tool that uses a number of factors to assign a fire hazard ranking to areas, including vegetation, slope, climatic factors, etc. The AFSC area has three levels of hazard, , but is dominated by the Very High Hazard Ranking. This hazard ranking can be correlated with other data such as parcel location and density, jurisdiction patterns, and roads to identify priority areas of need. Map 2-86 AFSC: Ownership (HYPERLINK) indicates a mosaic pattern of private ownership and federal ownership (BLM and USFS lands Map 2-87 AFSC: Placer County General Plan Zoning Designation (HYPERLINK) shows three islands of relatively high density surrounded by lower density agricultural and/or timberland zoning.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-150 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Iowa Hill Fire Safe Council GIS Map Assessment Map 2-88 Iowa Hill Fire Safe Council: Base Map (HYPERLINK) indicates locations of roads, streams, highways, railroads, IHFSC boundary and waterways on a shaded relief background. Located on the south slope and ridge of the American River Canyon, the IHFSC is bisected by Indian Creek. Map 2-89 IHFSC: Elevation Schematic (HYPERLINK). uses a relative color scheme to indicate elevation. The notable feature is Indian Creek and its smaller tributaries. Map 2-90 IHFSC: Historical Fires (HYPERLINK) catalogs historical fires over the past century. Multiple fires occurred in the American River Canyon. A fire surrounded the town of Iowa Hill in 1936, and burned most of the Ridge. The Ponderosa Fire in 2001 burned the western boundary of the IHFSC along the American River Canyon. Map 2-91 IHFSC: Fuel Hazard Ranking (HYPERLINK) is a CDF analytic tool that uses a number of factors to assign a fire hazard ranking to areas, including vegetation, slope, climatic factors, etc. The IHFSC area is dominated by the Very High Hazard Ranking. This hazard ranking can be correlated with other data such as parcel location and density, jurisdiction patterns, and roads to identify priority areas of need. Map 2-92 IHFSC: Fuel Model (HYPERLINK) for the IHFSC area generally shows mixed conifer throughout, with brush dominating the south facing American River Canyonland and Indian Creek. Map 2-93 IHFSC: Ownership (HYPERLINK) indicates a mosaic pattern of private ownership and federal ownership (BLM and USFS lands). Map 2-94 IHFSC: Placer County General Plan Zoning Designation (HYPERLINK) shows very small high density zoning for the town of Iowa Hill surrounded by lower density agricultural and/or timberland zoning.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-151 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Foresthill Fire Safe Council GIS Map Assessment Map 2-95 Foresthill Fire Safe Council: Base Map (HYPERLINK) indicates locations of roads, streams, highways, railroads, IHFSC boundary and waterways on a shaded relief background. The FFSC is located on the ridge between the North and Middle Forks of the American River. Map 2-96 FFSC: Elevation Schematic (HYPERLINK). uses a relative color scheme to indicate elevation. The notable feature is the network of smaller tributaries that run throughout the FSC area. Small stream canyons can be associated with vegetation patterns which can contribute to a fire hazard factor known as the “chimney effect”. Map 2-97 FFSC: Historical Fires (HYPERLINK) catalogs historical fires over the past century. Multiple fires occurred in the American River Canyon, and throughout the higher elevation areas of the FFSC. Map 2-98 FFSC: Fuel Model (HYPERLINK) for the FFSC area generally shows mixed conifer throughout, with brush and grasslands dominating the western portion near the confluence of the American. Map 2-99 FFSC: Fuel Hazard Rank (HYPERLINK) is a CDF analytic tool that uses a number of factors to assign a fire hazard ranking to areas, including vegetation, slope, climatic factors, etc. The southern portion exhibits a high and very high hazard ranking. The upper elevations are medium, with higher hazard ranking in the stream canyons. This hazard ranking can be correlated with other data such as parcel location and density, jurisdiction patterns, and roads to identify priority areas of need. Map 2-100 FFSC: Ownership (HYPERLINK) is dominated by federal ownership (BLM, BOR and USFS lands). There is an area of private ownership on the ridge surrounding Foresthill. There is a checkerboard pattern of commercial timberlands and USFS. Map 2-101 FFSC: Placer County General Plan Zoning Designation (HYPERLINK) shows medium density zoning from the town of Foresthill to the confluence of the American River. Lower density agricultural and/or timberland zoning comprises the remainder of FFSC.
GIS System Many people mistakenly believe that Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is simply a way to make maps of the watershed. In reality, GIS is a “set of tools for collecting, storing, retrieving at will, transforming, and displaying spatial data from the real world for a particular set of purposes.”9 In other words, GIS allows you to combine geographic locations – places on a map – with spatial information about those locations and their relationship to other locations. For example, with GIS you see not only the location of major roads within your county, as printed out on a map, but you also have access to information about those roads – such as the name, width, surface type, maintenance schedule, etc. – through a linked database. It is this linking of location and background data that makes GIS so powerful.
9 P.A. Burrough, Principles of Geographic Information Systems for Land Resources Assessment, 1986.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-152 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The American River Watershed Group now has a full GIS system available for use at the Placer County RCD office on Auburn; likewise, the American River Watershed Institute has a full GIS system with five software site licenses. The system uses ArcMap 8.2 software from ESRI, the Environmental Systems Research Institute, which is the most recent version of the software at this point in time. In addition to the software, the RCD office and ARWI host digital copies of all the individual data layers used in this analysis and evaluation, as well as hard copies and digital copies of this report, including associated maps and other graphics. This data is available upon request from the RCD for the cost of reproduction. While the Placer County RCD office is the current repository for all this data, the project team is working on an agreement with Sierra College to host the data through an FTP site at the college as part of a regional GIS data library. This would make individual data layers and analytical information more readily accessible to watershed stakeholders, students, agency personnel and others who may be interested.
Additional Watershed Assessment and Data Analysis To help develop a more complete picture of the watershed, especially in terms of socio-economic issues, the team contracted with specialists in the watershed for additional research on human history (Douglas Ferrier), census demographics, biomass utilization (Tom Amesbury) and hydrology (Jack Humphrey). Those analyses appear below.
10 HUMAN HISTORY IN THE WATERSHED What we view today as the American River Watershed probably received its last significant sculpturing around 1700 to 1750, when the last Little Ice Age glaciers were at their maximum coverage (1). Since that time, the principal features of mountains, ridges and drainages have remained the same, although in some cases they have been highly disturbed. While not of the scale of the geologic past, where whole new mountains arose and entire drainage patterns rerouted, the history of man within the watershed has significantly affected the appearance of what we see today. Evidence of man’s presence within the state of California dates back at least 10,000 years ago, and probably much earlier. Prior to about 8,000 years ago, all evidence points to these people employing a hunting based life style. Long term habitation of specific areas was probably minimal, with transitory visitation of areas being the norm. Between 8,000 and 5,000 years ago, a changeover occurred in lifestyle, in which seed collection supplemented hunting as the dominant food gathering method. This lifestyle probably also resulted in a transitory life, but with less of an area being needed to support an individual, as each acre seasonally had both a hunting and seed gathering component. From 5,000 years ago to about 150 years ago, California Indian cultures further diversified utilizing different hunting, fishing and seed gathering techniques. This
10 Researched and written by Douglas Ferrier
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-153 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
resulted in village sites being used year around, with only various size groups leaving the immediate area seasonally to hunt, gather seeds, or trade with others.(2) Two Indian cultural groups used the American River watershed area. The first, the Nisenan, lived year around in large family groups or extended family groups in the area roughly from Illinoistown (Colfax) down to the lower elevations of watershed, and from roughly Foresthill and Georgetown down to the confluence of the North Fork and the Middle Fork on the Foresthill Divide. Seasonally, the Nisenan would move 15 to 20 miles higher in the mountains to hunt and gather ripening seeds. The second group, the Washoe, lived permanently in lower elevational valleys east of Tahoe, but during spring to fall, moved higher into Tahoe Basin and over onto the west side of the Sierra crest, to hunt, gather acorns, and trade with other groups. No estimates of early day populations have been seen for the American River watershed, but with estimates being only 9,000 people for an area from Feather River to the Consumes River(3), it is doubtful that any more than 1,500 to 2,000 people lived at least seasonally in the area. Although not a large population, these early people did have an impact to the watershed. Their use of fire as a tool to remove brush and small trees for hunting and seed gathering purposes led to a more open canopy landscape with greater amounts of grass than would have naturally occurred on area ridges and moderate side slopes, particularly around springs and other wet areas. This probably occurred in areas lower than 3,500-foot elevation within the American River watershed. The first non-native group to see the American River watershed was probably Jedediah Smith, the American explorer/fur trader, who, in 1827, led a group of fur traders up the American River drainage in search of a trail across the Sierra (4). Earlier Mexican or Spanish explorers had undoubtedly been in the area of the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers, but had not traveled significantly upstream on the American. Significant movement of non-native people into the American River watershed did not occur until after the February 1848 discovery of gold by James Marshall, at Coloma, on the South Fork American River. This discovery of gold would set in motion a series of events that would leave few, if any, of the drainages of the American River watershed undisturbed, particularly those under 6,000 Plate 1: Poverty Bar on the Middle Fork American feet in elevation. River, 1858; Photograph from Placer County Archives
After the gold discovery in 1848, gold mining in that year would mainly involve panning easily found gold at the bottom of the larger area rivers and creeks. Groups of miners moved up the various forks of the American River, finding easily recoverable deposits in most areas. By 1849, most of the easily recoverable gold had been removed and more labor intense methods of mining were needed to recover the gold. In an extraordinary series of photographs taken by early day pioneer photographer Charles L. Weed, in 1858, the intense mining operations along the Middle Fork American River can
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-154 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
by seen. In places, the entire river is rerouted into wooden flumes, and the original channel and adjacent banks were then mined for their precious metals (see Plate 1). These same type of operations occurred on the North and South Forks as well. By the early 1850s, the major side drainages of the American River had also been discovered to have recoverable gold resources. These included Shirttail Canyon, Indian Creek, Canyon Creek, Blue Canyon Creek, and Humbug Creek on the North Fork; Todd Creek, Canyon Creek, Otter Creek, Volcano Canyon, El Dorado Canyon, Peavine Creek, and Rubicon River on the Middle Fork. Major towns sprang up within the watershed to support the miners and their gold mining: Auburn, Illinoistown, Georgetown, Volcanoville, Yankee Jim, Foresthill, Iowa Hill, Gold Run, and Michigan Bluff were all substantial gold mining towns during this era. Prior to 1848, today’s Placer County probably had no more than 2-3,000 people in it (almost all California Indians). By 1852, Placer County had a population of 10,784 (5). By 1860, it had grown to 13,270 (6). Of these totals, at least 8,000 were probably in the American River watershed from 1852 on. In 1853, hydraulic gold mining was invented as a method to be used to economically mine the gold found in the tertiary gravels of the watershed. These gravels were laid down in river channels up to 50 million years ago, long before today’s Sierra Nevada mountains arose (7). These ancient channels were located above today’s watercourses, on dry hill slopes, and covered over by varying depths of volcanic debris and soils. To expose the ancient channels and to be able to wash the gold out of the gravels, large quantities of water were used, under pressure, to wash the hill sides away. The resulting debris and gravel with most of its gold removed, was then dumped into the nearest adjacent watercourse (See Plate 2 below). Although the North and Middle Forks of the American River have since passed most of this debris and gravel downstream and out of the watershed, many of the principal side drainages still hold significant amounts of this historical debris. To work at its maximum efficiency, hydraulic mining demanded huge amounts of water. To satisfy this demand, water companies were formed that built ditches to bring water from drainages located higher in the mountains. Although most water stayed within the overall American River watershed, significant amounts of water were moved from one smaller drainage to another. An exception was water taken out of the adjacent Bear River and South Fork Yuba River watersheds and eventually dumped into the Canyon Creek drainage, a tributary of the North Fork American River. Small mountain dams were also built to assist in the water collection and transport to mining areas.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-155 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Wagon roads to connect area mining towns were also built during this period between 1850 and 1870. Roads would eventually cross the North Fork to connect Colfax and Auburn, with Iowa Hill, Yankee Jim and Foresthill. The Middle Fork would be crossed by wagon roads that eventually ran to Georgetown. The Central Pacific Railroad was also built partly through a portion of the American River watershed (between the towns of Alta and Emigrant Gap).
Plate 2: Hydraulic Mining at Gold Run and Emigrant Gap; Photograph from Golden Drift Historical Society
With the increased population and mining activity, lumbering of forests within the American River watershed was necessary to supply wood for houses and businesses, and for the mines themselves. The building of the Central Pacific Railroad in 1866, as it ran up the divide between the Bear River and the North Fork American River, required large amounts of lumber as well. To connect the forest with the various communities and markets for selling the lumber, additional wagon roads were built. In one case, a narrow gauge steam railroad was built in a portion of the Canyon Creek watershed, as a part of the much larger Towle Brothers Lumber Company operations out of the town of Towle (originally started in the Bear River watershed). The gold mining era (generally 1848-1884) had a profound impact on the American River Watershed. Watershed drainages were in some cases dumped full of mining debris and washed gravel; natural flows of drainages were disrupted by water withdrawals through ditches and water being sent downhill to other drainages; wagon roads were built across drainages with little regard to erosion prevention features on them; watershed forests were at least partially harvested to provide lumber to surrounding towns and out of area lumber markets. In 1884, hydraulic mining was significantly restricted by a Federal court case, known as the Sawyer Decision. Although it did not outright ban the use of hydraulic mining, it put severe restrictions on what could be done with the debris from washing the gravel hill sides. No longer could large boulders and gravel be dumped into existing drainages, but instead had to be held in areas where the boulders, silt and gravel had time to settle out, before water could return to a watercourse. For many areas of the American River watershed, this made gold mining uneconomic, and many mines closed or worked only at a much reduced scale and by methods other than by hydraulic mining. With the reduction in hydraulic mining in the area, the mining population slowly moved away, looking for employment in other areas of the state. No longer were extensive water ditch systems needed to bring water from the high country down to the
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-156 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
mining belt. However, some of these systems were kept at least partially running to supply newly planted fruit orchards with water. These orchards were planted in the foothills in the hopes of starting a new industry that could partially replace the area gold mining. These new fruit growing areas included Auburn to Baxter north of the North Fork, and up to Baker Ranch between the Middle Fork and the North Fork. The area between today’s Cool and Georgetown was also planted heavily with fruit trees. The end of the century saw logging expand into additional areas of the watershed. Where before logging was usually located near established communities or along existing access roads, now it moved into a new areas above Blue Canyon Creek in the Burnett Canyon, North Fork of the North Fork and East Fork of the North Fork American River. This would last into the 1920s. Logging also slowly moved up the Foresthill and Georgetown divides. The beginnings of the new century would bring changes to the American River watershed. Hydroelectric power was a coming thing, and many small electrical and water companies were brought together under the company name of Pacific Gas & Electric Company in 1905 (8). Although principally operating on the periphery of the American River watershed, they do have some ownership in it, which has, over the years, resulted in the enlargement of Lake Valley Reservoir and water deliveries and withdrawals to Canyon Creek, a tributary of the North Fork. Their overall operations showed what could be done to generate hydroelectric power, which eventually led to the building of the Middle Fork Project by the Placer County Water Agency in the early 1960s. This project involved the building of French Meadows Reservoir on the Middle Fork and Hell Hole Reservoir on the Rubicon River, plus numerous pipelines and powerhouses. In 1964, during construction of the Hell Hole Reservoir, the coffer dam washed out and the resulting flood waters washed out the Highway 49 bridge just below Auburn. Scars from these flood waters can still be seen today on the sides of the canyon. In 1906, the Federal Government created Tahoe National Forest to help conserve the natural resources in the area (9). From what used to be the public domain, now became the single largest landowner within the American River watershed. Most private land within the watershed either derives from the original Central Pacific Railroad land grants that were eventually sold off over time to various owners, or from proving up on area townsites, patented mining claims, or lands never withdrawn from the public domain. The period of 1920 to World War II saw little significant increases in human activity in the watershed. Lake Clementine, on the North Fork, was completed and started operations as a debris holding reservoir in 1937. However after WWII, there was a significant increase in timber harvesting on federal land due to the pent up demand for housing and the need for lumber across the entire country. New roads were built into areas formerly inaccessible and a new round of building sawmills occurred, particularly on the Foresthill and Georgetown divides. As the century moved on into the ‘60s and ‘70s, larger family land ownerships were sold off, subdivided and built on as new private residences. Todd Valley became a major residential area on Foresthill Divide, while Auburn Lakes Trail did the same on Georgetown Divide. Undeveloped outlying areas from existing towns also came under
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-157 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy pressure to become residential sites. Human populations within the watershed would increase significantly leading up to the year 2000. Concurrently with increased building pressure came demands to set aside large tracks of federal land as “pristine” areas not subject to any development or resource use. The North Fork American River Wild and Scenic River was set aside in the 1970s, running from Heath Springs down to the Colfax-Iowa Hill Bridge. Granite Chief Wilderness area was set up in 1984, covering the headwaters of the North and Middle Forks of the American River. The Auburn State Recreation Area, a more multiple-use area, was set up from federal land originally set aside for an Auburn dam/reservoir that has never been built.
Human History Endnotes (1) Geology of the Sierra Nevada, by Mary Hill, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1975. (2) Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California; edited by Robert F. Heizer; Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., 1978. (3) Handbook of The Indians of California, by A.L. Kroeber; Bulletin 78 of Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1925 (Dover Publications, Inc. , New York, N.Y., 1976 reprint). (4) Jedediah Smith and the Opening of the West, by Dale L. Morgan, University of Nebraska Press/Bison Books, Lincoln, Nebraska. 1953, 1964 reprint. (5) History of Placer County California, Thompson & West, Oakland, Calfiornia, 1884. (6) Population files at Placer County Archives & Research Center, Auburn, CA. (7) Gold The California Story, by Mary Hill, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1999 (8) P.G.& E. of California, by Charles M. Coleman, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1952. (9) History of Tahoe National Forest: 1840-1940, by Jackson Research Projects, Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA, 1982.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-158 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Census demographics
1. Social and Community Considerations: Background and Scope of the Research In recognition of the importance of tributary watersheds to the health of the Bay/Delta, Placer County Resource Conservation District applied for, and was awarded, this grant to develop a Watershed Stewardship Strategy. Its purpose is to address a wide range of environmental, institutional, social, and economic issues in an integrated manner. As part of that integrated effort, this report addresses social and community considerations in the watersheds. The first three numbered sections within Social and Community Considerations were written in 2001, based on a series of focus groups, surveys and interviews. Section four addressing 2000 Census Bureau data for Placer County was created in November and December 2002, when 2000 Census data became available for this rural area of Placer County. Commercial census data on a block level is not available for this rural area; the raw data was imported, and a data set had to be created uniquely for this project. Further considerations are included in the fifth section for next steps. Almost half of the land in the North and Middle Forks American River watersheds is private property. The rapid development of property represents an increasing risk to water quality in these watersheds through careless management due to lack of education and ecosystem ethic, hence private landowners present an important opportunity to promote active stewardship to preserve and improve water quality. A number of rural communities and wildland-urban intermix areas exist within the geographic boundaries of the watersheds, along with timber, agriculture, recreation and small business interests. The area population is growing and is projected to triple by 2040. Effective resource management of this private property requires the active, voluntary, participation of its owners and local communities. The trend in resource agency planning is increasingly to recognize that problems of non-point source pollution, hazardous fuels, insect damage, and erosion do not respect property boundaries. There is increased interest in addressing environmental issues by strengthening property owner and community reliance on local networks and resources. The problem becomes how to overcome fear and reduce confusion in order to promote a shift in attitude in local property owners and communities, and in government agencies toward working more cooperatively. Thus, it is a critical prerequisite of effective watershed planning to clearly understand local perspectives, values, motivational triggers and communication patterns in order to overcome barriers to effective partnership. Landowners typically fear and resist ‘outside’ involvement with their property and their affairs. During the scoping sessions at the beginning of this project, they supported their reactions by raising the following issues: • Resistance to additional costs and administrative workload produced by stricter regulation of private lands, which, they believe, falls more heavily on small landowners.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-159 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
• A strong desire to be able to control agency and public access to their land, and to avoid being caught between agencies with different agendas. • Fear that conservation groups might force their agenda onto landowners without considering their perspectives. • Resistance to ‘outside ‘ pressure to force compliance. • Concern that their management would benefit downstream (urban and Delta) users and they would be left with only additional costs and restrictions. In order to achieve the critical mass of property owner and community participation needed to produce noticeable momentum, and build local capacity to sustain that momentum, a sense of local involvement and ownership will need to be established and maintained.
2. Population and Population Distribution Land ownership data from U. C. Santa Barbara indicates that the entire American River Watershed encompasses about 1,236,123 acres. About 53.3% of the land is managed by Federal agencies, with the majority (48.4%) managed by the Forest Service (USFS). Approximately forty six percent is in private hands, and less than one percent is managed by State agencies. It is not clear what percentage of the private land is owned by non-industrial private landowners. Based on projections from the Chico State Center for Economic Development, population growth in the North and Middle Forks varies widely among Census blocks, with many blocks expected to increase their population by more than 20% over five years and a few actually expected to loose population. Overall, watershed population is expected to more than double by 2040.
Population Distribution A few communities such as Foresthill, Michigan Bluff, and Iowa Hill lie within the watersheds, but the bulk of the population resides in communities along their boundary ridges. We describe these as gateway communities. Some or all the people in these communities live at the edge of the watersheds, or actually straddle the American River watershed and the Bear River or Auburn Ravine/Coon Creek watersheds. Most of these gateway communities are located along the Route I-80 corridor on the north and west sides of the North Fork watershed, though a few are located on the south side of the Middle Fork. These communities have strong connections with the watershed, in terms of esthetic, historical, and sense-of-place values, and financial interests in recreation, real estate and related businesses. They are access points for tourists, hikers, equestrians, and fishermen entering the watersheds. Population growth in gateway and watershed communities can impose significant impacts on other ecosystem communities and resources. These include habitat conversion and fragmentation; invasion of non-native plants and animals; changes in stream flow and ground water due to land clearing and impervious materials, increased erosion and sedimentation of water bodies, increased ground water extraction, septic effluent and wastewater; and greater possibility of wildfire. At the same time, with encouragement
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-160 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
and training, these communities can become instruments and advocates for wise and beneficial resource management strategies such as comprehensive land use planning, improved stream flow and water quality, habitat improvement, fire hazard reduction, etc. Watershed communities vary in complexity. Larger communities (e.g. Auburn) are composed of several population subgroups such as long term residents, nonresident owners, or renters. Some have established roots in their community, others are mobile. Many smaller foothill communities have a large proportion of long term resident owners. In addition, there are residential developments and housing clusters that are not specifically tied to a named community (e.g. Cape Horn). No single outreach strategy will effectively address all of these subgroups. Some uncertainty exists regarding the names of communities in the North and Middle Forks. Place names that are listed by one source may not appear in another. Sometimes different names are used. It is not always clear whether place names correspond to actual populations or simply represent map locations. The best information so far shows the following communities within the watershed and at gateways to the watershed. Place names are listed moving downward from the Sierra Crest.
Place names in the North Fork Watershed
Communities within the watershed Ridge top Gateway Communities Casa Loma Emigrant Gap Iowa Hill Blue Canyon Yankee Jims Alta Foresthill Monte Vista Secret Town Marga Colfax Weimar Applegate Bowman Auburn
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-161 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Place names in the Middle Fork Watershed
Communities within the watershed Ridge top Gateway Communities Westville Chiquita Lake Robinson Flat Virner Michigan Bluff Buckeye Todd Valley Volcanoville Georgetown Auburn Lake Trails Cool Many of these communities cannot be related to Census blocks. Some blocks cover several communities and surrounding area, others, such as Auburn, contain many blocks.
Demographics Three surveys have been conducted by Placer County Planning Department in connection with community plan updates in the area. One of these, for the community of Meadow Vista, lies outside the watershed boundaries. It is included here because it reflects the statistics for rural communities which were not surveyed. The other two were for Foresthill Divide, and for the Weimar, Applegate, Colfax area. Unfortunately, the surveys did not always use the same demographic questions. Several focus groups also gathered some demographic data. The population data is remarkably consistent across the surveys and focus groups. The population is predominantly white. Over half have owned their property 10 years or more, some 30-40 years. An average of 32% are retired and many of these are long-term residents. They form a large potential volunteer base. Of those who are employed, almost two-thirds work outside their community (this percentage is somewhat lower for Auburn residents since there are more employment opportunities in this larger community). Almost all responders were homeowners. Households contained, on average, slightly more than two persons. This may not reflect the actual situation, since renters might not see a benefit in responding. Lot sizes did vary from place to place, with suburban Auburn averaging about one-third acre and the more rural areas averaging about 2.3 acres.
3. Community Values, Perceptions, and Barriers to Action More than 80% saw the rural character of the area as the primary value. The historical nature of the area, a ‘small town feel’, and recreational opportunities provided by the wild lands also ranked very high. This was true even in some of the suburban areas. Protecting scenic views and wildlife were seen important. The most important way respondents saw to assure this protection was to limit housing density. [In fact, this tends to increase fragmentation. More about this in the summary.] There was a strong desire, except in Auburn, to limit industry and retail trade as well.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-162 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
There is a general acceptance of the importance of individual property rights. Community wide vegetation management is almost nonexistent. For example, except in Todd Valley and Michigan Bluff where community wide fuel reduction has taken place, protection against wildfire was seen a matter for individual landowners. Some owners have done work around their homes. Others, either because they lacked time or resources, or because they thought management would disrupt the ‘natural look’ of the place, have not. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project final report, volume II chapter 20, discusses an innovative management approach. This approach, called integrated adaptive management, is ‘a process where the public works iteratively and continuously with managers and scientists, and public input is genuinely integrated into the process and evaluated on a par with other information’. This approach shows promise of overcoming the landowner concerns and issues raised during the initial public input to this assessment.
4. Census Data Several unsuccessful attempts to get census data for this area were made before an approach succeeded. Sacramento Area Council of Governments has agreed to make an attempt to generate population data based on Census 2000 data. Since ARWG is not a client of theirs, work on this project will be done as time is available from higher priority projects. Sacog did deliver a GIS map which had track and block boundaries for the five county area, but the map came with no data tables. Placer County had some data on a track level, but no block level data. Commercial vendors like Tiger had block level data for urban areas, but rural areas had not yet been developed, or were not going to be developed. Toward the end of 2002, Sierra Biodiversity Institute GIS staff determined that it would be possible to download data directly from the Census Bureau, and extract data for rural Placer County. The downloaded data was a compressed state-wide data set in tabular format. The uncompressed file for just Placer County contains 6 gigabytes of data, which is now fully available to ARWG, PCFSA or any of the stakeholders. The first round of attributes selected from the data that were relevant to our study included general population files, household information by age, and the like. As part of this report, a separate CD is included with the Placer County data compressed, with a PDF file describing the data. Three maps were generated in this first round to exercise the capacity in our areas of interest that are now available. Map 2-102 Colfax & Placer Hills Fire Safe Councils: Census Population Tracks VS Blocks (HYPERLINK) shows census blocks versus census tracks. Fire Safe Council areas were chosen to demonstrate the census data, as FSC’s have been named in the ARWG Stewardship Strategy as the primary mechanism for organizing and contacting landowners in outreach programs. The map shows two Councils: Greater Colfax Area Fire Safe Council and the Placer Hills Fire Safe Council. Census blocks or tracks do not correspond exactly to either Fire Safe Council boundaries or watershed boundaries, since Census block boundaries tend to follow stream beds rather than ridge lines; FSC boundaries tend to follow jurisdictions of fire-fighting agencies.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-163 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Tracks are indicated by the thick black lines on the map. Track size is too large to indicate anything meaningful about the nature of the community. Two fire safe councils contain parts of seven census tracks. Only three of the tracks are entirely within the two FSC’s. Characterization by track is as course a view as characterization by whole Fire Safe Council; anyone familiar with these areas at even a cursory level knows that each of these Councils or track areas contain many different neighborhoods that have quite different profiles and densities. Blocks are a more meaningful size. In some cases, with smaller sized blocks, a relatively accurate profile of the community could be generated. However, some of the blocks are larger, and with the fast growing and changing population dynamics, these blocks appear as anomalies. The larger blocks almost without exception are indicated as higher in population than the smaller blocks which are located nearer the population centers. This seems to suggest that the area is experiencing significant population pressures evenly distributed throughout the community, not centered in the towns. Yet it is difficult to determine even at a block size if meaningful information is conveyed; census trends would be made more meaningful if combined with assessor parcel information and other data. Map 2-103 Colfax & Placer Hills Fire Safe Councils: Census Data: Households per block I(HYPERLINK) indicates a similar picture as the census population in the first map. Larger blocks located in the more rural areas show the hotter colors, with more households per block than the smaller blocks located near the population centers and towns. This would seem to indicate significant development pressure in the more rural blocks within these two Fire Safe Councils. Populations are now more evenly distributed across the entire area, rather than clustered in small towns along the major highway. This trend in development can be compared to the parcel layers and the zoning layers, shown in the previous section on Fire Safe Councils. Comparison to the 1990 census data would help to indicate the rate of development. Assessor data information indicating improvements would be an even more accurate measure of the rate of change, and could be profiled more frequently than every ten years with census data. Without accurate date set comparisons, anecdotal comparisons are the only means available to tell the story. Certainly, the profile of relatively dense housing distributed evenly throughout the area differs radically from the picture of fifty years ago when a handful of small, rustic towns were hugging US 40. The implications for fire safety and vegetation management of this transformation from concentrated population centers to distributed population are very significant. Area wide strategies that imply interdependence among residents becomes the dominant theme, rather than a fire suppression strategy focused on towns. This condition is new to this Mediterranean ecosystem: it is not natural, where fire return for vegetation management occurred regularly every 6-15 years, and it is clearly not consistent with the ecosystem as managed by native populations, who encouraged and introduced fire returns every 2-7 years. This census information adds magnitude to the significance of the dialogue on community fire safety. Map 2-104 Colfax & Placer Hills Fire Safe Councils: Census Data: Households (HYPERLINK) with presence of people over 65 years shows a similar pattern to the
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-164 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy previous households map. Many of the households that are evenly distributed throughout these areas have presence of people over 65 years of age. This map was chosen because one of the concerns in fire safety is ease of evacuation, and older people can need more assistance. If these households are primarily retired people, there could be even broader implications for fire safety. For example, property wide vegetation management for defensible space and shaded fuel breaks is difficult, rigorous physical work which older residents may not engage in, creating an even greater community need for fire safety. Implications of these possible trends are very significant for community planning, fire planning, evacuation planning, vegetation management, shaded fuel breaks, and secondary implications like ability to get homeowners’ fire insurance, and the like. Next Steps: The 2000 Census data provide an important piece of the puzzle for determining a legitimate community profile, and indicating trends. Additional data could provide a more complete picture. Comparing 1990 census data with 2000 census data may reveal trends. Combining census data with assessor parcel improvement information, and building department information, may provide an even more accurate community profile that could benefit fire planning, and all levels of land use planning from transportation to zoning.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-165 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Biomass Utilization11 Executive Summary
Otis Wollan (representing ARWG, RCD, and the 6 Fire Safe Council Areas) approached and contracted the Foresters Co-Op to complete and deliver the BESTBET_02 project, which intends to utilize the original BESTBET woody biomass utilization business linkage tool and apply it to a smaller, more specific geographic area within the four counties; Sierra, Nevada, Placer, and El Dorado. The woody biomass (see definition below) supply infrastructure will include the existing availability of woody biomass from private TPZ parcels, and will also include any public agency projects that have the potential of providing a woody biomass supply within a one year time period, starting from June 1st 2002. For this study, the following definition will apply for the term “woody biomass:” “Generally defined as an organic derivative from a variety of woody plant species. These derivatives can be found in many forms such as: 1) forest /agricultural sourced wood, bark, and green leafy chips and shreds, 2) wood manufacturing byproducts such as sawdust, planer shavings, and clean white chips, 3) waste stream derivatives such as recycled lumber, yard trimmings, and other commercial wood waste.”
The Sierra Economic Development District (SEDD) developed a Woody Biomass Materials Exchange Program called BESTBET in 1994. One of the original goals of BESTBET was to gather, interpret, and distribute pertinent environmental and economic data regarding utilization of forest woody biomass in a four county region; Sierra, Nevada, Placer, and El Dorado. The BESTBET project is continuously being updated and as recently as 2001, SEDD as contracted with the Foresters Co-Op created and distributed a woody biomass utilization business linkage tool. The BESTBET linkage tool, funded by Proposition 204, attempts to take a snapshot of our regional woody biomass supply infrastructure, and utilization situation within the four counties region. The regional woody biomass supply infrastructure was based on parcels zoned as Timber Production Zones (TPZ). These TPZ parcels are zoned and designated for the timber/woody biomass production. Many local, state, and federal government agencies, communities, and businesses support the need of a sustainable woody biomass marketplace. For example, the California Fire Plan had the following recommendation for the State of California: “To increase the market alternatives for using woody biomass materials removed from wildlands and to reduce future dependence on prescribed fire
11 researched and written by Tom Amesbury, Sierra Economic Development District
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-166 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
and vegetation management burns, CDF (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection), in conjunction with other state agencies, should develop an assessment of future woody biomass marketing opportunities for California. It should include projections of potential market uses and actions local, state and federal governments could take to expand those markets.” The focus of this project is to seek sustainable business solutions for the long- term avoidance of catastrophic fire. Public and private forests are at risk of catastrophic fire due to many factors, some of which are historic fire suppression and population increase. A viable woody biomass marketplace can help alleviate the risk of catastrophic fire by offsetting the cost of necessary fuel reduction treatments. A survey conducted by the Foresters Co-Op for the original BESTBET business linkage tool indicated that approximately 7,200 BDT (Bone Dry Ton) of woody biomass was produced in the year 2000. Some examples of the current markets utilizing woody biomass, in California, are: animal bedding, cogeneration, and compost. Cogeneration plants are currently the major consumers of woody biomass produced in California. We hope the BESTBET_02 project will stimulate an expanded woody biomass marketplace through the identification of the current woody biomass supply, potential woody biomass utilization, and participating businesses. The updated information provided by the BESTBET_02 project can be valuable to businesses and entrepreneurs. By building from past knowledge, the BESTBET_02 project provides the basic tool to allow local planners and businesses to develop new strategies to stimulate a future viable woody biomass marketplace.
Introduction Background Pre-settlement California wildfires burned frequently with low intensity throughout the landscape. These low intensity, cool fires kept the forest floor clean of excess woody biomass, maintaining a fire dependent environment. The current state of public and private forest is painted in a much different picture. The past practices of fire suppression and land management, coupled with population increase have created a forest choked with excess ladder and ground fuels (woody biomass) creating an eminent danger of fueling catastrophic fire. Ladder fuels consist of vegetation, which may allow a fire to burn from ground level to lower tree branches and potentially to the top canopies of mature trees. Ground fuels consist of vegetation like grass, brush, small trees, shrubs, low branches and limbs, which if present in large quantities can add to the danger of catastrophic fires developing. It is estimated that flammable materials (excess woody biomass, such as ladder and ground fuels) have increased as much as 25 to 40 percent from the pre-settlement levels of a healthy forest in the Sierra Nevada region, mainly due to past land management practices. The CDF currently estimates that over 2.5 million people and 1 million structures are at risk from wildland fires due to the current unhealthy state of public and private forests.
Purpose
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-167 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
By building from past knowledge, the BESTBET_02 project is providing a tool for resource managers, businesses, and entrepreneurs to utilize in the development of a future, viable woody biomass market. With a developed and diverse woody biomass marketplace, treatment and reduction of forest fuels to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires becomes more economically feasible.
Scope The BESTBET_02 project is the continuation of the original BESTBET project initiated in 1994. As recently as last year, the Foresters Co-Op developed a woody biomass utilization business linkage tool. This tool assessed all the privately owned TPZ parcels within a four county region for availability of woody biomass production. The BESTBET_02 project will use this developed tool and focus it to three smaller assessment areas. The three areas of assessment are the following: Bunch Creek Assessment Area, PCWA (Placer County Water Agency) Assessment Area, and the Fire Safe Council Assessment Area. The Bunch Creek Assessment Area is designated as a Cal-watershed and is 6,631 acres. The PCWA Assessment Area (totaling 332,614 acres) is a jurisdictional boundary for water managers, of the Placer County Water Agency, to maintain and enhance beneficial uses of the water resource. The American River Watershed Group also calls this area the Headwater MF Am-River Stewardship Pilot Project. There are six Fire Safe Councils within the Fire Safe Council Assessment Area, which totals 284,108 acres in size. The six councils are: Alta, Colfax, Foresthill, Greater Auburn, Iowa Hill, and Placer Hills. The total assessment area, with all three areas combined, is 520,475 acres. The following list is the required tasks to complete for each assessment area. Task 1. Develop potential inventory of woody biomass resource in each assessment area. Task 2. Availability of actual woody biomass resource in each assessment area by current/future public projects most likely to deliver/provide a woody biomass resource for utilization projected over a one-year time frame. Task 3. Model capabilities of current businesses, within logical proximity to the assessment areas, to address woody biomass utilization The Tasks 1-3 will provide detailed information about woody biomass inventory, current/future projects, and businesses for each assessment area in the form of data and maps. The following list below, are additionally Tasks required for contract completion. Task 4. Assess potential impacts (both positive and negative to benefits or concerns of the: a. Fuel reduction b. Public health & safety, and Fire fighter safety c. Water quality d. Habitat (Wildlife, Botanical, and Human) e. Loss of agricultural or timber assets f. Recreation
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-168 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Task 5. Assess potential growth for future local woody biomass industry Task 6. Identify actions in the form of a Stewardship Plan (BESTBET_02 project) that could maximize potential for innovative woody biomass utilization opportunities. Task 7. Identify Stewardship Plan for education and informing the market (BESTBET_02 project) The Tasks 4-7 will analyze potential impacts, the local woody biomass industry, woody biomass innovation, and education to inform communities of current and potential markets. A detailed description of procedures to complete all Tasks is provided in the Methodology section of the report.
Significance Completion of all the Tasks required under contract for the BESTBET_02 project will accomplish the original goal of original BESTBET (1994), which was to gather, interpret, and distribute pertinent environmental and economic data regarding utilization of forest woody biomass. The woody biomass utilization business linkage tool now provides the baseline modeling to analyze any area within the four county regions in finer detail. For example, the Bunch Creek Cal-watershed assessment gives a site-specific analysis of all aspects of the woody biomass industry, which includes and is not limited to: supply, complimenting woody biomass businesses, innovative woody biomass utilization, etc. This existing tool creates the link between business and the product. Now this tool can be applied to any assessment area and provide valuable information to resources managers, businesses, and entrepreneurs related to the woody biomass industry.
Limitations 1. As with any model there are professional assumptions made. These professional assumptions have to be developed to answer questions that are not readily available or necessarily cost-effective to be answered. The professional assumptions applied to the BESTBET_02 project will be described in detail in the Methodology section of the report. 2. There were several public projects that would have fit well into this analysis, but were in the planning phase. Confidentiality of the public projects was the barrier for obtaining the information, since the projects had not yet been approved. 3. The intent of this report is not to create business or induce false hopes that an expanded woody biomass market will develop, but rather to provide a tool that resource managers and businesses can use to aid them in the decision making process. There are many pitfalls that the woody biomass industry must overcome before an expanded, viable marketplace is developed. This report supplies a continuum towards the sustainable utilization of the woody biomass resource within assessment areas.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-169 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
4. Time was a limiting factor for the project. The amount of time spent for research of businesses and public projects was eventually halted due to time constraints. The focus was to model what data we had collected and report the information. It is estimated that at least 90% of possible information was collected for this project. 5. Timber Harvest Plans (THP) on private property were difficult to track on whether they were present within the assessment area. Timber Harvest Plans do not necessarily have to be on private TPZ parcels. Therefore, since the modeling was based on private TPZ parcels, which have the potential and intent to harvest timber, we could not connect current THP’s with those TPZ parcels. Therefore a summary was only given for how many acres are available for harvest from active THP’s in Placer County. These THP acres can be assumed to have the potential to supply woody biomass to the marketplace.
Methodology The woody biomass utilization business linkage tool developed last year by Foresters Co-Op is a model to predict the estimated available woody biomass in any given area. Estimated Available Woody biomass was modeled on private forestlands using the USDA Forest Service Remote Sensing Lab California vegetation data. The Estimated Available Woody biomass model can be applied to any forestlands (private or public) by utilizing the California vegetation data. The data was modeled for "HIGH" or "MEDIUM" densities of Estimated Available Woody biomass using WHR (Wildlife Habitat Relations) Type, Size, and Density values. Areas modeled are restricted to merchantable vegetation types on slopes less than 30% and areas larger than 5 acres. This modeling tool will be applied to private forestlands and public projects within the assessment areas. The rating of “HIGH” or “MEDIUM” has been given a value for actual woody biomass density present on a per acre basis. The professional assumption applied to this per acre value was that the rating of “HIGH” biomass density would produce one load of woody biomass per acre and the rating of “MEDIUM” biomass density would produce one-half load of woody biomass per acre. One load of woody biomass is approximately 13 BDT (Bone Dried Ton) in weight. This estimate is a very important professional assumption and is on the conservative side. Therefore, once the actual value of woody biomass is linked to the rating system, the GIS modeling is able to determine the approximate tons per acre of woody biomass that is potentially available for each assessment area.
Biomass Inventory of Assessment Areas, Private and Public (Task 1 and 2) The three assessment area boundaries (Bunch Creek, PCWA, and Fire Safe Council) were delivered to Foresters Co-Op by Otis Wollan. The assessment area boundaries were integrated into the GIS system. After this initial step, the next major step was to research any proposed or current public agency project that would be likely to produce any woody biomass material within a one-year time frame. This involved contacting every public agency that has jurisdiction within or around the assessment areas
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-170 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
(Public Agencies contacted: USFS, CDF, BLM, BOR, Fire Safe Councils, High Sierra RC&D, SEDD, NRCS, and Placer County). Once contacted, if there were projects that would produce woody biomass, then the project boundaries were determined and digitized into the GIS system. The projects were classified by two parameters. These parameters were either the projects would be likely to happen within a one-year time frame or not. Those projects that were not likely to produce woody biomass within the one-year time frame were digitized as a separate layer and illustrated on a separate map. The model was then applied to the assessment areas based on county private TPZ parcel information and public projects that fit the criteria of the one-year time frame. This procedure involved clipping the California vegetation layer to the assessment areas and ranking them based on the WHR rating. Those projects that are classified, as “potential” projects were not run against the model. Once the ranking model was complete for the assessment areas, then the woody biomass tonnage was calculated using the professional assumption stated above. This modeling procedure gave the tonnage of woody biomass from private lands and public projects for each individual assessment area. To the best of our knowledge, the private TPZ lands modeled in the report are potential areas to harvest biomass, with no current plan to do so. The model only gives the estimated potential of woody biomass harvest to show that the woody biomass resource is available, but is not yet utilized. This is different from the public projects, which are likely to a produce woody biomass within a one-year timeframe. To offset this uncertainty, all current Timber Harvest Plans within Placer County were totaled to support the idea that there is available woody biomass from the private sector.
Business Modeling (Task 3) The woody biomass utilization business linkage tool, developed by Foresters Co- Op under contract with SEDD, integrated all businesses that participate in the woody biomass industry. The process of developing a list of businesses within the proximity of the assessment areas follows the same guidelines as the original tool. Strategic communities, where woody biomass related businesses would occur, were determined by applying a 20-mile buffer around the assessment areas and a mile buffer around every major interstate or highway nearby the project area. This procedure provides a good assessment of all woody biomass related businesses within proximity to the assessment areas for the BESTBET_2 project. The yellow pages and the Internet were the two tools used to locate the woody biomass related businesses. The following business types, listed below, were used for this project: List of Business Types 1. Foresters-Consultants 2. Loggers 3. Lumber Manufacturers 4. Tree Service Companies 5. Cabinet Makers 6. Lumber Wholesale & Retail 7. Landscape Companies 8. Ski Resorts 9. Fuels Reduction Companies
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-171 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
10. Compost Companies
Once businesses were discovered, then every business was contacted and asked if they would like to participate in the project. Each business would be asked several questions and the information would be recorded into an access database form. Note: Full disclosure of public access to all information produced from the BESTBET_02 project was conveyed to each business. Some examples of the information asked for are listed below: Criteria 1: Current Address Criteria 2: Business Type a. Resource Owner b. Producer c. Consumer d. Broker e. Consultant f. Public Agency g. Fire Safe Council Criteria 3: Products Used or Produced a. Logs b. Chips c. Bark d. Sawdust e. Solid Waste f. Green Waste g. Compost h. Recycled Material i. Agricultural Residues The next step of this process was to upload the database information into the GIS system. Finally, ach business was then geocoded in GIS and recorded on a project map. Spatially linked businesses with the available woody biomass resource should foster future business development.
Assessment of potential impacts (Task 4) The list of potential impacts provided in Task 4 was assessed for positive and negative impacts related to woody biomass production. Woody biomass production is directly related to the potential for catastrophic fire. Part of the mitigation for reducing fire hazard is to harvest and remove the excess woody biomass that threatens the forest from catastrophic fire. In the analysis of the potential impacts that are created from woody biomass production, focus was given to the relationship between woody biomass and fire hazard. Federal and State regulations (NEPA “National Environmental Protection Act”, CEQA “California Environmental Quality Act”, FPR “Forest Practice
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-172 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Rules”) were also used in the analysis to verify the potential impacts to any resource listed in Task 4 would not be negative.
Assessment of Potential Growth, Innovative Business, and Education (Tasks 5-7) The assessment of the potential growth and innovative businesses associated with the woody biomass industry was researched through the following avenues: the Internet, Publications, and Workshops. The approach was to determine all woody biomass related industries that are operating presently throughout the country. Those innovative business opportunities were summarized to indicate the potential growth of the local woody biomass industry. The education and informing the market requirement of Task 7 will be fulfilled upon the completion of the BESTBET_02 project.
Results Biomass Inventory of Assessment Areas, Private and Public (Task 1 and 2)
The biomass utilization business linkage tool model was applied to private TPZ parcels and approved public projects located within the three assessment areas. The total area for the three assessment areas was 520, 475 acres (Refer to Map 1 -- Biomass Supply and Business Location in Map 2-105). The total modeled acres for potential available woody biomass is 56,793 acres, with 6% as public project acres and 94% private TPZ acres (Refer to Table 1 below). The results for each assessment area will be summarized individually with a map, tables, and an overview discussion.
Assessment Total Acres Modeled Acres Public Projects Private TPZ Areas Acres Lands ALL 520,475 56,793 3,445 53,348 Table 1. Total Modeled Acres of Public and Private Lands for All Three-Assessment Areas.
Bunch Creek Assessment Area The Bunch Creek Assessment Area is adjacent Colfax, CA and ranges from 2,800 to 4,000 ft. in elevation above sea level. The Bunch Creek Assessment Area is 6,631 acres. Within this assessment area there were no public projects to be modeled for biomass availability. There are 648 acres of Private TPZ lands that were modeled for potential biomass availability (Refer to Table 2 below).
Assessment Area Total Acres Modeled Acres Public Projects Private TPZ Acres Acres Bunch Creek 6,631 648 0 648
Table 2. Summary of Modeled Acres for Public Projects and Private TPZ Parcels for the Bunch Creek Assessment Area.
The 648 acres modeled acres for woody biomass availability within Private TPZ lands yielded a potential 4,310 BDT of woody biomass resource (Refer to Table 3
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-173 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
below). 98% of the modeled acres for woody biomass were rated as containing medium biomass density. The other 2% was rated as having a high biomass density (Refer to Map 2 – Biomass Modeling Results, Bunch Creek Assessment Area in Map 2-106). Assessment Area Modeled Medium Biomass High Biomass Potential Acres Density Density BDT Biomass Bunch Creek 648 633 15 4,310 Table 3. Modeled Biomass Rating and Estimated BDT (Bone Dry Tons) Available from Private TPZ lands within the Bunch Creek Assessment Area.
PCWA Assessment Area The PCWA Assessment Area was the largest of the three assessment areas, encompassing a total of 332,614 acres (Refer to Map 3 – Biomass Modeling Results, PCWA Assessment Area in Map 2-107). There were a total of 41 separate Cal- Watersheds making up the total assessment area. Out of the 332,614 acres, 14% of the total area was modeled for woody biomass availability. There were 2,992 acres of public projects and 44,447 acres of private TPZ lands used in the modeling procedure to determine woody biomass availability (Refer to Table 4 below).
Assessment Area Total Acres Modeled Acres Public Projects Private TPZ Acres Acres PCWA 332,614 47,438 2,992 44,447 Table 4. Summary of Modeled Acres for Public Projects and Private TPZ Parcels for the PCWA Assessment Area.
The PCWA Assessment Area had 38,330 acres rated as medium biomass density and 9,108 acres rated as high biomass density (Refer to Table 5 below). A total of 367,549 BDT of woody biomass has been yielded for the entire PCWA Assessment Area. There were 14 Cal-Watershed that had public projects within their boundary. The total potential woody biomass available from public projects within the PCWA Assessment Area is 32,192 BDT (Refer to Table 6 below). This is approximately 9% of the potential woody biomass available within the entire PCWA Assessment Area. The rest of the potential available biomass was yielded from the Private TPZ lands.
Assessment Area Modeled Medium Biomass High Biomass Potential Acres Density Density BDT Biomass PCWA 47,438 38,330 9,108 367,549 Table 5. Modeled Biomass Rating and Estimated BDT (Bone Dry Tons) Available from Public Projects and Private TPZ lands within the PCWA Assessment Area.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-174 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Cal-Watershed Public Acres Medium Biomass High Biomass Potential (PCWA) Density Density BDT Biomass 402 52 350 4,888 Brushy Canyon 236 221 14 1,619 Chipmunk Creek 100 19 80 1,164 Deep Canyon 107 5 102 1,359 Dolly Creek 123 40 83 1,339 El Dorado Canyon 378 336 42 2,730 French Meadow 415 150 265 4,420 Grouse Creek 114 30 84 1,287 Lower Duncan 472 103 369 5,467 Peavine Creek 290 40 250 3,510 Screwauger 253 5 248 3,257 Talbot Creek 49 5 45 618 Upper Duncan 35 7 28 410 Zero Spring 17 17 1 124 TOTAL 2991 1030 1961 32,192
Table 6. Modeled Biomass Rating and Estimated BDT (Bone Dry Tons) Available from Public Projects within the PCWA Assessment Area by Cal-Watershed classification.
Fire Safe Council Assessment Area There is a total of six Fire Safe Councils within the Fire Safe Council Assessment Area, which covers a total area of 280,108 acres (Refer to Map 4 – Biomass Modeling Results Map, Fire Safe Council Assessment Area in Map 2-108). Out of the 280,108 acres, 8.5% was modeled for woody biomass availability. Of the 23,990 acres modeled, 90% of the acreage was private TPZ lands and 10% of the acreage was public projects (Refer to Table 7 below).
The individual Fire Safe Councils are as follows: Alta, Colfax, Foresthill, Greater Auburn Area, Iowa Hill and Placer Hills. There were 2,303 acres of public projects within the assessment area. Of the total, 2,293 acres were located within the Foresthill Council area and 10 acres were located within the Greater Auburn Council area. The Alta, Colfax, Iowa Hill and Placer Hills Fire Safe Council areas did not have any public projects within their respective areas. There was a total of 21,687 acres of Private TPZ lands within all 6 of the Fire Safe Council areas (Refer to Table 7 below).
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-175 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Assessment Area Total Acres Modeled Public Projects Private TPZ Acres Acres Acres Alta Council 15,331 230 230 Colfax Council 15,429 942 942 Foresthill Council 173,969 20,624 2,293 18,330 Greater Auburn Area 31,388 10 10 Council Iowa Hill Council 20,228 1,965 1,965 Placer Hills Council 27,763 220 220
Total of All Council 284,108 23,990 2,303 21,687 Areas Table 7. Summary of Modeled Acres for Public Projects and Private TPZ Parcels for the Fire Safe Council Assessment Area.
The Fire Safe Council Assessment area had 75% of the acres at the medium biomass density rating and 25% of the acres at the high biomass density rating (Refer to Table 8 below). A total of 194,162 BDT of woody biomass has been modeled for the Fire Safe Council Assessment Area. The Foresthill and the Greater Auburn Council areas were the only areas that public projects occurred. Of the total 194,162 BDT of potential woody biomass available, an estimated 22,438 BDT of woody biomass is potentially available from public projects within the Foresthill and Greater Auburn Council areas (Refer to Table 9 below).
Assessment Area Modeled Medium High Biomass Potential BDT Acres Biomass Density Biomass Density Alta Council 230 169 61 1,892 Colfax Council 942 921 21 6,260 Foresthill Council 20,624 14,966 5,658 170,833 Greater Auburn Area 10 10 0 65 Council Iowa Hill Council 1,965 1,825 140 13,683 Placer Hills 220 220 0 1,430 Total for All Areas 23,991 18,111 5,880 194,162 Table 8. Modeled Biomass Rating and Estimated BDT (Bone Dry Tons) Available from Public Projects and Private TPZ lands within the Fire Safe Council Assessment Area.
Assessment Area Public Acres Medium High Biomass Potential BDT omass Density Density Biomass Foresthill Council 2,293 1,136 1,158 22,438 Greater Auburn Area 10 10 0 65 Council Table 9. Modeled Biomass Rating and Estimated BDT (Bone Dry Tons) Available from Public Projects Only for the Foresthill and Greater Auburn Council areas.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-176 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Note: There are overlapping project boundaries for each of the three assessment areas. Each assessment area was treated separately to display the relevant information for the corresponding area.
Future Public Projects There are several public projects that did not fit the criteria of likely occurring within the one-year time frame. However, since the information was collected we chose to display the information on a map (Refer to Map 5 – Potential Future Projects Map within Assessment Area in Map 2-109). There is a total of 21,448 acres that could not be modeled for woody biomass availability due to the requirements of the contract. The majority of this area is covered by the two fires that occurred in 2001, the Star Fire and the Ponderosa Fire. Plans are underway to salvage log these areas, but the expected time of harvest is uncertain.
Current Private Timber Harvest Plans (THP) within Placer County There are approximately 50 private THP’s that are active within Placer County. The active THP’s totals approximately 9,662 acres. Approximately 46% of those acres are utilizing natural regeneration silviculture methods and the remaining are utilizing even management silvicultural practices. The private THP’s are not necessarily within Private TPZ parcels. For example, property zoned as agricultural can still be harvested with an approved THP. Therefore, we could no connect TPZ parcels with active THP’s. However, active THP’s within Placer County can be assumed to have the potential to produce a woody biomass supply.
Business Modeling (Task 3) A database was set up to query all businesses related to the woody biomass industry. We chose cities and towns that could feasibly be involved in the production or consumption of woody biomass from the assessment area. We applied a 20-mile buffer around the assessment areas and a 1-mile buffer along major highways. There were a total of 144 businesses that voluntarily participated in this project. Each business was then geocoded in the GIS system and located spatially on a map by address location (Refer to Map 1 – Biomass Supply and Business Location in Map 2-105). There are five categories of businesses that the map will show as a different colored dot. The five categories for each business type are: a consumer, producer, consultant, resource owner, or NA (Not Available). Not all businesses were willing to volunteer for the project or were not found due to time constraints. The businesses listed in the database are by no means a comprehensive list of all businesses in the area, but it is a good indication that there are plenty of businesses (144 for this project) that there are or could be participants in the woody biomass industry.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-177 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Assessment of potential impacts (Task 4) All public projects listed and modeled for woody biomass availability in the analysis have complied with all State and Federal environmental protection laws. State and Federal laws, such as CEQA and NEPA, are designed to provide for the protection of our natural resources that could potentially be impacted from land management practices. For private TPZ lands, in order to harvest timber or woody biomass, one has to follow the FPR’s when operating within California. This provides an environmental safety net for beneficial usage of our natural resources (water, wood, wildlife, air quality, recreation) to be protected during land management practices, whether they exist on public or private lands. The public trust environmental safety net is important for protecting natural resources, since the need of preventing catastrophic fire in the Sierra Nevada region is required. By following the law and best management practices, operations to reduce woody biomass for fire hazard reduction should avoid and minimize the risk of losing or damaging natural resources in California. However, if we choose not to reduce woody biomass for fire hazard reduction we stand the risk of losing these resources. Unhealthy forests that create catastrophic fire affect many resources negatively. This is why it is important to address the issue of potentially reducing the woody biomass fire hazard from our forest. Listed below are resources that may be affected positively or negatively from woody biomass reduction projects to prevent catastrophic fire.
Fuel reduction: Cons: The CDF currently estimates that over 2.5 million people and 1 million structures are at risk from wildland fires due to the current unhealthy state of public and private forests. The average annual home loss to wildfire is estimated to be $163 million dollars. This is not the only resource that is at risk from catastrophic fire. However, this seems to be the most important since it directly affects people. The forests are unhealthy, choked with woody biomass, and unless we manage them in a way to prevent catastrophic wildfires, then the resources listed above are at risk. Pros: Fire hazard fuel reduction is important for all citizens. There are resources in the forest (homes, water, wildlife, etc.) that everyone utilizes in some manner. Reducing the risk of catastrophic fire by removing woody biomass is the only solution if we are to protect these resources.
Public health & safety, and Fire fighter safety: Cons: The unhealthy state of the forests in California, are putting at risk public health & safety and Fire fighter safety. Firefighters are more at risk if the state of the forest is unhealthy. It is the catastrophic fires that are out of control that put our public service personnel at risk from injury or even death. Air Quality is another concern for the public. It is estimated that 600,000 tons of air pollutant emissions are produced annually from wildfire. There is certainly always going to be wildfire
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-178 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
present in the Sierra Nevada region, but controlled and predicted fire is different from catastrophic fire. The forests are unhealthy and until treated in a manner to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire, public safety from excess pollutants and risk to public service personnel will be high. Pros: Wildfire is a natural process of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem. It is impossible to prevent wildfires from occurring. The part that is preventable is the catastrophic fires. Reducing the fuel load, excess woody biomass, so fires do not get out of control is possible. Wildfire that only burns the forest understory, after reducing woody biomass, decreases the tonnage of air pollutant emissions. It also creates a safe work environment for public service personnel.
Water quality: Cons: Water is probably the most important resource that comes from the forests. Everyone depends on water as a resource. Fire is beneficial and detrimental to the water resource in California. Wildfires increase the chance of sediment reaching watercourse and watershed by removing the vegetation. Sediment flow to watercourses is an important and natural part of the ecosystem. The current state of catastrophic fires in California however, allows sediment to be delivered in excess quantities that pollutes the water resource. It is estimated that water in California is worth $9 billion to consumers. The damage to the ecosystem is not measurable in dollars. Therefore, without fire hazard reduction there is risk of impacting water quality negatively. Pros: The economic cost of intense wildfire impacts is apparent in relation to water quality. The environment and taxpayers would benefit from fire hazard reduction treatments to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire.
Habitat (Wildlife, Botanical, and Human): Cons: Wildfire is a historic and integral part of the ecosystem. However, due to the unhealthy nature of the forest, wildfires seem to do more damage than good. It is true that catastrophic fires create a mosaic, but at what cost. There is an excess amount of woody biomass material in the forest due to past land management practices. This extra fuel load promotes severe catastrophic fires that could be prevented if reduction of the woody biomass is completed. Reducing the excess woody biomass revitalizes the forest and brings it back to a state similar to Pre-European settlement and prevents further habitat degradation. Pros: Biodiversity is a key element in the Sierra Nevada ecosystem. Natural processes, such as wildfire, are not natural when the woody biomass in the forest is excessive and dangerous. Treating the forest for fire hazard reduction allows the natural process to take place, but not at such a negative cost to the ecosystem and people of the Sierra Nevada region.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-179 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Loss of agricultural or timber assets: Cons: Due to past land management activities the forest has been subjected to severe catastrophic fires. These fires, due to the ladder and ground fuel loads, have become destructive to timber and agricultural assets. It is estimated that the standing timber value of California commercial timber is $105 billion. Small fires that burn in the understory, typically do not cause as much damage as the catastrophic fires. Preventing all wildfires is impossible, but reducing the assets lost due to catastrophic fires is preventable with the right treatment of removing excess woody biomass. Pros: There is a vested economic interest to protect agricultural and timber assets. There is also a biological need to protect these resources. Many species depend on these assets for their survival. Treating the fire hazard by removing the excess woody biomass is the best way to protect these resources.
Recreation: Cons: It is estimated that an annual average value of $1.5 billion per year in revenue is generated from recreation on public lands in the State. Catastrophic wildfires affect this dollar amount by reducing the access and aesthetics of a burned area. Pros: The revenue produced from recreation is an integral part of the government’s ability to maintain and provide this outdoor resource. Treating areas of excess woody biomass would allow recreationists to continue to utilize the resource without the risk of it being destroyed from a catastrophic wildfire.
Assessment of Potential Growth, Innovative Business, and Education (Tasks 5-7) Currently the utilization of woody biomass in California is limited. New technologies and emerging markets are developing throughout the country. The Sierra Nevada region is productive and rich with woody biomass resources that have been allowed to increase in quantity due to past management practices. It is apparent that the resource (woody biomass) is present within the assessment areas and throughout the Sierra Nevada region, which is verified by this report. Therefore, the goal of this study is to provide the linking tool between the woody biomass resource and businesses & resource managers. Below is a summarized list of potential woody biomass markets and products located within our local region and other markets that can potentially be developed locally.
Current Local Market Potential: Electricity Generation: Currently there are two 20-25 megawatt biomass fired electric power plants operating approximately 25 miles from Auburn, CA. The two plants are the Sierra Pacific Industries cogeneration plant and the Rio Bravo-Rocklin cogeneration plant, both located in Lincoln, CA. They are the only two-biomass plants operating within Placer County. Due to the increased need to reduce biomass in terms of fire hazard reduction, the Sierra Economic Development District has embarked on a project to
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-180 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
construct a biomass to energy plant in Nevada County. The mission statement of the Washington Ridge Bioenergy (WRBEP) project is as follows:
“The Washington Ridge Bioenergy project will attempt to construct, operate, and economically/environmentally demonstrate, in a sustainable fashion, that hazardous forest fire fuels (biomass) can and should be removed from our public and private forestlands to Produce Energy, Restore Forest Health, Reduce the Risk, Size, and Severity of Wildfires, Protect Water Quality, Improve Air Quality, minimize the annual loss of Biotic habitat caused annually by Wildfires, and provide local employment/business opportunities through the production and utilization of forest derived biomass.”
The WRBEP project will provide the California Conservation Camp, which houses 80 wards at Washington Ridge, with a power source to reduce the cost of powering the facility and at the same time create a disposal solution of excess biomass.
Bioconversion to Ethanol: The Sierra Economic Development District’s BEFA (BIOMASS-to-ETHANOL FACILITATION ANALYSIS) project will be used as a catalyst to attract cellulistic biomass-to-ethanol producers to the Sierra Economic Development District’s four county region; Sierra, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado. The whole purpose of the BEFA project is to publicly initiate the biomass-to-ethanol concept and to facilitate the development of a future regional ethanol production industry that will improve air quality through market driven biomass utilization. Specifically, biomass-to-ethanol manufacturing sites in western Placer County near the two remaining biomass to electric power generation facilities, “Rio-Bravo” and/or the Sierra Pacific Industries Co-generation plant sites located near the town of Lincoln, will be the primary focus of the BEFA project. It is appropriate to think of the BEFA project as a “Phase I” biomass-to-ethanol industry development analysis. The deliverable task schedule for this project has been designed with input from both the public and private sector. Once the technical feedstock and siting portion of this project is completed, SEDD intends to use it as a promotional tool for Placer County to attract and excite both public and private interest to establish a future biomass-to-ethanol industry in our region. It is anticipated that the next step or “Phase II” of a biomass-to-ethanol project will be underwritten and lead by a single or group of private businesses. At that time SEDD expects to assume the roll of a biomass-to-ethanol industry advocate and facilitator between private businesses and government agencies.
Compost and Mulch: The Fire Safe Council of Nevada County (FSCNC), a 501.c3 non-profit organization, currently has three contractors under hire to conduct various programs to reduce woody biomass fire hazard material in communities. The programs are the door-to-door chipping program, the senior assistance program, and the green leaf/needle pilot program. Part of the contract requirements with the FSCNC is the
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-181 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
contractors must attempt to find alternative uses for the woody biomass collected from the fire prevention programs. One of these alternative uses is composting and mulching the woody biomass. Currently in an effort to satisfy this requirement, the contractors and the FSCNC supply to community members a compost and mulching bin that is supplied by the Northern Sierra Air Quality District.
Pine Straw: Pine needle utilization is a potential solution for reducing fuels around homes and utilization as a biomass resource. Pine straw bales are manufactured in great volume in the southeastern part of the United States. Pine Ridge Marketing, LLC, is one of the companies that produce such bales. The bales are utilized in various ways, one of which is erosion control. Local ski resorts of Placer County have used such bales for erosion control. Within our region, pine needle production is substantial. Future markets can potentially develop utilizing local pine needles for pine straw bale production.
Future Local Market Potential: Small Log Utilization: This is the use of small diameter trees for manufacturing of lumber products. The Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities, Partnership (Sustainable Northwest) is creating the link between business and the resource. Their partners cover a wide range of disciplines in wood manufacturing using small diameter trees. This is an emerging market and will probably develop as more small trees are harvested for fire hazard reduction. The first step locally for this potential market to succeed in our region has been taken with SEDD’s participation in the Wood Utilization Business Center Business Planning Tool project. This tool is a business plan and covers the ins and outs of the feasibility to create a small-log utilization marketplace (Refer to the References section for more information).
Value-Added Polymers and Densified Wood: An emerging market is developing for the direct liquefaction of woody biomass to fuels, thermoplastic polymer intermediates and value-added products. Biomass Transformation Industries LLC (BTI), located in Arizona, is currently trying to solve the issues of organic solid waste problems, including but not limited to small tree trimming, other forest management, sawmill wastes, etc. with this liquefaction process. Another emerging market is wood densification. This is the compression and pelletazation of dry woody biomass into a uniform fuel. Both these markets have promise in the near future.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-182 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Pulp Chips: The use of woody biomass chips to produce paper products is a worldwide industry. As new technology develops, this viable market may expand to utilize the woody biomass created from fire hazard reduction treatments.
Fiber/Structural Composites: The use of woody biomass to manufacture wood composite products, such as oriented strand board, plastic composite, and bonded wood composites is a growing industry. For example, Altree, located in New Mexico, is currently combining a renewable resource (wood fiber from invasive species) with one we need to get rid of (thermo-plastic milk bottles). As technology and innovations arise in the future, this market has a potential to become viable within the region. The current markets for biomass utilization are limited locally, but are expected to grow as our communities seek renewable energy solutions within our region. Biomass to energy and biomass to ethanol conversion seem to be the most promising markets for the area since there are two major projects currently underway to create a viable woody biomass marketplace.
Summary
Our focus for the BESTBET_02 project is to seek sustainable business solutions for the long-term avoidance of catastrophic fire. Public and private assets are at risk (ie. Public Health & Safety, Water Quality, Wildlife Habitat, Timber, etc.) from severe catastrophic fires, which are contributed to by historic fire suppression activities and increase ignition sources directly related to the urbanization of our forested wildlands. A viable woody biomass marketplace can help alleviate the risk of catastrophic fire by offsetting the cost of necessary fuel reduction treatments. The BESTBET_02 project is available to be used as a tool for resource managers, businesses and entrepreneurs as a step in developing strategies to promote and create a sustainable biomass marketplace. A series of tasks (refer to the Methodology section of the report) were completed to create this biomass utilization business facilitation and modeling effort. Using the original BESTBET Biomass Utilization Business Linkage Tool, we focused this tool to three smaller geographical areas. These areas consisted of: Bunch Creek Assessment Area, PCWA Assessment Area, and the Fire Safe Council Assessment Area. This tool allowed us to take a 2002 snapshot of the current biomass supply and current businesses that participate in the biomass industry within the specific assessment areas mentioned above. (Refer to Map 1 – Biomass Supply and Business Location in Map 2-105).
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-183 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
There are important products developed from the BESTBET_02 project. 1. Each assessment area had a potential amount of woody biomass available for harvest. The Bunch Creek Assessment Area was the only area modeled that did not have any public projects present within the boundary. There was an estimated 4,310 BDT of woody biomass available from private TPZ lands in the Bunch Creek Assessment Area. The PCWA Assessment Area had an estimated 367,549 BDT of woody biomass available for harvest, with 9% of this amount available from public projects that are likely to be harvested within a one-year time frame. The Fire Safe Council Assessment Area had an estimated 194,162 BDT of woody biomass available for harvest, with 12% of this potential woody biomass available from public projects. This indicates that there is a substantial amount of potential woody biomass available within all three-assessment areas. 2. There were 144 businesses that participated in this project. These 144 businesses are connected to the woody biomass industry in some manner. This is the second important aspect of the BESTBET_02 project, in that businesses have been identified to display the relationship between the resource and the market. This substantiates the link between business and the woody biomass resource for resources managers and entrepreneurs to utilize for future development of a sustainable woody biomass marketplace. 3. Investigation of the woody biomass marketplace revealed a total of 8 potential markets within the region that may be sustainable. The two emerging markets that seem to have the best potential to become viable in our region are the conversions of biomass to electricity and biomass to ethanol.
Woody Biomass markets are dynamic by nature. Site specific and current market analysis must be part of every vegetative management planning process. The BESTBET_02 project aids this planning process for resource planners, businesses, and entrepreneurs by giving them a tool identifying four important points, which are: 1) the need for woody biomass reduction to decrease fire hazard, 2) the potential supply of woody biomass available, 3) the identification of businesses that participate in the industry, 4) the identification of emerging woody biomass markets. This tool can be valuable for planners in the beginning stages of developing a sustainable woody biomass industry.
Biomass Utilization References
Projects, Workshops, and Website Cited: BESTBET Project, Biomass Utilization Business Linkage Tool. SEDD/Tom Amebury. 2000. www.sedd.org. Washington Ridge Bio-Energy Project (WRBEP). SEDD/Tom Amesbury. www.sedd.org Nevada County Fire Safe Council. www.nccn.net/~firesafe/
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-184 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (WHR). www.dfg.ca.gov The California Fire Plan. www.fire.ca.gov Wood Utilization Business Center Business Planning Tool. SEDD/Tom Amesbury. 2001. www.sedd.org Forest Practice Rules. www.fire.ca.gov California Environmental Quality Act. ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/ National Environmental Protection Act. www.fs.fed.us/forum/nepa/welcome.htm California Biomass Energy Alliance. www.calbiomass.org Renewable Energy Policy Project. www.crest.org Wood Center. http://www.woodcenter.net/ Small Wood 2002 Workshop. April 2002. New Mexico Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities Partnership. www.hfhcp.org Altree. www.altree.com Pine Ridge Marketing, LLC. www.pineridgemarketing.com
Literature Cited Shelly, John R., Dorothy Mockus Lubin. 1995. Analysis Of Wood Samples From The Sierra Economic Development District Biomass Utilization Feasibility Study. Technical Report 35.01.450. Forest Products Laboratory. Richmond, CA. Shelly, John R. 2001. “Biomass in California: It is a Valuable Resource.” California Biodiversity News: Volume 8, Number 2. Sacramento, CA. Barmazel, S. 1995. “Another Endangered Species: CA Biomass Industry.” California Journal April 1995. Callas, B. and J. Haygreen. 1987. An analysis of the Densified Wood Fuel Industry in the Lake States. Miscell. Pub. 42. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. University of Minnesota. Unknown. Assessment of Urban/Wildland Biomass Utilization & Disposal Options. FPL Technical Report No. 36.01.136. Anderson, M. Kat. 1994. “The Mountains Smell Like Wildfire.” Fremontia, Volume 21, No. 4, pp 15-20. Stockton, CA. Cost, Noel D., Project Leader, et al. 1990. The Forest Biomass Resource of the United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report WO-57. Turnbull, Jane Hughes. 1993. “Use of Biomass in Electric Power Generation: The California Experience.” Biomass and Energy, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 75-84. Great Britain.
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-185 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
MIDDLE FORK AMERICAN RIVER HYDROLOGY STUDY12
To Placer County Water Agency Auburn, California
By John H. Humphrey September 20, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Methodology Description of Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) Data Collection Description of Middle Fork American River Description of Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs) Transposition of Duncan/Long Canyon HRUs to the Middle Fork Description of Wet, Normal and Dry Years
Results Middle Fork American River Flow Simulations Star Fire
LIST OF FIGURES (see Appendix G) 1. Middle Fork American River Basin Boundaries 2. Sierra Nevada River Basins 3. Climatological Stations and Snow Courses 4. Middle Fork American River HRU Elevation Zones 5. Middle Fork American River HRU Aspect 6. Middle Fork American River HRU Soil Moisture Capacity 7. Middle Fork American River HRU Canopy Cover Types 8. Middle Fork American River near Forest Hill 1992 Water Year 9. Middle Fork American River near Forest Hill 1998 Water Year 10. Middle Fork American River near Forest Hill 2000 Water Year 11. Middle Fork American River Star Fire Boundary 12. Star Fire PRMS Model Duncan Canyon Water Year 1992 13. Star Fire PRMS Model Duncan Canyon Water Year 1998 14. Star Fire PRMS Model Duncan Canyon Water Year 2000
12 researched and written by John H. Humphrey
Chapter 2 Data Collection Page 2-186 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Introduction The primary purpose of this study was to extend the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) models developed in a previous study (Duncan Canyon/Long Canyon Paired Watershed Study, Placer County Water Agency, June 2002) to the Middle Fork American River at Forest Hill. A secondary purpose was to evaluate potential hydrologic influences of the Star Fire on Duncan Canyon and the Middle Fork American River.
Methodology Description of Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) Computer Program The Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) was published in 1983 by the U.S. Geological Survey. The PRMS is a modular-design, deterministic, distributed- parameter modeling system developed to evaluate the impacts of various combinations of precipitation, climate and land use on streamflow, sediment yields, and general basin hydrology. Basin response to rainfall and snowmelt can be simulated to evaluate changes in water-balance relationships, flow regimes, flood peaks and volumes, soil-water relationships, and ground-water recharge. To reproduce the physical reality of the hydrologic system as close as possible, each component of the hydrologic cycle is expressed in the form of known physical laws or empirical relationships that have some physical interpretation based on measurable watershed characteristics. Snowmelt is simulated using formulas developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the Central Sierra Snow Laboratory.
Data Collection. Topographic mapping was obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey. The same source provided digitized aerial photography flown in 1993. Soils mapping was obtained from U.S. Forest Service publications for El Dorado and Tahoe National Forests. The climatological database was described in the Paired Watershed Study. The daily flow record for the Middle Fork American River near Forest Hill was USGS No. 11433300.
Description of Middle Fork American River Figure 1 Map 2-110 shows hydrologic subbasin boundaries for the Middle Fork American River above USGS Gage No. 11433300 (524 sq mi). Note the location of the Duncan Canyon and Long Canyon watersheds used in the Paired Watershed Study. Figure 2 Map 2-111 shows the location of the Middle Fork American River watershed within the larger American River watershed and its regional relationship to similar river basins in the Sierra Nevada. Figure 3 Map 2-112 shows climatological stations and snow courses in the vicinity of the American River hydrologic basin. The climatological database could be extended to include stations more representative of lower and higher elevations than Blue Canyon, but this task was outside of the scope of work. However,
2-187 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
only Blue Canyon has the long-term hourly record required for PRMS modeling on the Middle Fork.
Description of Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs) PRMS components are designed around the concept of partitioning a watershed into units on the basis of elevation, slope, aspect, vegetation type, soil type, and precipitation distribution. Each unit is considered homogeneous with respect to its hydrologic response and is called a hydrologic-response unit (HRU). HRUs developed for the Paired Watershed Study were applied to the Middle Fork American River.
Transposition of Duncan/Long Canyon HRUs to Middle Fork American River. Parameters for common HRUs for Duncan/Long Canyon PRMS models and the Middle Fork American River model were directly transposed. The principal differences between the Paired Watershed Study HRUs and the Middle Fork HRUs were due to the extended elevation range required for the Middle Fork American River. Figure 4 Map 2-113 shows that approximately 10% of the Middle Fork watershed is located above the maximum 7000 ft elevation zone used in Duncan/Long Canyons. Also approximately 20% of the Middle Fork watershed is below the minimum 4500 ft elevation zone used in Duncan/Long Canyons. Extrapolations of the relationships for elevation vs. total precipitation and seasonal snow precipitation, based on the Paired Watershed Study, may not be as accurate as an extended analysis of available climatological data would provide. Figure 4 Map 2-113 shows that the number of elevations zones was increased to 19, to include the entire elevation range of 500 to 10,000 feet in the Middle Fork watershed. Figure 5 Map 2-114 shows East/West/Level, North and South Aspects, defined similarly to the Paired Watershed Study. Figure 6 Map 2-115 shows Soil Moisture Capacity of Low, Moderate and High, defined similarly to the Paired Watershed Study. Figure 7 Map 2- 116 shows Canopy Cover Types of Clearcut/Bare/Rock/Water, Recent Selective Cut and Forest/Regrowth, defined similarly to the Paired Watershed Study. The Middle Fork PRMS model has 513 defined HRUs, compared to the Paired Watershed Study of 162 HRUs. However, some of the defined HRUs, such as low elevation clearcut, were not used in the Middle Fork PRMS model. The transposition of the Paired Watershed Study HRUs to the Middle Fork would not influence definitions of Aspect, Soil Moisture Capacity or Canopy Cover Types. However, runoff from elevations above 7000 ft is very important to the Middle Fork in late spring and early summer. Runoff from this high elevation zone is influenced by low moisture capacity rocky terrain and associated nearly bare canopy cover. These high elevation HRUs were not represented in the Duncan/Long Canyon PRMS models. The PRMS model needs calibration testing for a representative high elevation watershed.
2-188 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Description of Wet, Normal and Dry Years PRMS model runs were made for representative wet, normal and dry years. These representative years were selected from the Duncan Canyon annual flow frequency distribution, as described in the Paired Watershed Study. Year 1992 was selected as a dry year at approximately the annual runoff 10th exceedence percentile. Year 2000 was selected as an average year at approximately the 50th percentile. Year 1998 was selected as a wet year at approximately the 90th percentile.
Results Middle Fork American River Flow Simulations Daily flows for the Middle Fork American River near Forest Hills (USGS Gage No. 11433300) were determined for representative years. Figure 8 Fig.2-3 shows simulated vs. observed daily flows for Water Year 1992 (dry year). Figure 9 Fig.2-4 shows simulated vs. observed daily flows for Water Year 1998 (wet year). Figure 10 Fig.2-5 shows simulated vs. observed daily flows for Water Year 2000 (average year). All of these simulations were quite satisfactory, considering that a single precipitation station at Blue Canyon was used. Two consistent differences were apparent: (1) Early season simulated runoff response at low elevations was too high. It is likely that soil moisture definitions for low elevation areas required an increase in capacity. (2) Extended late season snowmelt was observed into late spring and summer, higher than simulated. A likely cause is the presence of high elevation areas of snow drifting accumulations, due to the bare, rocky terrain and stronger wind speeds. HRUs could be added to simulate this effect.
Star Fire The Middle Fork PRMS model was used to evaluate hydrologic effects of the Star Fire. The Star Fire burned approximately 57% of the Duncan Canyon watershed in 2001 and approximately 5% of the Middle Fork American River watershed. Figure 11 Map 2-117 shows the area covered by the Star Fire. Model HRUs were selected to show the influence of the Star Fire on watershed hydrology. Unless already rocky or clearcut, HRUs in the fire area were changed to bare vegetative canopy. The soil moisture capacity index was reduced to reflect the loss of the surface litter/organic layer. Figures 12-14 Fig. 2-6, 2-7, 2-8 compare simulated runoff for representative years with and without the Star Fire. These results are shown for Duncan Canyon only, as relative changes in Middle Fork American River flows are an order of magnitude less. All representative year simulations predicted a significant increase in annual snowmelt runoff for Duncan Canyon watershed of 10-20%. The Paired Watershed Study and these simulations indicated that loss of vegetative cover in the forested snow zone (5000-8000 ft) has the most significant hydrologic effects.
2-189 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
CHAPTER 3 Watershed Evaluation
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to review the present institutional practices of the local, state, and federal agencies in the watershed with respect to the Watershed Plan Objectives, key-resources, and stewardship goals of the American River Watershed Group. Chapter 2 addressed the issues of the state of knowledge of the watershed key- resources, their condition, and additional information needed for a comprehensive Stewardship Program for the ARWG. This chapter reviews the goals, objectives, policies, and practices of the various agencies active in the watershed with regard to the ARWG Watershed Plan Objectives, key-resources, and stewardship. For each of the major resource and land use planning agencies in the watershed, this chapter provides first, a background review of their goals, objectives, policies, and practices with regard to watershed issues; second, a review of the relationship between these agency-specific practices and the stewardship needs derived from the watershed assessment in Chapter 2; and third, the identification of stewardship opportunities that can provide a nexus between the agencies and the stewardship goals of the ARWG. The stewardship opportunities portion of this chapter is designed to identify areas where the specific agencies can participate with the ARWG in watershed stewardship and better serve their own self-stated goals and objectives. It is worth noting that in large measure the goals, objectives, and policies of all these major agencies conform very closely to the goals of watershed stewardship developed by the ARWG. Most of the stewardship opportunities identified relate to ways in which common and collaborative watershed resource inventory and watershed process and function assessments can serve the interests and needs of the various agencies, as well as ARWG watershed stewardship objectives. Therefore a semi-detailed review of the stewardship recommendations common to all watershed agencies is presented at the end of the agency evaluation section, on page 3-65.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-1 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Agency Review
FEDERAL AGENCIES US Forest Service (Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests) Background
Within the watershed there are two national forests; Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests. Both national forests have been managing resources under Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) for their respective areas since the mid-1980s. Following the findings of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) of 1996, the US Forest Service found that the conditions of the national forest and the interests of resource management had changed to the degree that the LRMPs required amendment. In 2001 the existing LRMPs were amended by the Regional Forester with the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (Framework). The Framework amended all the national forest LRMPs of the Sierra Nevada and Modoc areas of the region. The major forest management issues that are related to watershed key-resources and are identified by and form the purposes of the Framework include the following: Protect, increase, and perpetuate old forest ecosystems and provide for the viability of native plant and animal species associated with old forest ecosystems, Protect and restore aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems and provide for the viability of native plant and animal species associated with these ecosystems, Manage fire and fuels in a consistent manner across the national forests, coordinate management strategies with other ownerships, integrate fire and fuels management objectives with other natural resource management objectives, address the role of wildland fire, and set priorities for fire and fuels management actions, Reduce and, where possible, reverse the spread of noxious weeds, Maintain and enhance hardwood forest ecosystems in the lower westside of the Sierra Nevada. The resource management goals presented by the Framework which are applicable to the watershed Plan Objectives and key-resources include the following: 1 - Aquatic Management Strategy Goals:
STRATEGY GOALS 1. Water quality: Maintain and restore water quality to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, providing water that is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment.
STRATEGY GOAL 2. Species Viability: Maintain and restore habitat to support populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work cooperatively to reduce impacts to native populations. Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-2 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
STRATEGY GOAL 3. Plant and Animal Community Diversity: Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plans and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows to provide desired habitats and ecological functions.
STRATEGY GOAL 4. Special Habitats: Maintain and restore the distribution and health of biotic communities in special habitat (such as springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes) to perpetuate their unique functions and biological diversity.
STRATEGY GOAL 5. Watershed Connectivity: Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically, and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration, and reproduction.
STRATEGY GOAL 6. Floodplains and Water Tables: Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute floodflows and sustain diverse habitats.
STRATEGY GOAL 7. Watershed Condition: Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetation cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable conditions of streamflows.
STRATEGY GOAL 8. Streamflow Patterns and Sediment Regimes: Maintain and restore streamflows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved.
STRATEGY GOAL 9. Stream Banks and Shorelines: Maintain and restore the physical structure and condition of stream banks and shorelines to minimize erosion and sustain desired habitat diversity.
2 - Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs): Intent of management direction: - Preserve, enhance, and restore habitat for riparian- and aquatic- dependent species. - Ensure that water quality is maintained or restored. - Enhance habitat conservation for species associated with the transition zone between upslope and riparian area. - Provide greater connectivity within the watershed. Size parameters: - Perennial streams - 300 ft each side from bankfull edge. - Intermittent streams (with ephemerals with scour) - 150 ft. each side from bankfull edge. - Streams in inner gorges - top of inner gorge. - Special Aquatic Features - 300 ft from edge of feature or riparian vegetation edge.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-3 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
4 - Conservation Objectives: Ensure that identified beneficial uses for the water body are adequately protected. Maintain or restore - the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs, - streams, including streamflows, - hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species. Ensure a renewable supply of large down logs that can reach the stream channel and provide suitable habitat within and adjacent to RCAs. Ensure management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within RCAs enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes needed to recover or enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas. Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain, restore, or enhance water quality and maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for riparian and aquatic species.
Stewardship Issues The Framework contains objectives that relate to watershed Plan Objectives and key-resource issues. These watershed issues are presented below in major categories. 1. Stream channel and riparian areas The USFS emphasizes protection of stream channels in “natural” conditions and the preservation of riparian and wetland areas along streams. It includes concerns setbacks along channels, channel morphology, sediment routing, riparian areas, and floodplains through management direction. Areas within floodplains have provisions for restricted land use development and for an emphasis on resource protection. - Streams as a category are not defined by the USFS either by functional definition or by mapped source. When established by flow regime or channel characteristics, channels of smaller order streams are difficult to segment into perennial, intermittent, ephemeral, and even un- channel reaches. The reliability of flows in channels segment can vary between water years and can progressively change with changing climate and changing land uses. There are no maps that accurately and consistently represent these flow regimes in channel reaches (particularly low order channels) of the watershed. Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-4 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- The watershed hillslope and stream channel systems are coupled by sediment delivery, streamflow regime, and sediment transport patterns. The watershed is in a progressive state of evolution in conjunction with climate changes, regional uplift, and channel incision. Many of the channel reaches in the watershed are undergoing disruptive changes due to the natural progression of watershed evolution and the channel response to changed conditions. The specific reaches of channel undergoing natural adjustment and disruption are expected to change through time. Often natural (and man-induced) changes in a channel reach can cause downstream and, sometimes, upstream propagation of disruption and adjustment. - Present and future land use changes can influence streamflow patterns, change hillslope develop and sediment delivery patterns, and future climate changes can be expected to result in channel changes constantly over time. In semi-confined mountainous channel segments these natural and human caused changes in channel configuration can result in; 1) progressive and minor enlargement to accommodate additional flows and sediment transport, 2) substantial enlargement and channel migration during a derangement phase of channel adjustment, or 3) progressive lateral channel migration to accommodate needs for greater stream length and lower gradient. While the county is encouraging cluster development to enhance open space areas and greater rural resource values, concentrated development can also lead to changed stream conditions in low order channels with accompanying channel and channel related resource value changes. These expected natural and man-influenced channel changes can be in conflict with the setbacks and bring developed land uses such as channel associated features like bridges, culverts, and fill slopes, into serious conflict with stream resources. Accommodating these possibilities by modifying the channels can either bring the actions into other conflicts with the county’s interest in “natural” channels, or in a worst case situation lead to the downstream translation of the disruptive channel change processes, propagating the problem to other lands. - The use of floodplains as a parameter for channel related resource protection and the protection of life and property can be insufficient due to several circumstances. First, statistical floodflow event discharge magnitudes can be expected to increase progressively due to global warming and also to increase in conjunction with increased land use development intensity. Second, in semi-confined mountainous channels in which changing (natural or man-induced) channel conditions can be expected, the channels can enlarge and/or migrate to the point that higher terraces along channels, areas once above the existing floodflow stages, can become incorporated into the active
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-5 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
channel. Land use development or resource protection on these sites can eventually become in conflict with many of the USFS’s and the watershed objectives, placing life and property threat in proximity to channel related key-resource values. The protection of land use development on these sites when channels adjust to watershed conditions can result in the loss of channel and riparian resources and lead to the use of structural controls in and along the channel banks - The USFS has an interest in both natural channels and the preservation of riparian habitat. The maintenance and/or restoration of natural channels is encouraged by the avoidance of structural solutions, grading, setbacks associated with septic and engineering requirements and zoning provisions, and the protection of riparian vegetation. Many of the foregoing issues relate to the possibility and likelihood that channels will adjust and enlarge due to changes watershed conditions. With the possibility that the stream setbacks are undersized in some circumstances, this leads to the possibility that in-channel and riparian area impacts will occur and that adjacent developed land uses will be put at threat. The on-site restoration of channel and riparian system impacts may be impeded by some of the channel and riparian protection provisions. - On-site and off-site mitigation are encouraged for impacts to channel and riparian areas. In a region where changing watershed conditions can lead to changed channel conditions over time, without information on site-specific channel conditions and change trends and/or potential changes, both on-site and off-site mitigation measures can either fail or lead to additional land use/channel resource conflicts. Related to this issue and other foregoing issues associated with channels and riparian habitat, there is no inventory of channel conditions, their dynamic variability, hillslope/channel relationships, stability regimes, change trends, etc., and no inventory of riparian vegetation extent, condition, values, and dependence on channel dynamics. Lacking this information meaningful impact assessments and mitigation and restoration decisions are difficult.
2. Slope Stability and High Erosion Area Concerns The USFS is concerned about slope stability and erosion production as they may influence risks in resource management and property and as they may adversely affect stream resources through sedimentation. - The USFS is concerned that development plans include the identification of areas prone to slope failure and/or are susceptible to high erosion hazards and that the site plans accommodate these issues. There is no uniform and reliable watershed scale information on slope stability risks and erosion hazards that would serve as a spatial guide for the location of land use development and identify project areas that Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-6 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
should require greater emphasis on slope stability and erosion hazards. Relevant information gaps includes uniform and reliable information on: 1.) the hillslope processes that occur and as they vary (time and space) in the watershed; 2.) the landscape evolutionary processes in the watershed and the influences these processes have on slope stability and variability; and 3) a watershed-scale assessment of the probability and likelihood of slope failure (and types of failure) areas. Similarly there is an information gap in the spatial variability of erosion hazards to various impact influences.
3. Runoff and Streamflow Impacts on Stream Resources and Downstream Jurisdictions The USFS is generally concerned land uses that change the streamflow regimes of the channels of the watershed and the impacts those changes may have on stream resources, riparian property owners and downstream jurisdictions. Floodflow issues were discussed above. - Resource management and vegetation changes can lead to changes in the soil-water routing processes and runoff source areas that in turn can modify the streamflow regimes in downstream reaches. There is no uniform method for estimating the changes in the soil-water routing, runoff, and streamflow regime that may occur as a result of land use changes and therefore no method to identify those landscape units most susceptible to modifying soil-water routing. This concern becomes more important when considering multiple watershed changes in cross-jurisdictional cause/effect relationship and when considering other circumstances such as climate change. - The USFS is interested in groundwater recharge areas and in the watershed these relate to the ‘hardrock’ groundwater settings. Of concern in this setting is support for watershed process and function, and baseflow streamflow support for the maintenance of stream and channel related key-resources. There is no watershed assessment that identifies important groundwater recharge areas and their susceptibility to impact due to land use changes and/or climate changes. - The USFS is interested in facilitating the protection resources and vegetation integrity from losses from wildland fires. It encourages various actions to reduce the fuel loads and to reduce the risks by improving services. One assessment element missing from the fuel evaluation mix is a parameter that shows areas sensitive to accelerated erosion due to intensive fires and, thus from a watershed resource issue perspective, could be a target for fuel load reduction.
Stewardship Opportunities
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-7 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
1. Participate in an Agency MOU Agreement to collaborate in the ARWG with planning and project review. 2. Participate in ARWG GIS database sharing and participate in GIS system maintenance and updating. 3. Participate and collaborate in ARWG stewardship projects. 4. Participate and collaborate in key-resources identification and desired condition standards and incorporate these as watershed resources in land use planning and project review. 5. Participate and collaborate in watershed channel condition inventory. 6. Participate and collaborate in watershed aquatic resources inventory. 7. Participate and collaborate in developing a watershed WEHY model. 8. Collaborate with the ARWG in developing watershed scale and soil type scale erosion potential assessments and inventory maps for various erosion hazard attributes to supplement the Stewardship GIS database. 9. Use the ARWG Fire Risk-Watershed Asset Map as a basis to prioritize actions associated with fuel load reduction.
Endnotes USFS, 2001; Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Record of Decision.
Bureau of Land Management Background The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages lands in the lower portions of the watershed west of the North Fork American boundaries and intermingled with private lands. These lands are under the management jurisdiction of the Folsom Field Office and are organized into the two defined management areas: 1.) the Foresthill Divide Management Area, including scattered lands between the I-80 ridge and the Middle Fork American; and 2.) the Georgetown Management Area, including scattered lands between the Middle Fork and the Georgetown Divide. BLM land management planning is undertaken under the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). These lands are currently under the management direction established by the Folsom Resource Area Sierra Planning Area Management Framework Plan (MFP), 1981 (Folsom Field Office), as modified by the Final Sierra Planning Area Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment, 1988. The 1981 Sierra Planning Area Management Framework Plan (MFP) established several objectives for the lands in the two management areas. Various lands were to be managed intensively for sustained timber production and other, non- commercial uses, and to be managed for fuel wood production when compatible with other resource values. A habitat management plan was identified to be developed for the
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-8 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Foresthill area to include prescribed burning to generate browse and acorn mass for wildlife. A 100-ft. buffer strip was adopted on both sides of perennial streams to protect vegetation and native fisheries, and to manage timber sales for wildlife values including snag maintenance and black oak for acorn production. Other areas were identified for a variety of recreation uses, and the portion of the NF American Wild and Scenic River within BLM jurisdiction was to be managed for identified values and classification. The 1988 Final Sierra Planning Area Management Framework Plan Amendment modified the 1981 MFP by establishing land transfer and management consolidation objectives. In general the amended MFP included proposals to transfer lands to the US Forest Service for more efficient management and reduced costs, transfer to state and county agencies for the purposes of enhanced local land use management and recreational resource management, and to transfer lands to the private sector to enhance cost-effective BLM management, increased properties on local tax rolls, and to enhance conformance with local land use plans. In the Foresthill Divide Management Area the MFP calls for consolidating land ownership along the NF American Wild and Scenic River within the management corridor for better management and effective access, to transfer lands to the Tahoe National Forest for more effective resource management, and to provide land for community expansion programs near Foresthill, Iowa Hill and other communities. An objective was also to protect unspecified key resource values associated with wild and scenic river designation. In the NF/MF American portion of the Georgetown Management Area, no amendments were proposed to the 1981 MFP. Those lands that were identified for disposal to the private sector were located in portions of the Management Area outside the NF/MF American watershed. Within the setting of the 1981 and 1988 MFPs, BLM proceeds with land use management under the objectives set by these plans and other standing rules and regulations that are applicable to BLM; these are Activity-Based Plans which address specific resource values or resource use issues in specific areas or portions of Management Areas. Issues that may be approached through Activity-Based Plans can include, but are not limited to, fuel management projects, recreational trail development, collaborative and inter-agency recreation management planning, or Wild and Scenic River Plans. Due to the typically intermixed nature of BLM lands with both private lands and lands under the management of other agencies, these Activity-Based Plans often have a heavy emphasis on development through collaborative processes. In the watershed, BLM has undertaken Activity-Based Plans for fuels management in the Iowa Hill area and has developed a whitewater boating recreational management plan for the Green Valley/Iowa Hill Bridge reach of the NF American. In the region, the Folsom Field Office is presently in the final stages of completing a resource use and recreation planning effort along the SF American River. Because of the complex intermixing of private and BLM lands, the SF American Activity-Based Plan process employed a “community-based” approach which included the intensive involvement of landowners and resource users throughout the process, from scoping of issues to the development of planning options. In addition, this Field Office is embarking on a collaborative, interagency recreation management planning effort along the South Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-9 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Yuba River using a three-party, interagency MOU, which will also follow a Community- Based process with the public. In the near future this Field Office intends to start a formal Wild and Scenic River planning effort along the NF American between Eucher Bar and the Iowa Hill Bridge. The approach to this future Activity-Based Plan effort has not yet been established. The Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2000) was developed to improve and standardize BLM’s land use planning procedures with respect to the FLPMA. The approach established by this handbook “...will use an ongoing planning process to ensure that land use plans and implementation decisions remain consistent with applicable laws, regulations, orders, and polices...[and]...will involve public participation, assessment, decision making, implementation, plan monitoring, and evaluation, as well as adjustment through maintenance, amendment, and revision” (p. I-2). It “provides guidance for preparing and amending land use plan decisions through the planning process, and for maintaining both Resource Management Plans (RMPs) and Management Framework Plans (MFPs)” (p. I-1), encouraging planning at a variety of scales following collaborative planning partnerships with other landowners and agencies. BLM’s collaborative emphasis recognizes that in advance of the planning processes there is the need to determine the most appropriate, efficient, and productive working relationships that may be necessary to achieve meaningful land use planning results. While the final responsibility and authority for decisions affecting BLM- administered lands remains with BLM managers, the process calls for extensive collaboration and multi-jurisdictional planning. The approach “...entails BLM working together with tribal, State, and local governments; Federal agencies; and other interested parties, from the earliest stages and continuing throughout the planning process to address common needs and goal within the planning area” (p. I-5) and to early-on consider the existing plans of various entities. In multi-jurisdictional planning, BLM recognizes that in settings with “...a mix of landownership and government authorities...there are opportunities to develop complementary decisions across jurisdictional boundaries...[and]...planning could be accomplished for sub-watersheds, entire watersheds, or other landscape units.” MOU agreements between agencies may best facilitate multi-jurisdictional planning efforts. The Land Use Plan guides management actions on BLM-administered lands and the decisions reached during the process establish goals and objectives for resource management, measures needed to achieve the goals and objectives, and the parameters for the uses of BLM lands. These Land Use Plan-level decisions are ordinarily made on a broad scale and are used to guide subsequent site-specific implementation decisions and include such issues as: 1.) allowable uses; 2.) actions needed to achieve desired outcomes; and 3.) land tenure decisions. This is a very involved planning effort that can take up to five years to complete and will entail an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluation. The Folsom Field Office expects to initiate this process in about the 2004-2005 time period. Following the adoption of the Land Use Plan, subsequent MFPs, RMPs, and various Activity-Based plans undertaken and, unless unique circumstances are present, environmental evaluations may only occur at the Environmental Assessment (EA) level.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-10 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
According to the Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2000), these Land Use Plans must (p. II-1): 1. Use principles of multiple use and sustained yield 2. Use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to integrated physical, biological, economic, and other sciences 3. Give priority of designating and protecting area of critical environmental concern 4. Rely on available inventory of public lands, their resources, and other values 5. Consider present and potential uses of public lands 6. Consider the relatively scarcity of the values involved and the availability of alternative mean and sites for realizing those values 7. Weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term benefits 8. Provide for compliance with applicable tribal, Federal and State pollution control laws, standards, and implementation plans, and 9. Collaborate and coordinate land use inventories, planning, and management activities, and to consider the plans of other entities to the maximum extent consistent with Federal law. The Lands Use Plans must also express desired outcomes of desired future conditions using specific goals, standards, and objectives (p. II-2). Goals are general, usually unquantified, statements of desired outcomes such as maintain ecosystem health and productivity, promote community stability, ensure sustained development, etc. Standards may address site-specific as well as landscape- or watershed-scale conditions and are descriptions of physical and biological conditions or the “degree of function” required for healthy, sustainable lands. BLM has agreed to work within the Resource Advisory Council (RAC) structure to expand existing rangeland “public land health standards” to other resource issues and to apply these new standards on other non-rangeland BLM administrative lands. These “public land health standards” are to be incorporated into all new Land Use Plans and into all existing land use plans through the maintenance, amendment, or revision process. Land Use Plans must consider the “public land health standards” when addressing management prescriptions for uses and activities on public lands and to considered under what circumstances adverse effects are permissible. Objectives are the identified specific desired condition of a resource using usually quantitative measures and, as appropriate, time frames for achievement. The general process for developing Land Use Plan decisions includes four basic steps. First, a scoping process is used to identify land use issues and conflicts that need resolution. The scoping includes a Specific Notice of Intent (NOI) with the objective of soliciting issue input from landowners, resource users, and potentially affected governmental entities. Second is the assessment of the resource information concerning the status, trend, and risk to resource values, and opportunities that may be present to reduce risk or improve resource value conditions. Third is identifying desired outcomes
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-11 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
based on the status, trends, risk and opportunities for resource values. Finally is the identification of allowable uses and actions to achieve desired outcomes.
Stewardship Issues BLM has a range of resource issues that will likely become involved with the Land Use Plan and with the various Activity-Based Plans to be undertaken in the NF/MF American watershed in the future. Many of these may be related to watershed key- resources. Among others, these resources will likely include: channel conditions, aquatic resources, fish and wildlife, riparian habitat, rare, threatened and endangered species, wildland fuels, etc. The various resource planning and assessments to be undertaken are to include issues important to local entities, to be based on a range of resource inventories that exist at the time of application, and to use as yet undetermined assessment methods. Due to the complex land ownership and management pattern typical of BLM, of particular interest will be the assessment of land use and resource management action impacts on watershed key-resources across jurisdictional boundaries. These circumstances provide for many possible BLM/ARWG stewardship opportunities in the watershed, as identified below.
Stewardship Opportunities 1. Participate in an Agency MOU Agreement to collaborate in the ARWG with planning and project review. 2. Participate in ARWG GIS database sharing and participate in GIS system maintenance and updating. 3. Participate and collaborate in ARWG stewardship projects. 4. Participate and collaborate in key-resources identification and desired condition standards and incorporate these as watershed resources in land use planning and project review. 5. Participate and collaborate in watershed channel condition inventory. 6. Participate and collaborate in watershed aquatic resources inventory. 7. Participate and collaborate in developing a watershed WEHY model. 8. Collaborate with the ARWG in developing watershed scale and soil type scale erosion potential assessments and inventory maps for various erosion hazard attributes to supplement the Stewardship GIS database. 9. Use the ARWG Fire Risk-Watershed Asset Map as a basis to prioritize actions associated with fuel load reduction.. Endnotes BLM, 1981; Folsom Resource Area; Sierra Planning Area Management Framework Plan. Folsom Field Office. BLM, 1988; Final Sierra Planning Area Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment. Folsom Field Office.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-12 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
BLM, 2000; Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1).
Natural Resource Conservation Service Background The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is a federal agency of the Department of Agriculture. This agency works with private landowners to help them protect their natural and soil resources as well as with land use and resource management agencies at the local, state and federal levels. The NRCS conducts soil mapping on non- national forest lands and provides attribute characterizations and interpretive table of the soil types. The NRCS provides on-site technical assistance to both the US Forest Service and California Department of Forestry and Fire concerning post-wildland fire soil erosion prevention by mapping areas of low, medium, and high vegetation loss and soil damage from wildfire heat. Besides technical support, the NRCS also provides a variety of cost-sharing programs to landowners. In the watershed the NRCS provides these services through three offices, one for each of the counties in the watershed (El Dorado, Nevada, Placer). NRCS landowner cost-sharing programs that relate to watershed Plan Objectives for key- resources includes the following. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a voluntary conservation program that promotes agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible goals. Ranchers and farmers may receive financial and technical help to install or implement structural and management conservation practices which may include nutrient management, integrated pest management, and wildlife habitat management practices such as fuels management. This program is for non-forestland, such as cropland, rangeland, pasture, etc. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) is a voluntary program that encourages the establishment of high quality wildlife habitat on private land. NRCS provides both technical and financial assistance to landowners, managers, local government and others to plan and develop upland, wetland, riparian, and aquatic wildlife habitat. Landowners work with the NRCS to prepare a wildlife habitat development plan in consultation with local conservation districts and others. Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP) provides technical and financial assistance following natural disasters such as floods. Funding is available for such work as clearing derbies from clogged waterways, restoring vegetation, and stabilizing channel banks and other projects to restore natural watershed function. The measures taken must be environmentally and economically sound. When developing the annual prospective budgets for these programs, the local NRCS offices consult landowners, local agencies, and local organizations for input on the general level of need. When a project is funded for a project under these programs, besides providing technical support, the local NRCS office conducts an environmental
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-13 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
review that include soil, water, air, plant, and animal resource assessments and the consideration of economic issues. When projects are funded through EWP, the projects are limited to the replacement features and facilities as they existed prior to the disruptive event. Stewardship Issues The practices and programs of the NRCS have several aspects that relate to watershed Plan Objectives and key-resource issues. These watershed issues are presented below in three major categories: 1.) stream channel and riparian areas, 2.) slope stability and high erosion area concerns, and 3.) runoff and streamflow impacts on stream resources and downstream jurisdictions. 1. Stream channel and riparian areas Some of the programs of the NRCS concern issues related to stream channels and riparian vegetation. Some of these concern are related to the evaluation of proposed habitat, wildland fire fuels management, channel bank stabilization, and channel clearing projects. An operative objective related to channel resources and conditions is natural watershed function. - Watershed hillslope and stream channel systems are coupled by sediment delivery, streamflow regime, and sediment transport patterns. The watershed is in a progressive state of evolution in conjunction with climate changes, regional uplift, and channel incision. Many of the channel reaches in the watershed are undergoing disruptive changes due to the natural progression of watershed evolution and the channel response to changed conditions. The specific reaches of channel undergoing natural adjustment and disruption are expected to change through time. Often natural (and man-induced) changes in a channel reach can cause downstream and, sometimes, upstream propagation of disruption and adjustment. Channel adjustments, although they may appear destructive, are often a necessary physical adjustment to changing watershed conditions (streamflow and sediment routing). As a result maintaining channels in a pre- adjustment condition can be a high maintenance exercise and can lead to the translation of adjustments to other nearby channel reaches. - Present and future land use changes can influence streamflow patterns, change hillslope develop and sediment delivery patterns, and future climate changes can be expected to result in channel changes constantly over time. In semi-confined mountainous channel segments these natural and human caused changes in channel configuration can result in: 1.) progressive and minor enlargement to accommodate additional flows and sediment transport, 2.) substantial enlargement and channel migration during a derangement phase of channel adjustment, or 3.) progressive lateral channel migration to accommodate needs for greater stream length and lower gradient. Projects that attempt to maintain channels in a pre-existing condition in the face of expected natural and man-influenced channel changes Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-14 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
can lead to unsuccessful project, loss of channel related resources, and can induce aggravated channel adjustments on other reaches. These process can be in conflict with watershed Plan Objectives, key- resources, channel related infrastructural features, and land use development in riparian areas. - Restoration projects are encouraged in channel and riparian areas. In a region where changing watershed conditions can lead to changed channel conditions over time, without information on site-specific channel conditions and change trends and/or potential changes, both on-site and off-site mitigation measures and restoration projects can either fail or lead to additional land use/channel resource conflicts. Related to this issue and other foregoing issues associated with channels and riparian habitat, there is no inventory of channel conditions, their dynamic variability, hillslope/channel relationships, stability regimes, change trends, etc., and no inventory of riparian vegetation extent, condition, values, and dependence on channel dynamics. Lacking this information, meaningful impact assessments and mitigation and restoration decisions are difficult.
2. Slope Stability and High Erosion Area Concerns The NRCS is concerned about slope stability and erosion production as they may influence risks in resource management and property and as they may adversely affect stream resources through sedimentation. - The NRCS is concerned that development plans include the identification of areas prone to slope failure and/or are susceptible to high erosion hazards and that the site plans accommodate these issues. There is no uniform and reliable watershed-scale information on slope stability risks and erosion hazards that would serve as a spatial guide for the location of land use development and identify project areas that should require greater emphasis on slope stability and erosion hazards. Relevant information gaps include uniform and reliable information on: 1.) the hillslope processes that occur and as they vary (time and space) in the watershed; 2.) the landscape evolutionary processes in the watershed and the influences these processes have on slope stability and variability; and 3.) a watershed-scale assessment of the probability and likelihood of slope failure (and types of failure) areas. Similarly there is an information gap in the spatial variability of erosion hazards to various impact influences. 3. Runoff and Streamflow Impacts on Stream Resources and Downstream Jurisdictions The NRCS is generally concerned water resources as land uses or cover changes may change the streamflow regimes of channels of the watershed and the impacts those changes may have on stream resources, riparian property owners and downstream jurisdictions. Floodflow issues were discussed above. Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-15 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- Resource management and vegetation changes can lead to changes in the soil-water routing processes and runoff source areas that in turn can modify the streamflow regimes in downstream reaches. There is no uniform method for estimating the changes in the soil-water routing, runoff, and streamflow regime that may occur as a result of land use changes and therefore no method to identify those landscape units most susceptible to modifying soil-water routing. This concern becomes more important when considering multiple watershed changes in cross-jurisdictional cause/effect relationship and when considering other circumstances such as climate change. - The concern for water resources can include an interest in groundwater recharge areas because in a “hardrock” setting, groundwater’s role in watershed process and function is baseflow streamflow support and the maintenance of stream and channel related key-resources. There is no watershed assessment that identifies important groundwater recharge areas and their susceptibility to impact due to land use changes and/or climate changes. - The NRCS is interested in encouraging various actions to reduce the fuel loads and to reduce the risks for catastrophic wildland fires. One assessment element missing from the fuel evaluation mix is a parameter that shows areas sensitive to accelerated erosion due to intensive fires and, thus from a watershed resource issue perspective, could be a target for fuel load reduction.
Stewardship Opportunities 1. Participate in an Agency MOU Agreement to collaborate in the ARWG with planning and project review. 2. Participate in ARWG GIS database sharing and participate in GIS system maintenance and updating. 3. Participate and collaborate in ARWG stewardship projects. 4. Participate and collaborate in key-resources identification and desired condition standards and incorporate these as watershed resources in land use planning and project review. 5. Participate and collaborate in watershed channel condition inventory. 6. Participate and collaborate in watershed aquatic resources inventory. 7. Participate and collaborate in developing a watershed WEHY model. 8. Collaborate with the ARWG in developing watershed scale and soil type scale erosion potential assessments and inventory maps for various erosion hazard attributes to supplement the Stewardship GIS database. 9. Use the ARWG Fire Risk-Watershed Asset Map as a basis to prioritize actions associated with fuel load reduction..
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-16 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
STATE AGENCIES California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Background The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) operates under the California Forest Practice Rules. It has three main areas of responsibility on private forestlands and other areas within its fire protection jurisdiction: 1.) fire prevention through checking for defensible space conditions around structures; 2.) fire suppression or fire protection through collaborative fire fighting efforts on wildland fires; and 3.) commercial timber production through the use of Timber Harvest Plans (THPs). The two issue areas in which watershed Plan Objectives and key-resources relate to CDF responsibilities are: 1.) wildland fire fuels reduction and other pre-fire projects, and 2.) impacts associated with commercial timberland management. In the watershed CDF divides its responsibilities between the Nevada Yuba Placer Ranger Unit, for those areas in Nevada and Placer Counties, and the Amador-El Dorado Ranger Unit for those areas within El Dorado County. As part of its fire prevention and protection efforts, each Ranger Unit of CDF prepares and maintains a Prefire Management Plan. The main goal of these plans is to reduce total government costs and citizen losses from wildland fire by protecting assets at risk through focuses prefire management prescriptions and increasing initial attach success. While these prefire plans target a wide range of cultural and natural resource assets and may involve a wide range of prefire treatments to reduce threats to assets, reduce costs, and increase attack success, they are not necessarily targeted at key- resources. In the area of commercial timber management, CDF’s responsibilities through the THP process include many aspects that relate to watershed Plan Objectives and watershed key-resources. Issues addressed by THPs that relate to watershed resources include: identified special status species, channels (and channel-related resources such as aquatic habitat) through setbacks and silvicultural practices, erosion hazards by soil types, slope, and season of activities. The THPs are functionally equivalent to EIRs. They are prepared by Registered Professional Foresters (RPFs) in accord with THP guidelines and are checked and approved by CDF. The approval process includes reviews by California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) to address fish and wildlife issues. Each THP addresses impacts to identified resources and includes a cumulative impact evaluation.
Stewardship Issues The practices and programs of CDF have several aspects that relate to watershed Plan Objectives and key-resource issues. These watershed issues are presented below in three major categories, including: stream channel and riparian areas, slope stability and high erosion area concerns, and runoff and streamflow impacts on stream resources. 1. Stream channel and riparian areas;
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-17 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Some of the regulations of CDF concern issues related to stream channels and riparian vegetation mainly with respect to THP setbacks and silvicultural practices. - The watershed hillslope and stream channel systems are coupled by sediment delivery, streamflow regime, and sediment transport patterns. The watershed is in a progressive state of evolution in conjunction with climate changes, regional uplift, and channel incision. Many of the channel reaches in the watershed are undergoing disruptive changes due to the natural progression of watershed evolution and the channel response to changed conditions. The specific reaches of channel undergoing natural adjustment and disruption are expected to change through time. Often natural (and man-induced) changes in a channel reach can cause downstream and, sometimes, upstream propagation of disruption and adjustment. Channel adjustments, although they may appear destructive, are often a necessary physical adjustment to changing watershed conditions (streamflow and sediment routing). As a result maintaining channels in a pre- adjustment condition can be a high maintenance exercise and can lead to the translation of adjustments to other nearby channel reaches. - Present and future land use changes can influence streamflow patterns, change hillslope development and sediment delivery patterns, and future climate changes can be expected to result in channel changes constantly over time. In semi-confined mountainous channel segments these natural and human caused changes in channel configuration can result in; 1) progressive and minor enlargement to accommodate additional flows and sediment transport, 2) substantial enlargement and channel migration during a derangement phase of channel adjustment, or 3) progressive lateral channel migration to accommodate needs for greater stream length and lower gradient. Projects that attempt to maintain channels in a pre-existing condition in the face of expected natural and man-influenced channel changes can lead to unsuccessful project, loss of channel related resources, and can induce aggravated channel adjustments on other reaches. These process can be in conflict with watershed Plan Objectives, watershed key-resources, channel related infrastructural features, and land use development in riparian areas. - Restoration projects are encouraged in channel and riparian areas. In a region where changing watershed conditions can lead to changed channel conditions over time, without information on site-specific channel conditions and change trends and/or potential changes, both on-site and off-site mitigation measures and restoration projects can either fail or lead to additional land use/channel resource conflicts. Related to this issue and other foregoing issues associated with channels and riparian habitat, there is no inventory of channel conditions, their dynamic variability, hillslope/channel relationships, Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-18 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
stability regimes, change trends, etc., and no inventory of riparian vegetation extent, condition, values, and dependence on channel dynamics. Lacking this information meaningful impact assessments and mitigation and restoration decisions are difficult. A common inventory of channel processes and adjustment regimes, riparian conditions could greatly aid the RPFs in preparing THPs.
2. Slope Stability and High Erosion Area Concerns The CDF is concerned about slope stability and erosion production as they may influence risks in resource management and property and as they may adversely affect stream resources through sedimentation. - The CDF and RPFs are concerned that development plans include the identification of areas prone to slope failure and/or are susceptible to high erosion hazards and that the site plans accommodate these issues. There is no uniform and reliable watershed-scale information on slope stability risks and erosion hazards that would serve as a spatial guide for the location of land use development and identify project areas that should require greater emphasis on slope stability and erosion hazards. Relevant information gaps includes uniform and reliable information on: 1.) the hillslope processes that occur and as they vary (time and space) in the watershed; 2.) the landscape evolutionary processes in the watershed and the influences these processes have on slope stability and variability; and 3.) a watershed-scale assessment of the probability and likelihood of slope failure (and types of failure) areas. Similarly there is an information gap in the spatial variability of erosion hazards to various impact influences. A common inventory of slope failure probability could assist the RPFs in preparing THPs. 3. Runoff and Streamflow Impacts on Stream Resources The effects of cover and vegetation change on downstream streamflow regimes is related to project impacts. These changes can be related to impacts on stream resources, riparian property owners and downstream jurisdictions. Floodflow issues were discussed above. These issues are related to cumulative impacts. - Resource management and vegetation changes can lead to changes in the soil-water routing processes and runoff source areas that in turn can modify the streamflow regimes in downstream reaches. There is no uniform method for estimating the changes in the soil- water routing, runoff, and streamflow regime that may occur as a result of land use changes and therefore no method to identify those landscape units most susceptible to modifying soil-water routing. This concern becomes more important when considering multiple watershed changes in cross-jurisdictional cause/effect relationship and when considering other circumstances such as climate change. Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-19 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- The concern for water resources can include an interest in groundwater recharge areas because in a “hardrock” setting, groundwater’s role in watershed process and function is baseflow streamflow support and the maintenance of stream and channel related key-resources. There is no watershed assessment that identifies important groundwater recharge areas and their susceptibility to impact due to land use changes and/or climate changes. - CDF is interested in encouraging various actions to reduce the fuel loads and to reduce the risks for catastrophic wildland fires. One assessment element missing from the fuel evaluation mix is a parameter that shows areas sensitive to accelerated erosion due to intensive fires and, thus from a watershed resource issue perspective, could be a target for fuel load reduction.
Stewardship Opportunities 1. Participate in an Agency MOU Agreement to collaborate in the ARWG with planning and project review. 2. Participate in ARWG GIS database sharing and participate in GIS system maintenance and updating. 3. Participate and collaborate in ARWG stewardship projects. 4. Participate and collaborate in key-resources identification and desired condition standards and incorporate these as watershed resources in land use planning and project review. 5. Participate and collaborate in watershed channel condition inventory. 6. Participate and collaborate in watershed aquatic resources inventory. 7. Participate and collaborate in developing a watershed WEHY model. 8. Collaborate with the ARWG in developing watershed scale and soil type scale erosion potential assessments and inventory maps for various erosion hazard attributes to supplement the Stewardship GIS database. 9. Use the ARWG Fire Risk-Watershed Asset Map as a basis to prioritize actions associated with fuel load reduction..
Endnotes CDF, 1996; Nevada Yuba Placer Ranger Unit - Prefire Management Plan. California Forest Practice Rules 2001.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-20 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Resource Conservation Districts Background The Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) are non-regulatory, advisory agencies concerned mainly with erosion and water resources but also related fish and wildlife habitat resources. This agency works with private landowners and public land use and resource agencies to help them protect their natural and soil resources. The agencies are designed to have local boards of directors that are representative of the community and to respond specifically to resource management issues at the local level. In the watershed the RCDs provide these services through three offices, one for each of the watershed counties (El Dorado, Nevada and Placer). Projects that RCDs may be involved in include: conservation education, erosion control, installing Best Management Practices (BMPs), demonstration projects, wildland fire fuels reduction, road management and maintenance and watershed planning. RCDs regularly develop cooperative MOUs with other agencies in order to facilitate collaborative management and cooperative resource management projects. This includes engagement in Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) efforts. RCDs also have the responsibility to educate the local community regarding resource conservation issues and to encourage good conservation stewardship through outreach. Outreach and education can include adult education, media outreach, newsletters, displays at community activities, public appearances, student and classroom education, demonstration projects, and direct field instruction. As part of their responsibilities for resource management and collaboration with projects, the RCDs can provide resource informational and practice advice concerning watershed-related Plan Objective and key-resource issues.
Stewardship Issues The practices and activities of the RCDs have several aspects that relate to watershed Plan Objectives and key-resource issues. These watershed issues are presented below in major categories, including: stream channel and riparian areas, slope stability and high erosion area concerns, and runoff and streamflow impacts on stream resources. 1. Stream channel and riparian areas; Some of the activities of the RCDs concern issues related to stream channels and riparian vegetation. Some of these concern are related to the evaluation of proposed habitat, wildland fire fuels management, channel bank stabilization, and channel clearing projects. An operative objective related to channel resources and conditions is natural watershed function. - The watershed hillslope and stream channel systems are coupled by sediment delivery, streamflow regime, and sediment transport patterns. The watershed is in a progressive state of evolution in conjunction with climate changes, regional uplift, and channel incision. Many of Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-21 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
the channel reaches in the watershed are undergoing disruptive changes due to the natural progression of watershed evolution and the channel response to changed conditions. The specific reaches of channel undergoing natural adjustment and disruption are expected to change through time. Often natural (and man-induced) changes in a channel reach can cause downstream and, sometimes, upstream propagation of disruption and adjustment. Channel adjustments, although they may appear destructive, are often a necessary physical adjustment to changing watershed conditions (streamflow and sediment routing). As a result maintaining channels in a pre- adjustment condition can be a high maintenance exercise and can lead to the translation of adjustments to other nearby channel reaches. - Present and future land use changes can influence streamflow patterns, change hillslope develop and sediment delivery patterns, and future climate changes can be expected to result in channel changes constantly over time. In semi-confined mountainous channel segments these natural and human caused changes in channel configuration can result in: 1.) progressive and minor enlargement to accommodate additional flows and sediment transport, 2.) substantial enlargement and channel migration during a derangement phase of channel adjustment, or 3.) progressive lateral channel migration to accommodate needs for greater stream length and lower gradient. Projects that attempt to maintain channels in a pre-existing condition in the face of expected natural and man-influenced channel changes can lead to unsuccessful project, loss of channel related resources, and can induce aggravated channel adjustments on other reaches. These process can be in conflict with watershed Plan Objectives, watershed key-resources, channel related infrastructural features, and land use development in riparian areas. - Restoration projects are encouraged in channel and riparian areas. In a region where changing watershed conditions can lead to changed channel conditions over time, without information on site-specific channel conditions and change trends and/or potential changes, both on-site and off-site mitigation measures and restoration projects can either fail or lead to additional land use/channel resource conflicts. Related to this issue and other foregoing issues associated with channels and riparian habitat, there is no inventory of channel conditions, their dynamic variability, hillslope/channel relationships, stability regimes, change trends, etc., and no inventory of riparian vegetation extent, condition, values, and dependence on channel dynamics. Lacking this information meaningful impact assessments and mitigation and restoration decisions are difficult. 2. Slope Stability and High Erosion Area Concerns
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-22 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The RCDs are concerned about slope stability and erosion production as they may influence risks in resource management and property and as they may adversely affect stream resources through sedimentation. - The RCDs are concerned that development plans include the identification of areas prone to slope failure and/or are susceptible to high erosion hazards and that the site plans accommodate these issues. There is no uniform and reliable watershed-scale information on slope stability risks and erosion hazards that would serve as a spatial guide for the location of land use development and identify project areas that should require greater emphasis on slope stability and erosion hazards. Relevant information gaps includes uniform and reliable information on: 1.) the hillslope processes that occur and as they vary (time and space) in the watershed; 2.) the landscape evolutionary processes in the watershed and the influences these processes have on slope stability and variability; and 3.) a watershed-scale assessment of the probability and likelihood of slope failure (and types of failure) areas. Similarly there is an information gap in the spatial variability of erosion hazards to various impact influences. 3. Runoff and Streamflow Impacts on Stream Resources and Downstream Jurisdictions The RCDs are generally concerned water resources as land uses or cover changes may change the streamflow regimes of channels of the watershed and the impacts those changes may have on stream resources, riparian property owners and downstream jurisdictions. Floodflow issues were discussed above. - Resource management and vegetation changes can lead to changes in the soil-water routing processes and runoff source areas that in turn can modify the streamflow regimes in downstream reaches. There is no uniform method for estimating the changes in the soil-water routing, runoff, and streamflow regime that may occur as a result of land use changes and therefore no method to identify those landscape units most susceptible to modifying soil-water routing. This concern becomes more important when considering multiple watershed changes in cross-jurisdictional cause/effect relationship and when considering other circumstances such as climate change. - The concern for water resources can include an interest in groundwater recharge areas because in a “hardrock” setting, groundwater’s role in watershed process and function is baseflow streamflow support and the maintenance of stream and channel related key-resources. There is no watershed assessment that identifies important groundwater recharge areas and their susceptibility to impact due to land use changes and/or climate changes. - The RCDs are interested in encouraging various actions to reduce the fuel loads and to reduce the risks for catastrophic wildland fires. One assessment element missing from the fuel evaluation mix is a
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-23 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
parameter that shows areas sensitive to accelerated erosion due to intensive fires and, thus from a watershed resource issue perspective, could be a target for fuel load reduction.
Stewardship Opportunities 1. Participate in an Agency MOU Agreement to collaborate in the ARWG with planning and project review. 2. Participate in ARWG GIS database sharing and participate in GIS system maintenance and updating. 3. Participate and collaborate in ARWG stewardship projects. 4. Participate and collaborate in key-resources identification and desired condition standards and incorporate these as watershed resources in land use planning and project review. 5. Participate and collaborate in watershed channel condition inventory. 6. Participate and collaborate in watershed aquatic resources inventory. 7. Participate and collaborate in developing a watershed WEHY model. 8. Collaborate with the ARWG in developing watershed scale and soil type scale erosion potential assessments and inventory maps for various erosion hazard attributes to supplement the Stewardship GIS database.
LOCAL ENTITIES El Dorado County Background El Dorado County, Placer County and Nevada County exercises land use authority over private lands in the watershed. El Dorado County is currently operating under a 1996 General Plan as updated by amendments through to the end of 1998. The county is currently engaged in a new General Planning process. The current plan includes many attributes that pertain to watershed Plan Objectives and stewardship issues. These include several overarching vision statements and strategies, as well as specific goals, objectives and policies associated with Plan Elements. Those various statements and policies that relate to NF/MF American watershed issues are summarized in the following. 1 – General Statements and Strategies
VISION STATEMENT 1. Maintain and protect the County’s natural beauty and environmental quality, vegetation, air and water quality, natural landscape features, cultural resource values, and maintain the rural character and lifestyle while ensuring the economic viability critical to promoting and sustaining community identity.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-24 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
STRATEGY 2. Promote growth in a manner that retains natural resources and reduces infrastructure costs.
CONCEPTS. It is the explicit intent of the Plan to, among other things, sustain a quality environment.
OBJECTIVE 3. To sustain a quality environment.
OBJECTIVE 8. To conserve, protect, and manage the County’s abundant natural resources for economic benefits now and for the future.
OBJECTIVE 10. To accomplish the retention of permanent open space/natural areas on a project-by-project bases through clustering.
2 - Land Use Element
PRINCIPLE. The General Plan provides guidelines for new development that maintains or enhances the quality of the County.
GOAL 2.2. A set of land use designations which provide for the maintenance of the rural and open character of the County and maintenance of a high standard of environmental quality.
OBJECTIVE 2.2.1. An appropriate range of land use designations that will distribute growth and development in a manner that maintains the rural character of the County. Policy 2.2.1.2. To provide for an appropriate range of land use types and densities within the County, including: Multi-Family Residential: those areas suitable for high density, multifamily, single-family attached dwellings, with allowable densities ranging from 5 to 24 dwelling units per acre, and up to 75% impervious cover. High-Density Residential: those areas suitable for intensive single-family residential development, with a density range of 1 to 5 dwelling units per acre, and up to 75% impervious cover. Medium-Density Residential: those areas suitable for detached single- family residences and limited agricultural land management activities, with a density range of 0.2 to 1 unit per acre, and up to 60% impervious cover. Low-Density Residential: those areas suitable for single-family residential development in rural settings, with a density range of 0.1 to 0.2 unit per acre, and up to 10% impervious cover. Rural Residential: those areas suitable for residential and agriculture development and will remain in their natural state and lands characterized by steeper topography and high fire hazards, allows clustered residential development to encourage the means of preserving areas in their natural state, with allowable densities of one dwelling per 10 to 160 acres, and up to 10% impervious cover.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-25 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Natural Resource: those areas that contain economically viable natural resources and for the protection of the economic viability of those resources including forested areas, mineral resources, important watershed, lake and ponds, river corridors, and grazing on parcels larger than 40 areas, with maximum allowable densities of one dwelling per 160 acres in “timber production” areas and one dwelling per 40 acres within river canyons outside of “timber production” areas. Open Space: lands designated to maintain natural features within clustered development.
OBJECTIVE 2.2.3. Provide innovative planning and development techniques and further fulfill balanced growth while minimizing impacts on the surrounding areas. Policy 2.2.3.2. Calculated densities for Planned Developments shall not be based on water bodies, such as lakes, rivers, and perennial streams, excluding wetlands. Policy 2.2.3.3. Rezoning to Planned Development shall not occur where lands cannot support higher development due to physical and topographic conditions or otherwise conform with Policy 2.2.5.3. Policy 2.2.5.3. When evaluating future rezoning the specific criteria to be considered, among others, include: - erosion hazard, - groundwater capability to support wells, - critical flora and fauna habitat, - proximity to perennial water course.
5 - Public Services and Utilities Element
PRINCIPLE. The Plan must identify the types of governmental services which are necessary to meet residents’ needs and provide a fiscally responsible approach for ensuring the needs are met.
GOAL 5.2. The development or acquisition of an adequate water supply consistent with the geographical distribution or location of future land uses and development.
OBJECTIVE 5.2.1. Establish a County-wide water resources development and management program to include the activities necessary to ensure adequate future water supplies consistent with the General Plan.
OBJECTIVE 5.2.3. Demonstrate that water supply is available for proposed groundwater dependent development and protect against degradation of well water supplies for existing residents. Policy 5.2.3.3. The County shall develop and maintain a map and data base of private well water production and other appropriate information. Policy 5.2.3.4. Proposed land uses which rely on groundwater for domestic uses shall demonstrate adequate groundwater as part of the review and approval process.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-26 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Policy 5.2.3.6. The County shall assess the well data to identify areas of likely groundwater limitations, determine where General Plan land uses are incompatible with groundwater supplies, and as necessary, modify the General Plan uses.
GOAL 5.4. Manage and control storm water runoff to prevent flooding, protect soils from erosion, prevent contamination of surface waters, and minimize impacts to existing drainage infrastructure.
OBJECTIVE 5.4.1. Initiate a County-wide drainage and flood management program to prevent flooding, protect soils from erosion, and minimize impacts to existing drainage facilities. Policy 5.4.1.1. Require storm drainage systems that protect public health and safety, preserve natural resources, prevent erosion of adjacent and downstream lands, prevent the increase in potential flood hazard or damage on either adjacent, upstream, or downstream properties, minimize impacts to existing facilities, meets the NPDES requirements, and preserve natural resources such as wetlands and riparian areas. Policy 5.4.1.2. Development projects shall protect natural drainage patterns, minimize erosion, and ensure existing facilities are not adversely impacted while retaining the aesthetic qualities of the drainage way. Policy 5.4.1.2. The County will evaluate the funding requirements for a maintenance, operation, and infrastructure replacement program for regionally effective storm water drainage management.
6 - Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element
PRINCIPLE. The Plan must identify public health and safety issues and provide guidance for protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the residents.
GOAL 6.2. Minimize fire hazards in both wildland and developed areas.
OBJECTIVE 6.2.1. All new development and structures shall meet “defensible space” requirements and adhere to fire code building requirements to minimize wildland fire hazards. Policy 6.2.1.1. Implement Fire Safe ordinance to attain and maintain defensible space through conditioning of tentative maps and in new development at the final map and/or building permit stage.
OBJECTIVE 6.2.4. Reduce fire hazard through cooperative fuel management activities. Policy 6.2.4.1. New development within high and very high fire hazard areas shall be conditioned to designate fuel break zones that comply with fire safe requirements to benefit the new and, where possible, existing development.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-27 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Policy 6.2.4.2. The County shall cooperate with CDF and local fire protection districts to identify opportunities for fuel breaks in zones of high and very high fire hazard either prior to or as a component to project review.
OBJECTIVE 6.2.5. Inform and educate homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention. Policy 6.2.5.1. The County shall cooperate with the USFS, CDF, and local fire districts in fire prevention educational programs.
GOAL 6.3. Minimize the threat to life and property from seismic and geologic hazards.
OBJECTIVE 6.3.1. Adopt and enforce development regulations, including building and site standards, to protect against seismic and geologic hazards.
OBJECTIVE 6.3.2. Continue to evaluate seismic related hazards such as liquefaction, landslides, and avalanche. Policy 6.3.2.1. The County shall maintain and update geologic, seismic and avalanche hazard maps, and other hazard inventory information in cooperation with the State Office of Emergency Services, CDMG, USFS, Caltrans, and other agencies as this information is made available.
GOAL 6.4. Protect the residents of the County from flood hazard.
OBJECTIVE 6.4.1. Minimize loss of life and property by regulating development in areas subject to flooding in accordance with FEMA guidelines, California law, and the El Dorado County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Policy 6.4.1.2. The County shall identify and delineate flood prone study areas discovered during the completion of the master drainage studies or plans. Policy 6.4.1.3. No new critical or high occupancy structures shall be located in the 100-year floodplain of any river, stream, or body of water. Policy 6.4.1.4. Creation of new parcels which lie entirely within the 100-year floodplain as identified on the most current version of the flood insurance rate maps provided by FEMA shall be prohibited. Policy 6.3.1.5. Applications for new parcels partially within the 100-year floodplain must determine the location of the designated floodplain, and the property must have sufficient land available outside the FEMA or County designated 100-year floodplain for construction of dwellings and other necessary support facilities.
7 - Conservation and Open Space Element
PRINCIPLE. Consistent with the Land Use Element, the Plan must conserve and improve the County’s existing natural resources and open space, including agriculture and forest soils, mineral deposits, water [resources] and native plants, fish, wildlife species and habitat, and federally classified wilderness areas; and preserve resources of significant biological, ecological, historical or cultural importance.
GOAL 7.1 Conserve and protect the County’s soil resources.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-28 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
OBJECTIVE 7.1.2. Minimize soil erosion and sedimentation. Policy 7.1.2.1. Development shall be discouraged on slopes greater than 40% unless necessary for access; slopes of 30% and greater shall have site specific review of soil type, vegetation, drainage contour, and site placement to encourage proper site selection and mitigation. Septic systems may only be located on slopes under 30%. Policy 7.1.2.2. Projects requiring earthwork and grading shall be required to minimize erosion and sedimentation, conform to natural contours, maintain natural drainage patterns, minimize impervious surfaces, and maximize the retention of natural vegetation. Policy 7.1.2.4. Cooperate with and encourage the activities of the three RCDs in identifying critical soil erosion problems and pursuing funding sources to resolve such problems. Policy 7.1.2.5. The County Dept. of Transportation, in conjunction with the RCDs and Soil Conservation Districts, shall develop a road-side maintenance program to manage roads in a manner that maintains drainage and protects surface waters while reducing road-side weed problems.
GOAL 7.2. Conservation of the County’s significant mineral deposits.
OBJECTIVE 7.2.3. Regulation of extraction of mineral resources to ensure that environmental and land use compatibility issues are considered. Policy 7.2.3.2. In analyzing the environmental effects of mining operations, the County shall consider, among other issues, at a minimum; - natural vegetation and topography for buffering, - erosion control, - revegetation and re-establishment of natural appearing features following operations, - protection of water quality, sensitive wildlife habitat and/or sensitive plant communities.
GOAL 7.3 Conserve, enhance, and manage water resources and protect their quality from degradation.
OBJECTIVE 7.3.1. Preserve and protect the supply and quality of the County’s water resources including the protection of critical watersheds, riparian zones, and aquifers.
Policy 7.3.1.1. Encourage the use of Best Management Practices, as identified by the NRCS, in watershed lands as a means to prevent erosion, siltation, and flooding.
OBJECTIVE 7.3.2. Maintenance of and, where possible, improvement of the quality of underground and surface water. Policy 7.3.2.1. Stream and lake embankments shall be protected from erosion, and streams and lakes shall be protected from excessive turbidity. Policy 7.3.2.2. Project requiring a grading permit shall have an erosion control program approved, where necessary.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-29 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Policy 7.3.2.3. Where practical and warranted by size of the project, parking lot drainage shall include facilities to separate oils and salts from storm water in accordance with recommendations of the Storm Water Quality Task Force’s California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (1993).
OBJECTIVE 7.3.3. Protection of natural and man-made wetlands, vernal pools, wet meadows, and riparian areas from impacts related to development for their importance to wildlife habitat, water purification, scenic values, and unique and sensitive plant life. Policy 7.3.3.1. For project development located within areas identified as having wetlands on the Important Biological Resources Map a site specific wetland investigation shall be undertaken, and when not located in those mapped areas but when the presence of hydrophytic plants and wetland hydrology indicate that wetlands may be present, a site specific investigation shall be required using the US ACOE delineation manual and shall determine the resulting wetland boundaries. Policy 7.3.3.2. All feasible project modifications shall be considered to avoid wetland disturbance, and any direct and indirect losses of wetlands and/or riparian vegetation shall be compensated by on-site or off-site replacement, rehabilitation, or creation on a no-net-loss basis and at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio.
OBJECTIVE 7.3.4. Protection and utilization of natural drainage patterns. Policy 7.3.4.1. Natural watercourses shall be integrated into new development in such a way that they enhance the aesthetic and natural character of the site without disturbance. Policy 7.3.4.2. Modification of natural stream beds and flow shall be regulated to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are utilized.
GOAL 7.4. Identify, conserve, and manage wildlife, wildlife habitat, fisheries, and vegetation resources of significant biological, ecological, and recreational value.
OBJECTIVE 7.4.1. The county shall protect State and Federally recognized rare, threatened, or endangered species and their habitat consistent with Federal and State laws. Policy 7.4.1.5. Species, habitat and natural community preservation/conservation strategies shall be prepared to protect special status species and natural communities and habitats when development is proposed on lands with these resources, unless it is determined that those resources exist, and either are or can be protected, on public or private Natural Resource lands. Policy 7.4.1.6. Where substantial modification of natural communities and habitats of special status species may occur through grading or other disturbances, prior to approval the application shall be accompanied by a comprehensive habitat restoration and/or off-site mitigation plan and the plan shall be implemented as part of the project approval.
OBJECTIVE 7.4.2. Identification and protection, where feasible, of critical fish and wildlife habitat including deer winter, summer, and fawning ranges; deer migration routes; stream and river riparian habitat; lake shore habitat; fish spawning areas; wetlands; wildlife corridors; and diverse wildlife habitat.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-30 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Policy 7.4.2.1. To the extent feasible, consistent with other General Plan provisions, and to the extent permitted by State law, the County will protect identified critical fish and wildlife habitat, as identified on the Important Biological Resources Map through any of the following techniques: open space, Natural Resource land use designation, clustering, large lot design, setbacks, etc. Policy 7.4.2.3. Low impact uses such as trails and linear parks may be provided within river and stream buffers if all applicable mitigation measures are incorporated into the design. Policy 7.4.2.5. Setbacks from all rivers, streams, and lakes shall be included in the Zoning Ordinance for all development projects. Policy 7.4.2.7. The County shall form a Plant and Wildlife Technical Advisory Committee, to be made up of local experts which will consult with other experts and representatives of regulatory agencies, to advise the County on plant and wildlife issues and to formulate objectives.
OBJECTIVE 7.4.3. Coordination of wildlife and vegetation protection programs with appropriate Federal and State agencies.
GOAL 7.6. Conserve open space land for the continuation of the County’s rural character, commercial agriculture, forestry and other productive uses, the enjoyment of scenic beauty and recreation, the protection of natural resources, for protection from natural hazards, and for wildlife habitat.
OBJECTIVE 7.6.1. Consideration of open space as an important factor in the County’s quality of life. Policy 7.6.1.1. Open space lands will be provided by Open Space designations in the General Plan and the designations of Rural Residential and Natural Resource areas are intended to implement the goals and objectives of open space. The primary purposes of open space include: A. Conserving natural resource areas required by the conservation of plant and animal life including habitat for fish and wildlife species; areas required for ecological and other scientific study purposes; rivers, streams, banks of rivers and streams and watershed lands. D. Delineating open space for public health and safety, including, but not limited to, areas which require special management or regulation because of hazardous or special conditions such as fault zones, unstable soil areas, floodplains, watersheds, areas presenting high fire risks, and areas required for the protection of water quality and water reservoirs. Policy 7.6.1.3. The County shall implement Policy 7.6.1.1. through zoning regulation as follows: B. Agricultural (A), Exclusive Agricultural (AE), Planned Agricultural (PA), Select Agricultural (SA-10), and Timberland Production Zone (TPZ) zoning districts are consistent with Policy 7.6.1.1.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-31 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
C. Zoning regulations shall provide for setbacks from all floodplains, streams, lakes, river and canals to maintain purposes of A and D in Policy 7.6.1.1. D. Zoning regulations shall provide for the maintenance of permanent open space in various land use districts based on standards established in those provisions of the County Code and the regulation shall minimize impacts on wetlands, floodplains, streams, lakes, rivers, canals, and slopes in excess of 30% to maintain the purposes of A and D in Policy 7.6.1.1.
Stewardship Issues The County’s General Plan contains objectives that relate to watershed Plan Objectives and key-resource issues. These watershed issues are presented below in major categories. 1. Stream channel and riparian areas The County emphasizes protection of stream channels in “natural” conditions and the preservation of riparian and wetland areas along streams. The county includes possible setbacks along channels, riparian areas, and floodplains through zoning. Areas within 100-year floodplains have provisions for restricted land use development and for an emphasis on resource protection. - Streams as a category are not defined by the County either by functional definition or by mapped source. When established by flow regime or channel characteristics, channels of smaller order streams are difficult to segment into perennial, intermittent, ephemeral, and even un-channel reaches. The reliability of flows in channels segment can vary between water years and can progressively change with changing climate and changing land uses. There are no maps that accurately and consistently represent these flow regimes in channel reaches (particularly low order channels) of the watershed. Therefore for specific channel reaches there can be considerable well-reasoned disagreement between interested parties on the nature of the flow regime. - The watershed hillslope and stream channel systems are coupled by sediment delivery, streamflow regime, and sediment transport patterns. The watershed is in a progressive state of evolution in conjunction with climate changes, regional uplift, and channel incision. Many of the channel reaches in the watershed are undergoing disruptive changes due to the natural progression of watershed evolution and the channel response to changed conditions. The specific reaches of channel undergoing natural adjustment and disruption are expected to change through time. Often natural (and man-induced) changes in a channel reach can cause downstream and, sometimes, upstream propagation of disruption and adjustment.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-32 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- Present and future land use changes can influence streamflow patterns, change hillslope develop and sediment delivery patterns, and future climate changes can be expected to result in channel changes constantly over time. In semi-confined mountainous channel segments these natural and human caused changes in channel configuration can result in; 1) progressive and minor enlargement to accommodate additional flows and sediment transport, 2) substantial enlargement and channel migration during a derangement phase of channel adjustment, or 3) progressive lateral channel migration to accommodate needs for greater stream length and lower gradient. While the county is encouraging cluster development to enhance open space areas and greater rural resource values, concentrated development can also lead to changed stream conditions in low order channels with accompanying channel and channel related resource value changes. These expected natural and man-influenced channel changes can be in conflict with the setbacks and bring developed land uses into serious conflict with stream resources. Accommodating these possibilities by modifying the channels can either bring the actions into other conflicts with the county’s interest in “natural” channels, or in a worst case situation lead to the downstream translation of the disruptive channel change processes, propagating the problem to other properties. - The use of the 100-year floodplain as a parameter for channel related resource protection and the protection of life and property can be insufficient due to several circumstances. First, statistical 100-year floodflow event discharge magnitudes can be expected to increase progressively due to global warming and also to increase in conjunction with increased land use development intensity; these increases are not accommodates by FEMA mapping. Second, FEMA mapping as well as other no-site specific floodplain mapping can be undertaken at a coarse topographic scale and therefore have a precision inadequate to accurately reflect areas of inundation by specific floodflow events. Third, in semi-confined mountainous channels in which changing (natural or man-induced) channel conditions can be expected, the channels can enlarge and/or migrate to the point that higher terraces along channels, areas once above the 100-year floodflow stage, can become incorporated into the active channel. Land use development on these sites can eventually become in conflict with many of the county’s and the watershed objectives nu placing life and property threat in proximity to channel related key-resource values. The protection of land use development on these sites when channels adjust to watershed conditions can result in the loss of channel and riparian resources and lead to the use of structural controls in and along the channel banks
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-33 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- The county has an interest in both natural channels and the preservation of riparian habitat. The maintenance and/or restoration of natural channels is encouraged by the avoidance of structural solutions, grading, setbacks associated with septic and engineering requirements and zoning provisions, and the protection of riparian vegetation. Many of the foregoing issues relate to the possibility and likelihood that channels will adjust and enlarge due to changes watershed conditions. With the possibility that the stream setbacks are undersized in some circumstances, this leads to the possibility that in- channel and riparian area impacts will occur and that adjacent developed land uses will be put at threat. The on-site restoration of channel and riparian system impacts may be impeded by some of the channel and riparian protection provisions. - On-site and off-site mitigation are encouraged by the county for impacts to channel and riparian areas. In a region where changing watershed conditions can lead to changed channel conditions over time, without information on site-specific channel conditions and change trends and/or potential changes, both on-site and off-site mitigation measures can either fail or lead to additional land use/channel resource conflicts. Related to this issue and other foregoing issues associated with channels and riparian habitat, there is no inventory of channel conditions, their dynamic variability, hillslope/channel relationships, stability regimes, change trends, etc., and no inventory of riparian vegetation extent, condition, values, and dependence on channel dynamics. Lacking this information meaningful impact assessments and mitigation and restoration decisions are difficult. 2. Slope Stability and High Erosion Area Concerns The County is concerned about slope stability and erosion production as they may influence risks to the population and property and as they may adversely affect stream resources through sedimentation. - The County is concerned that development plans include the identification of areas prone to slope failure and/or are susceptible to high erosion hazards and that the site plans accommodate these issues. There is no uniform and reliable watershed scale information on slope stability risks and erosion hazards that would serve as a spatial guide for the location of land use development and identify project areas that should require greater emphasis on slope stability and erosion hazards. Relevant information gaps includes uniform and reliable information on: 1.) the hillslope processes that occur and as they vary (time and space) in the watershed; 2.) on the landscape evolutionary processes in the watershed and the influences these processes have on slope stability and variability; and 3.) a watershed scale assessment of the probability and likelihood of slope failure (and types of failure) areas.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-34 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Similarly there is an information gap in the spatial variability of erosion hazards to various impact influences.
3. Runoff and Streamflow Impacts on Stream Resources and Downstream Jurisdictions The County is generally concerned land uses that change the streamflow regimes of the channels of the watershed and the impacts those changes may have on stream resources, riparian property owners and downstream jurisdictions. Floodflow issues were discussed above. - Land use developed can lead to changes in the soil-water routing processes and runoff source areas that in turn can modify the streamflow regimes in downstream reaches. There is no uniform method for estimating the changes in the soil-water routing, runoff, and streamflow regime that may occur as a result of land use changes and therefore no method to identify those landscape units most susceptible to modifying soil-water routing. This concern becomes more important when considering multiple watershed changes in cross-jurisdictional cause/effect relationship and when considering other circumstances such as climate change. - The county is interested in groundwater recharge areas and in the watershed these relate to the ‘hardrock’ groundwater settings. Of concern in this setting is support for baseflow streamflow support for the maintenance of stream and channel related key-resources, and local individual-residential wells. The county collects data on domestic well attributes but has not evaluated this information in terms of geologic unit groundwater permeability and groundwater production, and has not conducted an assessment of groundwater recharge. There is no watershed assessment that identifies important groundwater recharge areas and their susceptibility to impact due to land use changes and/or climate changes. - The county is interested in facilitating the protection of the population and property from losses due to wildland fires. It encourages various actions to reduce the fuel loads and to reduce the risks by improving services. One assessment element missing from the fuel evaluation mix is a parameter that shows areas sensitive to accelerated erosion due to intensive fires and, thus from a watershed resource issue perspective, could be a target for fuel load reduction.
Stewardship Opportunities 1. Participate in an Agency MOU Agreement to collaborate in the ARWG with planning and project review. 2. Participate in ARWG GIS database sharing and participate in GIS system maintenance and updating.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-35 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
3. Participate and collaborate in ARWG stewardship projects. 4. Participate and collaborate in key-resources identification and desired condition standards and incorporate these as watershed resources in land use planning and project review. 5. Participate and collaborate in watershed channel condition inventory. 6. Participate and collaborate in watershed aquatic resources inventory. 7. Participate and collaborate in developing a watershed WEHY model. 8. Collaborate with the ARWG in developing watershed scale and soil type scale erosion potential assessments and inventory maps for various erosion hazard attributes to supplement the Stewardship GIS database. 9. Use the ARWG Fire Risk-Watershed Asset Map as a basis to prioritize actions associated with fuel load reduction.. Endnotes El Dorado County General Plan Vol 1 1996
Nevada County Background Nevada County is currently operating under a 1995 General Plan. The current plan includes many attributes that pertain to watershed Plan Objectives and stewardship issues. These include several overarching statements of plan philosophy, and specific goals, objectives and policy associated with 19 Plan Elements. Those various statements and policies etc. that relate to NF/MF American watershed issues are summarized in the following.
General
CENTRAL THEME 1. Fostering a rural quality of life.
CENTRAL THEME 2. Sustaining a quality environment.
CENTRAL THEME 3. Development of a strong diversified, sustainable local economy.
SUPPORTING THEME 1. Reduce dependence of the automobile by clustering growth.
SUPPORTING THEME 5. Ensure the long term quality of natural resource values at the same time ensuring the sustainability of agriculture, logging, and mining activities.
EXPANDED THEME 4. The General Plan is to preserve the natural environment of the County which includes the preservation of natural habitats, water resources, forests, mineral resources, and the scenic qualities of the County.
PLANNING PRINCIPLE 5. Avoidance of development in areas of extreme topography or unsuitable soil/geologic types.
PLANNING PRINCIPLE 6. Avoidance of development in areas subject to flooding.
PLANNING PRINCIPLE 7. Preservation of the natural and visual resources of the County. Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-36 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
PLANNING PRINCIPLE 14. Prevents environmental degradation through control of noise, air pollution, disposal of wastes, tree removal, and other adverse affects.
PLANNING PRINCIPLE 15. Protects the health and welfare of the residents of the County.
1 - Land Use
GOAL 1.1. Promote and encourage growth in Community Regions while limiting growth in Rural Regions.
OBJECTIVE 1.1. Define and maintain a distinct boundary between Rural and Community Regions.
GOAL 1.2. Recognize and allow for a range of land uses that preserve the qualities of each Rural and Community Region and Rural Place.
OBJECTIVE 1.2. Provide an appropriate range of land use designation to serve the needs of the residents of the County and with an adequate amount of land in each designation to provide a balanced pattern of development.
GOAL 1.3. Within Rural Regions, maintain and enhance the County’s pastoral character, existing land use patterns, rural lifestyle, and economy in their natural setting.
OBJECTIVE 1.2. Provide for a land use pattern compatible with preservation of pastoral character, environmental values and constraints, and the form and orderly development of Rural Places. Directive policy 1.6. Within the Rural Regions, growth is provided for only those types and densities of development which are consistent with the open, pastoral character which exist in these areas.
OBJECTIVE 1.11. Implement development standards which incorporate open space, protect environmentally sensitive land, allow for resource management. Action policy 1.17. The County shall prepare comprehensive Site Development Standards to be used during the project site review process for all projects in the Community Regions and Rural Regions which provide guidance for, among other issues: - protection of environmentally sensitive resources, - prevention and reduction of fire hazards, - maintenance and enhancement of vegetation and landscaping, - prevention and reduction of flood hazards, - buffering to mitigate adverse effects, - protection of important agricultural, mineral, and timber resources. By applying the following criteria: - wetlands as delineated in the National Wetlands Inventory, - rare and endangered species as found in the NDDB and Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, 1994, - riparian corridors within 100 feet of intermittent or perennial water courses, as shown on USGS quad maps, - floodplains, as defined by FEMA,
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-37 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- steep slopes (30+%), - areas with high erosion potential as delineated on the Nevada County Master Environmental Inventory, - areas subject to fire hazards, as defined by CDF’s Fire Hazard Zone Map.
6 - Open Space
GOAL 6.1. Encourage that land use patterns and site development reflect open space values.
OBJECTIVE 6.1. Integrate open space consideration in the establishment of land use patterns. Directive policy 6.1. The General Plan recognizes the importance of open space serving one or more of the following purposes, including, among others: - preservation of natural resource areas, - public health and safety. Directive policy 6.2. Within Rural Regions, utilize clustering development to encourage creation of open space to enhance habitat and other open space values.
OBJECTIVE 6.2. Implement development standards that incorporate open space values. Action policy 6.9. Development standards for project design, grading, construction and use shall be used to review all projects to determine open space requirements which shall consider the non-disturbance of, and open space setbacks from, identified sensitive environmental, biological, or cultural resources such as 100-year floodplains, wetlands, slopes in excess of 30%, lakes, ponds, critical wildlife areas, and the minimization of land disturbance, temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation controls, and vegetation retention, replacement, and enhancement.
10 - Safety
GOAL 10.1. Develop and maintain a high level of safety for people and property.
OBJECTIVE 10.1. Encourage fire protection agencies to determine appropriate levels of fire protection facilities and services. Directive policy 10.3. Cooperate with CDF, USFS, and local fire districts in fire prevention programs.
OBJECTIVE 10.2. Land use patterns and development standards shall minimize fire hazards. Directive policy 10.6. Maintain low-density land use designations (Rural and Forest) in areas of high fire hazards and/or lack of adequate year-round fire protection facilities in order to minimize the potential fire hazard.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-38 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
OBJECTIVE 10.6. Land use patterns and development standards shall minimize hazards resulting from flooding, earthquakes, slope failure, avalanche, and other natural occurrences. Action policy 10.12. Avoid potential increases in downstream flooding potential by protecting natural drainage and vegetation patterns through project site plan review, the application of Comprehensive Site Development Standards, and the use of clustered development and project subdivision patterns. The measures included in the Comprehensive Standards shall include, among others, the following: - avoidance of stream channel modification - avoidance of excessive impervious surface areas, - use of on-site storm water retention or detention, Action policy 10.13. Continue to cooperate with the CDMG the State Office of Emergency Services and other appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and incorporate within the County’s Site Development Standards, and project review, the most current data concerning geologic hazards. For the project review process in areas having potential geologic hazards, require sufficient soil and geologic investigations to evaluate hazards, including slope instability, and excessive erosion. Directive policy 10.14. Continue to work with appropriate local , State, and Federal agencies (particularly FEMA) in maintaining the most current flood hazard and floodplain information as a basis for project review in accordance with Federal, State and local standards.
11 - Water
GOAL 11.1. Identify, protect, and manage for sustainable water resources and riparian habitats.
OBJECTIVE 11.1. Promote and provide for conservation of domestic and agriculture water. Directive policy 11.2. Encourage the protection of resources which produce water for domestic and agricultural consumption. Directive policy 11.3A. The County shall provide for a comprehensive system of well log data which shall be generalized and utilized to assist in land use decision making.
OBJECTIVE 11.2. Preserve surface and sub-surface water quality and, where feasible, improve such quality. Directive policy 11.4. Cooperate with State and local agencies to identify and reduce to acceptable levels, all sources of existing and potential point- and non- point-source pollution to ground and surface waters. Directive policy 11.6. Continue to enforce its regulations concerning private sanitary waste disposal systems in order to protect the quality of surface and
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-39 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
groundwater and to follow the Central Valley RWQCB guidelines in locating appropriate setbacks from water courses Directive policy 11.6A. New development shall minimize the discharge of pollutants to surface water drainages through the following or similarly effective methods: - include curbs and gutters on roads consistent with adopted urban street design, - oil, grease, and silt traps for subdivisions creating 5 or more parcels and commercial and industrial development of 1 acre or larger in size. Directive policy 11.6B. The County shall maintain a database of septic tank and leachfield system failures to determine the potential long-term effects of these systems and shall use this information in determining existing and potential problem areas.
OBJECTIVE 11.3. Preserve and, where economically feasible, restore the density and diversity of water-dependent species and continuous riparian habitats based on sound ecological principles. Action policy 11.7. Establish and enforce minimum building setback lines from perennial streams and significant wetlands which are adequate to protect stream and wetland resource values through the development of Comprehensive Site Development Standards and project review. Directive policy 11.8. Utilize voluntary clustering of development to preserve stream corridors, riparian habitat, wetlands, and floodplains.
OBJECTIVE 11.4. Preserve the integrity and minimize the disruption of watersheds and identified critical courses. Directive policy 11.9. Within Rural Regions maintain the low densities of development allowed in the Rural and Forest General Plan Land Use Designations, in order to protect existing watersheds. Directive policy 11.9A. Approve only those grading applications and development proposals that are adequately protected from flood hazards and which do not add flood damage potential to include such things as foundation design to minimize displacement of flood waters etc. Directive policy 11.9B. Require new utilities, critical facilities, and non-essential public structures to be located outside the 100-year floodplain unless necessary to serve existing uses, no other locations are feasible, and these structures will not increase hazards within or adjacent to the floodplains. Directive policy 11.9C. When constructed within a floodplain require; for residential structures, that the habitable portions be elevated above the 100-year flood level; for non-residential structures, there be adequate flood-proofing or elevation; for foundations, that they do not cause floodwater displacement except where necessary for flood-proofing.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-40 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
OBJECTIVE 11.5. Support the acquisition, development, maintenance and restoration, where clearly consistent with General Plan policies, of habitat lands for wildlife enhancement. Directive policy 11.10. Cooperate with State and Federal agencies and public and quasi-public organizations and agencies in the acquisition, restoration, and maintenance of habitat lands. Directive policy 11.11. Cooperate with and encourage the USFS and BLM to restore/maintain habitat area on existing owned lands.
12 - Soils
GOAL 12.2. Minimize adverse impacts of grading activities, loss of soils and soil productivity.
OBJECTIVE 12.1. Minimize earth movement and disturbance. Directive policy 12.1. Enforce Grading Ordinance provisions through on-site inspections for the performance of erosion and sediment control measures. Directive policy 12.3. Cooperate and encourage the use of techniques and practices to minimize erosion in cooperation with the Nevada County RCD, including provisions of educational materials for the general public. 13 - Wildlife and Vegetation
GOAL 13.1. Identify and manage significant areas to achieve sustainable habitat.
OBJECTIVE 13.1. Discourage intrusion and encroachment by incompatible land uses in significant and sensitive habitats. Directive policy 13.1. Where significant environmental features as defined in Policy 1.17 occur on project sites, the County shall require those portions of the site to be retained as non-disturbance open space through cluster development other means. Action policy 13.2A. Project review standards shall include a requirement to conduct a site-specific biological inventory to determine the presence of special status species or their habitat that may be affected by the project. Any Habitat Management Plan deemed appropriate under Federal or State laws shall conform to those laws. Action policy 13.2B. Development projects which have the potential to remove natural riparian or wetland habitat of 1 acre or more shall not be permitted unless: - no suitable alternative site or design exists for the land use, - there is no degradation of habitat or reduction of any rare, threatened, or endangered species, - habitat of superior quantity and of equal or greater quality will be created or restored in compensation, - the project conforms with regulations and guidelines of USFS, US ACOE, CFG, and other relevant agencies.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-41 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Directive policy 13.4A. No net loss of habitat or values shall be caused by development where rare and endangered species and wetlands of over 1 acre, with no net loss being achieved through avoidance, or the creation or restoration of habitat of superior or comparable quality.
OBJECTIVE 13.5. Support, where feasible, the continued diversity and sustainability of the habitat resource through restoration and protections. Directive policy 13.6. Monitor, through the input of other agencies, the sensitive wildlife and habitat resources to ensure the continued validity and effectiveness of the General Plan policies intended to protect, preserve, and enhance these resources.
OBJECTIVE 13.6. Discourage significant adverse environmental impacts of land development, agricultural, forest and mining activities on important and sensitive habitats as defined in Policy 1.17.
Stewardship Issues The County’s General Plan contains objectives that relate to watershed Plan Objectives and key-resource issues. These watershed issues are presented below in major categories. 1. Stream channel and riparian areas; The County emphasizes protection of stream channels in “natural” conditions and the preservation of riparian and wetland areas along streams. The county includes possible setbacks along channels, riparian areas, and floodplains through Site Development Standards. Areas within 100-year floodplains have provisions for restricted land use development and for an emphasis on resource protection. - Streams as a category established by flow regime is defined by the county as USGS mapped “blueline” perennial and intermittent stream courses (quad maps). This definition ignores the various inconsistences and generalities applied by the USGS during mapping (which can leave many perennial and intermittent stream courses without blueline indications), as well as the various lower order ephemeral and non-channeled streams not mapped by blueline (usually much greater in number than the “blueline” channels). The reliability of flows in channels segment can vary between water years and can progressively change with changing climate and changing land uses. There are no maps that accurately and consistently represent these flow regimes in channel reaches (particularly low order channels) of the watershed. - The watershed hillslope and stream channel systems are coupled by sediment delivery, streamflow regime, and sediment transport patterns. The watershed is in a progressive state of evolution in conjunction with climate changes, regional uplift, and channel incision. Many of
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-42 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
the channel reaches in the watershed are undergoing disruptive changes due to the natural progression of watershed evolution and the channel response to changed conditions. The specific reaches of channel undergoing natural adjustment and disruption are expected to change through time. Often natural (and man-induced) changes in a channel reach can cause downstream and, sometimes, upstream propagation of disruption and adjustment. - Present and future land use changes can influence streamflow patterns, change hillslope develop and sediment delivery patterns, and future climate changes can be expected to result in channel changes constantly over time. In semi-confined mountainous channel segments these natural and human caused changes in channel configuration can result in; 1) progressive and minor enlargement to accommodate additional flows and sediment transport, 2) substantial enlargement and channel migration during a derangement phase of channel adjustment, or 3) progressive lateral channel migration to accommodate needs for greater stream length and lower gradient. While the county is encouraging cluster development to enhance open space areas and greater rural resource values, concentrated development can also lead to changed stream conditions in low order channels with accompanying channel and channel related resource value changes. These expected natural and man-influenced channel changes can be in conflict with the setbacks and bring developed land uses into serious conflict with stream resources. Accommodating these possibilities by modifying the channels can either bring the actions into other conflicts with the county’s interest in “natural” channels, or in a worst case situation lead to the downstream translation of the disruptive channel change processes, propagating the problem to other properties. - The use of the 100-year floodplain as a parameter for channel related resource protection and the protection of life and property can be insufficient due to several circumstances. First, statistical 100-year floodflow event discharge magnitudes can be expected to increase progressively due to global warming and also to increase in conjunction with increased land use development intensity; these increases are not accommodates by FEMA mapping. Second, FEMA mapping as well as other on-site specific floodplain mapping can be undertaken at a coarse topographic scale and therefore have a precision inadequate to accurately reflect areas of inundation by specific floodflow events. Third, in semi-confined mountainous channels in which changing (natural or man-induced) channel conditions can be expected, the channels can enlarge and/or migrate to the point that higher terraces along channels, areas once above the 100-year floodflow stage, can become incorporated into the active channel. Land use development on these sites can eventually become in conflict
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-43 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
with many of the county’s and the watershed objectives by placing life and property threats in proximity to channel related watershed key- resource values. The protection of land use development on these sites when channels adjust to watershed conditions can result in the loss of channel and riparian resources and lead to the use of structural controls in and along the channel banks - The county has an interest in both natural channels and the preservation of riparian habitat. The maintenance and/or restoration of natural channels is encouraged by the avoidance of structural solutions, and the riparian areas are protected by both setbacks and avoidance of grading or other removal of riparian vegetation. Many of the foregoing issues relate to the possibility and likelihood that channels will adjust and enlarge due to changes watershed conditions. With the possibility that the stream setbacks are undersized in some circumstances, this leads to the possibility that in-channel and riparian area impacts will occur and that adjacent developed land uses will be put at threat. The on-site restoration of channel and riparian system impacts may be impeded by some of the channel and riparian protection provisions. - On-site and off-site mitigation are encouraged by the county for impacts to channel and riparian areas. In a region where changing watershed conditions can lead to changed channel conditions over time, without information on site-specific channel conditions and change trends and/or potential changes, both on-site and off-site mitigation measures can either fail or lead to additional land use/channel resource conflicts. Related to this issue and other foregoing issues associated with channels and riparian habitat, there is no inventory of channel conditions, their dynamic variability, hillslope/channel relationships, stability regimes, change trends, etc., and no detailed inventory of riparian vegetation extent, condition, values, and dependance on channel dynamics. Lacking this information meaningful impact assessments and mitigation and restoration decisions are difficult. 2. Slope Stability and High Erosion Area Concerns The County is concerned about slope stability and erosion production as they may influence risks to the population and property and as they may adversely affect stream resources through sedimentation. The County is concerned that development plans include the identification of areas prone to slope failure and/or are susceptible to high erosion hazards and that the site plans accommodate these issues. There is no uniform and reliable watershed scale information on slope stability risks and erosion hazards that would serve as a spatial guide for the location of land use development and identify project areas that should require greater emphasis on slope stability and erosion hazards. Relevant information gaps includes uniform and reliable
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-44 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
information on 1.) the hillslope processes that occur and as they vary (time and space) in the watershed, 2.) the landscape evolutionary processes in the watershed and the influences these processes have on slope stability and variability, and 3.) a watershed-scale assessment of the probability and likelihood of slope failure (and types of failure) areas. Similarly there is an information gap in the spatial variability of erosion hazards to various impact influences. 3. Runoff and Streamflow Impacts on Stream Resources and Downstream Jurisdictions The County is generally concerned land uses that change the streamflow regimes of the channels of the watershed and the impacts those changes may have on stream resources, riparian property owners and downstream jurisdictions. Floodflow issues were discussed above. - Land use development can lead to changes in the soil-water routing processes and runoff source areas that in turn can modify the streamflow regimes in downstream reaches. There is no uniform method for estimating the changes in the soil-water routing, runoff, and streamflow regime that may occur as a result of land use changes and therefore no method to identify those landscape units most susceptible to modifying soil-water routing. This concern becomes more important when considering multiple watershed changes in cross-jurisdictional cause/effect relationships and when considering other circumstances such as climate change. - The county is interested in the maintenance of adequate groundwater resources and thus in groundwater recharge areas. In the watershed these issues are related to the ‘hardrock’ groundwater setting. Of concern in this setting is support for baseflow streamflow support for the maintenance of stream and channel related key-resources, and local individual-residential wells. The County collects data of private domestic well attributes but has not evaluated this information in terms of geologic unit groundwater permeability and groundwater production, and has not conducted an assessment of groundwater recharge potential. There is no detailed, watershed water-routing assessment that identifies important groundwater recharge areas and their susceptibility to impact due to land use changes and/or climate changes. - The county is interested in facilitating the protection of the population and property from losses due to wildland fires. It encourages various actions to reduce the fuel loads and to reduce the risks by improving services. One assessment element missing from the fuel evaluation mix is a parameter that shows areas sensitive to accelerated erosion due to intensive fires and thus, from a watershed resource issue perspective, a target for fuel load reduction.
Stewardship Opportunities Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-45 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
1. Participate in an Agency MOU Agreement to collaborate in the ARWG with planning and project review. 2. Participate in ARWG GIS database sharing and participate in GIS system maintenance and updating. 3. Participate and collaborate in ARWG stewardship projects. 4. Participate and collaborate in key-resources identification and desired condition standards and incorporate these as watershed resources in land use planning and project review. 5. Participate and collaborate in watershed channel condition inventory. 6. Participate and collaborate in watershed aquatic resources inventory. 7. Participate and collaborate in developing a watershed WEHY model. 8. Collaborate with the ARWG in developing watershed scale and soil type scale erosion potential assessments and inventory maps for various erosion hazard attributes to supplement the Stewardship GIS database. 9. Use the ARWG Fire Risk-Watershed Asset Map as a basis to prioritize actions associated with fuel load reduction.. Endnotes Nevada County General Plan Vol 1 1995
Placer County Background Placer County is currently operating under a 1994 Countywide General Plan which is an update of a 1967 General Land Use Plan. The 1967 General Land Use Plan is composed of a series of amending countywide elements adopted between 1970 and 1989 and was absorbed in the new plan. In addition the 1967 Plan has been supplemented by 21 “community plans” or new “area general plans,” some of which cover portions of the watershed. The more relevant community plans for the watershed include: Colfax General Plan 1967 Meadow Vista - West Applegate General Plan 1975 Weimar-Applegate-Clipper Gap General Plan 1980 Foresthill General Plan 1981 Auburn/Bowman Community Plan 1994 These various community plans remain in effect in the new Countywide General Plan as specific land use documents for these areas. Presently a new Foresthill General Plan revision is underway and approaching completion and a new Weimar-Applegate- Clipper Gap General Plan is just being initiated. The General Plan Policy Document is a portion of the 1994 Countywide General Plan. The Policy Document is divided into three main parts;
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-46 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
PART I includes the Countywide Land Use Diagram, descriptions of the land use designations, and standards for land use buffer zones
PART II includes the goals, policies, standards, implementation programs, quantified objectives organized into 10 sections of which __ are germane to the watershed Plan; - Land Use - Public Facilities and Services - Natural Resources - Agricultural and Forestry Resources - Health and Safety
PART III includes general standards for the consideration of future amendments to the General Plan. Parts I and II contain county direction with respect to the watershed Plan Objectives and key-resources. In the following sections those elements of Parts I and II which apply in the watershed and those issues that relate to watershed Plan Objectives and key-resources, and those which relate to stewardship as applied in the watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy.
Part I - Countywide Land Use Diagram, Land Use Designations, and Buffer Zones: Land Use Diagram In the watershed the private lands under the jurisdiction of Placer County are covered by either community plan areas or the General Plan Land Use Diagram. Four community plan areas are within the watershed area: Foresthill, Colfax, Meadow Vista, Weimar/Applegate/Clipper Cap, and Auburn/Bowman. The land use designations within these community plan areas are determined during the detailed planning efforts for those areas. In the remaining portion of Placer County jurisdiction in the watershed, the Land Use Diagram shows the following land uses for the watershed area. Most of private lands within the boundaries of the National Forests are Timberland (80 ac. min.), along the I-80 corridor there is a mix of Timberland (10, 20, and 40 ac. min.) and Rural Residential, and along the Foresthill Divide west of Foresthill there is a mix of Rural Residential and Low Density Residential. Land Use Designations in the Watershed Timberland (10, 20, 40, 80-640 ac. min.) designations are for areas where the primary uses are related to growing and harvesting timber and other forest products. Besides timber production, typically allowed uses include agricultural operations (where appropriate, due to soil and slope conditions), mineral and other resource extraction operations, various recreational uses, necessary public utility and safety facilities, and one principal and one secondary dwelling per lot. Rural Residential designations include minimum lot sizes of 1 to 10 ac. (depending on local zoning) with typically allowed uses including detached single-family dwellings and secondary dwellings, various forms of agriculture production, resource extraction uses, various community support facilities, and
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-47 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
necessary utility and safety facilities. For lot development there is a maximum floor-space to lot size ratio of 0.30. Low Density Residential designations include minimum lot sizes from about 0.25 to 1 ac. (depending on local zoning) for single-family, individual home, residential neighborhoods with typically allowed uses including residential accessory uses, various community support facilities, and necessary public utility and safety facilities. For lot development there is a maximum of 1-5 dwelling units per acre and a maximum floor-space to lot size ratio of 0.30.
Buffer Zones The Policy Document also contains provisions for buffers between adjacent land uses, and between land use activities and various types of sensitive habitat. The land use conflict and separation buffers are not related to watershed Plan Objectives however the county’s sensitive habitat buffers relate to several of the watershed key-resources. Sensitive habitat buffers are associated with the following types of resources; stream corridors, wetlands, sensitive species habitat, and old growth forests. Buffers are to used for these resources when these resources may be degraded by the land-altering aspects of development, as well as secondary effects such as runoff from pavement carrying pollutants. Sensitive habitat buffers are to be, at a minimum, 50 ft. and 100 ft. From the centerline of intermittent and perennial streams respectively, and 50 ft from the edge of the sensitive habitats to be protected. Uses allowed in these buffers include a range of recreational activities but not so as to involve grading or the removal of natural vegetation any closer than 50 ft. from the top of a stream bank or the outer most edge of extent riparian vegetation, wetlands, or other identified (sensitive) habitat.
Part II - Relevant Goals, Policies, Standards, Implementation Programs, and Quantified Objectives Part II of the Policy Document addresses the goal, and policies etc. organized into 10 Sections that are land use and management themes, some of which address issues related to watershed Plan Objectives and key-resources. The following is a highly abbreviated presentation of the relevant watershed issues found in these 10 Sections. Section 1 - Land Use General Land Use
GOAL 1.A. Promote wise, efficient, and environmentally-sensitive uses to meet the present and future needs of residents and businesses. Policy 1.A.2. Permit only low-density development in areas with sensitive resource or where natural or human-caused hazards are likely to pose a significant threat to health, safety, or property.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-48 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Residential Land Use Policy 1.B.5. Project design shall reflect and consider, among other issues, natural features which may result in development levels being less than that specified by the General Plan. Commercial Land Policy 1.D.11. Where possible, new and existing downtowns/village centers shall be designed to integrate open spaces such as creeks. Implementation Program 1.1. The Planning Department shall modify its Design Guidelines Manual to include standards for new development areas. Public and Quasi-Public Facilities, Infrastructure Policy 1.F.2. The location of new emergency response and other critical function facilities outside of areas subject to natural and built environmental hazards. Open Space, Habitat, and Wildlife Resources Policy 1.I.1. Require that significant natural resources be identified in advance of development and incorporated into site-specific development project design. Policy 1.I.2. Where feasible, development shall be planned and designed to avoid areas rich in wildlife or of fragile ecological nature (e.g., threatened and endangered species, riparian areas), alternatively, where equal or greater ecological benefits are possible, off-site mitigation will be allowed. Visual and Scenic Resources Policy 1.K.6. Require that new development on hillsides employ design, construction, and maintenance techniques that: - development does not cause or worsen natural hazards such as erosion, sedimentation, fire, or water quality concerns, - include erosion and sediment control measures, - minimize risk to life and property from slope failure, landslides, and flooding. Development Form and Design Policy 1.O.7. Mixed use areas are to include community focal points which, among other features, may include natural features such as wetlands and streams.
Section 4 - Public Facilities and Services Water Supply and Delivery Goal 4.C. To ensure the maintenance of high quality water in water bodies and aquifers used as sources of domestic supply.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-49 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Policy 4.C.4. New develop adjacent to domestic supply water bodies shall adequately mitigate potential water quality impacts. Policy 4.C.11. Watersheds of all storage and delivery facilities for domestic water shall be protected by limiting such actions as grading, construction of impervious surfaces, use of fertilizers, and the development of septic systems. Policy 4.C.13. In implementation of groundwater use policies, the county should differentiate between the alluvial aquifers of the valley and the “hardrock” systems of the foothill/mountain region. Implementation Program 4.8. The County shall participate with local water purveyors and members of the California Groundwater Association to adopt and implement a water availability monitoring program to include: - private well sampling program to evaluate the groundwater quality of newly constructed domestic wells, - a program to evaluate the quantity and quality of groundwater in small public water systems, - a program to monitor and evaluate surface water quality in major reservoirs and lakes, and - a geo-based, digitized database of groundwater and water well information, which shall be the bases of conclusions about groundwater quality and quantity. Stormwater Drainage
GOAL 4.E. To collect and dispose of stormwater in a manner that least inconveniences the public, reduces potential water-related damage, and enhances the environment. Policy 4.E.1. Encourage the use of natural stormwater drainage systems to preserve and enhance natural features. Policy 4.E.2. Support efforts to acquire land or easements for drainage and other public uses of floodplains where it is desirable to maintain drainage channels in a natural state. Policy 4.E.3. Consider using stormwater of adequate quality to replenish local groundwater basins and restore wetlands and riparian habitat. Policy 4.E.4. Ensure that new storm drainage systems conform with the Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation Districts’s Stormwater Management Manual and the County Land Development Manual. Policy 4.E.5. Implement and enforce the Grading Ordinance and Flood Damage Preventions Ordinance. Policy 4.E.7. Prohibit the use of underground storm drain systems in rural areas unless there are no other feasible alternatives to convey stormwater from new development or unless necessary to mitigate flood hazards. Policy 4.E.9. Encourage good soil conservation practices in agricultural and urban areas and carefully examine the impact of proposed urban development on drainage courses.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-50 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Policy 4.E.10. Improve the quality of runoff from urban and suburban development using mitigation measures such as artificial wetlands, grassy swales, infiltration/sedimentation basins, riparian setbacks, and other best management practices. Policy 4.E.11. Require new development to adequately mitigate increases in stormwater peak flows and/or volume while considering impacts on adjoining lands and to lands in other adjacent and nearby jurisdictions. Policy 4.E.12. Encourage project designs that minimize drainage consideration and impervious coverage and maintain (to the extent feasible) natural site drainage conditions. Policy 4.E.14. Require projects that have significant impacts to the quantity and quality of surface water runoff to allocate land for the purpose of detaining post- project flows and/or the incorporation of water quality mitigation measures for urban runoff water quality. Policy 4.E.15. Identify and coordinate mitigation measures with other responsible agencies for the control of storm sewers, monitoring of discharges, and implementation of measures to control the urban storm water runoff pollutant loads. Implementation Program 4.12. Prepare and adopt ordinances and programs as necessary and appropriate to implement and fund future watershed management, flood control, water quality protection, and water conservation plans of the Place County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Implementation Program 4.14. Develop brochures and other material to educate the public and developers regarding the potential impacts of development on drainage, flooding, and water quality. Flood Protection
GOAL 4.F. To protect lives and property of the citizens of Placer County from hazards associated with development in floodplains and manage floodplains for their natural resource values. Policy 4.F.1. Require that various infrastuctural transportation facilities, residences, commercial and industrial uses, and other facilities be protected, at a minimum, from a 100-year storm event. Policy 4.F.2. Recognize floodplains as a potential public resource to be managed and maintained for the public’s benefit. Policy 4.F.3. Work closely with various federal, state and local agencies in defining existing and potential flood problem areas. Policy 4.F.4. For new development proposals require accurate information on topographic and flow characteristics and 100-year floodplain boundaries under fully-developed, unmitigated circumstances. Policy 4.F.5. Attempt to maintain natural conditions within the 100-year floodplain of rivers and streams except;
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-51 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- where work is required to manage and maintain the stream’s drainage characteristics and when such work is in accordance with relevant local, state, and federal ordinances, rules, and permits etc, or, - for urban runoff treatment facilities so long as there is no destruction of riparian vegetation. Policy 4.F.6. Continue to coordinate efforts with local, state, and federal agencies to achieve adequate water quality and flood protection. Policy 4.F.7. Cooperate with the Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and various other local jurisdiction and other public agencies in planning and implementing regional flood control improvements. Policy 4.F.11. Work to solve flood control problems in areas where existing development has encroached into a floodplain. Policy 4.F.12. Promote the use of natural or non-structural flood control facilities, including off-stream flood control basins, to preserve and enhance creek corridors. Fire Protection Services
GOAL 4.I. To protect residents of, and visitors to, Placer County from injury and loss of life and to protect property and watershed resources from fires. Policy 4.I.4. Work with local fire protection agencies to identify key fire loss problems and design appropriate fire safety education programs to reduce fire incidents and losses.
Section 6 - Natural Resources Water Resources
GOAL; 6.A. To protect and enhance the natural quality of streams, creeks, and groundwater. Policy 6.A.1. Require sensitive habitat buffers that at a minimum are; 100 feet from the centerline of perennial streams, 50 feet from the centerline of intermittent streams, and 50 feet from the edge of sensitive habitats to be protected including riparian zones, wetlands, and the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered species. Setbacks may be modified on an individual project basis based on more detailed information. Exceptions may include: - reasonable use of property, - areas necessary to avoid or mitigate hazards to the public, - areas necessary for construction or repair of roads, bridges, trails and similar infrastructure. Policy 6.A.2. Require all development in the 100-year floodplain to comply with the Placer County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Policy 6.A.3. Require development projects proposing to encroach into a creek corridor or creek setback to do any of the following in descending order of desirability: Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-52 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- avoid disturbance of riparian vegetation, - replace riparian vegetation (on-site, in-kind), - restore another section of creek (in-kind), - pay mitigation fees. Policy 6.A.4. Where creek protection is required or proposed, require public and private development to, among other things: - provide an adequate creek setback, - maintain creek corridors in an essentially natural state, - where restoration is needed, use techniques that achieve a natural creek corridor, - prohibit the use of invasive, non-native plants within creek corridors and creek setback areas, - avoid tree removal within creek corridors, - use design, construction, and maintenance techniques that ensure development near a creek will not cause or worsen natural hazards (such as erosion, sedimentation, flooding, or water pollution), and that include appropriate erosion and sediment control practices. Policy 6.A.5. Continue to require the use of feasible and practical best management practices to protect streams from the adverse effects of construction activities and urban runoff. Policy 6.A.7. Discourage grading activities during the rainy season, unless adequately mitigated, to avoid sedimentation of creeks and damage to riparian habitat. Policy 6.A.8. Where stream environment zones (generally areas which owe their biological and physical characteristics to the presence of surface or ground water) have been modified by various human activities, require project proponents to restore by means of landscaping, revegetation, or similar stabilization techniques as part of development activities. Policy 6.A.10. Protect groundwater resources from contamination and further overdraft by, among others, the following efforts: - identifying and controlling sources of potential contamination, - protect important groundwater recharge areas, - encouraging the use of treated wastewater for groundwater recharge. Policy 6.A.12. Encourage the protection of floodplain lands and where appropriate, acquire public easements for purposes of flood protection, public safety, wildlife preservation, groundwater recharge, access and recreation. Implementation Program 6.1. Develop guidelines for creek maintenance practices that ensures native vegetation is not removed unnecessarily in consultation with Placer County Flood Control District, cities in the county and other downstream counties. Implementation Program 6.2. Develop and distribute educational materials to inform the public and prospective developers on those sections of the California
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-53 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Fish and Game Code applicable to the diversion or obstruction of stream channels and pollution of waterways. Implementation Program 6.4. Prepare, adopt, and implement a comprehensive surface and groundwater management program to ensure the long-term protection and maintenance of surface and groundwater resources to, among other things, include: - county leadership and a commitment to process integrity and inclusiveness, - coordination and cooperation with other public and private agencies, organizations, and groups that have an interest in water resource management in the county and surrounding areas, - inventory of water supply and quality information and demand estimates, - identification and prioritization of significant water supply sources and pressing water quality management problems, - identification of existing ongoing water management and regulatory polies, programs, and standards by the various agencies and organizations, - recognition and incorporation of ongoing compatible water management efforts into a comprehensive approach to water resources management to implement the goals and policies of this General Plan, - identification of any regulatory or policy “gaps: that can and should be addressed by the County, - application of sound water resource management principles, including: ¾ watershed land use management, ¾ wetlands and vegetation management, ¾ non-point source pollution control, ¾ waste disposal monitoring and controls, ¾ groundwater recharge, ¾ aquifer protection, ¾ application of sustainable multiple-use water management principles and incorporation of diverse and potentially compatible land use objectives, including: ⇒ provision of open space and recreation opportunities, ⇒ watershed and habitat protection, ⇒ flood control, ⇒ water provision to meet; ⇒ future agriculture, ⇒ ecological, and ⇒ community development needs. Wetland and Riparian Areas
GOAL 6.B. To protect wetland communities and related riparian areas as valuable resources. Policy 6.B.1. Support the “no net loss” policy for wetlands regulated by federal and state agencies and continue the cooperation with these agencies at all levels of project review to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures and the concerns of these agencies are adequately addressed. Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-54 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Policy 6.B.2. Require new development to mitigation loss in both regulated (Policy 6.B.1) and non-regulated wetlands to achieve “not net loss” through any of the following in descending order of desirability: - avoidance, - minimization of impacts, - compensation including use of mitigation banking program that provides impact mitigation to rare, threatened, and endangered species and/or the habitat which supports these species in wetlands and riparian areas. Policy 6.B.3. Discourage direct runoff and siltation into wetland areas from outfalls serving nearby urban development and (ensure) that development be designed such that pollutant and siltation will not significantly adversely affect the value or function of wetlands. Policy 6.B.4. Strive to identify and conserve remaining upland habitat areas adjacent to wetlands and riparian areas that are critical to the survival and nesting of wetlands and riparian species. Implementation Program 6.5. Work towards the public acquisition of creek corridors, wetlands, and significant ecological resource areas as public open space where such areas cannot be effectively preserved through the regulatory process and to cooperate with other local, state and federal agencies and private entities in such acquisition. Implementation Program 6.6. Establish a resource conservation zone overlay district for application to creek corridors, wetlands, and areas rich in wildlife o of a fragile ecological nature. Implementation Program 6.7. Establish a wetland mitigation banking program providing opportunities for off-site mitigation of wetland impacts, and include an initial pilot project site for evaluation of the program. Fish and Wildlife Habitat
GOAL 6.C. To protect, restore, and enhance habitats that support fish and wildlife species so as to maintain populations at viable levels. Policy 6.C.1. Identify and protect significant ecological resource areas and other unique wildlife habitats critical to protecting and sustaining wildlife populations, with “significant ecological resource areas” including: - wetland areas including vernal pools, - stream environment zones (see Policy 6.A.8 for definition), - habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species, - large areas of non-fragmented natural habitat including Blue Oak Woodlands, and Valley Foothill Riparian, - identified wildlife movement zones including but not limited to non- fragmented stream environment zones, - important spawning areas for anadromous fish. Policy 6.C.2. Require development in areas known to have high values for wildlife to be carefully planned and where possible located so that the reasonable value of the habitat for wildlife in maintained. Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-55 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Policy 6.C.3. Encourage the control of residual pesticides to prevent potential damage to water quality, vegetation, and wildlife. Policy 6.C.4. Encourage private landowners to adopt sound wildlife habitat management practices as recommended by various agencies with habitat and wildlife responsibilities. Policy 6.C.5. Require mitigation for development projects where isolated segments of stream habitat are unavoidably altered and that the mitigation is on- site, in-kind habitat replacement, or elsewhere in the stream system through stream or riparian habitat restoration. Policy 6.C.6. Support preservation of the habitat of rare, threatened, endangered, and/or other special status species and encourage federal, state, and other resource conservation organizations to acquire and manage the habitat of endangered species. Policy 6.C.7. Support the maintenance of suitable habitat for all indigenous species of wildlife, without preference to game or non-game species, through maintenance of habitat diversity. Policy 6.C.8. Support the preservation or reestablishment of fisheries in the river and streams whenever possible. Policy 6.C.9. Require new private or public development to preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat unless public safety concerns require removal of habitat for flood control or other public purposes (with necessary mitigation). Policy 6.C.10. Use the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (WHR) system as a tool for environmental assessment when more detailed site-specific systems are not used. Policy 6.C.12. Cooperate with, encourage, and support the plans of other public agencies to acquire land or conservation easements in order to preserve important wildlife corridors and to provide habitat protection of California Species of Concern and state or federal listed rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species. Policy 6.C.13. Support and cooperate with efforts of other local, state, and federal agencies and private entities in the preservation and protection of significant biological resources (including endangered, threatened, or rare species and their habitats, wetland habitat, wildlife migration corridors, and locally-important species/communities) from incompatible land uses and development. Policy 6.C.14. Support the management efforts of the California Department of Fish and Game to maintain and enhance the productivity of important fish and game species by protecting identified critical habitat for these species from incompatible suburban, rural residential, or recreational development. Implementation Program 6.8. Establish a program to insure public awareness of the benefits of wetland resources to include the opportunity for the public to participate in the protection, enhancement, and restoration of existing resources.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-56 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Implementation Program 6.9. Initiate a detailed countywide inventory (based on California Wildlife Habitat Relationships [WHR]) of ecological significant resource areas including unique natural areas, wetlands, riparian areas, habitats of rare, threatened, endangered, and other uncommon and special-status species and include appropriate buffer zones around the identified resource areas in order to account for periodic, seasonal, or ecological changes, and are to be revised regularly to accommodate new information. Implementation Program 6.10. Maintain current maps that indicate the extent of critical habitat for important fish and game species as made available by the California Department of Fish and Game, and in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game determine the relative importance of the game species will be based on relevant ecological, recreational, and economic considerations. Implementation Program 6.11. Encourage a cooperative effort to develop, adopt, and implement a comprehensive habitat management plan to address the long- term preservation and maintenance of sufficient habitat to support the current diversity of plants and wildlife species that will, among other things, include: - county leadership and a commitment to process integrity and inclusiveness, - provide greater certainty and less confrontation in the community development process through a program of habitat preservation and mitigation that would compensate for planned habitat conservation and deterioration, - coordination and cooperation with other public and private agencies, organizations, and groups that have an interest in management of vegetation, fish and wildlife resources in the county and surrounding areas, - inventory of the vegetation, fish, and wildlife resources in the county using available information, with the objective of creating an easily accessible, comprehensive, and regularly updated database that enhances the WHR inventory (Implementation Program 6.9), - prioritization of important habitat that supports high diversity and concentrations of special-status species, and particularly sensitive and vulnerable habitat that is in immediate danger of conversion or fragmentation, - application of sound conservation biology principles and an emphasis on multispecies and habitat conservation approach, - application of sustainable multiple-use land management principles and incorporation of diverse and potentially compatible land use objectives, including; ¾ provision of open space and recreation opportunities, ¾ watershed and water quality protection, ¾ flood control, ¾ certain development and resource extraction needs, - Application of multiplicity of land preservation, acquisition and easement techniques funding mechanisms, and cooperative agreements among participating agencies, organizations, and groups. Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-57 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Vegetation
GOAL 6.D. To preserve and protect the valuable vegetation resources. Policy 6.D.3. Support the preservation of outstanding areas of natural vegetation including, but not limited to, riparian areas, and vernal pools. Policy 6.D.5. Establish procedures for identifying and preserving rare, threatened, and endangered plant species that may be adversely affected by public or private development projects. Policy 6.D.6. Ensure the conservation of sufficiently large, continuous expanses of native vegetation to provide suitable habitat for maintaining abundant and diverse wildlife. Policy 6.D.7. Support the management of wetland and riparian plant communities for passive recreation, groundwater recharge, nutrient catchment, and wildlife habitats, and to be restored or expanded where possible. Policy 6.D.9. Require that development on hillsides be limited to maintain valuable natural vegetation, especially forests and open grasslands, and to control erosion. Policy 6.D.10. Support the continued use of prescribed burning to mimic the effects of natural fires to reduce fuel volumes and associated fire hazard to human residents and to enhance the health of biotic communities. Policy 6.D.14. Require that new development avoid, as much as possible, ecologically-fragile areas (areas of rare or endangered species of plants, and riparian areas). Implementation Program 6.13. Prepare and maintain an updated list of state and federal rare, threatened, and endangered species known or suspected to occur in the county and other uncommon or special-status species that occur or may occur in the county that are listed by: - California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, - species of special concern as designated by the California Department of Fish and Game, - California Fully Protected animals as defined by California Fish and Game Code. Implementation Program 6.14. Develop and maintain a detailed inventory of significant ecological resource areas for use during environmental review to determine potential impacts and monitor cumulative impacts on these resources.
Open Space for the Preservation of Natural Resources
GOAL 6.E. To preserve and enhance open space lands to maintain the natural resources of the county.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-58 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Policy 6.E.1. Support the preservation and enhancement of natural land forms, natural vegetation, and natural resources as open space to the maximum feasible extent including wetland preserves, riparian corridors, and floodplains. Policy 6.E.2. Require new development be designed and constructed to preserve the following types of areas and features as open space to the maximum feasible extent: - high erosion areas, - streams, streamside vegetation, - wetlands, - any areas of special ecological significance.
Section 7 - Agricultural and Forestry Resource Forest Resources
GOAL 7.E. To conserve Placer County’s forest resources, enhance the quality and diversity of forest ecosystems, reduce conflicts between forestry and other uses, and encourage a sustained yield of forest products. Policy 7.E.3. Work closely and coordinate with agencies involved in the regulation of timber harvest operations to ensure the County conservation goals are achieved. Implementation Program 7.6. In consultation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, conduct a careful evaluation of the Forest Practice Rules with regard to use of prescribed burning; and the protection of biological, soil, and water resources of the county and to propose a Special Forest Practice Rules package to the Board of Forestry for any identified inadequacies.
Section 8 - Health and Safety Seismic and Geological Hazards
GOAL 8.A. To minimize the loss of life, injury, and property damage due to seismic and geological hazards. Policy 8.A.1. Require the preparation of a soils engineering and geologic-seismic analysis prior to permitting development in areas prone to geologic or seismic hazards (such as landslides). Policy 8.A.4. Ensure that areas of slope instability are adequately investigated and that any development in these areas incorporates appropriate designed provisions to prevent landsliding. Policy 8.A.5. Prohibit avoidable alteration of land in a manner that could increase hazards in landslide hazard areas which may include concentration of water through drainage, irrigation, or septic systems, the removal of vegetative cover, and the steepening of slopes and undercutting the bases of slopes.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-59 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Policy 8.A.8. Continue to support scientific geologic investigations which refine, enlarge, and improve the body knowledge of unstable areas, and other hazardous conditions. Policy 8.A.11. Limit development in areas of steep and unstable slopes to minimize hazards caused by such things as landslides. Flood Hazards
GOAL 8.B. To minimize the loss of life, injury, and damage to property, and economic and social dislocation resulting from flood hazards. Policy 8.B.1. Promote flood control measures that maintain natural conditions within the 100-year floodplain of rivers and streams. Policy 8.B.5. Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to mitigate the impacted of new development in Placer County that could increase tor potentially affect runoff onto parcels downstream in a neighboring jurisdiction. Policy 8.B.8. Require that flood management program avoid alteration of waterways and adjacent areas, wherever possible. Fire Hazards
GOAL 8.C. To minimize the loss of life, injury, and damage to property, and watershed resources resulting from unwanted fires. Policy 8.C.1. Ensure that development in high-fire-hazard areas in designed and constructed in a manner that minimizes the risk from fire hazards and meet all applicable state and county standards. Policy 8.C.11. Continue to work cooperatively with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and local fire protection agencies in managing wildland fire hazards.
Stewardship Issues Placer County’s General Plan and Placer Legacy have objectives that relate to watershed Plan Objectives and key-resource issues. These watershed issues are presented below in major categories. 1. Stream channel and riparian areas; Placer County emphasizes protection of stream channels in “natural” conditions and the preservation of riparian and wetland areas in stream environment zones. The county includes Buffer Areas along channels that have setback distances associated with intermittent and perennial streams. Areas within 100-year floodplains have provisions for restricted land use development and for an emphasis on resource protection. - Smaller order streams are difficult to segment into perennial, intermittent, ephemeral, and even non-channel reaches. The reliability of flow regimes in channels segment can vary between water years and can progressively change with changing climate and changing land Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-60 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
uses. There are no maps that accurately and consistently represent these flow regimes in channel reaches (particularly low order channels) of the watershed. Therefore for specific channel reaches there can be considerable well-reasoned disagreement between interested parties on the nature of the flow regime. - The watershed hillslope and stream channel systems are coupled by sediment delivery, streamflow regime, and sediment transport patterns. The watershed is in a progressive state of evolution in conjunction with climate changes, regional uplift, and channel incision. Many of the channel reaches in the watershed are undergoing disruptive changes due to the natural progression of watershed evolution and the channel response to changed conditions. The specific reaches of channel undergoing natural adjustment and disruption are expected to change through time. Often natural (and man-induced) changes in a channel reach can cause downstream and, sometimes, upstream propagation of disruption and adjustment. - Present and future land use changes can influence streamflow patterns, change hillslope develop and sediment delivery patterns, and future climate changes can be expected to result in channel changes constantly over time. In semi-confined mountainous channel segments these natural and human caused changes in channel configuration can result in; 1) progressive and minor enlargement to accommodate additional flows and sediment transport, 2) substantial enlargement and channel migration during a derangement phase of channel adjustment, or 3) progressive lateral channel migration to accommodate needs for greater stream length and lower gradient. These expected natural and man-influenced channel changes can be in conflict with the Buffer setbacks and bring developed land uses into serious conflict with stream resources. Accommodating these possibilities by modifying the channels can either bring the actions into other conflicts with the county’s interest in “natural” channels, or in a worst case situation lead to the downstream translation of the disruptive channel change processes, propagating the problem to other properties. - The use of the 100-year floodplain as a parameter for channel related resource protection and the protection of life and property can be insufficient due to several circumstances. First, statistical 100-year floodflow event discharge magnitudes can be expected to increase progressively due to global warming and also to increase in conjunction with increased land use development intensity. Second, in semi-confined mountainous channels in which changing (natural or man-induced) channel conditions can be expected, the channels can enlarge and/or migrate to the point that higher terraces along channels, areas once above the 100-year floodflow stage, can become incorporated into the active channel. Land use development on these
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-61 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
sites can eventually become in conflict with many of the county’s and the watershed objectives by placing life and property threats in proximity to channel related key-resource values. The protection of land use development on these sites when channels adjust to watershed conditions can result in the loss of channel and riparian resources and lead to the use of structural controls in and along the channel banks - The county has an interest in both natural channels and the preservation of riparian habitat. The maintenance and/or restoration of natural channels is encouraged by the avoidance of structural solutions, and the riparian areas are protected by both a setback Buffer and an avoidance of grading or other removal of riparian vegetation. Many of the foregoing issues relate to the possibility and likelihood that channels will adjust and enlarge due to changes watershed conditions. With the possibility that the stream setbacks are undersized in some circumstances, this leads to the possibility that in- channel and riparian area impacts will occur and that adjacent developed land uses will be put at threat. The on-site restoration of channel and riparian system impacts may be impeded by some of the channel and riparian protection provisions. - On-site and off-site mitigation are encouraged by the county for impacts to channel and riparian areas. In a region where changing watershed conditions can lead to changed channel conditions over time, without information on site-specific channel conditions and change trends and/or potential changes, both on-site and off-site mitigation measures can either fail or lead to additional land use/channel resource conflicts. Related to this issue and other foregoing issues associated with channels and riparian habitat, there is no inventory of channel conditions, their dynamic variability, hillslope/channel relationships, stability regimes, change trends, etc., and no inventory of riparian vegetation extent, condition, values, and dependence on channel dynamics. Lacking this information meaningful impact assessments and mitigation and restoration decisions are difficult.
2. Slope Stability and High Erosion Area Concerns Placer County is concerned about slope stability and erosion production as they may influence risks to the population and property and as they may adversely affect stream resources through sedimentation. - Placer County is concerned that development plans include the identification of areas prone to slope failure and/or are susceptible to high erosion hazards and that the site plans accommodate these issues. There is no uniform and reliable watershed scale information on slope
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-62 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
stability risks and erosion hazards that would serve as a spatial guide for the location of land use development and identify project areas that should require greater emphasis on slope stability and erosion hazards. Relevant information gaps includes uniform and reliable information on; 1) the hillslope processes that occur and as they vary (time and space) in the watershed; 2) the landscape evolutionary processes in the watershed and the influences these processes have on slope stability and variability; and 3) a watershed-scale assessment of the probability and likelihood of slope failure (and types of failure) areas. Similarly there is an information gap in the spatial variability of erosion hazards to various impact influences.
3. Runoff and Streamflow Impacts on Stream Resources and Downstream Jurisdictions Placer County is concerned land uses that change the streamflow regimes of the channels of the watershed and the impact those changes may have on stream resources, riparian property owners and downstream jurisdictions. Floodflow issues were discussed above. - Land use developed can lead to changes in the soil-water routing processes and runoff source areas that in turn can modify the streamflow regimes in downstream reaches. There is no uniform method for estimating the changes in the soil-water routing, runoff, and streamflow regime that may occur as a result of land use changes and therefore no method to identify those landscape units most susceptible to modifying soil-water routing. This concern becomes more important when considering multiple watershed changes in cross-jurisdictional cause/effect and when considering other circumstances such as climate change. - The county is interested in groundwater resources and recharge areas and in the watershed these relate to the ‘hardrock’ groundwater settings. Of concern in this setting is support for baseflow streamflow support for the maintenance of stream and channel related key- resources, and local individual-residential wells. There is no watershed assessment that identifies important groundwater recharge areas and their susceptibility to impact due to land use changes and/or climate changes. - The county is interested in facilitating the protection of the population and property from losses due to wildland fires. It encourages various actions to reduce the fuel loads and to reduce the risks by improving services. One assessment element missing from the fuel evaluation mix is a parameter that shows areas sensitive to accelerated erosion due to intensive fires and, thus from a watershed resource issue perspective, could be a target for fuel load reduction.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-63 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Stewardship Opportunities 1. Participate in an Agency MOU Agreement to collaborate in the ARWG with planning and project review. 2. Participate in ARWG GIS database sharing and participate in GIS system maintenance and updating. 3. Participate and collaborate in ARWG stewardship projects. 4. Participate and collaborate in key-resources identification and desired condition standards and incorporate these as watershed resources in land use planning and project review. 5. Participate and collaborate in watershed channel condition inventory. 6. Participate and collaborate in watershed aquatic resources inventory. 7. Participate and collaborate in developing a watershed WEHY model. 8. Collaborate with the ARWG in developing watershed scale and soil type scale erosion potential assessments and inventory maps for various erosion hazard attributes to supplement the Stewardship GIS database. 9. Use the ARWG Fire Risk-Watershed Asset Map as a basis to prioritize actions associated with fuel load reduction..
Endnotes Placer County General Plan Update - Final Environmental impact Report V. I; 1994. Placer County General Plan - General Plan Background Report II; 1994. Placer County Countywide General Plan; 1994.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-64 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
STEWARDSHIP OPPORTUNITIES COMMON TO ALL AGENCIES
1. Participate in an Agency MOU Agreement to collaborate in the ARWG with planning and project review. 2. Participate in ARWG GIS database sharing and participate in GIS system maintenance and updating. 3. Participation and collaboration in ARWG stewardship projects. 4. Participate and collaborate in watershed key-resources identification and desired condition standards and to incorporate these as watershed resources in land use planning and project review. 5. Participate and collaborate in watershed channel condition inventory, to include; channel classification with respect to dynamic adjustment, stability, and sediment routing, channel/hillslope process interaction, hillslope processes and landscape evolution as related to sediment delivery and channel changes (this can be the extension and enhancement of the recently completed NF EUI geomorphology assessment) and including, - a watershed-wide mass wasting type and probability evaluation based on watershed evolution, geology, slope, and hillslope processes, - a watershed-wide erosion hazard evaluation involving many different erosion attributes, including gully potential etc, trends in channel conditions, expected changes in channel condition due to natural and man-induced changes, interaction between channels and alluvial deposits with respect to change trends, extent, condition, and values of riparian vegetation, assessment of channel reaches suspectable various types adjustment, identification of disrupted channel reaches, identification of disrupted reaches suited to various mitigation/restoration approaches, identify reaches susceptible to future disruption due to changed watershed conditions and anticipate types of intervention projects that will reduce adverse impacts of adjustments (increased channel storage areas, etc.), identification of most appropriate conceptual restoration approaches that accommodate Plan Objective and watershed key-resource issues. 6. Participate and collaborate in watershed aquatic resources inventory, to include: Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-65 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
identification of locations of channel dependant watershed key-resources, aquatic habitat condition of watershed key-resources, identification watershed key-resource habitat and/or condition stressors, identification of relationship of watershed key-resource habitat and/or condition to channel conditions, identification of degraded watershed key-resource habitat and/or condition suited for mitigation and restoration, identification of most appropriate conceptual restoration approaches. 7. Participate and collaborate in developing a watershed WEHY model, to include: assigning WEHY soil-water parameters to each soil type in the watershed, assigning area-weighted averaged soil-water parameters to each soil-map unit in the watershed, developing a runoff regime model for the entire watershed tied to both existing and potential climatic factors, providing runoff processes and soil-water routing parameters of reach soil polygon and each soil constituent, identification of the runoff process roles in each polygon/soil constituent, identification of groundwater recharge regimes tied to soil, vegetation, precipitation, and evapotranspiration parameters, identification of groundwater resource areas based on an evaluation of well- log data and other sources. the identification of watershed areas most significant for various watershed hydrological processes such as peak flow runoff or baseflow maintenance, etc, the provision of a standing model available for estimating the impacts of various possible land use and/or cover changes on any set of channel reaches of interest, the provision of a standing model available to estimate the interaction of various watershed condition changes (climate/land use, or land use/land use, etc.) for assessing cumulative impacts to runoff, streamflow, channels, riparian sites, and aquatic habitat elements. 8. Use the ARWG Fire Risk-watershed Asset Map as a basis to prioritize actions associated with fuel load reduction including: fire severity v. soil erosion potential = fire, erosion/sediment risk fire, erosion/sediment risk v. fire rotation = Fire Risk-watershed Asset Map.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-66 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ACTIVE IN THE WATERSHED A clear indicator of interest in a watershed is the number of groups or organizations active in watershed community. A growing number of organizations have formed around specific issues or concerns or out of the desire to work together with agencies and other interest groups to solve specific land use and resource protection problems within individual watersheds. The North/Middle Fork American watershed has a number of active organizations, including (partial list): American River Watershed Group – a Coordinated Resource Management Planning group with federal, state and local agencies, businesses, non-profit organizations and individual citizens working under a Memorandum of Understanding to address safety, forest health, water issues, sustainable economics and education in the North and Middle Fork American watersheds; Otis Wollan, 530-885-0332. Auburn Ravine Watershed Council – Rich Gresham, 530-885-3046. Dry Creek CRMP – Gregg Bates 530-885-3046. El Dorado Geographic Association – Bill Center 530-621-5390. Forest Health Consensus Group – Steve Chilton 702-588-4547. Sierra Nevada Alliance – member organizations working together to protect and restore the natural environment of the Sierra Nevada for future generations, while ensuring healthy and sustainable communities; Joan Clayburgh, 530-542-4546. South Fork American Watershed Partnership – 530-622-1410. Trout Unlimited of California – America’s leading trout and salmon conservation organization dedicated to conserving, protecting and restoring cold- water fisheries and their watersheds. American River Conservancy – Working to deliver education, stewardship and conservation programs that protect vanishing natural plant and animal communities, greenbelts, vistas, and community park lands by creating partnerships between private foundations and donors, public agencies, landowners, academic institutions and community volunteers; Alan Ehrgott, 530- 621-1224. Friends of the River (FOR) – dedicated to preserving, protecting, and restoring California’s rivers, streams, and their watersheds by providing public education, citizen activist training and organizing, and expert advocacy to influence public policy decisions on land, water and energy management issues; Betsy Reifsnider, 916-442-3155. Protect American Canyons (PARC) – dedicated to the protection and conservation of the natural, recreational, cultural, and historical resources of the North and Middle Forks of the American River and its canyons, for all to care for and enjoy; www.parc-auburn.org.
Chapter 3 Watershed Evaluation Page 3-67 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
CHAPTER 4 Stewardship Strategy
Introduction The American River Watershed Group Stewardship Strategy was first outlined in the ARWG Plan Objectives on September 16, 1999. Between that date and December 2002, the Watershed Group proceeded with several grants and programs, and collaborated in the founding of the American River Watershed Institute and the Placer County Fire Safe Alliance. Together the three organizations evolved strategies that are here referred to as Field Strategies. Some of these strategies were originally developed by the associated organizations and brought to the Watershed Group. An example is the Firesafe Ecosystem Strategy, which evolved from three ARWG committees which became absorbed into the emerging Placer County Fire Safe Alliance (PCFSA); PCFSA then articulated the strategy which was then brought back to the Watershed Group for review and concurrence. Other examples are the Education Strategy and the Data Management Strategy. ARWG founded the American River Watershed Institute to complement and carry out parts of ARWG’s education and data management programs. The two strategies were reviewed both by ARWG and by ARWI’s Board of Directors. These collaborations are described in the Background section to each of the Field Strategies. Chapter 4 is organized in the following manner: I. Programmatic ARWG Stewardship Strategies A. Landowner Stewardship Strategy Component B. Commercial/Business Stewardship Strategy Component C. Agency Stewardship Strategy Component II. Field Stewardship Strategies A. Firesafe Ecosystem Strategy B. Sediment Strategy C. Education Strategy D. Data Management &Capacity Building Strategy E. Resource Inventory Strategy
The above sections were developed collaboratively in facilitated sessions with three entities: American River Watershed Group, American River Watershed Institute, and Placer County Fire Safe Alliance. The material was developed and refined using an outline format, shown with a computer projector onto a screen. Editing occurred on screen. In an effort to maintain the consensual integrity of the material presented to the groups, the outline format is preserved in this grant report. The intention is that these Stewardship Strategies will be living documents, and that the organizations will continue
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-1 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
to use and refine these strategies over time, using the document in succession without outside editorial influence. In this way, material can be brought forward in the future for group review in the same form it was seen during a previous session.
In sections where collaborations with other organizations were important, the mission and objectives of those organizations are included in the Background section of the Strategy. All of these strategies were developed both within the Plan Objectives from the Scoping process, and within the Mission and Objectives of the American River Watershed Group, which is included below:
ARWG Mission: To develop and implement a plan that ensures public and firefighter safety, and sustain environmental and economic health within the American River Watershed.
Long term forest health and catastrophic wildland fires are of critical concern as are the following problems:
erosion and sedimentation; habitat quality, habitat disruption and depletion of biodiversity; the intermix of rural homes and resultant economic fire hazards; the need to maintain the area’s economic stability; the need to maintain the stability of the watershed; and the critical need for high quality waters throughout the American River watershed to serve multiple and highly varied downstream needs.
ARWG Objectives: These opportunities are listed in the ARWG Memorandum of Understanding as non-mandatory objectives for the purpose of improving the quality of the watershed:
optimizing citizen initiative in managing fuels on private property to enhance forest and watershed health; managing forest resources through the thinning of overcrowded stands, thinning brush fields and removing dying trees; reducing excessive growth of fire-dependent brush species; reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires through fuel management and reintroduce the natural role of fire to this ecosystem through prescribed burning;[need to revisit the re-introduction of fire; as this might imply it might be the only tool] developing strategic fuel break locations; implementing defensible space standards; preventing depletion of adequate ground cover in order that siltation of waterways is prevented; preventing discharge of pollutants before they can adversely affect water quality; optimizing and sustaining native fresh water species; preventing depletion of old-growth tree stands and designing areas for re- establishment of old-growth tree communities, and; [revisit for possible distinction of objectives for public and for private lands]
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-2 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
creating and sustaining diverse habitat and wildlife diversity. [revisit for possible distinction of objectives for public and for private lands] The above issues should be addressed with regard to possible injustices to private lands.
Programmatic ARWG Stewardship Strategy The following is an outline of a proposed ARWG programmatic approach to key- resource stewardship in the NF/MF WS in accordance with the Plan Objectives approved by the ARWG on 9/16/1999. The draft Stewardship Strategy includes a program of actions to be undertaken by the ARWG and members to encourage and facilitate key-resource stewardship in the private landowner, commercial/business, and agency sectors. This Programmatic ARWG Stewardship Strategy was introduced to ARWG by email and introduced to ARWG in a presentation on October 17, 2002. It was reviewed in an ARWG workshop November 7, 2002, and changes suggested in that meeting are included in the document. An email of this revised document was circulated in preparation for the November 22, 2002 ARWG meeting, requesting suggestions for changes (none were received at that time or during the meeting). This draft represents the status of the strategy as of the December 19, 2002 ARWG meeting.
A: LANDOWNER STEWARDSHIP STRATEGY COMPONENT
This element of the Program is designed to develop mechanisms to communicate with landownership of the Watershed, to develop knowledge and understanding of their resource management concerns, and to assist with those resource concerns related to ARWG key-resources. 1) The ARWG will designate a specific contact member that will receive communications from landowners and will either respond to the landowner enquiry or pass on the enquiry to specific agency staff contacts as appropriate. That contact person will be the Coordinator (or an appropriate ARWG representative). If the Coordinator is not available another ARWG member will take that responsibility. Any person selected as the contact person should be a responsible representative of an ARWG member agency. - The ARWG will regularly place meeting and activity notices in WS and local area newspapers with reference to the Contact person and their contact phone numbers. - The Contact person will take communications from members of the public and landowners in the WS, will coordinate the request for issues related to ARWG key-resources and determine which agency or organization of the ARWG can best respond to the concerns, information needs, or action needs of the public. - The key resource agency and organization members of the WS will designate a contact person to work with the ARWG Contact person to pass
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-3 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
on specific landowner or public member request to an appropriate technical and or policy staff for action - The ARWG Contact person will pro-actively follow-up on referrals to agencies and organizations and with the landowner to assure that successful contacts were established and appropriate actions were undertaken. 2) The ARWG will sponsor quarterly evening meetings (or weekends, or at times convenient to landowners) open to landowners and general member of the public in various location in and in the area of the WS. Purpose will be for outreach and dialogue, to receive input. These meetings will focus of explaining ARWG purposes and activities, and on developing issues and concerns from the landowners and members of the public. These meetings will be planned in cooperation and coordination with FSC’s and FSA, as part of outreach strategy - These meetings will be organized by the ARWG Coordinator (or other appropriate ARWG representative) who will arrange the meeting locations and facilities, and assure that both newspaper announcements are issued provided sufficient prior notice and phone networking to encourage attendance. - The ARWG will designate a small group of ARWG and resource agency or ARWG organization representatives to attend these meeting and to provide responses to quires from landowners and general members of the public - Notes of these meetings will be prepared by the ARWG Coordinator. - Summaries of these meetings will be presented at regular ARWG meetings. - Any comments of requests identified for further actions will be coordinated through the ARWG Coordinator and appropriate agency or ARWG organization representatives. - The ARWG Contact person will pro-actively follow-up on referrals to agencies and organizations and with the landowner to assure that successful contacts were established and appropriate actions were undertaken. 3) The ARWG will work with and support the PCFSA to actively work with groups of landowners and resource agencies to develop Fire Safe Councils in areas of concentrated private lands for the purposes of assisting in collaborative efforts to develop fuels management programs to facilitate public safety and WS related values. - The ARWG will provide a WS asset layer and fuel/fire risk assessments to Fire Safe Councils and will assist in the incorporating the WS asset layer into the Fire Safe Council assessment efforts. - The ARWG will actively encourage and participate in planning efforts (e.g. PTEIRs, Negative Declarations, WACMAC, etc.) conducted in the
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-4 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
WS to ensure that ARWG WS key-resource issues are incorporated particularly the use of the fire risk WS asset map prepared by the ARWG, and to support the PTEIR process with its fuel and fire risk maps. 4) The ARWG will coordinate and cooperate with FSA to organize Coffee Klatches with Fire Safe Councils and landowners in Fire Safe Council areas to assist in identifying and facilitating landowner defensible-space projects and to provide any assistance necessary for fuel projects. There is also a need to work with El Dorado County FSC’s within the American River Watershed. - The ARWG Coordinator (or other appropriate ARWG representative) will coordinate with FSA Coordinator to organize Coffee Klatches on a regular basis with the various active Fire Safe Councils and organize the attendance of ARWG agency and organization representatives that can assist in project development. 5) The ARWG will develop a general landowner introductory guidebook to WS agency permitting processes, services, and/or resources available to landowners, and contact staff for ARWG key-resource issues and make this guidebook available for regular distribution. A model for this guidebook is the CARCD booklet. - The landowner guidebook will be introductory in level of treatment on the permitting processes and services available so that it can be easily developed and modified, inexpensive to reproduce, and made readily available to various agencies and other organizations for distribution. - The guidebook will be developed under the general direction of the ARWG Coordinator (or other appropriate ARWG representative) and the staff of the ARWG member agencies will assist by contributing to the organization and direction of the guidebook, writing draft sections, and reviewing the final draft. - The cost of the guidebook development and reproduction will be shared by the ARWG member resource agencies included in the guidebook to the degree feasible, or from grant resources... - The guidebooks will be made available to all agencies with land use, resource management, and project permitting responsibilities in the WS. 6) The ARWG will maintain a useful and usable GIS database available to support various landowner stewardship planning efforts whether on a single property or in a more collaborative setting. [Refer to Data Management Strategy in Field Strategy Section] - The ARWG will work to maintain and upgrade the GIS database using the products of on-going resource inventory efforts etc. - The ARWG will provide the opportunities for landowners and general members of the public to become trained in the use of the GIS database.
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-5 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- The ARWG will develop and maintain a network of ARWG member agency staff available to assist and advise in the use of the GIS database for application to ARWG key-resource stewardship planning. - ARWG will facilitate information transfer where landowners may have data and information that can contribute to the GIS database. 7) The ARWG will develop a stewardship project process for 1) the identification of potential stewardship protection and/or restoration projects and activity for identified WS key-resources, 2) prioritization of projects based on a set of parameters, 3) the identification of ARWG member agency participation in the projects, 4) encouraging agency, landowner, commercial/business collaboration, and 5) identifying the role of the ARWG in assisting in project implementation and funding assistance through granting or other sources, to the degree feasible. - See #7 of the Agency Stewardship Strategy Component below. 8) The ARWG will actively encourage landowners to cooperate in fuel load reduction and defensible space projects. - See #8 of the Agency Stewardship Strategy Component below.
B: COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS STEWARDSHIP STRATEGY COMPONENT
This element of the Program is designed to development mechanisms to communicate with commercial and business sector of the WS, to develop knowledge and understanding of their resource management concerns, and to assist with those resource concerns related to ARWG key-resources. 1) The ARWG will support biomass uses of fiber production in the WS by maintaining an information base that can facilitate biomass commercial and business activities and which can integrate WS asset factors into project consideration. - The ARWG will maintain a working relationship with the Sierra Economic Development District (and other resources like UC Forest Products Lab) to assist in maintaining current lists of resources and services available to biomass projects. - The ARWG will maintain its WS asset and fire risk maps to provide information on most critical fuel/fire risk areas and those areas most sensitive to WS key-resources. - The ARWG will maintain and upgrade (see Inventory Stewardship Projects) a GIS database useful to the commercial/business sector for application in project planning and review such as, key-resource conditions, terrestrial habitat, slopes, erosion potential, etc. 2) The ARWG will sponsor annual “Day-In-The-WS” events aimed at tours of the WS and key-resource issues areas in the WS involving policy and political level representative of the commercial/business sector, resource management agencies, and the political sector.
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-6 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- The ARWG Coordinator (or other appropriate ARWG representative) will coordinate this activity, will network with the various sectors to identify the subject focus of each event and to develop the scheduling and logistics. - Notes of these field meetings will be prepared by the ARWG Coordinator. - Summaries of these field meetings will be presented at regular ARWG meetings. - Any comments of requests identified for further actions will be coordinated through the ARWG Coordinator and appropriate agency representatives. - The ARWG Contact person will pro-actively follow-up on referrals to agencies and organizations to assure that successful contacts were established and appropriate actions were undertaken. 3) The ARWG will develop and maintain an on-going contact network list of members of the commercial/business sector who have activities in the WS for the purpose explaining the presence and purpose of the ARWG, soliciting stewardship needs from the sector, identifying additional data needs that the ARWG may supply through collaborative activities, and ways in which the ARWG can assist the sector in key-resource stewardship. - The ARWG Coordinator (or other appropriate ARWG representative) will develop and maintain the contact network. - The Coordinator will regularly contact the members on the contact list to track progress or needs, to expand the contact lists, and to identify any specific stewardship assistance the ARWG may provide. - The ARWG will make arrangements to occasionally meet in small secessions with groups of this sector to further advance an understanding of the ARWG and its potential role in supporting key-resource stewardship actions by this sector. - Notes of these meetings will be prepared by the ARWG Coordinator. - Summaries of these meetings will be presented at regular ARWG meetings. - Any comments of requests identified for further actions will be coordinated through the ARWG Coordinator and appropriate agency representatives. - The ARWG Contact person will pro-actively follow-up on referrals to agencies and organizations and with the commercial/business representative to assure that successful contacts were established and appropriate actions were undertaken. 4) - The ARWG will maintain its WS GIS database and make available to the commercial/business sector for use in resource planning, impact evaluation, and for key-resource stewardship. Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-7 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- The ARWG will work to maintain and upgrade the GIS database using the products of on-going resource inventory efforts etc. - The ARWG will provide the opportunities for landowners and general members of the public to become trained in the use of the GIS database. - The ARWG will develop and maintain a network of ARWG member agency staff available to assist and advise in the use of the GIS database for application to ARWG key-resource stewardship planning. - The ARWG GIS database will be updated and improved be including key-resource inventory and condition status information such that it will assist the commercial/business sector in resource planning and impact evaluation efforts 5) The ARWG will pro-actively solicit joint commercial/business and ARWG stewardship projects that also engage other resource management agencies with joint interest or potential benefits from the project. These projects should include key-resource issues that do or may transgress property boundaries and otherwise qualify as relater to key-resource issues within the contact of stewardship as defined by the Plan Objectives. - The ARWG Coordinator (or other appropriate ARWG representative) will develop potential project ideas through contacts with the commercial/business, landowner, and agency sectors. - The ARWG will develop a project screening procedure to rank potential projects on a variety of parameters that may include significance to key- resources, collaborative ownership mixes, cost, feasibility, resource benefits, potential project impacts, etc. - The ARWG will maintain a GIS database designed for use in project prioritization, project planning and design, in project impact evaluation. - For selected project, the ARWG will participate in efforts to secure project funding with an identified lead entity. - The ARWG will request technical staff of member resource agencies available to participate in project planning on projects of mutual benefit. 6) The ARWG will develop a stewardship project process for 1) the identification of potential stewardship management projects, protection and/or restoration projects and activity for identified WS key-resources, 2) prioritization of projects based on a set of parameters, 3) the identification of ARWG member agency participation in the projects, 4) encouraging agency, landowner, commercial/business collaboration, and 5) identifying the role of the ARWG in assisting in project implementation and funding assistance through granting or other sources - See #7 of the Agency Stewardship Strategy Component below. 7) The ARWG will actively encourage landowners to cooperate in fuel load reduction and defensible space projects. - See #8 of the Agency Stewardship Strategy Component below. Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-8 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
C: AGENCY STEWARDSHIP STRATEGY COMPONENT;
This element of the Program is designed to develop mechanisms for communication between ARWG agencies of the WS on key-resource issues, to develop a higher level of collaborative resource planning associated with key-resources, in developing a collaborative GIS database for use by agencies for various planning and project purposes, and for collaborative cooperation on stewardship projects. 1) The ARWG will develop an MOU with the member agencies of the ARWG establishing formal business rules setting out how the agencies and organizations/businesses will interact with the ARWG on planning and project efforts related to ARWG key-resources. The MOU will include; - Agreement as to how agencies will incorporate ARWG WS key-resource issues and concerns early in the resource planning or project planning stages.[ within the constraints of applicable federal and state laws] (e.g. Perhaps a document of cooperation, stated clearly from a WS perspective) - Agreement as to ARWG review of project and resource planning efforts with respect to ARWG key-resource issues. - Agreement on the working relationships among the agencies and between the agencies and the ARWG on inventory or restoration projects undertaken on behalf of the ARWG. - Agreement on participation in various WS inventory efforts by collaborating in inventory approaches designed to meet the needs of the key-resource issues and to provide the best support to all the resource agencies of the WS. - Agreement to provide relevant resource information to the ARWG for inclusion in the ARWG GIS database.
2) The main ARWG resources agencies will designate a contact representative to work with the ARWG Coordinator (or other appropriate ARWG representative) to refer requests received from the public and landowners to the Coordinator on to appropriate technical staff for response and to follow up on response. 3) The ARWG will regularly schedule ARWG meeting time for agencies to present project and/or planning effort status. These will be scheduled by the ARWG Coordinator (or other appropriate ARWG representative) and will work with the agencies to develop the presentations. The frequency of agency presentations will be based on the number of project on-going in the WS and the status of project progress. 4) The ARWG will identify key-resource issues at a CalWater Subwatershed scale (or equivalent) for use by agencies in land use and resource management actions and practices. Included will be; - The locations of key-resources within each CalWater Subwatershed (or equivalent), their condition status, and the key-resource condition
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-9 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
sensitivities to watershed processes. (This strategy is the basis of many of the inventory stewardship strategies noted elsewhere.) - This will be developed by the ARWG along with its various member land use and resource management agencies using Category III resource information, additional key-resource information to be developed, additional watershed process and inventory information to be developed through other stewardship strategies, and if appropriate, added by a voluntary science advisory panel. - The ARWG will work with member agencies to use the identified WS key-resources and the inventory and assessment tools in their individual planning and project evaluation needs. 5) The ARWG will develop large-scale information and watershed modeling procedures for the purposes of assisting land use and resource management agencies so that key-resource issues at the Subwatershed scale can be incorporated into resource planning, project development, and impact assessment efforts. This will allow all agencies to have a common set of analytic tools for assessing WS key-resource issues within a common set of key-resource concerns and standards for key-resource condition or status. These watershed tools may include; ARWG will present workshop on WEHY for review and consideration. - Populating the present WS soil polygon attribute tables with WEHY (watershed and Environment Hydrology model) parameters. - Working with the main land use and resource management agencies to develop an interactive WEHY model to examine runoff processes by land form types and the influences of various land management practices on the runoff processes and streamflow results. - Working with the main land use and resource management agencies to review soil information for erosion and sediment production risk and develop a standard approach to erosion production evaluation such as the WEPP approach. - Working with the main land use and resource agencies to develop a uniform approach to landslide and mass wasting probability assessment. 6) The ARWG encourage and work to have the land use resource agencies or organizations incorporate the WS asset map for fire risk and to use this map to strategize fuel projects and fire suppression. 7) The ARWG will develop a stewardship project process for 1) the identification of potential stewardship protection and/or restoration projects and activity for identified WS key-resources, 2) prioritization of projects based on a set of parameters, 3) the identification of ARWG member agency participation in the projects, 4) encouraging agency, landowner, commercial/business collaboration, and 5) identifying the role of the ARWG in assisting in project implementation and funding assistance through granting or other sources.
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-10 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- The ARWG Coordinator (or other appropriate ARWG representative) will develop and maintain a list of potential key-resource stewardship projects through a networking process involving ARWG agencies, other WS agencies, landowners, general public members and the commercial/business sector. These projects will be organized by project/action type, key-resource issues, location/ownership, etc. - The ARWG will develop and apply an on-going process for potential project prioritization to identify projects that may demand early attention. - The ARWG will proactively identify interagency collaboration opportunities and opportunities for cooperation between ARWG agencies and landowner and commercial/business on projects. - The ARWG will design identified resource inventory projects (specified elsewhere) to provide stewardship project support information such as channel and erosional processes, natural/man-induced effects, expected process progression, expected problem propagation, expected final configuration etc. - The ARWG will use the specified resource inventory projects to identify additional potential stewardship projects and to serve, along with other elements of the ARWG GIS database, as information to assist in designing the project, justifying the projects, and developing an environmental review of the project for permitting purposes. 8) The ARWG will develop a fuel reduction stewardship program in cooperation with PCFSA (or FSC’s) which will provide agencies the opportunity to use or to include:- The use of the WS fire risk asset analysis and the fire risk map to identify areas with a combination of high WS fire risk assets and fire risk. - Develop a fuel modification project list and a system to prioritize projects based on such issues such as (but not exclusively) desired fuel load condition, degree of fuel load change, likely regrowth rate and vegetation structure, frequency of management re-entry, wildland/urban interface, etc. [decision making agency or fed/state monies will have criteria or a set of priorities also which will have to be accommodated, e.g. PC Fire Safe Plan, National Fire Plan] - Develop an interagency forum to promote collaborative project activities. - The maintenance of the fire risk database and intensity database for the WS for continued use, and a hydrologic model (PRMS) and an erosion prediction model (WEPP) for the purposes of project evaluation. - The maintenance of the GIS database to include other project evaluation layers including habitat and other attributes that can be used to evaluate project impacts. - Develop guidebook (broader version of RCD manual) of fuels management projects and practices for the WS area to be developed cooperatively by the various fire resource agencies, PCFSA, existing Fire Safe Councils, and land use agencies in the ARWG. It will be designed to
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-11 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
provide basic insight to fire safe settings and defining appropriate fuel loading and to “full cycle” vegetation management in terms of maintaining vegetation structure and re-entry. Included may be; - Descriptions of vegetation type and fire/topographic fire relationships - General guidelines for determining appropriate fuel loads - Methods useful for fuels management - Fuel management re-entry needs based on desired fuel load and vegetation types (potential natural vegetation etc.) - Referral resource for permitting and information sources and support services. 9) The ARWG will establish a voluntary science advisory contact list of selected university and research workers in the region which would be available to provide technical input to the ARWG on a variety of resources and watershed management issues related to the key-resources. - This list should be developed from the contacts made during the Category III project and expended progressively through phone networking by the ARWG Coordinator (or other appropriate ARWG representative) and developed into a list of voluntary panel members through a semi-formal agreement between the ARWG and the potential participant as to form of and level of participation. 10) The ARWG will organize and sponsor a program of “West Slope Sierra Nevada Watershed Symposia” which are designed to be a forum of shared research and resource management approaches to watershed management issues common to west slope Sierra Nevada landscapes. They are to be designed to be research and technical in nature, to focus on issues common to most west slope regions, and to produce and share information and understanding that can advance watershed oriented projects in the region. - The annual symposium will be organized by the ARWG Coordinator (or other appropriate ARWG representative) and the ARWG member agencies will share in the costs over and above the fees generated by the event. - Symposia themes will be developed through the ARWG, ARWG member agencies, and phone networking by the Coordinator with the science advisory panel and with other groups and agencies engaged in watershed activities in the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. - Potential themes could include; - Information approaches to fire risk WS assets assessments, - Alternative fuels management practices, re-entry issues and relationships to potential natural vegetation and growth characteristics,
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-12 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
- Understanding of runoff processes in the Sierra Nevada and as they relate to land units and land uses/resource management practices. - Soil-water parameters useful for runoff process characterization and assessment, - Methods to regionalize climate and weather data for use in watershed process and function assessment, - Methods to use groundwater attributes of geologic units for hydrologic process and function understanding, - Slope stability and landslide/mass wasting potential assessments given the geomorphology and geology of the western Sierras Nevada, - Methods for using USFS EUI for watershed process understanding, - Geologic and geomorphic evolution of western lope watersheds and meaning to watershed processes and function, - Nature and processes of channel and channel evolution of western slope watersheds, - Significance of fuel loading in the riparian zones on the loss of large woody debris anchoring of channels and channel sediment following intense fires.
Field Stewardship Strategies
Simultaneous with the development of the programmatic strategies above was the development of the Field Stewardship Strategies. These strategies evolved over the past three years during the grant process. As noted above, the evolution of ARWG included creation of
FIRE SAFE ECOSYSTEM FIELD STRATEGY
Fire safety and moving toward a fire safe ecosystem in urban, wildland, and interface settings has been the highest priority for the ARWG since its inception, as evidenced in the statements below. This issue is shared with the Placer County Fire Safe Alliance and the five Placer County Fire Safe Councils. The American River Watershed Group and the Placer County Fire Safe Alliance are co-evolving entities, with parallel processes addressing Goals and Objectives for Strategic Plans for the Firesafe Ecosystem issues. ARWG Mission and Objectives were
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-13 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
stated at the beginning of Chapter 4 and are repeated below followed by the PCFSA Mission and Vision. ARWG Strategic Goal: Collaborate with Placer County Fire Safe Alliance in the development, review, and implementation of the Placer County Strategic Fire Safe Plan Adopt and support PCFSA county wide plan. American River Watershed Group Mission: To develop and implement a plan that ensures public and firefighter safety, and sustain environmental and economic health within the American River Watershed. Placer County Fire Safe Alliance (PCFSA) Mission Statement: To facilitate and coordinate the efforts of community fire safe councils, agencies, cities, fire departments, and citizens in public/private partnerships; For the purpose of community fire safety through education and programs that result in fire safe communities, reduced fire risks to the communities, and fire hazard management; In a manner that is socially, economically, and environmentally balanced. PCFSA Vision Statement: To have fire defensible communities in accordance with management principles that protect and enhance forest, range, and watershed values of our Sierra ecosystem.
Background ARWG recognized from its inception the priority of the critically dangerous levels of fuel loading in the watershed, as indicated by its inclusion in the fundamental goal of the watershed group’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The importance of fire related planning and projects have been consistent since the ARWG MOU was first signed in 1996. One of ARWG’s first project-oriented actions was the successful grant submission to the State Water Resources Control Board Proposition 204 fund for fire safety related projects. Among those projects in the grant were: USFS shaded fuel break activities in the Michigan Bluff area; NRCS shaded fuel break activities in the Meadow Vista, Foresthill, Iowa Hill area; CDF shaded fuel break in the Meadow Vista area Demonstration sites for shaded fuel breaks and defensible space in Foresthill, Auburn, Iowa Hill, Michigan Bluff; Initial inventory of GIS layers applicable to fire planning and projects; Public outreach and education, and the formation of the Public Outreach and Education Team, an ARWG committee. ARWG formed numerous working committees to assist in advising and executing the various components. Among those committees were the BioUtilization Committee, Healthy Forest Committee, and Fire Safe Watershed subcommittee.
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-14 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
At the same time, communities were organizing into Fire Safe Councils. Foresthill, Meadow Vista, Iowa Hill, and Colfax areas had organizational meetings for local Fire Safe Councils, organized by the Placer County Resource Conservation District. Soon to follow was the community of Alta, and most recently in 2001 the Greater Auburn Area. At the time of this writing (December 2002), the communities of Loomis and Granite Bay have also expressed interest in forming Fire Safe Councils. Initial conversations were simultaneously occurring on the formation of an “Alliance” for fire safety which would include representation from the Fire Safe Councils and the agencies, as well as many other stakeholders. As these conversations deepened and the first iteration of the Placer County Fire Safe Alliance emerged, it was clear that many of the same individuals representing organizations were experiencing the need to consolidate meetings which had become duplicative. The stakeholders decided to combine the ARWG BioUtilization Committee, ARWG Healthy Forest Committee, and ARWG Fire Safe Watershed subcommittee with the formative meetings of the Placer County Fire Safe Alliance. The dialogue within the Alliance was to embrace and include the interests that were being carried by those three committees within the ARWG. Another element in the early development of fire related projects was the Meadow Vista PTEIR project sponsored by the Placer County Resource Conservation District. This programmatic environmental document focused on a small watershed in the Meadow Vista area, and provided programmatic environmental documentation designed to assist landowners who chose to undertake vegetation management for the purpose of reducing the fuel load, and contribute to community safety through both shaded fuel breaks and defensible space. This prototype programmatic EIR was the source for the suggestion that this approach be expanded for the area covered by the Weimar- Applegate-Colfax Municipal Advisory Committee community planning advisory process to the County Board of Supervisors and the County Planning Department. In the very dry summer of 2001, which proved to become one of the worst fire seasons in Placer County history, a great deal of public attention became focused on the community fire safety issue. The City of Auburn and the Greater Auburn Area residents responded to the increase in public information and understanding of the fire safe issue by going to the Auburn City Council and the County Board of Supervisors to request that this issue be addressed with funds and projects. Working together with the Auburn Fire Chief and CDF, ARWG and the ARWG Coordinator devoted the entire balance of the year to the fire issue. June and July fire workshops for the Auburn City Council were co-designed by the Auburn Mayor, Auburn Fire Chief, and the ARWG Coordinator. The June, July and August meetings of the ARWG were devoted to the issues of urban/wildland interface issues in the Auburn Canyonland areas. ARWG allocated $10,000 to this area for matching funds in a project demonstration for shaded fuel breaks. Another Proposition 204 funded demonstration of defensible space for a cluster of homes on the canyon rim was accomplished. ARWG meetings overlapped with the emerging Alliance meetings, as National Fire Plan grants were designed to help form the Greater Auburn Area Fire Safe Council.
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-15 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
With the new Greater Auburn Fire Safe Council in place, two National Fire Plan grants were submitted and awarded to PCFSA for Community Fire Plans, one for GAFSC and one for four additional FSC’s--- Greater Colfax, Foresthill, Placer Hills, and Iowa Hill. This shared history of founding members is the primary reason for the co- evolution of the strategic goals and objectives for the Firesafe Ecosystem Field Strategies. At the September 22, 2002 meeting of ARWG, the strategy to “adopt and support PCFSA county wide plan” was reviewed, and the current draft of the “Community Prescription” was reviewed line by line on the October 17, 2002 ARWG meeting. The current Strategic Plan for Firesafe Ecosystem is in draft form before both ARWG and PCFSA. The draft included in the text below is the October 2002 draft. For the most recent draft, contact the Placer County Fire Safe Alliance Coordinator at the High Sierra Resource Conservation and Development Area in Auburn, CA.
Strategic Goals:
To decrease fuels to reduce wildfire intensity and impact in and around the community. To evaluate, upgrade and maintain community wildfire preparation and response facilities and equipment. To help educate community members to prepare and respond to wildfire. To develop and implement a comprehensive emergency response plan. To actively address identified regulative issues impacting community wildfire prevention and response needs. To regularly evaluate, update and maintain planning commitments.
Objectives:
1. All Structures in Placer County will have Appropriate Defensible Space
This goal addresses the need to manage vegetation in and around structures. It focuses upon the need to create defensible space to prevent ignition and to give firefighters an area where they can make a defensive effort to protect endangered structures. 4290 is not retroactive to many of the areas that need to be improved. 4290 should be used as Guide for areas, locations and even specific properties to use when improving fire safety. The PRC code has been placed on the CD that accompanies this document and is not reproduced in its entirety here. Getting individual property owners to comply with the provisions of the PRC 4290 and 4291 is not an easy task. If it were, there would not be a reason for having an enforcement strategy. Three basic factors determine whether or not that individual property owners comply. The first is that they see personal benefit to doing it. This is a result of educational efforts. The second is that they see a financial benefit and this applies to their ability to get reasonable insurance coverage for their property. The third and last resort is that they are required to do so by the laws and statutes of the authority having jurisdiction.
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-16 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Action Items: Organize and implement Coffee Klatch programs in concert with local Fire Safe Council Implement Senior-Disabled Defensible Space Assistance Program Publicize Shaded Fuel Break Concept Implement specific project on-going funding for defensible space inspectors
2. Improve the Use of Fire Wise Landscaping
According to the Sunset Western Garden Book by Sunset Magazine, the area of Placer County has three separate climatic zones. The maps in this text do not provide a fine detail of the boundaries of these zones. However, it appears that Auburn is primarily within Zone 9. This is described as the Thermal Belt of the California Central Valley. Colfax, Iowa Hill, Forest Hill and Meadow Vista are in Zone 7. This is described as the California Digger Pine Belt. A current project is to develop a plant guide for Placer County. This project should be published in the very near future. Its adoption and implementation by authorities having jurisdiction and property owners would be a significant contribution in improving conditions. Additional information on the planting and maintenance of fire safe plants is available from the UCFPL website as well contained in several texts on the subject. One of the objectives of the Fire Safe Planning process should be to encourage the use of plants and ground covers that come from recommended lists that have been identified as being appropriate for the area. This may include the distribution of information on the plant lists, cooperation with local plant suppliers, garden suppliers and landscape companies. Many fire Safe Councils have encouraged the development of a Demonstration Garden to illustrate the practical aspects of managing defensible space around homes and businesses. Action Items: Distribute Placer County plant book and maintain ongoing supply Publicize Fire Safe Gardens
3. All Homes and Roads in Placer County will have Signage that Complies with PRC 4290
This goal addresses the need to assure that all new development must meet the minimum standards to assure that the problem does not get any worse in the future. This code addresses the need to create roads that can simultaneously be used to evacuate residents and visitors as well as allow access for emergency vehicles. Obtaining compliance with this standard will reduce the potential for confusion and conflict during an actual event. Among the overall objectives to improve fire safety under 4290
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-17 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Remove brush along all interface roadways to minimum 10’ off road Install house addresses and street signs to improve location of structures Work with State and Federal to reduce hazard fuels across boundaries Create Memorandum of Understanding with property owners to provide secondary emergency egress any landlocked subdivision Action Items: Implement specific project house and road signs Implement Senior-Disabled Defensible Space Assistance Program
4. Work Towards Improving the Codes and Regulations that have Impact on the Urban-Wildland Problem.
This goal addresses the need to assure that there are efforts to improve upon the state of the art in dealing with the fire problem in this area. This goal implies the use of research and ongoing inquiry into the various new methods and technology that is created to resolve current problems. This would also include the process of adopting new codes, ordinances, CC&R’s and standards that have been produced as model codes. The Authority Having Jurisdiction for enforcement of Fire Safe Practices for the any specific area of the County is divided among many organizations. The specific organization that has the responsibility for the enforcement of codes and standards is based upon the fire jurisdiction. Close coordination is required with these entities. Fire Safe planning involves reviewing proposed developments to assess their impact upon emergency resources. The state has adopted fire protection regulations in the State Responsibility Areas (SRA). In November of 1991, the Subdivision Ordinance and Project Development standards, as included in the Land Development Manual, were modified to incorporate the State Fire Safe Standards. By County ordinance, new development is required to provide static on-site storage of water to be used in the event of a fire. These water storage facilities need to be inventoried and identified in a system that will allow them to be retrieved during emergency conditions The tendency is to consider fire issues as only a safety issue. However, the planning process to assure that fire safety is incorporated in the development of a community is much broader. Most general plans contain the elements of land use, housing, circulation, conservation, and open space. There are opportunities under each of these to institute mitigation measures that will ultimately be reflected in a more comprehensive plan for the community. These would include the following: Land use ¾ Greenbelts ¾ Fuel Breaks ¾ Fuel Reduction Practices ¾ Buffer Zones ¾ Water Supply Requirements Housing
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-18 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
¾ Definition of hazardous areas ¾ Ignition resistant construction Circulation ¾ Design standards ¾ Evacuation routing ¾ Strategic access ¾ Heli-spots ¾ Heli-bases Conservation ¾ Shaded fuel breaks ¾ Fuel reduction policies ¾ Design requirements Open Space ¾ Strategic access ¾ Off-site assessments of improvements ¾ Fuel breaks ¾ Fuel reduction zones Safety ¾ Evacuation routing ¾ Design standards for roads ¾ Water supplies ¾ Definition of hazards areas ¾ Minimum mitigation requirements The fire safe planning process is highly dependent upon community’s taking action to mitigate fires rather than trying to find adequate resources to control them. The last decade has demonstrated that the number and frequency continues to grow. The last decade in this county has seen a growth in development. Therefore, it is important that new developments should have protection designed in based upon the body of knowledge about fire safe planning. The use of CC& R’s to establish fire safe provisions is encouraged. Local community ordinances are appropriate to set minimum requirements for specific areas is an effective strategy also. There are two such documents included in the Appendices to this document. Existing development is often impacted by the development of subsequent properties that have not incorporated such planning devices. Action Items: Apply fire mitigation practices at property, subdivision, local, and regional planning efforts. Implement Realtor information at “Point of Sale” pilot program
5. Increase the Numbers of Structures that have Fire Safe Roofing that Meets or Exceeds Class B
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-19 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Wood shake roofs are a serious problem during wildland fires. Sparks traveling over defensible space can still ignite these roof coverings. The elimination of combustible roofs is therefore a top priority in areas where the urban interface occurs. The elimination of the roofs during the construction phase of new developments is by far the best strategy. This requires that the local fire building codes have such a requirement. Removing them from existing structures is more time consuming and costly. For detailed information on Fire Safe Roofing, an organization provides supportive and educational information. It is the Committee for Fire Safe Roofing, 1667 Springer Road, Mountain View. CA 94040. 800-962-4540 Action Items: Organize and implement Coffee Klatch programs in concert with local Fire Safe Council
6. Encourage the Reduction of Fuels Beyond the Area of Defensible Space.
This goal addresses the need to reduce fuels on a broader basis than just defensible space. Goal 1 addresses the need to remove the fuels close to structures. This goal focuses upon the need for programs that address such methods as shaded fuel breaks, use of prescribed fire and fuel modifications of all types. This goal focuses upon the need to improve upon the defense of entire communities and neighborhoods by the development of the shaded fuel break concept. A shaded fuel break is a strategic location along a ridge, access road, or other location where fuels have been modified. The width of the fuel break is usually 100 to 300 feet depending on the site. The objective of a shaded fuel is to reduce, modify, and manage fuels within designated areas that may enhance mitigation efforts in the event of a wildland fire situation. This is a carefully planned thinning of dense vegetation, so fire does not easily move form the ground into the overhead tree canopy. A shaded fuel break is not the removal of all vegetation in a given area. Fire suppression resources can utilize this location to suppress wildland fires due to the modification of fuels of which may increase the probability of success during fire suppression activities. Any fuel break by itself will not stop a wildland fire. These breaks are designed around the use specific criterion to locate the: roads, evacuation routing, fuel hazards and projected fire behavior and specific neighborhoods. Shaded fuel breaks require considerable cooperation and coordination, which enhances the need to strive for the accomplishment of the last goal statement Action Items: Publicize Shaded Fuel Break Concept Implement specific project fuel reduction cost share
7. Restore Fire Adapted Ecosystems
Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems is one of the tenets of the National Fire Plan. This process involves rehabilitation and restoration over an extended period of time. Using
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-20 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
research, science and maintaining constant monitoring will be required to achieve long- term results. This goal addresses the need to take action that will result in stronger interaction between fire, land management and other entities in the process of creating a more fire safe community. In the short term, it involves rehabilitating and stabilizing areas that have been burned. In the long term, it involves improving the land by assuring adequate focus on ground cover, native and invasive species as well as an overall improvement in the knowledge and awareness of how fuel reduction is a part of the adaptation process. Action Items: See Community Education and Outreach Action items
8. Seek Ongoing Funding Mechanisms to Assure Continuity of the Fire Safe Planning Effort.
Achieving a high level of cooperation and coordination between agencies cannot be taken for granted. Regularly scheduled meetings with the distribution of minutes, documentation of projects, and distribution of information assures more coordination. Leadership by the Fire Safe Council in assuring that visibility is given to the process will produce more long-term cooperation than mandates will. This goal addresses the need to find both hard and soft financial support for not only the Specific Fire Safe Council, but also the Alliance and even allied agency program activity. Sources of revenue will be a continual problem on an annual basis. This goal will focus upon both public and private funding sources. Included in this goal will be the need to budget and prioritize activities based upon the overall goal or reducing the community’s risk for loss of life and property Action Items: Pursue additional project – specific grants as require Implement specific project on-going funding for defensible space inspectors
9. Improve Upon the Utilization of Biomass Technology
This goal focuses upon the need to improve upon the use of biomass technology to reduce the costs and impact of fuel reduction programs. This goal will involve an element of education and an element of action. The overall intent of this goal is to make biomass utilization a viable business opportunity in the community There are a variety of fuel reduction techniques. These include chipping, bio-mass and prescribed fire. Each has a cost factor. All of these techniques are viable in Placer County. This Document in Section 4 discusses Bio-Mass utilization. The identification of specific projects for purposes of achieving fuel reduction is an ongoing process. Potential projects should be identified regardless of funding or other limitations in anticipation of opportunities. Please refer to the chapter on bio-mass utilization for specific resources. There are several levels of fuel reduction programs and projects. The simplest is the activities of a single property owner. However, it not as effective as programs that Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-21 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
encompass several sites, even whole neighborhoods. This introduces the need to leverage the use of financial and logistical resources. The priority for the planning purpose should be on education of the citizenry to the wisdom of the process then upon establishing a reliable and predictable schedule of events that is based upon community activity levels.
Action Items: Coordinate with Placer County Chipper Program; Track chipper statistics See Section 4 for specific actions
10. Work for the Continued Cooperation and Coordination of all Entities Involved in the Process.
This goal focuses upon the need to maintain long term relationships between cooperating individuals, entities and agencies. This goal cannot be taken for granted for there is ample evidence that time is a factor in the loss of effective working relationships. This is a maintenance issue. This goal includes the interaction between the various councils in the Alliance. The census information from the Placer County area indicates that there are many people that are over 65 years old in the area. These people are likely to have a need for additional assistance in keeping their property maintained and are likely to need assistance in an evacuation. Local plans should have provisions to identify and work with these parties to assure that they will be given consideration in the planning process. Action Items: Meet with the Directors and establish detail work plan. Coordinate and facilitate monthly Alliance Meetings, agendas and minutes Complete Alliance MOU, including the Board of Directors and By-Laws Assist with start-ups of new Fire Safe Councils
11. Enhance the Use of Community Education Opportunities
Education and outreach is likely to be the most cost effective and manageable of the activities improving community support. In order to increase the community’s awareness of fire safe activities they have to be informed. These activities should be divided into three classifications: 1. Location and evaluation of Educational materials, 2. Conducting Educational Activities, and 3. Conducting Specific Outreach Projects. During the process of developing this plan, an extensive inventory has been developed of commercial as well as public domain materials that maybe used to educate the public and special interests. Please refer to volume 1 under principles for review of these materials. This list is dynamic and will change constantly. Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-22 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
For purposes of planning for this segment there needs to be a utilization of both commercial and locally produced educational materials that are available for distribution. In the Resources Section of this manual is a listing of potential materials for use. These materials are constantly undergoing revision and cost factors for purchasing the commercial types vary over time. Emphasis on the use of public domain material is encouraged for two reasons. The first is that it usually less expensive. Secondarily it is because these materials are often revised in a more timely fashion than commercial products. For purposes of this section, the resources are identified in the appendix for purchasing or obtaining camera-ready copies for local duplication. This list is not exhaustive, but is intended to be illustrative: An important aspect of the educational aspects of Fire Safe Planning is the distribution of basic information and publications so that various targeted audiences can obtain them with a minimum effort. This would include the use of libraries, schools, local fire station, businesses and governmental buildings. Churches and local service groups can also assist in distributing packages of information Publications should also be readily available at all public events where local residents congregate. This would include neighborhood oriented events as well as community wide ones. This action includes at least three components. They are school educational projects, adult educational projects and specific topical projects. In the case of the schools, each school district is a possible resource in distributing materials that are pertinent. See the Resources List for educational programs that have been designed with school children in mind. Adult educational experiences require more work in establishing opportunities to reach an adult audience. These types of activities could include, but not be limited to: New neighbor outreach Interaction with Chambers of Commerce, Special Interest groups Interaction with Senior Citizen Groups Conducting Tours of Fire Safe Projects Creating a Resource Center for the local Library Action Items: Conduct school outreach with American River Water Shed institute Work on 2003 “Fire and Water” publication Participate in Placer County and Gold Country Fairs Provide booth at bi-annual Auburn Home and Garden Show Participate in local events Assure recognition of Wild Fire Awareness Week (May) and Wild Fire Prevention Week (October)
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-23 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Develop website
12. Assess the Viability of a Regional Shaded Fuel Break Network [This item was not in the PCFSA strategy, but was added for ARWG consideration based on the history of dialogue on this topic within ARWG.] ARWG engaged in a dialogue on the viability of a regional approach to a network of shaded fuel breaks in 1998 and 1999. This dialogue became absorbed into the Proposition 204 project. Several segments of what might become a broader network of shaded fuel breaks were funded. A map of these shaded fuel breaks was included in Phase I GIS in this grant. The assessment of the viability of this kind of a regional approach to a firesafe ecosystem might include the broader discussion of vegetation management (healthy forest), re- introduction of fire or its equivalent (biomimicry), the urban wildland interface, defensible space, and bio-utilization. Action items: Initiate Dialogue in ARWG on concept viability from watershed perspective Collaborate with PCFSA on assessing viability; address issue in joint meeting of ARWG and PCFSA Create GIS layer of potential locations for shaded fuel breaks Collaborate with BOR, CDF, State Parks, local fire districts, FSC’s, and PCFSA on the integration of this broader concept with the Comprehensive Fire Management Plan for the Auburn State Recreation Area Collaborate with City of Colfax and Greater Colfax Fire Safe Council on this local Proposition 13 funded local project as a pilot area for implementation of this concept
SEDIMENT FIELD STRATEGY
Strategic Goals: Understand sediment sources, stream channel conditions, and sediment movement throughout the watershed; Identify manmade (anthropogenic) sediment sources, identify possible projects, prioritize and implement restoration projects; Make information and data, plans, and programs available to all stakeholders to enable on-the-ground programs; Evaluate and Monitor success.
Background: One of the first steps of Cat III Stewardship Strategy grant was to assess information available in the watershed. Channel conditions, sediment sources, and how sediment moves through the system were discovered as three areas where there was a
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-24 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
lack of information on a watershed-wide scale. Points of information existed in NEPA/CEQA documentation, but not from a watershed-wide perspective. ARWG had identified Prop 13 and CALFED as potential grant sources that should be pursued for funding in spring 2000. In February 2001, ARWG reviewed and approved the submittal of the concept proposal to CALFED and Prop 13 for the Sediment Management grant. The grant was approved under Prop 13, but consolidated with RCD’s CALFED grant at the request of the state and federal staff for the purpose of efficient grant administration from the State/CALFED perspective. ARWG also approved submittal of a 319h grant for on the ground sediment restoration projects for implementation from the prioritized project list to be developed by the Sediment Management Plan. This grant was awarded by the State Water Resources Control Board to PCRCD, and will fund on-the-ground restoration projects from 2004 to 2007, to be implemented by the American River Watershed Institute. Sediment has also been identified by the State Water Resources Control Board as an issue of concern on the American River In 2002, ENF initiated an erosion study in collaboration with Colorado State University. This study attempts to measure erosion on four different post-burn restoration methodologies, addressing the information gap on sediment sources. In Fall 2002, PCWA proposed to partner in the project in the additional study year 2003. Discussions are underway between PCWA/CSU/ENF/ARWI on how to structure year 2003 data to be compatible with ARWI’s summer workshop program, where ARWI students will assist the researchers in ways that are deemed appropriate, and shadow the research team on tasks that are not suitably accomplished by students.
Objectives: 1) Co-develop with agencies a site inventory approach for sediment sources and channel conditions suitable for use by all watershed resource agencies, citizen and landowner volunteers, and teacher/student field education participants; 2) Collect field data based on a sub-watershed assessment of erosion and sediment production potential, disturbances 3) Collect meaningful site condition information on sediment sources and channel resources in the watershed i through the ENF-CSU-PCWA partnership erosion study ii. through Sediment Management Planning CALFED grant which funds 2 field seasons using agency staff, citizen/landowner monitoring, and teacher/student education programs;
4) Create a GIS data base characterizing sediment sources and channel conditions and locating possible restoration projects; 5) Summarize natural and man-induced sediment/channel process problems; [use word problem rather than issues; do not use sediment budget terminology, as it is too close to regulatory TMDL language
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-25 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
6) Provide information specific to the American River Watershed profiling disturbance areas by category, and providing prescriptions of best restoration approaches for use in on-the-ground projects 7) Collaborate with agencies and landowners who have direct land use responsibilities when they are developing a Sediment and Channel Stewardship and or Management Program. i. Through 319h 2005-2007 grant ii. Through ARWI/GATE/SC/ summer workshops
Expected outcomes and products: 1) A watershed wide interagency and non-agency entity collaborative approach to assessing erosion, sediment management and channel restoration that addresses key resources, beneficial uses, resources management practices and land use activities; 2) Establish a GIS data base of inventoried sediment source, channel conditions, sediment routing model, and potential restoration projects; 3) A conceptual sediment budget assessment of the watershed that includes discrete and dispersed sediment sources under a wide range of land use and resource management practices, sediment routing in the watershed, channel processes and channel responses to short and long term sediment flux dynamics, and considers episodic wet patterns and natural relaxation patterns; [re-phrase based on non regulatory language] 4) A program to foster and facilitate sediment source and channel restoration targeted at key resources in the watershed through collaboration and actions to include technical permitting, installation and funding acquisition; 5) A as above that develops long term collaboration for continued sediment source and channel condition inventory, maintenance and enhancement of the GIS database and monitoring watershed trends in sediment and channel conditions; and continued restoration projects on prioritized projects. 6) Development of a manual, practices and protocols that enable agencies and citizen teams to engage in restoration projects as identified in the Plan. 7) Use 319h 2005-2007 RCD grant written specifically to implement twelve restoration and monitoring projects identified in the as above 8) Sediment monitoring plan to be designed and implemented. 9) Source and/or project level
EDUCATION FIELD STRATEGY
Strategic Goal:
Provide education programs that support the mission and objectives of the ARWG, and where appropriate are supported by the mission and purpose of ARWI; Create a network of existing and new “learning hubs” (locations/organizations) aimed at fulfilling the ARWG MOU, and ARWI Articles of incorporation.
Background:
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-26 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Early in the development of ARWG, it was recognized that education on the issues and objectives of the watershed group was one of the most important roles of the watershed group. Demonstration sites, publications, workshops, public relations, participation in public events, and the like became one of the primary activities. The first education projects were funded by ARWG’s Proposition 204 grant. ARWG stakeholders noted that many of the signatory agencies or entities did not have within their mission or capacity the ability to implement education programs that specifically served the mission and objectives of the watershed group. ARWG decided to start a nonprofit corporation whose mission would be, in part, to carry out education programs that could very directly implement programs and projects that support the goals and objectives of the ARWI mission and incorporation purposes, including:
to support and enhance the research and educational work of the American River Watershed Group in its Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP) activities, to conduct public discussion groups, forums, panels, lectures, workshops, design charrettes, and conferences, and to produce demonstration sites and public interest educational materials, including, but not limited to, newsletters, pamphlets, books, radio, TV, recorded audio and video, electronic media, etc., to complement and enhance the educational and research opportunities for both adults and children with regard to watershed issues, and as necessary, to provide and maintain facilities for education and research in, but not limited to, the ecosystem of the American River Watershed, and its forests, biology, hydrology, natural systems, as well as the socio-economic human systems in the watershed, as well as the areas having impact on the American River Watershed.
ARWG education strategy was originated with the Proposition 204 opportunity. The POET Committee (Public Outreach and Education Team) was formed in 1997 to brainstorm the elements of the grant proposal and subsequently implement the projects after the grant was successfully received. The POET activities included: +preparation of a neighborhood risk assessment map +public scoping of a social communication survey +created a reference inventory list of materials available regarding fuel reduction +created a consultant referral list +edited a pre-existing video for local relevance +created a watershed slide presentation +purchased a “fire table” with posters and photographs to support its use +conducted a neighborhood demonstration site campaign for three neighborhoods +launched the ARWG website. and +created a library of materials and tools for public instruction. Many of the succeeding programs and projects, as well as the current strategies, were built on the foundation created by the POET Committee. The Committee has become dormant in the absence of funding.
Simultaneously, the American River Watershed Institute was developing education and research programs to support the mission of ARWG. ARWI’s Site Specific
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-27 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Objective (SSO) grant was received in 1998 through a 319h grant awarded to PCRCD. The purpose was to investigate habitat restoration using teacher and student teams to accomplish the habitat restoration and monitoring. The grant provided for two workshops in 1998, and initiated the work on a stream protocol that was appropriate for citizen monitoring teams composed primarily of high school students. The grant was a partnership with USFS, PCRCD, CSU Chico, Placer Union High School District and WRC Environmental.
ARWI submitted and received a CALFED Category III grant in 1999. This grant provided for six workshops over three years, focusing on meadow and stream characterization. This grant also provided capacity building funds for Placer Nature Center’s Water Shed demonstration project, and Todd Valley Miwok Maidu Cultural Foundation’s outreach training program supporting the TVMMCF Round House Ceremonial site near Foresthill. Supporting the various groups and watershed education sites is part of the ARWI strategy to link all relevant watershed education “hubs” into a cooperative network serving the region.
ARWI in collaboration with PCRCD, USFS and PCWA restored to near completion a 2000 square foot “dam keepers cottage” at the French Meadow Reservoir for the purposes of satisfying ARWI and ARWG education and research goals. This research station serves as a home base for ARWI’s summer workshop program, and includes Sierra College Field Classes, Placer Union High School District’s Gifted and Talented student classes, and supports visiting university classes from the UC system and other public and private college classes. ARWI’s current methodology is using traditional and non-traditional sources to teach environmental education, like the CDF State Fire Plan, draft EIS for Star Fire, and the like. The emphasis has been on field experience, and to the degree feasible, using recognized research protocols. Emerging programs may include collaboration with the Sierra College Watershed Environmental Technician program, cooperation with the Colorado State University/PCWA/USFS erosion research grant, and connections with Education for Sustainability /West Coast Network (EFS/WCN) which will bring numerous university and college groups to the French Meadows Research Station. ARWI Board has incorporated this field strategy as part of its strategic plan.
Objectives:
A. Network with and support “learning hubs” to provide Watershed Education opportunities. Some of the potential “learning hubs” are:
1) Public school systems watershed and environmental education programs, like the GATE program at PUHSD that funded the 2002 ARWI workshop series. 2) Private school systems watershed and environmental education programs, like the Live Oak Waldorf School which participated in a workshop in 2001. 3) Community college systems watershed and environmental education programs, like the Sierra College Watershed Environmental Technician (WET) program to be initiated in 2003
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-28 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
4) Todd Valley Miwok Maidu Cultural Foundation (TVMMCF) ceremonial site and outreach and education program 5) Nature Center. SPLASH, Dry Creek Education Program with Sierra College, etc 6) Adopt-a-Creek program, Forestry Institute for Teachers (FIT), etc. These programs have training programs; ARWI has initiated discussions with the sponsor organizations to develop workshops locally at the French Meadows Research Station. 7) Establish watershed outreach presentation mini-workshops for HS students (e.g. Regional GIS Center course on ArcExplorer w. regional data)
B. Establish Watershed Academy for year-round Watershed education for HS level, home school students, Chana/Maidu special courses, etc (the ARWI Board has chosen to take lead on this project, having already submitted a grant to the Packard Foundation)
C. Provide workshop opportunities
1) PUHSD-GATE summer workshop series 2) Sierra College HS workshops 3) Sierra College summer workshops, college level 4) Link to CSU and UC systems for field station access 5) Engage in discussion with Blodgett Experimental Forest on future opportunities for collaborative workshops 6) ARWI summer workshops 7) Private school and Public middle school workshops 8) Sierra College GIS Regional Center HS summer workshops 9) Career options with Placer County Health and Welfare Services
D. Partner and enhance opportunities available through emerging Sierra College Watershed Certificate Program (ARWI lead)
E. Agency collaborations
1) Science symposiums (e.g. July ARWG mtg, grant peer review meetings,) 2) Ongoing ARWG program planning and project implementation (e.g. GIS regional center,) 3) Manuals specific to the American River Watershed (e.g. Sediment grant manual)
F. Landowner strategies
1) Demonstration sites 2) Exhibits (examples below) 3) Placer County Fair participation ongoing for last several years a) Library exhibits. E.g. ARWG and PCFSA have already produced library exhibits on the fire issue; propose a series on key watershed resources and other watershed topics. b) Salmon Festival, participation ongoing for last several years
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-29 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
c) Confluence Festivals, participation ongoing for last several years 4) Dialogues: Coffee Klatches have been sponsored on the fire issue by PCRCD for several years. Coordinate program with PCFSA and FSC’s. 5) Fire Safe Council participation/presentations, including ARWG liaisons to FSC’s 6) Special publications and brochures targeted to landowners through FSC’s, (e.g. Fire and Water partnership with Auburn Journal) 7) Videos 8) Field workshops 9) Manual
G. Business strategies
1) Workshops and demonstrations of biomass utilization. A demonstration project has been initiated by the California Conservation Corps at their Washington, CA camp. Other demonstration projects are currently being scoped in conjunction with the chipper programs. 2) Auburn Journal partnership for watershed publications, like Fire and Water. In 1998 and in 2002, ARWG partnered with Auburn Journal and the ARWG member agencies to produce a 28-page tabloid on the topic of the fire threat in the watershed. These publications were distributed as inserts in the Sunday editions of the Auburn Journal, Colfax Record, Loomis News, and Placer Herald. Total distribution was over 20,000 directly to readers in the areas of the Fire Safe Councils. 10,000 copies were over-run and distributed directly by ARWG and the Placer County Fire Safe Alliance to residents. 3) Other publications, like SEDD Biomass Best Bet (hard copy, CD’s, and website), etc. 4) Sierra Business Council collaboration 5) Forest Landowners of California; foster interaction among landowners 6) CDF education program for private landowners (some programs currently unfunded), E.g. PCFSA has written a grant and received funding for a residential education program that uses citizen “inspectors” to visit homes and assess for the resident on a voluntary basis their level of compliance to PL 4291 for “defensible space” vegetation clearing for fire safety around the home. 7) Education on the economic engines, e.g. biomass, forestry, forest trails, retreat possibilities; fostering additional uses on the watershed like retreats, tourism, hunting/fishing/recreational uses; E.g. ARWG Roger Ingram presentation; Placer County Visitor Council 8) Educational opportunities for wholistic range management, e.g. Alan Savory (perhaps at ARWG mtg)
DATA MANAGEMENT & CAPACITY BUILDING FIELD STRATEGY
Strategic Goals:
Establish a GIS Data Center accessible to stakeholders Network use and maintenance, capacity building
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-30 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Education and outreach, to teach Watershed values and principles to HS and college students through use of GIS tools (e.g. ArcExplorer, ArcReader)
Background
Data management for this grant was guided by the 1999 scoping and ARWG agreement: “Include a GIS watershed data base openly accessible to in-basin agencies useful in providing watershed process information to on-going planning and decision making responsibilities.” Early GIS data management strategies for ARWG as implemented through the Prop 204 and this CALFED Category III grant relied solely on the expertise of large member agencies, principally USFS and CDF FRAP, for the production and maintenance of data and production of maps. The map products presented in the first part of Chapter 2 Phase I are an example of this stage of data management.
In late 2001, the Category III grant management team shifted to a multi-faceted team approach. This approach included developing internal team capacities of both PCRCD and ARWI to be able to produce maps and house data. Expertise from consulting firms was used to develop data in a format usable for the grant team. This task included making the data consistent in projection (using Albers from the State of California as the standard), and clipping data to a useful scope (an expanded regional data set was selected over the watershed boundary). Several members of the team developed sufficient skills on the ArcMap software to generate maps needed for the project; these maps are found in Chapter 2, Phases II and III.
This paradigm shift occurred because of wider trends in technology. The powerful hardware needed to do GIS work are now widely available and affordable; the basic desktop and laptop model computers in the marketplace for under $1000 are capable of running the software and housing the data. The software has also evolved from the early versions of ArcInfo requiring knowledge of program language for operation to the current ArcMap 8.2 map making software that is sophisticated but has a friendly Graphic User Interface (GUI) and is relatively easy to learn, and ArcExplorer software that is basic map making software and can be downloaded free on the Internet.
The current data set from this grant has been finalized in a form that, together with the above trends in software and hardware, will enable local organizations and entities to begin to use GIS for their own purposes, serving their own missions with this powerful tool for maintaining data and producing useful maps for learning and decision- making. Capacity building in the use of hardware, software, and the data set will become a focus for many of these organizations and individuals interested in these skills. Learning the software has also become easier, with online programs from ESRI available (the company that produces the Arc GIS software series).
Several organizations and entities have started down this learning path, including PCRCD, ARWI, Sierra Connections, Dry Creek Conservancy, Bear River Watershed Group, and the South Fork American River Watershed Group. A loose knit, self- organizing effort has begun.
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-31 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Sierra College has tentatively agreed to move forward with a FTP site for the data. The process for making the data set widely available through the internet is part of this strategy. The ARWI Board has adopted this Data Management and Capacity Building as part of its strategic plan, and is moving forward with plans to seek funding for further steps, and to assist in the development of the learning network.
Objectives
A. Establish FTP site at SC. Discussions with both the head of the GIS Dept and the Dean of Math and Science have led to agreement on a possible framework for the GIS Center. Space on the server is available for an FTP site; web site management is not available, unless resources are found through grants, etc. (SC sponsored)
B. GIS Science advisory panel. The purpose of this panel is to screen all ArcMap coverages and grids to ensure they meet criteria that will be established for the data. Panel should include among others Sierra College, Placer County, USFS, and others. (SC sponsored, volunteer effort)
C. Capacity building program for RCD and NGO user network. Several RCD’s, NGO/NPO’s, and other special districts have expressed an interest in increasing their ArcMap skills relevant to the GIS data base and their particular uses. ESRI offers online and workshop courses on appropriate skill levels for resource analysis and management using ArcMap. A user group will be established, utilizing the appropriate ESRI classes, and supplemented with ESRI consultants to customize the classes to our needs. This could be self-organizing, and accomplished simply through parties interested in this area of professional development. (Self-organizing)
D. Outreach and education presentations at high schools for ArcExplorer. A watershed dataset with ArcExplorer will be made available on CD for distribution to HS and College level students. A one hour program will be designed to present the data and do a quick training on ArcExplorer; the program could be presented in high school classes and others to make WS layers and information available for senior projects and the like. This could evolve to video course, or other medium. (ARWI lead)
E. Availability of Regional WS GIS data on CD for distribution. It is the intention of RCD to purchase and maintain a CD duplicator. The data set approved by the GIS SAP would be available at cost to stakeholders and students. (Joint RCD/ARWI/SC program, and others)
F. Sierra College classes. The head of the GIS Dept at Sierra has indicated willingness to develop programs for ArcMap as part of the curriculum that would use the watershed data a part of the standard SC curriculum.
G. ARWI/SC summer and spring/fall weekend workshops for ArcMap. Discussions have taken place to design weekend workshop intensives on GIS skill-building relevant to WS GIS datasets, available to HS through adult.
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-32 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
H. Agencies and users could move toward an MOU that may enhance the site and its currency. Agreements might be made on updating data layers, broader information availability, etc.
Expected outcomes and products
1) Regional WS dataset available on FTP site 2) Regional WS dataset available on CD 3) Workshops for user network capacity building 4) User network for self-help. 5) GIS classes integrated into mainstream curriculum 6) Presentation team for HS level capacity building (could evolve to video)
Landowners:
• • Data and maps can be made available on a scale that could be useful for landowner decision-making, particularly for understanding the context of the decision.
Businesses:
• • Data and capacity building learning modes will be available for businesses to aid in decision making.
Agencies:
• • Could lead to standardization of GIS data approaches • • Standardization of GIS coverages and grids available
RESOURCE INVENTORY FIELD STRATEGY
Strategic Goals
Assemble information important to understanding ARWG key resources Seek sponsor agencies/organizations and funding support to complete first set of objectives
Background
Prop 204 and CALFED Category III data assemblages and inventory have indicated significant data gaps in the understanding of watershed process and function. The following strategy addresses those gaps.
Objectives
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-33 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
A. Baseflow/hydrographic inventory;
1. The ARWG should coordinate a WS-wide inventory mechanism to identify significant hydrographic features that are presently not known or poorly understood, including: locations of springs and seeps, sites of observed late season streamflow (Sept. Oct.), and notation of year of observation observed head of channel. These inventory elements can be combined with other inventory and research studies to increase the net results. These inventory elements can be used to supplement the channel process inventory, understanding WS processes by high lighting GW discharge regime elements, and the aquatic resources inventory.
2. The ARWG should assist the agencies in developing common data forms or other inventory techniques and coordinate the application of information to the GIS data base
B. Channel process inventory;
1. The ARWG should coordinate a watershed-wide inventory of channels using appropriate classification systems that accommodates ARWG objectives and supports the resource information needs of ARWG agencies. Channel characteristics and dynamic circumstances are an essential data element for a channel resource-based WS stewardship effort. Included in this inventory should be;
a. a channel process-based classification system as opposed to a descriptive system so that it can; -
i. reflect the channel evolutionary trends in the watershed;
ii. long term progressive shifts in channel processes and channel types due to WS wide incision,
iii. short term shifts in channel processes and channel types due to adjustment to glacial deposits,
iv. short term shifts in channel adjustment to hillslope process shifts due to more recent changes in treeline elevations,
v. accommodate cyclical trends in channel characteristics of the channel adjustments to WS evolution
vi. tie hillslope processes, riparian zone, and channel processes together to understand the connection between the landscape processes of the WS and the channel/riparian conditions and processes and the interactive nature of channel dynamics and riparian systems
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-34 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
vii. serve as a tool to identify natural and man caused channel disruption types
viii. serve to identify trends in disrupted channels to ward either self adjustment to stability of progressive instability
ix. a common underpinning process-understanding to support the various channel inventory processes used by various agencies.
x. an assessment step that develops the inventory information into an understanding of WS channel process regimes and hillside/channel condition interactions so that;
1. natural channel adjustment regimes can be understood that includes natural cycles of sedimentation, in stability, and natural trends to adjustment and stability
2. natural and man-induced channel instability causes can be separated
3. new channel stability trends identified and eventual stable conditions and characteristics estimated
4. appropriate channel restoration approach can be suggested
5. the identification of channel and near-channel locations which appear to be unstable and are possible restoration sites
b. These inventory elements can be combined with other inventory and research studies to increase the net results. These inventory elements can be used to supplement the aquatic resource inventory, and the WEHY WS modeling.
c. The ARWG should assist the agencies in developing common data forms or other inventory techniques and coordinate the application of information to the GIS data base.
d. The ARWG should progressively use the channel inventory to identify stewardship restoration projects, to designed restoration projects, and to support the development of environmental evaluations of restoration projects.
C. Aquatic resources inventory
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-35 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
1. The ARWG should coordinate a WS-wide inventory mechanism to identify and inventory aquatic resources and associated key-resource elements which are presently not known or poorly understood, including;
a. distribution and conditions of basic aquatic habitat types,
b. the presences and status of key-resource elements
c. the important system support elements for the key-resources
2. These inventory elements can be combined with other inventory and research studies to increase the net results. These inventory elements can be used to supplement the channel process inventory, understanding important elements of channel processes by highlighting significant system support elements of aquatic habitats and key-resources, and enhance the channel restoration projects with aquatic habitat components to assist in project prioritizing, design, environmental assessment, and justification.
3. The ARWG should assist the agencies in developing common data forms or other inventory techniques and coordinate the application of information to the GIS data base.
4. The ARWG should integrate the aquatic habitat and key-resource inventory information with the channel system inventory information and maintain a GIS database for use in stewardship planning and by all agencies for planning and project application.
NEXT STEPS
ARWG undertake a regular schedule of revisiting, revising, and refining the Stewardship Strategies on a quarterly basis. Member agencies should collaborate to ensure that the gaps in data and understanding are addressed through these Stewardship Strategies. The regular refinement of these strategies will help move the American River Watershed Group toward a full Watershed Plan. Funding to assist the process of moving this Stewardship Strategy to a more complete watershed plan is currently incorporated into the North Fork/Middle Fork (NF/MF) American River Watershed Sediment Management Plan (WSMP) and the Regional EUI- Watershed Planning Procedure and NF/MF American River Watershed Plan, a CALFED grant awarded to Placer County Resource Conservation District in 2002.
Chapter 4 Stewardship Strategy Page 4-36 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
CHAPTER 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to apply the Stewardship Strategies defined for the American River Watershed Group (Chapter 4) to two sub-watershed areas. One pilot area was intended to be in the upper watershed consisting of primarily public lands, and another area was intended to be in the lower watershed consisting of private lands. ARWG chose two pilot areas to begin testing and developing stewardship strategies and programs that can help provide direction to public and private resource management efforts in the watershed. The first, called Bunch Canyon, is a Calwater scale watershed that was nominated and chosen as a pilot in the February 2002 ARWG meeting. This subwatershed runs from Colfax southeast to just above Weimar and over to the edge of the North Fork American canyon. This is a smaller subwatershed that is faced with increasing development pressure due to its proximity to the growing town of Colfax, as well as Interstate 80 and the railroad. The other is a larger area in the Upper Middle Fork drainage, selected in the March 2001 ARWG meeting. This watershed encompasses primarily public land managed by the Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests and other agencies, such as CA State Parks, US Bureau of Land Management and US Bureau of Reclamation. Included in the watershed are three utilities: Placer County Water Agency, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and Georgetown Divide Public Utility District. Working with the Sierra Biodiversity Institute, the project team developed and reviewed a number of GIS-based maps to better understand the existing resource conditions in each pilot stewardship area. Then, based on the existing conditions and potential stressors in each subwatershed, and based on the general stewardship strategy outlined in Chapter 4, the team brought to ARWG for consideration a series of stewardship actions or strategies for private landowners, the business community and agencies to improve watershed health in each subwatershed. These Pilot Stewardship Strategies were reviewed on the October 26, November 7, and November 21, 2002 ARWG meetings.
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-1 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Bunch Canyon – lower watershed private lands
The first pilot area is Bunch Canyon, an approximately 1,000-acre triangular- shaped subwatershed (approximately four miles wide and five miles long) located southeast of Colfax [see Map 5-1: Bunch Canyon Stewardship Pilot Project (HYPERLINK)]. The subwatershed is bordered on its eastern edge by the North Fork American canyon, including lands managed by Bureau of Reclamation (acquired for the construction of Auburn Dam) and the Bureau of Land Management. The southern boundary runs along what’s known as Big John Ridge, and the western boundary is roughly coterminous with the overall North Fork/Middle Fork American River watershed boundary, with the Bear River canyon on the other side of the ridge [see Map 5-2: Bunch Canyon Stewardship Pilot Project Land Ownership (HYPERLINK)]. Due to the proximity of the town of Colfax and major transportation corridors – including Interstate 80, Union Pacific Railroad, old Route 40, electrical transmission lines, underground fuel lines and fiberoptic cable – land and resource managers in Bunch Canyon are faced with a number of residential/commercial development and other issues. These transportation and development corridors also cross back and forth between the Bear River watershed and the American River watershed, further complicating stewardship and management in this portion of the watershed. This is one of the primary reasons the team chose to employ a more regional approach to evaluation and stewardship planning, rather than following strict watershed delineations. While it is often said that water and trees don’t know where one jurisdictional boundary begins and another ends, we can’t ignore the fact that our political and administrative bodies don’t always coincide neatly with watersheds and ridgetops. The North Fork/Middle fork American watershed boundary, for example, splits the community of Colfax in half. In order to be effective in terms of decision-making, then, we must sometimes step out of the strict watershed framework and look outside the ridgetop-based boundaries. Bunch Canyon has seen a number of sizeable fires along its eastern edge, including the Iowa Hill Fire, the Gillis Hill Fire and the 2001 Ponderosa Fire [see Map 5- 3: Bunch Canyon Stewardship Pilot Project Fire History (HYPERLINK)]. For the most part these fires started on public land and swept up out of the North Fork American canyon into the watershed. The Ponderosa Fire re-burned an area in the southeastern corner of Bunch Canyon that was burned some 40 years ago in the Gillis Hill fire, suggesting the possibility of a recurring fire cycle. Based on a computer comparison of satellite imagery that detects changes in vegetation cover over a five-year period (1991 to 1996), Bunch Canyon doesn’t exhibit as much change as some nearby areas. But there were some instances of vegetation decrease in the early 1990s, primarily along the major transportation corridors south of Colfax [see Map 5-4: Change in Vegetation Cover (HYPERLINK) and Map 5-5: Vegetation Type (HYPERLINK)]. A decrease in vegetation, absent fire, typically indicates urban development or timber harvesting. Such an analysis indicates that Bunch Canyon is a “sleeper” area that has not yet experienced the development pressures felt by some of its neighbors, particularly
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-2 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Auburn. However, based on the potential buildout under current General Plan zoning designations, population pressures could mount rather quickly. Much of the western portion of Bunch Canyon is designated for between one and five dwelling units per acre. And areas closer to the town of Colfax are slated for 10 to 20 or more dwelling units per acre [see Map 5-6: Placer County General Plan Zoning Designations (HYPERLINK)]. In addition, the current zoning doesn’t offer much of a buffer between growing residential areas and the wildland interface area that has already seen three major fires in the past 40 or 50 years. In an exercise conducted in June 2001 at an ARWG meeting, the following issues were identified as part of a disturbances analysis; this process was based on the Hydrologic Condition Analysis (HCA) used by the USFS. The dots column indicates relative priority to the group attending, which included most of the major agencies that are signatory to the ARWG MOU. The HCA priority column indicated the opinion of the group whether the issue should be carried forward by USFS in their formal HCA analysis, and the three next columns represent: F=flow Q=quality T=timing, with an indication of 1 through 3 the level of the impact intensity to F,Q or T. The Bunch Canyon pilot area fell within the Lower Watershed Urban disturbances category. It should be noted that this exercise was conducted previous to the Ponderosa Fire in Fall 2001, a major conflagration that burned in excess of 6000 acres, much of which was in the Bunch Canyon watershed.
Lower Watershed dots HCA F Q T Urban disturbances priority Grading 4 Y 1 1 2 Construction 1 Urban Coverage 12 Y 1 1 1 Housing, parking lots Business, commercial, 4 Y 1 1 1 As nonpoint source industrial Urban landscaping 7 Y 3 1 2 Herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products Urban population 4 N distribution (intensity, utilization levels) Regulatory actions 1 N Pot farms 1 N Illicit chemical 0 N dumping Agricultural land 6 N 2 2 3 conversion Waste water disposal 3 Y 3 1 3 Includes septic Stormwater 1 Y 1 1 1 Ag practices 4 Y 3 1 3 Fertilizers, pesticides, soil mgt practices Rt 80 corridor 4 Y 2 1 3 Trans-cont rail 1 Y 2 1 3 Gas transmission line 1 N 3 3 3 Power transmission 1 N 3 3 3 lines Air pollution 7 N 3 1 3
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-3 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
These issues, brainstormed during this process, form a broader approach than was agreed upon during scoping process for this grant. These issues form a very expansive scope for a watershed plan, which will take a much deeper level of commitment from stakeholders in a broadly collaborative effort over a much longer period of time than was provided in this study. ARWG is encouraged to engage in the dialogue about what would an expansive watershed plan of this nature look like, and who might be able to accomplish such a broad effort over a number of years. Bunch Canyon Stewarship Pilot GIS Analysis The GIS analysis in Chapter 2 Phase II developed a series of watershed wide maps representing each analysis or assessment. The following maps apply these analyses and assessments to the Bunch Canyon Pilot Area. One of layers created in this study was a new geology map, here shown for the Bunch Creek area [Map 5-7 Geology] more detailed than the map provided in Phase I, at a mapping scale of 1:750,000 from the State of California [Map 5-8 Geology]. The more detailed map is superior for watershed level planning and land use planning, though it is still not accurate for parcel level or project level planning. The more detailed geology map correlates more closely with soil mapping. The Generalized Watershed [Map 5-9 Generalized Watershed Incision] the lower end of the watershed has higher levels of incision than upper elevations, which has moderate dissection. This indicates different hillslope processes, sediment delivery, and has an influence on channel processes. Our stewardship recommendations include doing a detailed understanding of the relationship between channel processes and hillslope processes, and would help us understand sediment dynamics, and the relationship between vegetation management, land use management, with respect to key watershed resources.
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-4 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The following five soil water routing maps are non-quantitative, and is qualitative. The purpose is to show spacial distribution. Detailed explanations appear in Chapter 2. Map 5-10 Soils: Relative Direct Runoff Potential Generalized representation of the sources for direct runoff in the watershed. Conclusion from this pattern is that higher ends of the watershed are those with the least direct runoff. [this may overlap land use development patterns.] Map 5-11 Available Water Capacity shows there are deep soils where there was low direct runoff potential (Map 5-10). Map 5-12 Soil: Relative Subsurface Runoff Potential shows relative subsurface stormflow runoff potential, based on soil parameters only. This shows where the distribution of the subsurface stormwater flows is most likely;it is most prevelant in the steeper areas where there is greater incision. Map 5-13 Soils: Relative Groundwater Recharge Potential is informational, showing recharge potential, using soil information only. The highest potential is in the headwaters, in the general vicinity of the city of Colfax and the town of Weimar. Map 5-14 Potential Groundwater Recharge; Soil and Geologic Parameters combines the groundwater recharge potential with the characteristics of the underlying geology. This does not take into account precipitation, or evapotransportation.
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-5 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The next five maps are an analysis soil erosion risks due to wildland fires. Map 5-15 Wildland Fire: Potential Intensity is the CDF fuel and fire behavior model. This shows the relationship between fuels, fire weather, and slope, and ranks areas according to intensity. Map5-16 Erosion Hazard: Soil and Slope Parameters is targeted as erosion risk if there is 50-75% of the vegetation removed (simulating a post fire condition). This indicates that slope can overwhelm soil (refer Map 5-9) in representing soil erosion potential. Map 5-17 Precipitation Intensity: 2 Year – 6 Hour Storm shows ranges of total precipitation from less than 1.8 inches for a six hour storm with a recurrence interval of two years to more than 2.0. This is a standard storm type used to estimate precipitation intensity for the purpose of describing rainfall energy related to detaching soil particles. Map 5-18 Erosion Hazaerd: Soil and Precipitation Parameters combines the previous two maps (Maps 5-16 and 5-17) to show erosion hazard using soil and precipitation parameters when using wildfire as the source of erosion. The hazard is moderate to low distribution of erosion hazard potential throughout the Bunch Canyon watershed. Map 5-19 Wildland Fire: Potential Erosion Hazard combines the Erosion Hazard map (Map 5-18) with the Potential Intensity map (Map 5-15) Watershed fire risk asset map, telling us that if sediment due to fires is a concern, this map shows us where our stewardship efforts should be focused. The range indicated is moderate to high, with the higher risks in the steeper, high-incision portions of the lower watershed. The map shows the watershed resource concern is distinct from the cultural resource concerns (human safety). The watershed resource area of concern is the higher hazard area of the canyonlands (noted in blue as a high incision area on Map 5-9); the cultural resource areas show less hazard from a watershed process perspective.
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-6 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The following five maps show various potential geo-chemical hazards due to mining activities. These could be the source of metals affecting water quality. These might represent targets for site specific sampling, if the potential is deemed significant. o Map 5-20 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Low-sulfide gold-quartz deposits o Map 5-21 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Sulfide Deposits: Kuroko Type o Map 5-22 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Copper porphyry deposits o Map 5-23 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Copper Skarn o Map 5-24 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Anthropogenic Mercury
BUNCH CANYON STEWARDSHIP STRATEGIES By recommending and testing certain stewardship strategies in this subwatershed now, landowners, business people and agency managers can take advantage of an important opportunity to plan ahead to retain the rural character of the area while accommodating the growth that is planned for under the General Plan zoning. One of the primary underlying strategies of the ARWG is to address the watershed issues from the perspective of community Fire Safe Councils. Because the population centers of Placer County above 1000 feet lie on the Route 80 Corridor at the watershed boundary of the Bear and American Rivers, Fire Safe Councils were formed that conform roughly to the population centers from river to river. The Alta, Greater Colfax, Placer Hills, and Auburn Fire Safe Councils all include lands within the American River basin, and part of the Bear River or the Auburn Ravine or Dry Creek watersheds. The Fire Safe Council mechanism was established to engage private landowners and private sector businesses in the primary issue of the American River Watershed Group--- a fire safe community and ecosystem. Fire Safe Councils thus became the social side of addressing watershed issues at a larger scale than the subwatershed. They are organized on human jurisdictional lines where they are not bounded by a major river--- primarily by fire district boundaries. In applying ARWG Stewardship Strategies to the Bunch Creek subwatershed, the wisdom of that approach became clear. The subwatershed is useful unity for defining watershed problems, but it is not so useful in addressing solutions to the problem, as the causes of the problems flow across watershed boundaries. For example, the water quality and sedimentation issues are caused more by human land uses. Solutions for land use issues are best addressed from the broader social units than from a watershed boundary. The City, the Weimar-Applegate-Colfax Municipal Advisory Council, fire districts, and Fire Safe Council areas address the solution set in a more sensible way than watersheds. With the information provided by the GIS exercise and from the scoping and HCA process of June 2001, meetings were held in Fall of 2002 for the purpose of applying the Stewardship Strategy to the Pilot areas. In the November 7, 2002 ARWG meeting, two issues were prioritized: water quality and the fire safety issue.
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-7 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Water Quality. Four areas of issue were identified in dialogue: leakage and over spillage from the municipal sewage treatment plant, urban point and nonpoint pollution from the City of Colfax which is the headwaters of Bunch Creek, the emerging septic tank leakage issue from rural growth, and the nonpoint pollution from the transportation corridor including highway and railroad. The lack of data on any of these issues was noted, with the exception of the sewage treatment plant for the Colfax area which does daily monitoring and is engaged in a regulatory process with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No entity present in the room had a mandate to do any water quality testing, beyond the sewage treatment plant monitoring.. The water quality issue needs to be a focus on the Bunch Canyon Pilot area. If this issue were to become a priority for the watershed group, it was observed that a local group or entity would bring the issue to the watershed group; likewise, a local entity would take responsibility for addressing the data gap in water quality. A local Colfax area group formed in the Spring of 2002, called the Friends of Bunch Creek. This group has contacted two local schools, which have expressed the interest to conduct water quality testing. The group has also contact Dry Creek Conservancy regarding their current program to train citizens in the rapid bio-assessment stream protocol; the American River Watershed Institute was also contacted about their future training programs in rapid bio-assessment. With such a large number of potential pollution sources in such a small watershed, the challenge of complexity in determining sources was noted by ARWG in the meeting. The conclusion of the dialogue was that the watershed group was not at this time in a position to take action or pursue a strategy of this complexity on a local level, other than to be a forum for creative discussion in the future on how might the issue be addressed. Fire Safe Community. In Fall of 2001, the Ponderosa Fire brought the Colfax Community’s attention again to the fire issue. The Fire Safe issue was easily the highest priority question for ARWG in this sub watershed; an area of clear focus was determined to be the urban/wildland interface. Comparison of the existing urbanized area to the area zoned for relatively dense residential construction shows the urban/suburban area Applying the overall Stewardship Strategy (Chapter 4) to this Pilot Project area defines the Pilot Stewardship Strategy. The following exercise applies the strategies laid out in Chapter Four to the Bunch Canyon Pilot Project Area. Strategies that do not appliy to the specific pilot area are marked “N/A”, meaning “not applicable” to this pilot.
Programmatic Strategies: Applied to Bunch Canyon Landowner Stewardship Strategy Component: 1) ARWG will maintain a Coordinator to serve as contact person with landowners in the Bunch Canyon area, who will coordinate with PCFSA Coordinator, the Greater Colfax Area FSC, and the Placer Hills FSC 2) ARWG will sponsor quarterly evening meetings for landowners. One evening meeting will be in the WACMAC/GCFSC/Bunch Canyon area.
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-8 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
3) ARWG will participate in the WACMAC to ensure key resources are addressed, particularly fire risk. 4) ARWG will coordinate and cooperate with PCFSA, the Greater Colfax Area Fire Safe Council and the Placer Hills Fire Safe Council for Coffee Klatches in the Bunch Canyon area 5) ARWG will make landowner guidebook relevant to and available in Bunch Canyon area 6) ARWG will collaborate with ARWI/Sierra College/Dry Creek Conservancy to maintain GIS database current for Bunch Canyon area. 7) ARWG will collaborate with GCFSC/City of Colfax for identification of project area and projects as called for in the Prop 13 City of Colfax grant for shaded fuel breaks 8) ARWG will encourage landowners to cooperate in the fuel load reduction and defensible space projects call for in the Prop 13 City of Colfax grant for shaded fuel breaks
Commercial/Business Stewardship Strategy Component: 1) ARWG will support biomass uses of fiber, supporting work with SEDD/FSA/GCFSC, and support current GIS info at the Sierra College GIS center relevant for businesses in the Bunch Canyon area 2) ARWG will sponsor “Day-in-the-Watershed”; consideration will be given to the Prop 13 City of Colfax grant for shaded fuel breaks as a possible candidate for focus of such a day 3) ARWG in collaboration with FSA/GCFSC will maintain a network of relevant businesses for project in the Bunch Canyon area, particularly with regard to Prop 13 City of Colfax grant for shaded fuel breaks 4) ARWG will collaborate to maintain GIS availability and currency for Bunch Canyon area projects, particularly Prop 13 City of Colfax grant for shaded fuel breaks 5) ARWG will collaborate with FSA/GCFSC to proactively solicit joint projects between commercial business entities and resource management agencies, particularly in the Prop 13 City of Colfax grant for shaded fuel breaks 6) ARWG will collaborate with the Prop 13 City of Colfax grant for shaded fuel breaks project to ensure WS key resources are addressed in the project 7) ARWG will encourage businesses to participate in projects, particularly Prop 13 City of Colfax grant for shaded fuel breaks Agency Stewardship Strategy Component: 1) Agencies will develop an MOU within ARWG to establish business rules, and will consider the Bunch Canyon area and Prop 13 City of Colfax grant for shaded fuel breaks, as areas to test such an agreement
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-9 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
2) Agencies will designate a contact representative to work with ARWG Coordinator/FSA Coordinator/GCFSC co-chairs 3) ARWG agencies will schedule a meeting time to present project status, including Prop 13 City of Colfax grant for shaded fuel breaks and Bunch Canyon project area issues and status 4) ARWG will continue to identify and refine the key resource issues for Bunch Canyon and Prop 13 City of Colfax grant for shaded fuel breaks 5) N/A 6) ARWG will collaborate with FSA/GCFSC to have agencies incorporate WS asset map for fire risk into planning process for Bunch Canyon and Prop 13 City of Colfax grant for shaded fuel breaks 7) ARWG will collaborate with FSA/GCFSC/City of Colfax for identification of project area and projects as called for in the Prop 13 City of Colfax grant for shaded fuel breaks 8) ARWG will collaborate with FSA/GCFSC/City of Colfax for fuel reduction stewardship program that may include: further prioritized projects beyond Prop 13 grant project, a fuels management guidebook 9) N/A 10) ARWG will establish a voluntary science advisory contact list relevant for WS key resource issues, which would also be relevant for the City of Colfax Prop 13 grant and the Bunch Canyon 11) ARWG will be attentive to the Bunch Canyon/ Prop 13 issues as it develops potential scientific symposia 12) ARWG Coordinator will attend Alliance meetings, and make a liaison report at ARWG meetings
Field Strategies: Applied to Bunch Canyon Firesafe Ecosystem Strategy: Objective: Collaborate with PCFSA; adopt and support PCFSA county wide plan PCFSA Community Prescription for Bunch Canyon: Strategic Goals 1) All structures will have appropriate Defensible Space; Support FSA 4291 Inspection grant beginning in 2003 a. Organize and implement Coffee Klatches in Bunch Canyon area in collaboration with GCFSC b. Support FSA Implementation of Senior Disabled Defensible Space Assistance Program in Bunch Canyon WS; FSA Coordinator will start volunteer program 2003 c. Publicize Shaded Fuel Break Concept; support outreach and public education in City of Colfax Prop 13 Shaded Fuel Break grant
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-10 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
d. Support implementation of specific projects; particularly the City of Colfax Prop 13 Shaded Fuel Break grant e. Coordinate with Placer County chipper program (from item 9, FSA community prescription) f. Track chipper statistics(from item 9, FSA community prescription) 2) Improve the Use of Fire Wise Landscaping in Bunch Canyon a. In coordination with FSA/GCFSC, Distribute Fire and Water firewise plant book b. In coordination with FSA/GCFSC, publicize Fire Safe Gardens in Bunch Canyon WS area, and support creation of CDF sponsored Fire Safe Garden at Fire Station 3) In coordination with FSA/GCFSC, support effort to have signage on all homes and roads in the Bunch Canyon area to move toward consistency with 4290 signage “gold standard” a. In coordination with FSA/GCFSC, implement project for house and road signs 4) Work towards improving the codes and regulations that have impact on the Urban Wildland Interface problem. In coordination with FSA/GCFSC, work with WACMAC and the City of Colfax Prop 13 grant for the Bunch Canyon area. Engage in dialogue with WACMAC on key resource issues for area, including Bunch Canyon, on: land use, housing, circulation, conservation, open space, and safety 5) Increase the numbers of structures that have Fire Safe Roofing that meets or Exceeds Class A standards in the Bunch Canyon area 6) Encourage the reduction of fuel beyond the area of defensible space in Bunch Canyon area. Support City of Colfax Prop 13 grant implementation. 7) Restore Fire Adapted Ecosystems: create dialogue in WS group at annual FSA/ARWG meeting focused on the Bunch Creek area. 8) N/A 9) Improve Upon the Utilization of Biomass technology; make as permanent report and agenda item FSA/ARWG which will occur on an as needed basis meeting agenda; include as item in Coffee Klatch agendas; 10) Work for continued cooperation and coordination of all entities involved in the process. E.g. GCFSC is a signatory to the ARWG MOU, and co-chairs attend ARWG meetings a. In coordination with FSA/GCFSC, collaborate to complete Alliance MOU 11) Enhance the Use of Community Education Opportunities a. Conduct school outreach program with American River Watershed Institute
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-11 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
b. Work on 2003 “Fire and Water” publication c. In coordination with FSA/GCFSC, participate in Placer County and Gold Country Fairs, and bi-annual Auburn Home and Garden Show, as well as other local events d. Assure recognition of Wild Fire Awareness Week e. In coordination with FSA/GCFSC, develop web site capacities; develop web links with FSA 12) Engage in a dialogue with public and private stakeholders to set up a process to study a network of shaded fuel breaks in the Bunch Canyon area.
Sediment Strategy: (Implement to the greatest degree possible) 1) Co-develop with agencies a site inventory approach for sediment sources and channel conditions for Bunch Canyon area 2) Collect field data for assessment of erosion and sediment production potential and disturbance areas 3) Collect meaningful site condition information on sediment sources and channel resources in the Bunch Canyon sub-watershed 4) Contribute to GIS data on new sediment data collected 5) Summarize assessment, discerning natural and man-induced sediment/channel process 6) Profile disturbances by category, prescribing best restoration approaches for on- the-ground projects 7) Develop a long term Sediment and Channel stewardship program for Bunch Canyon Education Strategy: 1) Network with Bunch Canyon “learning hubs”, e.g. Colfax High School and Middle School, Colfax Library, Colfax Garden Club. 2) Publicize watershed learning opportunities for students and adults in the Bunch Canyon area 3) Develop a manual for sediment problems and prescriptions specific to the American River, with reference to the urban development issues of erosion in fast developing communities like the Bunch Creek area 4) Participate in Exhibits in the Colfax Area Data Management and Capacity Building Strategy: 1) Work with Colfax High School to engage in capacity building for GIS skills for CHS students, and with GCFSC
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-12 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
2) Outreach and education presentations at high schools for ArcExplorer and relevant local data 3) Availability of Bunch Canyon and GCFSC data and ArcExplorer on CD for local distribution 4) Ensure data is made available to landowners, businesses and agencies in the Bunch Canyon, GCFSC strategy Resource inventory: 1) Participate in WS-wide inventory for Base flow/hydrographic data, a channel process inventory, and aquatic resources inventory for Bunch Canyon 2) Assist agencies in developing common data forms 3) AFWG should progressively use the channel inventory to identify restoration projects
NEXT STEPS: ARWG Coordinator should convene a dialogue with the PCFSA Coordinator, the Greater Colfax Area Fire Safe Council, the Placer Hills Fire Safe Council, and the City of Colfax. This coordination effort should refine how to move forward on the near term needs defined in the Bunch Creek Pilot Area. Issues and projects relevant to the various groups should be prioritized. The opportunity to implement many of these strategies in the near term through the Proposition 13 funded City of Colfax grant.
Upper Middle Fork – public lands with private inholdings
The Upper Middle Fork is a much larger area than the Bunch Creek area. It is approximately 25 miles across, which encompasses the headwaters of the Middle Fork American River including the Middle Fork and the Rubicon. The project team was interested in this subwatershed area for number of reasons. Primary among those is the challenge of dealing with multiple jurisdictions that have management and decision- making authority in the subwatershed. [see Map 5-25: Upper Middle Fork American River Stewardship Pilot Ownership (HYPERLINK)]. The northern portion of the pilot area, for example, is composed primarily of public lands managed by the Tahoe National Forest, with a few private inholdings under Placer County jurisdiction. Below that is a checkerboard mix of private land in El Dorado County and public lands in the Eldorado National Forest and California’s State Lands Commission and Department of Fish & Game. In addition, the area is divided jurisdictionally between two different units of CDF (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection), as well as by three different utilities, including Placer County Water Agency, Georgetown Public Utilities District and the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District. In an exercise conducted in June 2001 at an ARWG meeting, the following issues were identified as part of a disturbances analysis; this process was based on the Hydrologic Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-13 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Condition Analysis (HCA) used by the USFS, and co-facilitated by the American River Watershed Coordinator and a USFS facilitator. The dots column indicates relative priority to the group attending, which included most of the major agencies that are signatory to the ARWG MOU. The HCA priority column indicated the opinion of the group whether the issue should be carried forward by USFS in their formal HCA analysis, and the three next columns represent: F=flow Q=quality T=timing, with an indication of 1 through 3 the level of the impact intensity to F,Q or T. The Upper Middle Fork pilot area fell within the Upper Watershed disturbances category. It should be noted that this exercise was conducted previous to the Star Fire in Fall 2001, a major conflagration that burned almost 30,000 acres, all which was in the Upper Middle Fork pilot area. That event will necessarily change priorities in the watershed. The USFS intends to complete a new HCA before 2004, which will update this exercise.
Disturbances dots HCA F Q T Upper Watershed priority “Wildland” areas Timber Land 15 Y 2 2 3 Management Timber Harvest 1 N Harvest of other forest 1 N 3 3 3 Including fuelwood, Christmas trees, products mushrooms, etc Roads 10 Y 1 1 1 Trails 0 N Prescribed burns 2 N 2 2 3 Landslides 0 N 3 1 2 Localized Grazing 1 N Exotic, invasive plants 2 N 3 2 3 Water diversions 7 Y 1 3 1 Water Storage 12 Y 1 1 1 Facilities Water conveyance 1 N 1 3 1 Noted “same as water diversions” facilities Hydro generation 3 N facilities Utility corridors N Historic mining 6 Y 1 1 3 Current mining 1 Y 3 1 3 activities Reservoir 0 N 3 2 3 sedimentation Recreation 10 Y 1 3 Includes water contact sports Campgrounds 0 OHV 1 Y 2 1 3 Hunting 0 N Includes poaching Hiking 0 N Mt. Biking 0 N Car daytrippers 0 N Equestrians 0 N Extreme processes Drought 2 N
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-14 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Torrential rain events 2 N Flood events 3 N Fire Frequency 7 N Catastrophic Fire Radical wind storms 0 N
At the March 2001 ARWG meeting, a second brainstormed list of issues relevant specific to the upper Middle Fork Pilot were brainstormed. This post-Star Fire brainstorm brought forward the post-fire restoration issues at that time. The brainstorm list is shown below: MF Stewardship Pilot Issues
Resource Issues: Timber Dense timber stands: management issues to bring to health Wildlife habitat and population Water Power Minerals Campgrounds Reservoirs Owls and furbearers Aquatic habitat Riparian habitat Reforestation/restoration Education/signage Trails Fish
Issues:
Timber value lost because of delays in salvage logging Vegetation management on existing unburned land, e.g. chipping and thinning, fire management Elimination or decommissioning of roads that reduce recreation and fire protection opportunities Cumulative impacts to watershed CDF regulations CF&G regulations Stewardship directions across jurisdictions Hunting Recreation: Maintain existing Additional access to public lands, i.e. trails and old roads Private property rights and access to private property across public lands Projects identified
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-15 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
These brainstorms occurred on two separate occasions: the HCA in Fall of 2001, and the second brainstorm in the March 2002 ARWG meeting when the MF was selected as a Pilot area. The issues form a broader approach than was agreed upon during scoping process for this Stewardship Strategy study. Again, as with the Bunch Canyon Pilot exercise, these issues form a very expansive scope for a watershed plan, which will take a much deeper level of commitment from stakeholders in a broadly collaborative effort over a much longer period of time than was provided in this study. ARWG is encouraged to engage in the dialogue about what would an expansive watershed plan of this nature look like, and who might be able to accomplish such a broad effort over a number of years. MF Stewarship Pilot GIS Analysis The GIS analysis in Chapter 2 Phase II developed a series of watershed wide maps representing each analysis or assessment. The following maps apply these analyses and assessments to the Upper Middle Fork Pilot Area. One of layers created in this study was a new geology map, here shown for the Middle Fork pilot area [Map 5-26 Geology (HYPERLINK)] more detailed than the map provided in Phase I, at a mapping scale of 1:750,000 from the State of California. The more detailed map is superior for watershed level planning and land use planning, though it is still not accurate for parcel level or project level planning. The more detailed geology map correlates more closely with soil mapping. The Generalized Watershed [Map 27 Generalized Watershed Incision (HYPERLINK)] shows the headwater extent of the canyon incision process. Along the crest, it shows over-steepened slopes due to glaciation, general subwatershed wide dissection and low relief along some isolated ridges.. Our stewardship recommendations include doing a detailed understanding of the relationship between channel processes and hillslope processes, and would help us understand sediment dynamics, and the relationship between vegetation management, land use management, with respect to key watershed resources.
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-16 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The following five soil water routing maps are non-quantitative, and is qualitative. The purpose is to show spacial distribution. These maps address only soil parameters, not precipitation parameters. These maps show the potential to route water in the ways presented. The modeling environment is able to incorporate precipitation with the soil characteristics. Detailed explanations appear in Chapter 2. Map 5-28 Soils: Relative Direct Runoff Potential (HYPERLINK) is a generalized representation of the sources for direct runoff in the upper watershed. Conclusion from this pattern is that higher elevations, recently glaciated, have high potential for direct runoff. The low relief ridge areas at mid elevations have low potential for direct runoff. Map 5-29 Available Water Capacity (HYPERLINK) shows there are deep soils on the ridges, with some correlation to low direct runoff potential (Map 5-28). Map 5-30 Soil: Relative Subsurface Stormflow Runoff (HYPERLINK) shows relative source area subsurface stormflow runoff potential, based on soil parameters only. This shows where the distribution of the subsurface stormwater flows is most likely; it is most prevelant in the steeper areas where there is greater incision. Map 5-31 Soils: Relative Groundwater Recharge Potential (HYPERLINK) is informational, showing recharge potential, using soil information only. The highest potential is on the gentle sloping ridge areas at mid-elevations. Map 5-32 Potential Groundwater Recharge; Soil and Geologic Parameters (HYPERLINK) combines the soil groundwater recharge potential with the characteristics of the underlying geology. This does not take into account precipitation, or evapotransportation.
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-17 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The next five maps are an analysis of soil erosion risks due to wildland fires in the Upper Middle Fork American River. Map 5-33 Wildland Fire: Potential Intensity (HYPERLINK) is the CDF fuel and fire behavior model. This shows the relationship between fuels, fire weather, and slope, and ranks areas according to intensity. South facing canyon slopes at the lower and middle elevations have the highest intensity. Map 5-34 Erosion Hazard: Soil and Slope Parameters (HYPERLINK) is targeted as erosion risk if there is 50-75% of the vegetation removed (simulating a post fire condition). This indicates that slope can overwhelm soil (refer to Map 5-26) in representing soil erosion potential. Canyon slopes, and in particular south facing canyon slopes, are susceptible to erosion hazard. Map 5-35 Precipitation Intensity: 2 Year – 6 Hour Storm (HYPERLINK) shows ranges of total precipitation from less than 1.8 inches for a six hour storm with a recurrence interval of two years to more than 2.4. This is a standard storm type used to estimate precipitation intensity for the purpose of describing rainfall energy related to detaching soil particles. Map 5-36 Erosion Hazard: Soil and Precipitation Parameters (HYPERLINK) combines the previous two maps (Maps 5-34 and 5-35) to show erosion hazard using soil and precipitation parameters when using wildfire as the source of erosion. The high erosion hazards are distributed throughout the watershed, but concentrated in the canyons, south facing slopes of the canyon, and in general dissected terrain at high elevations. Map 5-37 Wildland Fire: Potential Erosion Hazard (HYPERLINK) combines the Erosion Hazard map (Map 5-36) with the Potential Intensity map (Map 5-33). Watershed fire risk asset map, telling us that if sediment due to fires is a concern, this map shows us where our stewardship efforts should be focused. The range indicated is rockland (zero, non-burnable) to extreme. The highest risks are on south-facing canyon slopes, previously burned areas, and steeply incised canyons.
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-18 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
The following three maps are an analytic step to show basic channel forming processes and potential future changes. Map 5-38: Precipitation Regime (HYPERLINK) shows predominant snow (above 6000 ft), predominant rain (below 4000 ft), and predominant rain on snow areas (between 4000 and 6000 ft in elevation). Map 5-39: Dominant Channel Forming Runoff Regime (HYPERLINK) shows three categories in the watershed: snow melt, rain-on-snow, and mixed (a mix between rain and rain-on-snow). This tells us that the channels with the largest stream power and peak flow per unit area is in the mid-elevation of the rain-on-snow area. The lowest is in the snow melt zone. Intermediate conditions exist in the mixed zone. Map 5-40: Dominant Channel Forming Regime: Global Warming Scenario (HYPERLINK) shows five zones: snow melt zone where there should be no changes in channel forming flows, a global warming rain-on-snow zone where flow regimes shift from snowmelt to rain-on-snow and channels can be expected to be disrupted and enlarged, rain-on-snow zone where no changes occur, a mixed zone where channels are expected to have a reduction in stream energy per unit area of watershed and possible channel aggregation, and a rain zone where a moderate increase in precipitation intensity and increased stream energy (but is significantly less of a change than rain-on-snow). This map shows the areas in which global warming could lead to channel disruption.
The following five maps show various potential geo-chemical hazards due to mining activities. These could be the source of metals affecting water quality. These might represent targets for site specific sampling, if the potential is deemed significant. Refer to the explanations found in Chapter 2. Map 5-41 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Low-sulfide gold-quartz deposits (HYPERLINK) Map 5-42 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Sulfide Deposits: Kuroko Type (HYPERLINK) Map 5-43 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Copper porphyry deposits (HYPERLINK) Map 5-44 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Copper Skarn (HYPERLINK) Map 5-45 Potential Geochemical Hazards: Anthropogenic Mercury (HYPERLINK)
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-19 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
STEWARDSHIP STRATEGIES FOR UPPER MIDDLE FORK PILOT The following exercise was brought to ARWG in the November 7, 2002 workshop. The Stewardship Strategies developed for the entire watershed are applied to the Upper Middle Fork Pilot area. Programmatic Strategies: Applied to Upper Middle Fork Pilot Landowner Stewardship Strategy Component: 1) ARWG will maintain a Coordinator to serve as contact person with landowners in Upper Middle Fork area 2) ARWG will sponsor quarterly evening (or weekend) meetings for landowners. One evening meeting will focus on issues of concern for the Upper Middle Fork Pilot. 3) N/A 4) N/A 5) ARWG will make landowner guidebook relevant and available to landowners in the Upper Middle Fork area, modeled on the CARCD landowner manual. 6) ARWG will collaborate with ARWI/Sierra College/Dry Creek Conservancy to maintain GIS database current that includes the Upper Middle Fork Pilot area 7) ARWG will develop stewardship project process for identifying key ARWG resource issues in the principal project areas of the Upper Middle Fork area that affect landowners, e.g. Star Fire restoration process, PCWA FERC process, SMUD FERC process 8) ARWG will encourage landowners to cooperate in the fuel load reduction and defensible space projects a. Convene dialogue among landowners for potential collaboration with USFS on long term fuel load reduction strategies and projects Commercial/Business Stewardship Strategy Component: 1) ARWG will support biomass uses of fiber, supporting work with SEDD and working together with USFS, and support current GIS info at Sierra College GIS center relevant for businesses in the Upper Middle Fork area 2) ARWG will sponsor “Day-in-the-Watershed”; consideration will be given to the issues of the Upper Middle Fork area, e.g. Star Fire Restoration, PCWA or SMUD FERC re-license processes 3) ARWG will maintain a network list of relevant businesses for projects in Upper Middle Fork area 4) ARWG will collaborate to maintain GIS availability and currency for the Upper Middle Fork area 5) ARWG will proactively solicit joint projects between commercial business entities and resource management agencies Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-20 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
a. Continued support for CSU/ENF/PCWA erosion study in 2003-4 which is all within the Upper Middle Fork Pilot area between French Meadows and Hell Hole reservoirs b. Sierra Pacific-USFS demonstration trail through Star Fire Area, highlighting different management approaches to restoration, differentiating management goals, etc 6) ARWG will develop a stewardship project process to identify potential stewardship management projects for WS Key Resources relevant to businesses, Prioritize projects, identify participation, encourage collaboration, and ID role of ARWG for assistance 7) ARWG will actively encourage businesses to cooperate in fuel load reduction Agency Stewardship Strategy Component: 1) ARWG will pursue development of MOU with member agencies establishing formal business rules setting out how agencies will interact with ARWG on planning and project efforts related to ARWG key resources 2) Agencies will designate a contact representative to work with ARWG Coordinator 3) ARWG will schedule a regular meeting for agencies to present project and/or planning effort status 4) ARWG will identify key resource issues at a subwatershed level (CalWater or equivalent) 5) ARWG will develop large-scale information and watershed modeling procedures for the purposes of assisting land use and resource management agencies, e.g. ARWG subwatershed model, WEHY, USGS’ PRMS hydrologic model 6) ARWG will encourage use of asset map for fire risk 7) ARWG will develop a stewardship project process relevant to agencies for identification of potential stewardship protection and/or restoration projects for WS key resources, prioritize projects, ID participation opportunities, encourage agency, landowner, business collaboration, and ID role of ARWG. 8) ARWG will develop a fuel reduction stewardship program providing the opportunity to : a. Use WS fire risk asset analysis and fire risk maps, b. develop fuel modification project list and prioritization, c. develop interagency forum for collaborative project activities d. Maintain GIS fire risk database and fire intensity database, the PRMS hydrologic model, and an erosion prediction model (e.g. WEPP) for purposes of project evaluation e. Maintain GIS data on habitat and other attributes to evaluate potential project impacts f. Develop guidebook of fuels management projects and practices
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-21 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
9) N/A 10) ARWG will establish a volutary science advisory list to provide technical inpur to ARWG on a variety of resources 11) ARWG will organize periodic symposia designed to be forum for research and resource management approaches to Western Sierra Nevada
Field Strategies: Applied to Upper Middle Fork Pilot Firesafe Ecosystem Strategy: Objective: Improve forest ecosystem 1) Investigate potential wildlife studies in Star Fire burn area, inventory what has been done by the public and private entities with regard to wildlife studies, find gaps e.g. bird species information (Oct 17 mtg) 2) Investigate relevance among agencies on the principles, policies and practices that might be affected due to the status of burn area as a CA DFG game refuge; what are the interests, what are the needs, future strategies (Oct 17 mtg) 3) Dialogue with entities within the pilot area to clarify their management directions and goals; specific goals of landowners will determine focus of dialogue regarding nexus between public and private entities (Oct 17 mtg) 4) Assemble products developed from Category III inventory and assessment exercise and bring to agencies for dialogue and return to ARWG for dialogue for evaluation and prioritization of projects suitable for funding and grant writing (Oct 17 mtg)
Objective: Collaborate with PCFSA: adopt and support PCFSA county wide plan PCFSA Community Prescription for Upper Middle Fork Pilot area: Strategic Goals 1) N/A 2) N/A 3) N/A 4) N/A 5) N/A 6) N/A 7) Restore Fire Adapted Ecosystems (National Fire Plan) a. Rehabilitate and stabilize areas that have been burned (short term) b. Improve land by assuring adequate focus on ground cover, native and invasive species and overall improvement in knowledge and awareness of how fuel reduction is part of the adaptation process
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-22 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
c. Use research, science and maintain monitoring to measure achievement of long term results 8) Seek ongoing funding mechanisms to assure continuity of the Fire Safe Planning effort 9) Improve upon the utilization of biomass technology a. Make as permanent report and agenda item for dialogue on annual FSA/ARWG meeting agenda 10) Work for the continued cooperation and coordination of all entities involved in the process a. Work together with FSA to complete Alliance MOU 11) Enhance Use of community education opportunities (see Education Strategy) 12) Assess the viability of a network of shaded fuel breaks for the MF Pilot area in collaboration with Sierra Pacific, Lone Star, TNF and ENF; create a GIS layer of potential locations for shaded fuel breaks.
Sediment Strategy: 1) Co-develop with agencies and landowners a site inventory approach for sediment sources and channel conditions 2) Collect field data for erosion assessment and sediment production potential 3) Collect site condition information on sediment sources and channel resources 4) Maintain GIS data base characterizing sediment sources and channel conditions and locate possible restoration projects 5) Summarize data discerning natural and man-induced processes 6) Provide info for WS Pilot profiling disturbance areas by category, and provide prescriptions of best restoration approaches for on-the-ground projects 7) Collaborate with agencies and landowners who have direct land use responsibilities when they develop their Sediment and Channel Stewardship or Management programs
Education Strategy: 1) Network with and support “learning hubs” to provide WS Education opportunities 2) Provide workshop opportunities a. PUHSD-GATE workshop series b. Sierra College-HS workshops c. Sierra College workshops d. Link to CSU (CEU) and UC systems for field station access Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-23 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
e. ARWI summer workshops f. Career options with PC Health and Welfare Services 3) Partner and enhance opportunities available through emerging Sierra College Watershed Certificate Program 4) Agency Collaborations for: a. Science symposium ARWG sponsored b. Manuals specific to ARWS (e.g. sediment grant manual), covering MF Pilot area c. Nonprofit organization and Agency collaboration at Dam tenders house, for long term demonstration around facility for successional changes; planting for demonstration purposes, intended for educational purpose, not original research (Oct 17 mtg) d. Public outreach: Auto/driving tour, roadside tour, dates of burn, what kind of vegetation management; invite F&G participation as Game refuge for impact on game; objective review of public process and implementation of Sierra Nevada Framework—how practices move towards the goals established by Congress. Understanding management strategies based in differing objectives and constraints. (Oct 17 mtg) 5) Landowner strategies a. Demonstration sites in collaboration with Lone Star and Sierra Pacific (in cooperation with USFS) in the Star Fire area 6) Business strategies a. Workshops and demonstrations of biomass utilization (SEDD Best Bet data) specific to MF Pilot b. Education on economic engines, e.g. biomass, forestry, forest trails, retreat possibilities, tourism, etc Placer County Visitor Council presentation and dialogue with a focus on potential in the upper Middle Fork area Data Management and Capacity Building Strategy: 1) Collaborate to maintain SC GIS Center data currency 2) ARWI/SC summer workshops (GIS capacity building, with focus on data of pilot area, held at ARWI dam house) Resource Inventory Strategy: 1) Move forward on all three objectives as per programmatic strategy (Chapter 4) on increasing understanding and data for: a. Baseflow/hydrographic inventory b. Channel process inventory c. Aquatic resources inventory
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-24 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
NEXT STEPS: The area selected as the Upper Middle Fork American River Pilot Area is identical to the watershed of the Middle Fork Project of the Placer County Water Agency. Oxbow Dam at the Ralston Powerhouse near the confluence of the Middle Fork and the North Fork of the Middle Fork is the lowest point chosen for the Upper Middle Fork Pilot Area. Placer County Water Agency received its fifty year Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license in 1963 and is scheduled for re-licensing in 2013. The FERC re-licensing process is anticipated to be a lengthy stakeholder process, taking as long as seven years. The County of Placer is a partner with Placer County Water Agency in this process, a contractual partnership established when the County formed the Agency as a Special District government. The County and the Agency have entered into a two- year strategic planning process beginning in 2003, for the purpose of planning its approach to this important re-licensing process. The American River Watershed Group should become informed about this process and the interests of the County and Agency. ARWG should consider sponsoring a workshop early in 2003 to begin to co-design the appropriate approach to fulfilling the Stewardship Strategies in a complementary way with the PCWA FERC re-licensing process. The Upper Middle Fork Pilot Area includes the USFS Star Fire Restoration project. USFS had included ARWG in each step of the NEPA public process. Included in the above strategies are possible demonstration restoration projects around the French Meadows Research Station, continued support of the CSU/ENF/PCWA erosion study within the Star Fire area, and many area-wide recommendations made more timely by the Star Fire. A dialogue in winter 2003 is recommended to refine specific, near term projects that would be fundable even in the current economy.
Chapter 5 Pilot Stewardship Projects Page 5-25 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
CHAPTER 6 Evaluation/Monitoring
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a mechanism to track the implementation success of the proposed ARWG Stewardship Strategy that is embodied in this document. This chapter follows CALFED’s project monitoring format while understanding that this project is a planning and collaborative programmatic project not given to adaptive management and quantitative, hypothesis-based, evaluations typically associated with science or targeted resource studies, or on-the-ground restoration projects. Therefore, as a planning project the evaluation elements are concerned with the long term aspects of collaborative implementation among ARWG members and other entities within the watershed. The project monitoring elements found in Table 6-1 were approved by CALFED at the initiation of the project and the following discussion provides an elaboration of these monitoring elements as they have been integrated into the Stewardship Strategy. The key elements used to monitor the implementation success of the Stewardship Strategy include:
A. have project stewardship recommendations been adopted by in-basin agencies;
B. are in-basin agencies cooperating on watershed stewardship projects;
C. is public stewardship program generating interest;
D. are public stewardship project plans/implementation meeting plan objectives and are they cost effective;
E. are stewardship projects achieving watershed plan objectives;
F. are project design elements achieving targeted and intended project-specific objectives;
G. are watershed health/conditions improving as a result of the watershed plan.
Chapter 6 Evaluation/Monitoring Page 6-1 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
TABLE 6-1
QUESTIONS TO BE EVALUATED/ MONITORING PARAMETER(S) DATA EVALUATION COMMENTS/ HYPOTHESES AND DATA COLLECTION APPROACH STUDY APPROACH PRIORITY Stewardship Program Objectives
A. Have project stewardship - Review institutional - Review causes of High recommendations been changes non-institute adopted by in-basin agencies - Annual CRMP workshop recommendations with agencies B. Are in-basin agencies - Review list of stewardship - Review procedural High cooperating on watershed projects issues, feasibility and stewardship projects - Review prioritization impediments, costs, strategy etc. - Review agency cooperation - Quarterly agency workshop on project strategy C. Is public stewardship - Review outreach efforts - Biannual CRMP High program generating interest - Review level of public workshops with response agencies - Set standards of desired response D. Are public stewardship - Develop and use client - Quarterly CRMP High project plans/implementation satisfaction form workshop and key- meeting plan objectives and - Assess each project clients are they cost effective success for cost, interaction, - Review clients efficiency, permitability and satisfaction form reasonability Watershed Health/Conditions Objectives
E. Are stewardship projects - Develop a “Project - Quarterly CRMP High achieving watershed plan Success Evaluation” form workshops to review objectives and review process trend toward success - Develop specific success objectives and review each project for success F. Are project design - Develop a “Design- - Quarterly CRMP High elements achieving targeted Component Success workshops to review and intended project-specific Evaluation” form to assess project design objectives success success - Develop specific design- - Recommendation to success objectives improve project - Review each project design design for success against results G. Are watershed - Monitoring Parameters to - Annual CRMP High health/conditions improving as be determined during plan workshop to review a result of the watershed plan development data/data trends - Develop monitoring - Five year status criteria, sampling and workshop to assess sequencing best suited to conditions parameters and data sources Chapter 6 Evaluation/Monitoring Page 6-2 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
This chapter is divided into two sections. The first addresses the approved monitoring objectives and presents how they will be implemented following the acceptance of the Stewardship Strategy by the American River Watershed Group. The second is a short review of the present level of accomplishment in the watershed of various specific stewardship strategies. This second section represents the actions that have already occurred toward watershed stewardship as a result of this Category III grant project.
Section 1: Project Evaluation
The following section looks at each hypothesis listed in the chart above (A-G) and describes what criteria were used by the project team to monitor or evaluate each element.
STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM OBJECTIVE A HYPOTHESIS: ADOPTION OF PROJECT STEWARDSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS BY IN- BASIN AGENCIES Discussion. This project identified that at present the most important impediment to collaborative stewardship in the watershed is a lack of sufficient resource information on the status of watershed key-resources, the important ecologic nexus between the watershed key-resources and watershed processes and conditions, and a lack of common resource assessment and planning evaluation tools which can be both used to understand common watershed issues and to support and meaningfully supplement the resource inventory and management interests of individual agencies. Many of the specific recommendations for changes to agency practices may evolve from the collaborative studies and resource inventories that are presently included as part of the Stewardship Strategy. Monitoring Parameters and Data Collection Approach: The Stewardship Strategies include many collaborative study elements and suggestions for developing common watershed process and function evaluative tools for use in planning and resource management activities. The parameters to evaluate this hypothesis will be; 1) a review of first in the short-term, how the various agencies have collaboratively implemented joint studies and resource inventories, and second in the long-term how these agencies have incorporated the various collaborative study findings into their resource management practices, and 2) through an annual ARWG review of the Stewardship Strategy targeted on agency implementation of strategy elements. Data Evaluation Approach: The hypothesis will be evaluated by reviewing which Stewardship Strategies that have not been successfully implemented by all the agencies involved. This review will include an exploration of the causes for non- implementation and modifications that may make implementation successful.
Chapter 6 Evaluation/Monitoring Page 6-3 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM OBJECTIVE B HYPOTHESIS: COOPERATION OF IN-BASIN AGENCIES ON WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP PROJECTS Discussion: As presented above, this project identified that at present the most important impediment to collaborative stewardship in the watershed is a lack of sufficient resource information on the status of watershed key-resources, the important ecologic nexus between the watershed key-resources and watershed processes and conditions, and a lack of common resource assessment and planning evaluation tools which can be both used to understand common watershed issues and to support and meaningfully supplement the resource inventory and management interests of individual agencies. As a result, at present, most recommended stewardship watershed projects are related to developing a better understanding of watershed key-resources, watershed conditions, the relationships between watershed key-resources and watershed processes, and developing common resource management tools related to watershed processes. Specific on-the- ground collaborative projects and the specifics related to the implementation of these projects are intended to be addressed as part of some of these collaborative resource studies (ie sediment and channel conditions, wildland fire/fuel, etc.). Monitoring Parameters and Data Collection Approach: The Stewardship Strategies include many collaborative study elements and suggestions for developing common watershed process and function evaluative tools for use in planning and resource management activities. The parameters to evaluate this hypothesis will include first short-term issues related to collaborative inventory and watershed planning tools that are part of the Stewardship Strategy, and second, long-term specific on-the-ground stewardship projects that may be identified through these initial stewardship projects. First, the parameters for evaluating the hypothesis for the suggested collaborative inventory and watershed processes stewardship projects include; 1) a review of the various projects, 2) developing a strategic prioritization of the listed projects that allows for both an internal logical progression of watershed process understanding to build toward collaborative stewardship and early usefulness to individual agencies for resource management, 3) focusing the design of the inventory and watershed process studies such that potential on-the-ground stewardship projects are identified and there is a basis for prioritization of the potential projects; 4) reviewing agency collaboration in the inventory and watershed process studies and the ability of the studies to serve the needs of collaborating agencies, and 5) quarterly agency workshops on projects to ensure continued progress and focus. Second, the parameters for evaluating the hypothesis for on-the-ground projects that should derive either from the foregoing studies and inventory tasks or identified through other Stewardship Strategy elements include; 1) developing a prioritization mechanism to evaluate on-the-ground stewardship projects incorporating a variety of issues including costs, agency collaboration, resources and risk, propagation potential, off-site/on-site relationships, and other Plan Objectives; and, 2) quarterly agency workshops to review projects and project prioritization processes. Data Evaluation Approach: The hypothesis will be evaluated by reviewing the issues related to successful stewardship project implementation by agencies, to include, internal and external project procedural concerns, feasibility and other institutional Chapter 6 Evaluation/Monitoring Page 6-4 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
impediments, costs, and conflicting agency/watershed objectives, etc. This review will include an exploration of the causes for stewardship project implementation difficulties and project approach and/or institutional collaboration modifications that may make implementation successful.
STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM OBJECTIVE C HYPOTHESIS: INTEREST GENERATED BY PUBLIC STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM Discussion: The Stewardship Strategy includes many specific landowner, business, and general public sector outreach programs to be implemented by the ARWG as a collaborative group, and by participating member agencies. These specific strategies include those related to increasing the level of knowledge about the ARWG and interest in stewardship projects. Monitoring Parameters and Data Collection Approach: The strategies designed to increase non-agency sector knowledge of, and interest in, watershed stewardship and stewardship projects will be evaluated through recurrent review of outreach efforts and the levels of public response to those outreach efforts. Data Evaluation Approach: As specified in the Stewardship Strategy, the hypothesis will be evaluated by the ARWG and the Watershed Coordinator through an annual ARWG workshop to review progress and responses, by the development of standards for determining adequate response rates. These standards will be developed by the ARWG.
STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM OBJECTIVE D HYPOTHESIS: EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC STEWARDSHIP PROJECT PLANS AND IMPLEMENTATION Discussion: This issue relates to the concern as to whether landowner and business sector stewardship project plans and their implementation meet the Plan Objectives established for this project and their cost effectiveness. These stewardship projects will be on-the-ground resource projects that are yet to be identified either through the agency resource inventory and watershed process studies or through the procedures developed for finding restoration project opportunities developed as part of the Stewardship Strategy, or agency expertise support efforts. These projects are mostly collaborative efforts between the various elements of the public sector and the ARWG and member agencies. As such elements on both sides of the project equation must realize positive benefits: ARWG watershed stewardship issues and agency time and budget limitations v. public sector land and resource conditions through cost effective processes. Monitoring Parameters and Data Collection Approach: The parameters used to evaluate non-agency sector stewardship projects, including their design and implementation will include; 1) the use of a project client satisfaction form designed to determine level of total project satisfaction on the part of the non-agency project partner and to identify aspects for possible improved ARWG service, and 2) the review of each
Chapter 6 Evaluation/Monitoring Page 6-5 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
project for success in conforming to Plan Objectives, cost, ARWG/agency/partner interaction, permitability, and reasonability. Data Evaluation Approach: As specified in the Stewardship Strategy, the hypothesis will be evaluated by the ARWG and the Watershed Coordinator through quarterly ARWG workshops to review projects with key-project clients and relevant agencies and a review of client satisfaction forms.
WATERSHED HEALTH/CONDITIONS OBJECTIVE E HYPOTHESIS: STEWARDSHIP PROJECTS ACHIEVING WATERSHED PLAN OBJECTIVES Discussion: As presented above, this project identified that at present the most important impediment to collaborative stewardship in the watershed is a lack of sufficient resource information on the status of watershed key-resources, the important ecologic nexus between the watershed key-resources and watershed processes and conditions, and a lack of common resource assessment and planning evaluation tools which can be both used to understand common watershed issues and to support and meaningfully supplement the resource inventory and management interests of individual agencies. As a result, at present, most recommended stewardship watershed projects are related to developing a better understanding of watershed key-resources, watershed conditions, the relationships between watershed key-resources and watershed processes, and developing common resource management tools related to watershed processes. These are intended to specifically relate to Plan Objectives and it is important that the products of these efforts hold to the Plan Objectives. Specific on-the-ground collaborative projects and the specifics related to the implementation of these projects are intended to be addressed as part of some of these collaborative resource studies (ie sediment and channel conditions, wildland fire/fuel, etc.). It is important that any on-the-ground project lead to intended results and that the intended results conform to the Plan Objectives. Monitoring Parameters and Data Collection Approach: The Stewardship Strategies include many collaborative study elements and suggestions for developing common watershed process and function evaluative tools for use in planning and resource management activities. The parameters to evaluate this hypothesis will be include short- term issues related to collaborative inventory and watershed planning tools that are part of the Stewardship Strategy. The parameters for evaluating the hypothesis for the suggested collaborative inventory and watershed processes stewardship projects include; 1) a review of the various projects, 2) developing a strategic prioritization of the listed projects that allows for both an internal logical progression of watershed process understanding to build toward collaborative stewardship and early usefulness to individual agencies for resource management, and 3) focus the design of the inventory and watershed process studies such that for on-the-ground stewardship projects, appropriate resource success objectives can be developed within the context of Plan Objectives and there is a basis for prioritization of the projects. Data Evaluation Approach: The hypothesis will be evaluated by reviewing the issues related to successful stewardship project implementation including both overall
Chapter 6 Evaluation/Monitoring Page 6-6 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Plan Objectives and specific project success objectives. These reviews will be conducted quarterly by the ARWG.
WATERSHED HEALTH/CONDITION OBJECTIVE F HYPOTHESIS: PROJECT DESIGN ACHIEVES PROJECT-SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES Discussion: As presented above, this project identified that at present the most important impediment to collaborative stewardship in the watershed is a lack of sufficient resource information on the status of watershed key-resources, the important ecologic nexus between the watershed key-resources and watershed processes and conditions, and a lack of common resource assessment and planning evaluation tools which can be both used to understand common watershed issues and to support and meaningfully supplement the resource inventory and management interests of individual agencies. As a result, at present, most recommended stewardship watershed projects are related to develop a better understanding of watershed key-resources, watershed conditions, the relationships between watershed key-resources and watershed processes, and developing common resource management tools related to watershed processes. These are intended to specifically relate to Plan Objectives and it is important that the products of these efforts hold to the Plan Objectives. Specific on-the-ground collaborative projects and the specifics related to the implementation of these projects are intended to be addressed as part of some of these collaborative resource studies (ie sediment and channel conditions, wildland fire/fuel, etc.). It is important that any on-the-ground project lead to intended results and that the intended results conform to the Plan Objectives. Monitoring Parameters and Data Collection Approach: The Stewardship Strategies include many collaborative study elements and suggestions for developing common watershed process and function evaluative tools for use in planning and resource management activities. The parameters to evaluate this hypothesis will include short- term issues related to collaborative inventory and watershed planning tools that are part of the Stewardship Strategy, and long-term specific on-the-ground stewardship project success goals that may be identified through these initial stewardship projects. The parameters for evaluating the hypothesis for on-the-ground projects that are derived either from the foregoing studies and inventory tasks or identified through other Stewardship Strategy elements include; 1) developing a project success form that includes all project elements as developed in the ARWI 1999 319h Site Specific Objective grant, 2) developing specific success objectives for project types or individual projects that can be used to evaluate all elements of the project as well as adaptive management and alternative designed approaches for similar future projects, and 3) reviewing project success forms and project monitoring to determine project success against objectives. Data Evaluation Approach: The hypothesis will be evaluated by reviewing the issues related to successful stewardship project implementation including both overall Plan Objectives and specific project success objectives. These reviews will be conducted quarterly by the ARWG.
Chapter 6 Evaluation/Monitoring Page 6-7 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
WATERSHED HEALTH/CONDITIONS OBJECTIVE G HYPOTHESIS: IMPROVEMENT OF WATERSHED HEALTH/CONDITIONS AS A RESULT OF THE WATERSHED PLAN Discussion: As presented above, this project identified that at present the most important impediment to collaborative stewardship in the watershed is a lack of sufficient resource information on the status of watershed key-resources, the important ecologic nexus between the watershed key-resources and watershed processes and conditions, and a lack of common resource assessment and planning evaluation tools which can be both used to understand common watershed issues and to support and meaningfully supplement the resource inventory and management interests of individual agencies. As a result, at present, most recommended stewardship watershed projects are related to develop a better understanding of watershed key-resources, watershed conditions, the relationships between watershed key-resources and watershed processes, and developing common resource management tools related to watershed processes. These are intended to specifically relate to Plan Objectives and it is important that the products of these efforts hold to the Plan Objectives. Specific on-the-ground collaborative projects are intended to protect and improve the status and condition of watershed key-resources. At this time the status and condition of these watershed key-resources are unknown due to a lack of inventory and process information in the watershed. Monitoring Parameters and Data Collection Approach: At the initiation of this project it was anticipated that sufficient information would be available in the watershed to determine critical condition parameters and develop criteria to monitor the condition and status of the critical parameters. This proved an inaccurate assumption. The Stewardship Strategy include many collaborative study elements and suggestions for developing common watershed process and function evaluative tools for use in planning and resource management activities. The parameters for evaluating the hypothesis for tracking the status and condition of the watershed and watershed key-resources should be derived from the foregoing studies and inventory tasks including; 1) identifying critical parameters for describing watershed key-resource status conditions, 2) developing measures, sampling protocol approaches, and criteria for quantifying watershed key-resources conditions and status, and 3) developing sufficient resource information for assisting the ARWG in developing thresholds for adequate-condition parameters. These study elements will assist the ARWG in determing watershed and watershed key-resource conditions and status, developing a collaborative sampling program for long term monitoring, developing criteria for desired watershed key-resource condition, for defining adequate-conditions, and providing the basis for collaborative cumulative impacts assessment approaches. Data Evaluation Approach: The results of monitoring activities will be reviewed by the ARWG annually to track data and data trends, and every five years to determine present status and conditions of the watershed and watershed key-resources, trend in conditions, and to review desired and adequate-condition thresholds.
Chapter 6 Evaluation/Monitoring Page 6-8 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Section 2: Monitoring: Implementation Accomplishments to Date
The following section is a review of the accomplishments to date on watershed stewardship as a result of the Category III Stewardship Strategy project. The following initial implementation actions resulted from the plan objectives, the Category III resource and agency evaluations, and the specific stewardship strategies developed in Chapter 4.
ARWG developed five field-based Stewardship Strategies, which are outlined in detail in Chapter 4, including: Firesafe Ecosystem, Sediment, Education, Data Management & Capacity Building, and Resource Inventory. The evaluation for this element addresses the extent to which in-basin agencies have accepted key recommendations from the five strategies developed as part of this project. Firesafe Ecosystem Strategy The goal of the Firesafe Ecosystem strategy is to collaborate with the newly formed Placer County Fire Safe Alliance1 in the development, review and implementation of the Placer County Strategic Fire Safe Plan. One of the major recommendations is to create community-based Fire Safe Councils throughout Placer County, including within the American River watershed, to work directly with residents to make their properties more fire safe. Local Fire Safe Councils, typically made up of agency personnel, community organizations, businesspeople and landowners, are active in educating and assisting local communities in taking steps to maximize the health of natural resources and minimize the potential for wildfire damage. During the life of this project so far, six such Councils have been formed in or adjacent to the American River watershed, including Alta, Greater Colfax Area, Foresthill Area, Placer Hills (Meadow Vista/Weimar/Applegate area), Greater Auburn Area and Iowa Hill. Two additional Councils, Loomis and Granite Bay, are in the process of forming. Involvement by agencies such as CDF, the Bureau of Land Management, the local water agency, the US Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, State Parks and others in the creation of these eight area Fire Safe Councils indicates a definite acceptance by in-basin agencies of the key recommendation in the project’s Firesafe Ecosystem strategy.
1. ALTA FIRE SAFE COUNCIL Jerry Abney c/o Alta Fire Department PO Box 847 Alta, CA 93701 Office: (530) 389-2676
1 The Alliance’s mission is to facilitate and coordinate the efforts of community fire safe councils, agencies, cities, fire departments and citizens in public/private partnership for the purpose of community fire safety. Chapter 6 Evaluation/Monitoring Page 6-9 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
2. GREATER COLFAX AREA FIRE SAFE COUNCIL The Greater Colfax Area Fire Safe Council, located in the foothills of Placer County, covers the area between Rollins Lake on the North, the Bear River on the West, the North Fork of the American River on the East, and the Placer Hills Fire Protection District boundary on the South (roughly, where Placer Hills Road crosses Interstate 80). Robin Yonash 24020 Fowler Ave. Colfax, CA 95713 [email protected] Office: (530) 346-6776 3. FORESTHILL AREA FIRE SAFE COUNCIL Bob McChesney Foresthill Fire Department Box 1099 Foresthill, CA 95631 [email protected] Office: (530) 367-2465 4. PLACER HILLS FIRE SAFE COUNCIL Dennis Maguire Placer Hills Fire Protection District Meadow Vista, CA 95722 [email protected] Office: (530) 878-2361 5. GREATER AUBURN AREA FIRE SAFE COUNCIL Eric Evans 229 Duranta St. Roseville, CA 95678 [email protected] Office: (916) 782-1142 6. IOWA HILL FIRE SAFE COUNCIL Luana Dowling PO Box 176 Iowa Hill, CA 95713 Office: (530) 277-3753
Sediment Strategy Recommendations under this strategy revolve around working with agencies in data collection and analysis to better understand sediment sources, stream channel conditions and sediment movement in the watershed, with the goal of identifying specific
Chapter 6 Evaluation/Monitoring Page 6-10 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
projects to minimize sedimentation and/or restore areas already affected by sedimentation. Initial research as part of this project identified a lack of watershed-wide data in this area. ARWG worked with the US Forest Service in both the Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests, as well as the Natural Resource Conservation Service, to develop and analyze necessary data. The results of this preliminary analysis are described in Chapter 2, Data Collection. Further evidence of agency acceptance of Sediment Strategy recommendations includes the collaboration between the American River Watershed Institute, the Placer County Water Agency, the Eldorado National Forest and Colorado State University to research post-burn restoration methodologies and their potential for affecting sedimentation in the watershed.
Education Strategy The primary goal of the Education Strategy is to provide educational programs and opportunities, such as demonstration sites, publications, public workshops, etc., to inform residents of the watershed about key watershed health issues and objectives. Elements of the ARWG education strategy, such as demonstration sites and public relations in general, were initially undertaken by the ARWG’s Public Outreach and Education Team (POET). However, the group decided that to promote these educational activities more effectively, there needed to be a separate non-profit entity that could raise funds for and implement the kinds of education programs envisioned in this strategy. So the ARWG founded a separate non-profit entity, the American River Watershed Institute, to support and enhance watershed research and educational work. To date, the American River Watershed Institute has accomplished the following: ▪ worked with the California Department of Education to develop graduation standards for environmental education that are congruent with American River watershed programs; ▪ used non-traditional sources, such as the CDF State Fire Plan and the draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Star Fire, as teaching tools; ▪ provided six workshops over three years focusing on meadow and stream restoration; and ▪ provided two workshops, including raising funding, for citizen monitoring by high school students of areas within the watershed. Other plans are in process through the American River Watershed Institute, including: establishing watershed education “learning hubs” in public and private schools, the community college system, Adopt-a-Stream/Creek programs, etc.; establishing a watershed academy for year-round high school-level watershed education; providing additional workshop opportunities for youth and adult education; partnering with the emerging Sierra College Watershed Certificate Program; collaborating with agencies on science symposia and “how-to” manuals for dealing with sedimentation and other issues; and hosting more one-on-one opportunities, such as neighborhood “coffee Chapter 6 Evaluation/Monitoring Page 6-11 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy klatches” with landowners and residents to present additional educational materials and identify potential community-based, on-the-ground projects for partnership with the Institute and/or the American River Watershed Group.
Data Management & Capacity-Building Strategy One of the key recommendations in this strategy, which responds directly to a request we heard numerous times in the scoping phase of this project, includes establishing a regional GIS Data Center accessible to all stakeholders in the watershed (and beyond). The goal of such a data center would be to create a database openly accessible to in-basin agencies and other interested parties for use in learning more about watershed processes and to support on-going planning and decision-making in the watershed. The basis for the data center will be the library of information collected for this project. As part of this strategy, the American River Watershed Group has a tentative agreement with the GIS Department and the Dean of Math and Science at Sierra College to host the database through an FTP site at the college. Such an agreement clearly indicates in-basin support for and acceptance of ARWG strategy recommendations. Until the hosting agreement is fully worked out with Sierra College, the Placer County RCD remains the central repository for regional and watershed-based data collected as part of this project. That data is currently available to stakeholders on CD- ROM upon request for the cost of reproduction. To date, information collected as part of this project has been requested and used by other agencies, including the Nevada County, Georgetown and Eldorado RCDs and the Truckee River Watershed Council, to provide a better understanding of conditions in the American River and neighboring watersheds. This, too, indicates clear acceptance of the data sharing intent of this strategy. In addition, the Placer County RCD and the Natural Resource Conservation Service have agreed to work together to organize data management workshops, including tutoring in ArcMap 8.2 as well as how to use aerial photos and USGS quadrangle maps for better watershed management. Such efforts are being greatly enhanced by the growing link between local Fire Safe Council Coordinators (in Colfax, Auburn, Alta, Iowa Hill, Foresthill, and Placer Hills) and individual Watershed Coordinators in and around the watershed, including the American River Watershed Group, the Truckee River Watershed Council, the Coon Creek/Auburn Ravine Watershed Council, the Yuba Watershed Council, and others. Having these organizational focal points is critical to successful information sharing and coordination of efforts among different entities and agencies.
Resource Inventory
This project has identified several significant resource inventory data gaps. Filling these gaps would be necessary for adequate watershed stewardship. This includes watershed key resources, channel conditions and trends, riparian resources, and hydrography. For those process resource inventories used by agencies, there are inconsistencies in method. Chapter 6 Evaluation/Monitoring Page 6-12 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy
Several of the most important have been identified, and the ARWG is in the process of collaborating on common inventory approaches, and the implementation of inventory efforts.
Landowner Involvement This element of the program is designed to develop mechanisms to communicate with landowners in the watershed, to develop knowledge and understanding of key resource management issues, and to assist landowners with resource concerns related to ARWG key resources. One of the best measures of interest so far is the extent to which citizens in other parts of the county are asking to form Fire Safe Councils. The American River watershed area has six councils already formed with two more in process. The goal is to have Fire Safe Council coverage over the entire county to help address watershed health and fire safety/fuel load issues. We anticipate that outreach efforts undertaken by both the American River Watershed Group members and the Fire Safe Alliance will increase interest and encourage the formation of additional councils throughout the watershed and the rest of the County. An additional measure of interest in and success of our programmatic landowner strategy is the actual reduction in fuel loading within the watershed as a result of our outreach and other work with individual landowners in the watershed. With five years of data, we’ve been able to work cooperatively with other agencies and individual landowners to reduce the fuel load in the watershed by 10,797 tons.
Chapter 6 Evaluation/Monitoring Page 6-13
APPENDIX A
RELATIVE FAST RUNOFF POTENTIAL MAP The hydrologic soils group categories as assigned in the surveys and as adjusted (see Appendix B) were given a numerical value of 0 to 4. These numerical values were attached to each principle soil constituent of each mapped unit. The percentage of each soil constituent was normalized such that the total of the principle soil constituents totaled 100% of the mapped polygons. This eliminated the hydrologic soil group assignments of the non-principle soil constituents. The numerical hydrologic soil group values were used along with percent presence to derive an area-weighted average numerical hydrologic soil group rating with a possible range of 0.00 to 4.00. The continuum of numerical values was organized into “Quick Runoff Potential” by the following categories, which are illustrated on the map titled, Relative Fast Runoff Potential, in colors ranging from bright red, indicating high potential, to cool green indicating very low potential.
VALUE QUICK RUNOFF POTENTIAL 0.00 – 0.75 High (red) 0.76 – 1.25 High (dark orange) 1.26 – 1.75 Moderate (light orange) 1.76 – 2.25 Moderate (yellow) 2.26 – 2.75 Moderate (yellow-green) 2.76 – 3.25 Low (light green) 3.26 – 3.75 Low (medium green) 3.76 – 4.0 Very Low (dark green)
The resulting map shows high potential for quick runoff primarily in higher elevation, barren or steep areas in the southeastern portion of the watershed (Desolation Wilderness area), as well as along steep westerly portions of the lower North Fork, the Middle Fork and Rubicon rivers and some of the upper watershed areas that are located in designated roadless areas along the North Fork American and Rubicon rivers. Areas with lower potential for quick runoff are found primarily in the southern portion of the watershed south of the Rubicon River.
AVAILABLE WATER CAPACITY MAP Available Water Capacity is used as one parameter in the application of the Precipitation Runoff Model System (PRMS) modeling application to evaluate the watershed response to vegetation management alternatives and other possible future scenarios such as global warming, etc. The model AWC parameters are 0-4 inches, 4-6 inches, and greater than 6 inches. These are soil water “reservoirs” used in the PRMS model to identify water that is available at different depths for the soil mantel, seasonal discharge and streamflow, and in the root zone for use by surface vegetation. The Available Water Capacity Map shows that, for the most part, areas with the highest water availability capacity occur in the western portion of the watershed, especially on the north side of the Middle Fork American and along a portion of the lower North Fork American.
DELAYED RUNOFF POTENTIAL MAP The Delayed Runoff Potential Map shows areas of Very High (dark blue) to Very Low (orange) Delayed Runoff potential in the watershed. The areas of very high or high delayed runoff potential occur primarily in the middle elevations northeast of French Meadows reservoir on the Middle Fork American and south/southwest of Hell Hole reservoir down into the Rubicon drainage. Moderate to high infiltration and permeability characteristics provide relatively quick drainage to toe slope and valley margin areas where soil water reaches the surface. When surface saturation occurs, both surface and subsurface water is translated to drainage courses. These saturation sites vary in size and location depending on variable total precipitation in events and existing soil moisture conditions. Most of the western portion of the watershed and the area along Interstate 80 up to and along the northern boundary of the watershed have either very low or low potential for delayed runoff.
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE MAP Groundwater Recharge Potential is the potential for soils to provide deep percolation and make precipitation available for bedrock groundwater recharge. Within this runoff concept, the groundwater recharge potential bears an inverse relation to delayed runoff potential. The source areas of soil - groundwater recharge are generally shallow to moderate slopes with deep, somewhat lower-permeability soils. Infiltration is moderate to high and the lower permeability provides slower drainage to toe slope and valley margin areas, which increases the relative probability for groundwater recharge. This map shows that most of the western portion of the watershed, in the lower elevations, has very low to moderate potential for groundwater recharge – especially those areas right along the river courses. The areas with the highest potential for groundwater recharge occur along the southern edge of the watershed south of the Rubicon and in the area west of Loon Lake. There are other scattered spots along Ralston Ridge and north of French Meadows reservoir, as well as in the northeastern corner of the watershed.
EROSION HAZARD POTENTIAL MAP As an additional step in the analysis, the consultant looked at potential soil erosion hazards. Hazards were organized into nine categories constructed from the qualitative categories found in the two USFS and two NRCS soil surveys. The qualitative categories in the USFS surveys were based on the Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR) used by the USFS to estimate maximum potential soil erosion risk. This parameter is based on the possible severity of soil surface erosion should the vegetative cover be removed and the soil surface be left undisturbed. The parameter ratings include the variable risk of 2 year-6hr rainfall events across the soil survey area. It is designed to appraise the relative risk of accelerated sheet and rill erosion and does not address possible soil losses through gully erosion, dry ravel, wind erosion or mass wasting (USFS, 1994). The USFS ratings for EHR were applied to each of the primary soil constituents of the soil mapping polygons. The definitions of the qualitative categories used by the USFS soil surveys are (USFS 1984): Low: Accelerated erosion is not likely to occur except in the upper part of the Low EHR numerical range or during periods of above-average storm occurrence. Moderate: Accelerated erosion is likely to occur in most years. Adverse effects on soil productivity and nearby water quality may occur for the upper part of the Moderate EHR numerical range, or during periods of above- average storm occurrence. High: Accelerated erosion will occur in most years. Adverse effects on soil productivity and nearby water quality are likely to occur, especially during periods of above-average storm occurrence. Very High: Accelerated erosion will occur in most years. Adverse effects on soil productivity and nearby water quality are very likely to occur, even during periods of below-average storm occurrence. The NRCS soil surveys rate relative soil erosion hazard based on the potential for accelerated erosion and soil losses due to agricultural or other land management practices. The ratings for any single survey are internally relative without consistent, well-defined levels of risk associated with the categories assigned; but the relative ratings are related to basic erosion potential associated with soil particle detachment characteristics and slopes. The NRCS surveys use a four-category system: Low, Moderate, High, and Very High. The four soil surveys being used by the team at this point in the process did not have directly correlatable qualitative categories for soil erosion hazard potential. Only three of the four surveys provided K factor estimates, which could have been used to develop quantitative estimates of relative erosion hazard potential; but without total watershed coverage, this assessment approach would have been incomplete. The next most applicable assessment approach that the team felt was roughly correlatable across the various surveys was determined to be the assumption that the qualitative relative soil hazard categories used in the four surveys were suitably related with each other. Therefore, for the purpose of a regionally-based watershed soil erosion hazard assessment (limited to existing information), the relative qualitative rating for the surveys were used as a first approximation of watershed-scale relative erosion hazard. The qualitative relative soil erosion hazard rating attributed to each of the principle soils of each soil mapping unit was given the following numerical values. Low = 1 Moderate = 2 High = 3 Very High = 4 For rock outcrop units = 0 was assigned. Similarly to the Quick Runoff calculations, these numerical values were attached to each principle soil constituent of each mapped unit. The percentage of each soil constituent was normalized such that the total of the principle soil constituents totaled 100% of the mapped polygons. This eliminated the erosion hazard potential of the non- principle soil constituents. The numerical soil erosion hazard values were used along with percent presence to derive an area-weighted average numerical erosion hazard rating with a possible range of 0.00 to 4.00. The continuum of numerical values was organized into the following categories. 0.00-0.75 0.76-1.25 - Low 1.26-1.75 1.76-2.25 - Moderate 2.26-2.75 2.76-3.25 - High 3.26-3.75 3.76-4.00 - Very High These values and interpretations apply to the entire mapped area and provide a weighted average relative qualitative soil erosion hazard potential.
QUICK RUNOFF POTENTIAL Quick Runoff Potential is the potential for soils to produce runoff to an existing channel network early in storm events. The concept of quick runoff is based on the “partial area” and “variable source area” processes mentioned above. Under this concept, runoff to a stream has a source area along or adjacent to the water course which varies in size with larger and/or longer-term rainfall events and in areas of very shallow soils or bedrock-dominated terrain. The runoff generated in these areas is a result of soil saturation due to both direct rainfall and to the movement of subsurface soil moisture, which eventually comes to the surface as surface runoff when hillslope angle decreases and the slope toe increases in areas adjacent to water courses.
Hydrologic Soil Groups Soils are assigned to hydrologic soil groups based on runoff-producing parameters (assuming no vegetation influences and a thoroughly wetted soil mantel), including: infiltration, depth to seasonally high water table, intake rate and permeability, and depth of a very slow permeable layer (Chow 1964, NRCS 1974). These are defined uniformly across the various soil surveys as:
HYDROLOGIC SOIL CHARACTERISTICS GROUP A Soils that have high infiltration rate, high rate of water transmission, and low runoff potential. They are deep, are well drained or excessively drained, and consist chiefly of sand, gravel, or both. B Soils that have a moderate infiltration rate, moderate water transmission, and low runoff potential. They are moderately deep or deep, are moderately well drained or well drained, and are medium textured or moderately coarse textured. C Soils that have a slow infiltration rate, slow rate of water transmission, and high runoff potential. They have a layer that impedes downward movement of water, or they are moderately fine textured or fine textured and have a slow infiltration rate. D Soils that have a slow infiltration rate, very slow water transmission rate, and very high runoff potential. These soils can be; 1) clay soils that have high shrink-swell potential, 2) soils that have a permanent high water table, 3) soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
Since quick runoff potential is based on the soil’s ability or inability to move water, it can then be related to the parameters or characteristics assigned to the different Hydrologic Soil Groups. However, the foregoing parameters address only surface runoff. Under the concept of “partial area” and “variable source area” runoff, quick runoff refers to precipitation that quickly reaches channel segments. In certain circumstances soils with “low runoff” potential according to the Hydrologic Soil Group parameters have very high infiltration even when fully saturated but are located along water courses and, therefore, quickly transmit infiltrated water to the channel. The assigned hydrologic soils groups in the various soil surveys were adjusted for this evaluation to account for this aspect of quick runoff. So for this assessment, A and B soil series that are positioned along stream courses were adjusted to D or to Zero to reflect the quick transfer of water to the channel in spite of surface runoff potential. Other Hydrologic Soil Group modifications for this assessment included assigning quick runoff parameters to soil types and mapping units that were unrated in the soil surveys. Mapped units that indicate essentially no infiltration or very fast delivery of infiltrated water to channels were assigned a “Zero”. These types include bedrock units, water bodies, and very high infiltration areas adjacent to channels. Other unrated map units also included surface characteristics with variable infiltration rates; these units were assigned a neutral Hydrologic Soil Group factor of “C,” unless site position conditions indicated otherwise. Most soil types and map units of each soil survey were accepted without modification. The sidebar below offers more information on specific adjustments that were made to address the foregoing issues.
Placer Co. Soil Survey modifications: (#113) Shenandoah (of the Andregg-Shenandoah complex) was assigned as a D hydrologic soil. It is located in swales and drainageways and is likely to be the topographic position for return flow from hillside subsurface flow processes, and fast translation to streamflow. (#173) Pits and Dumps was unassigned by the NRCS - it is assigned a neutral rating as a C hydrologic soil in this analysis and assigned an assessment value of 2.0. These units are a variety of sand and gravel pits, refuse dumps and rock quarries. The hydrological characteristics are variable. Relative to “Quick Runoff” the hydrologic soil group assignments of individual polygons should be assigned on degree of surface or channel RO hydraulic connectivity. (#178) Riverwash was unassigned by the NRCS, it is assigned an assessment value of zero in this analysis; that is more runoff prone than D soils. These are very coarse flood prone areas only the drainages of the American and Bear Rivers. Permeability is very rapid and surface runoff is rapid, and other water parameters variable. It was assigned as zero because infiltrated rainfall is likely to be very rapidly translated to channel flows through lateral flows or local groundwater mounding. (#179) Rock outcrop was unassigned by the NRCS; it is interpreted as a High “Quick Flow” potential and assigned an assessment value of 0.25 in this analysis; that is more runoff-prone than D soils. These areas are 50-90% resistance rock outcrop, and 10-50% thin soils, drainage is excessive, surface RO is very rapid, and little erosion potential; they are located mainly on steep to very steep slopes that break into the major drainageways. RO is assumed to be very rapid and occur at most light rainfalls events. The 0.25 value was derived from using a 0 value (@75%) for the rock outcrops and a 1.0 value (@25%) for the included thin soils. (#180) Rubble land was unassigned by the NRCS - it is assigned a neutral rating as a C hydrologic soil in this analysis and assigned an assessment value of 2.0. These units are cobbly and stony mine debris and tailings from dredge or hydraulic mining; all soil materials have been washed away or buried. The hydrological characteristics are variable. Relative to “Quick RO” the hydrologic soil group assignments of individual polygons should be based on degree of surface or channel RO hydraulic connectivity. (#192) Xerofluvents - sandy was assigned by the NRCS as a B soil because of high permeabilities and locations offering fast lateral flow to channels, it is assigned as Zero in this analysis; that is more runoff prone than D soils. These are frequently flooded sandy alluvium adjacent to major drainages with moderately rapid to rapid permeability. It was assigned as Zero because infiltration rates are likely to be greater than rainfall and rainfall is likely to be rapidly translated to channel flows through lateral flows or local groundwater mounding. (#194) Xerofluvents was assigned by the NRCS as a B soil because of high permeabilities and locations offering fast lateral flow to channels, it is assigned as Zero in this analysis; that is more runoff prone than D soils. These are frequently flooded narrow stringers of somewhat poorly drained recent alluvial adjacent to stream channels with variable permeability. It was assigned as Zero because infiltration rates are likely to be greater than rainfall and rainfall is likely to be rapidly translated to channel flows through lateral flows or local groundwater mounding. (#195) Xerofluvents, hardpan substratum was assigned by the NRCS as a C soil because of a hardpan substratum and positions in minor drainageways and terraces offering fast lateral flow to channels, it is assigned as Zero in this analysis; that is more runoff prone than D soils. These are frequently flooded narrow stringers of somewhat poorly drained recent alluvial adjacent to stream channels with variable permeability. It was assigned as Zero because low infiltration rates, the sites are likely to received subsurface hillside flows creating soil saturation, and rainfall is likely to be rapidly translated to channel flows through surface flows. (#197) Xerothents - placer area was assigned by the NRCS as a D soil because of variable permeability and frequent flooding, it is assigned as zero in this analysis; that is more runoff prone than D soils. These are frequently flooded narrow stringers of somewhat poorly drained recent alluvial adjacent to stream channels with variable permeability. It was assigned as zero because infiltration rates are likely to be greater than rainfall and rainfall is likely to be rapidly translated to channel flows through lateral flows or local groundwater mounding. Rock outcrop when a subordinate “included” was unassigned by the NRCS - it is assigned an assessment value of zero in this analysis; “Quick Flow” runoff potential greater than D soils. These are considered as relatively unweathered rocky area with high runoff potential. El Dorado Co. Soil Survey modifications: (CcE, CcF) Chaix was assigned by the NRCS as a C soil in the soil survey and as a B soil in the “unified soils tables” and as a B soil in the Eldorado NF soil survey. A Hydrologic Group B was assigned in this analysis due to the predominate B assignment, moderately high permeability, and having weathered granodiorite. (CrE) Crozier was assigned by the NRCS as a C soil in the soil survey and as a B soil in the “unified soils table” and a C soil in the Eldorado soil survey. A Hydrologic Group C was assigned in this analysis due to the predominant C assignment and moderate permeability. (LaB) Loamy Alluvial Land was unassigned by the NRCS - it is assigned as Zero in this analysis, that is more runoff-prone than D soils. These units are very gently sloping recent alluvial bodies adjacent to stream channels. They have a mixed set of bedded clay, sand and gravelly layers, are frequently flooded, variably permeabilities, and is moderately well drained. It was assigned as Zero because infiltrated rainfall is likely to be very rapidly translated to channel flows through lateral flows or local groundwater mounding. (MhE) McCarthy was assigned by the NRCS as a C soil in the soil survey and as a B soil in the “unified soils table.” A Hydrologic Group C was assigned in this analysis due to moderate permeability. (MrC, MrD, MsC, MtE) Musick was assigned by the NRCS as a C soil in the soil survey and as a B soil in the “unified soils table.” A Hydrologic Group C was assigned in this analysis due to moderately slow permeability. (MmF) Metamorphic Rock Land was unassigned by the NRCS; it is interpreted as a High “Quick Flow” potential and assigned an assessment values of 0.25 in this analysis; that is more runoff-prone than D soils. These areas are 50-90% resistance rock outcrop, and 10-50% thin soils, drainage is excessive, surface RO is very rapid, and little erosion potential; they are located mainly on steep to very steep slopes that break into the major drainageways. The 0.25 value was derived from using a 0 value (@75%) for the rock outcrops and a 1.0 value (@25%) for the included thin soils. (PrD) Placer Diggings was unassigned by the NRCS; it is assigned as zero in this analysis; that is more runoff-prone than D soils. These are areas of stony, cobbly, and gravelly material commonly in beds of streams or other areas that have been placer mined. The hydrological characteristics are variable but in most places the drainage may be to areas well connected to surface or channel RO. Some areas may be more isolated from surface or channel RO. Some polygon-specific determinations should be considered. (SaF) Serpentine Rock Land was unassigned by the NRCS; it is interpreted as a High “Quick Flow” potential and assigned an assessment value of 0.25 in this analysis; that is more runoff-prone than D soils. These areas are 50-90% resistance rock outcrop, and 10-50% thin soils, drainage is excessive, surface RO is very rapid, and erosion potential is slight to moderate; they are located on undulating to very steep slopes. The 0.25 value was derived from using a 0 value (@75%) for the rock outcrops and a 1.0 value (@25%) for the included thin soils. (Tad) Tailings was unassigned by the NRCS - it is assigned a neutral rating as a C soil in this analysis. These units are cobbly and stony mine debris and tailings from dredge or hydraulic mining; all soil materials have been washed away or buried. The hydrological characteristics are variable. Relative to “Quick RO” the hydrologic soil group assignments of individual polygons should be based on degree of surface or channel RO hydraulic connectivity. (W) Water was unassigned by the NRCS - it is assigned as zero in this analysis; runoff potential greater than D soils. All rainfall on water surfaces is direct “Quick RO.” Rock outcrop when a subordinate “included” was unassigned by the NRCS - it is assigned an assessment value of zero in this analysis; “Quick Flow” runoff potential greater than D soils. These are considered as relatively unweathered rocky area with high runoff potential. Eldorado National Forest Soil Survey modifications (noted by *): (#103) Aquepts was assigned as a D soil by the ENF; it was reassigned as a zero hydrologic soil and given an assessment value of 0.00 in this analysis. This oils are poorly to very poorly drainage soils in alluvial material on broad valley flats and along drainages. They are expected to provide for very fast water transfer to overland flow or subsurface flow to channels through local groundwater mounding (#120) Cryumbrepts was unassigned by ENF; it was assigned as an A soil in this analysis and given as assessment value of 4.0. This soil is developed on glacially deposited material, are well drainage, have coarse textures, and moderately rapid permeabilities. These soils are expected to have excessive infiltration even when soils are saturated A-type hydrological characteristics. (#120) Cryumbrepts, wet was unassigned by ENF; it was assigned a zero rating in this analysis; that is more runoff-prone than D soils. This soil is developed on mixed glacial alluvium, are poorly drained and are positioned along drainages and floodplains, and are of coarse textures. Infiltrated precipitation is expected to quickly flow to channel flow due to lateral flows and local groundwater mounding. (#125) Fluvent was unassigned by the ENF; it was assigned as a zero rating in this analysis; that is more runoff-prone than D soils. This is deep, mixed but generally coarse alluvium material along narrow drainageways; it has variable drainage conditions. Infiltrated precipitation is expected to quickly flow to channel flow due to lateral flows and local groundwater mounding. (#161) Lithic Cryumbrepts was not assigned by the ENF; it was assigned as a B hydrologic soil in this analysis because of similar topographic and hydrologic characteristics as Lithic Xerumbrepts which was assigned as a B hydrologic soil by ENF. This soils is located on ridgetops and mountainsides (5-75%), it is coarse textured, and excessively well drained. (#196) Pits, borrow was unassigned by the ENF - it is assigned a neutral rating as a C soil in this analysis and given an assessment value of 2.0. These units are a variety of sand and gravel pits. The hydrological characteristics are variable. Relative to “Quick RO” the hydrologic soil group assignments of individual polygons should be assigned on degree of surface or channel RO hydraulic connectivity. (#197) Riverwash was unassigned by the ENF it is assigned as zero in this analysis and was given an assessment value of 0.00; that is more runoff prone than D soils. These are very coarse highly stratified stony and bouldery sand along channels. Permeability is very rapid and surface runoff is rapid, and other water parameters variable. It was assigned as zero because infiltrated rainfall is likely to be very rapidly translated to channel flows through lateral flows or local groundwater mounding. (#198) Rock outcrop was unassigned by the ENF; it is assigned as zero in this analysis and was given an assessment value of 0.00; that is more runoff prone than D soils. These areas are bedrock resistant to weathering, mainly on steep to very steep slopes in major drainages. (PrD) Placer Diggings was unassigned by the NRCS; it is assigned as zero in this analysis; that is more runoff-prone than D soils. These are areas of stony, cobbly, and gravelly material commonly in beds of streams or other areas that have been placer mined. The hydrological characteristics are variable but in most places the drainage may be to areas well connected to surface or channel RO. Some areas may be more isolated from surface or channel RO. Some polygon-specific determinations should be considered. (SaF) Serpentine Rock Land was unassigned by the NRCS; it is assigned as zero in this analysis; that is more runoff-prone than D soils. These areas are 50- 90% resistance rock, the rest thin soils, drainage is excessive, surface RO is very rapid, and erosion potential is slight to moderate; they are located on undulating to very steep slopes. (Tad) Tailings was unassigned by the NRCS - it is assigned a neutral rating as a C soil in this analysis. These units are cobbly and stony mine debris and tailings from dredge or hydraulic mining; all soil materials have been washed away or buried. The hydrological characteristics are variable. Relative to “Quick RO” the hydrologic soil group assignments of individual polygons should be based on degree of surface or channel RO hydraulic connectivity. (W) Water was unassigned by the NRCS - it is assigned as zero in this analysis; runoff potential greater than D soils. All rainfall on water surfaces is direct “Quick RO.” Tahoe National Forest Soil Survey modifications (noted by *): (Where ENF hydrologic soil group ratings were used, **) - Ahart is assigned as a B soil. It is moderately deep well drained soil on mountainsides with moderately rapid permeability. - Ledmount Variant is assigned as a C soil. It is shallow well drained soils on mountainside with a slow permeable subsoil. - Aquolls is assigned as an zero soil; more runoff-prone than D soils. It is shallow to moderately deep, very poorly drained bodies in drainageways and on valley floors, composed of mixed alluvium. It is associated with wet meadows. Surface runoff or mounded groundwater flow to channel flows are expected at even light rainfall events. - Borolls is assigned as a D soil. It is a shallow to moderately deep, poorly drained bodies on the edge of wet meadows in valleys and drainageways composed of mixed alluvium. Overland flow to the wet meadows are expected during early soil saturation. - Celio is assigned as a B soil. It is deep, somewhat poorly drained soils of outwash glacial deposits, with rapid permeability to a cemented silica pan at 40 inches. - Gefo is assigned as an A soil. It is deep, somewhat excessively drained soils on alluvial fans and outwash plans, with rapid to very rapid permeability. - Deadwood is assigned as a B soil. It is a shallow excessively drained soil of mountainsides with slopes of 0-75%, with moderately rapid permeability. - Hurlbut is assigned as a C soil. It is moderately deep, well drained soils on mountainsides on slopes from 2-75%, with moderate permeabilities. - Dubakella is assigned as a D soil. It is moderately deep, well drained soil with slow permeability. - Dubakella Variant is assigned as a D soil. It is a shallow, well drained soil with moderately slow permeability. - Ponto Variant is assigned as a B soil. It is a moderately deep, well drained soil on mountainsides with slopes of 2-75%, with moderately rapid permeability. - Neer is assigned as a B soil. It is a moderately deep, well drained soil on mountainsides with slopes of 2-75%, with moderately rapid permeability. - Haypress is assigned as an A soil. It is a deep, somewhat excessively drained soil on mountainsides on slopes of 2-75%, with rapid permeability. - Toiyabe is assigned as a B soil. It is a shallow very coarse soil, and somewhat excessively drained soil on mountainsides with rapid permeabilities. - Huysink is assigned as a B soil. It is a deep and very deep, well drained soil on outwash terraces of glacial till, with moderate permeability. - Horseshoe is assigned as a C soil. It is a deep and very deep well drained soil on Eocene river gravels, with moderately slow permeability. - Forebes is assigned as a C soil. It is deep and very deep well drained soils on mountainsides, with moderately slow to slow permeability. - Jorge is assigned as a B soil. It is a deep, well drained soil on mountainsides with moderate permeability. - Tahoma is assigned as a C soil. It is a deep, well drained soil on mountainsides and plateaus with moderately slow permeability - Sites is assigned as a C soil. It is a deep and very deep, well drained soil on mountainsides with moderately slow permeability. - Jocal Variant is assigned as a B soil. It has the same hydrologic characteristics as Jocal - Meiss is assigned as a B soil. It is a shallow, somewhat excessively drained soil on mountainsides, with moderately rapid permeability underlain by hard bedrock. - Gullied land is assigned as zero; more runoff-prone than D soils. Dissected eroded land, sometimes to bedrock; associated with andesite rock lands. - Woodseye is assigned as a C soil. It is a shallow, somewhat excessively drained soils on mountainsides with moderate permeability. - Putt is assigned as an A soil. It is moderately deep, well drained soils on glacial moraines and outwash, with moderately rapid permeability. - Smokey is assigned as C soils. It is moderately deep, well drained soils on mountainsides and outwash terraces, with moderate permeability. - Smokey Variant is assigned as C soils. It is moderately deep, well drained soils on mountainsides and outwash terraces, with moderate permeability. - Lorack is assigned as a B soil. It is deep and very deep, well drained soils on glacial terraces, with moderate permeability.
Analysis Process The hydrologic soils group categories as assigned in the surveys and as adjusted (see above) were given the following numerical values for purposes of this assessment.
HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUP UNITS (ADJUSTED) VALUE A 4 B 3 C 2 D 1 Rock outcrop units 0
These numerical values were attached to each principle soil constituent of each mapped unit. The percentage of each soil constituent was normalized such that the total of the principle soil constituents totaled 100% of the mapped polygons. This eliminates the hydrologic soil group assignments of the non-principle soil constituents. The numerical hydrologic soil group values were used along with percent presence to derive an area-weighted average numerical hydrologic soil group rating with a possible range of 0.00 to 4.00. The continuum of numerical values was organized into “Quick Runoff Potential” by the following categories, which are illustrated on the map titled, “Relative Fast Runoff Potential,” in colors ranging from bright red, indicating high potential, to cool green indicating very low potential. VALUE QUICK RUNOFF POTENTIAL 0.00 – 0.75 High (red) 0.76 – 1.25 High (dark orange) 1.26 – 1.75 Moderate (light orange) 1.76 – 2.25 Moderate (yellow) 2.26 – 2.75 Moderate (yellow-green) 2.76 – 3.25 Low (light green) 3.26 – 3.75 Low (medium green) 3.76 – 4.0 Very Low (dark green)
These values and interpretations apply to the entire mapped polygons and provide a weighted average quick runoff potential
NF/MF WS Assessment:
Hydrologic Soil Groups
Based on this concept of runoff, delayed runoff potential can be related to assigned Hydrologic Soil Groups. Soils are assigned to hydrologic soil groups based on runoff producing parameters assuming no vegetation influences and a thoroughly wetted soil mantel and include infiltration, depth to seasonally high water table, intake rate and permeability, and depth of a very slow permeable layer (Chow 1964, NRCS 1974). These are defined uniformly across the various soil surveys as:
A: Soils that have high infiltration rate, high rate of water transmission, and low runoff potential. They are deep, are well drained or excessively drained, and consist chiefly of sand, gravel, or both.
B: Soils that have a moderate infiltration rate, moderate water transmission, and low runoff potential. They are moderately deep or deep, are moderately well drained or well drained, and are medium textured or moderately coarse textured.
C: Soils that have a slow infiltration rate, slow rate of water transmission, and high runoff potential. They have a layer that impedes downward movement of water, or they are moderately fine textured or fine textured and have a slow infiltration rate.
D: Soils that have a slow infiltration rate, very slow water transmission rate, and very high runoff potential. These soils can be; 1) clay soils that have high shrink-swell potential, 2) soils that have a permanent high water table, 3) soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and/or soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
Three of the four WS soil surveys had assigned hydrologic soil groups. For the Tahoe NF hydrologic soil groups were assigned by first assuming that where appropriate, soil series listed in both the Eldorado and Tahoe NF survey, the Eldorado NF hydrologic soil groups apply. Second when a soil was only found in the Tahoe NF survey the above water movement parameters were reviewed as noted in the Tahoe NF Soil Survey, and provisionary hydrologic soil group were assigned.
The foregoing parameters address runoff as purely surface runoff. Under the concept of “partial area” and “variable source area” runoff, quick runoff refers to precipitation that quickly reaches channel segments. In certain circumstances soils with “low runoff” potential according to the foregoing parameters have very high infiltration even when fully saturated but all located along water courses and quickly transmit infiltrated water to the channel and is seen in early portions of event hydrographs. The assigned hydrologic soils groups in the survey were adjusted in the WS assessment to account for this aspect of quick runoff. These were mostly soils series and fluvent etc. that are positioned along stream course and were assigned as A or B; for this assessment were adjusted to D to reflect the quick transfer of water the flow in channel in spite of surface runoff potential.
When soils were not assigned to a hydrologic soils group due to variable conditions, they were assigned a moderate [C] hydrologic soil group.
The hydrologic soils group categories as assigned to soils in the four surveys and as adjusted (see above) were given the following numerical values.
D = 1 C = 2 B = 3 A = 4
For rock outcrop units = 0 was assigned.
These numerical values were attached to each principle soil constituent of each mapped unit. The percentage of each soil constituents was normalized such that the total of the principle soil constituents totaled 100% of the mapped polygons. This eliminates the hydrologic soil group assignments of the non-principle soil constituents. The numerical hydrologic soil group values were used along with percent presence to derive an area-weighted average numerical hydrologic soil group rating with a possible range of 0.00 to 4.00.
The continuum of numerical values were organized into relative infiltration/permeabilities by the following categories.
0.00-0.75 0.76-1.25 - Hydro-Grp D 1.26-1.75 1.76-2.25 - Hydro-Grp C 2.26-2.75 2.76-3.25 - Hydro-Grp B 3.26-3.75 3.76-4.00 - Hydro-Grp A
Available Water Capacity;
The AWC specified in the AWC assessment was used here.
The AWC category criteria are 0-4 inches, 4-6 inches, and greater than 6 inches.
The NRCS reported AWC in the Placer and El Dorado County soil surveys as a range of inches. The ENF and the TNF report AWC in the following categories:
ENF TNF
Category Range Category Range Very low <2" Very low <3" Low 2-4" Low 3-6" Moderate 4-8" Moderate 6-9" High >8" High 9-12"
The reported AWC values in each soil survey for each principle soil constituent of the mapped polygons were reorganized as best matched the categories established for the PRMS modeling. Generally the reported categories and AWC ranges of the soil surveys were assigned such that the majority of the AWC in the PRMS categories were mostly completely covered.
The AWC categories as assigned to soils in the four surveys were given the following numerical values.
Low (0-4 inches) = 1 Moderate (4-6 inches) = 2 High (greater than 6 inches) = 3
For rock outcrop units = 0 was assigned.
These numerical values were attached to each principle soil constituent of each mapped units. The percentage of each soil constituents was normalized such that the total of the principle soil constituents totaled 100% of the mapped polygons. This eliminates the AWC assignments of the non-principle soil constituents. The numerical AWC values were used along with percent presence to derive an area-weighted average AWC rating with a possible range of 0.00 to 3.00.
The continuum of numerical values were organized into AWC by the following categories.
0.00-1.50 - Low (0-4 inches) 1.56-2.50 - Moderate (4-6 inches) 2.56-3.50 - High (> 6 inches) These values and interpretations apply to the entire mapped polygons and provide a weighted average AWC.
Delayed Runoff/Groundwater Recharge Potential;
The Hydrologic Soil groups and AWC categories as above were combined to develop a relative potential of delayed runoff and/or groundwater recharge potential by the following relations.
Weighted Average Hydrologic Soil Groups
A A/B B B/C C C/D D High| High High Mod. Mod. Low Low Low Low AWC Categories Mod.| High High High Mod. Mod. Mod. Low Low Low| High High High Mod. Mod. Mod. Low Low Relative Delayed Runoff Potential; The delayed runoff/groundwater recharge potential relations were used to develop “Delayed Runoff Potential” on the basis of general slope with steeper slopes having a preferential separation for delayed runoff processes. The following matrix was used to define Relative Delayed Runoff Potential by slope categories. Delayed Runoff/Groundwater Recharge Potential Low Moderate High 0-30| Very Low Low Moderate Slope Categories 30-50| Low Moderate High 50+| Low Moderate Very High Relative Delayed Runoff Potential was mapped on the basis of the forgoing matrix by combining weighted average “Delayed Runoff Potential” categories by soil mapped polygons and the slope categories from a 30 m DEM. APPENDIX B Available Water Capacity Available water capacity (AWC) is the amount of water available for plant transpiration after the soil mantel has drained “free water” against gravity. That is the amount of soil moisture in the soil mantel between field capacity (water held against draining due to gravitational forces) and wilt point (water held by surface tension to soil particles which can not be extracted by root pressures. AWC is influenced by texture and soil depth; greater AWC is generally associated with finer soil textures and with greater soil depth. Available water capacity is used as one parameter in the application of the Precipitation Runoff Model System (PRMS) modeling application to evaluate the watershed response to vegetation management alternatives and other possible future scenarios such as global warming etc. The categories for AWC used in PRMS model as developed and applied to the Duncan Canyon/Long Canyon Paired Watershed Study and as may be applied to all portions of the NF/MF WS. The model AWC parameters are 0-4 inches, 4-6 inches, and greater than 6 inches. These are soil water reservoirs used in the PRMS to route water into the soil mantel, route water to seasonal discharge ant streamflow, and uses by the vegetation community. The NRCS reported AWC in the Placer and El Dorado County soil surveys as a range of inches. The ENF and the TNF report AWC in the following categories: ENF TNF Category Range Category Range Very low <2" Very low <3" Low 2-4" Low 3-6" Moderate 4-8" Moderate 6-9" High >8" High 9-12" The reported AWC values in each soil survey for each principle soil constituent of the mapped polygons were reorganized as best matched the categories established for the PRMS modeling. Generally the reported categories and AWC ranges of the soil surveys were assigned such that the majority of the AWC in the PRMS categories were mostly completely covered. Tahoe National Forest For the Tahoe NF soil survey, AWC was reported in range categories as follows; A-1 Very Low - less than 3.0 inches Low - 3.0 to 6.0 inches Moderate - 6.0 to 9.0 inches A-2 High - 9.0 to 12.0 inches For each soil series, when the reported AWC range was within the range used in the NF/MF study (0<4.0, 4<6.0, 6.0<), assessment values of 1, 2, and 3 were assigned for the low, moderate and high categories respectively. For each soil series, when the reported AWC range bridged two or more of the ranges used in the NF/MF, the assessment values assigned through an averaging process which assigns a value representative of the numerical position between categories centroids (ie 1.00, 2.00, 3.00). These assigned values are as follows; TNF Rating Assigned Values Very Low 1.0 Low 1.64 Moderate 3.0 High 3.0 Very Low to Low 1.50 Very Low to Moderate 2.00 Low to Moderate 2.50 Low to High 2.50 Moderate to High 3.00 For multiple soil map polygons, the assessment assigned values for each soil series were weighted through area-averaging. Some map unit AWC were changed and some of the mapping units were not rated for AWC by the USFS...... Modifications: - Rock outcrop: Rock outcrop was unassigned by the TNF. They are described as bedrock outcrops of exposed metamorphic, andesite lahar, or granitic rocks highly resistant to weathering. They are essentially barren with only sparse grasses, shrubs, and stunted trees. They are assumed to have no AWC; they were assigned in the NF/MF Assessment an AWC assessment value of zero. - Gullied land: Gullied lands are unassigned by the TNF. They are described as areas of moderately deep to deep gullies that may have eroded down to bedrock. They are assigned as a Low AWC in the NF/MF Assessment and assigned an assessment value of 1.0 - Riverwash - Riverwash was unassigned by the TNF. This map unit is located along channels and is composed of highly stratified stony and bouldery sand that is typically barren. It has very rapid permeability with variable AWC and drainage A-3 conditions. It was assigned as Low AWC because of coarse textures and lack of vegetation. - Rubble: Rubble is unrated by the TNF. This map unit was assigned a Low AWC assessment value of 1.0 in the NF/MF Assessment because these bodies are areas of angular stones and cobbles with some soil between rock fragments. These bodies are expected to be very coarse and retain little moisture. - Pits, Barrow - Pits were unrated by the TNF. They were rated as Low AWC in the NF/MF Assessment and assigned an assessment values of 1.0. These map units are sand and gravel pits and rock quarries; they are barren of vegetation and vary in drainage, permeability, runoff and AWC. Because these areas are likely to have coarse materials and be devoid of vegetation Low AWC rating was assigned. - Water were unrated by the TNF. This map unit was assigned an AWC assessment value of zero in the NF/MF Assessment because precipitation to these bodies are direct runoff and retain no soil moisture that would be available to forest plant transpiration. Eldorado National Forest For the Eldorado NF soil survey, AWC was reported in range categories as follows; Very Low - less than 2.0 inches Low - 2.0 to 4.0 inches Moderate - 4.0 to 8.0 inches High - greater than 8.0 inches For each soil series, when the reported AWC range was within the range used in the NF/MF study (0<4.0, 4<6.0, 6.0<), assessment values of 1, 2, and 3 were assigned for the low, moderate and high categories respectively. For each soil series, when the reported AWC range bridged two or more of the ranges used in the NF/MF, the assessment values assigned through an averaging process which assigns a value representative of the numerical position between categories centroids (ie 1.00, 2.00, 3.00). These assigned values are as follows; ENF Rating Assigned Values Very Low 1.0 Low 1.0 Moderate 2.5 High 3.0 A-4 Low to Moderate 1.75 Moderate to High 2.75 For multiple soil map polygons, the assessment assigned values for each soil series were weighted through area-averaging. Some map unit AWC were changed and some of the mapping units were not rated for AWC by the USFS...... Modifications: - Aquepts - Aquepts were unrated by the ENF. They were rated as Low AWC in the NF/MF assessment and assigned an assessment value of 1.0. These are very poorly or poorly drained soils in alluvial material on broad valley flats and along drainages. They are to 4' deep, have coarse textures with up to 35% gravel and cobble, and are largely saturated during the rainy season but probably drain rapidly during the dry season. - Umbrepts - Umbrepts were unrated by the ENF. They were rated as Low AWC in the NF/MF assessment and assigned an assessment value of 1.0. These are somewhat poorly or moderately well drained soils in alluvial material on the periphery of broad valley flat, along drainages, on moraines and on glacial outwash. They are to 4' deep have coarse textures with 5-70% rock fragments. - Pits, Barrow - Pits were unrated by the ENF. They were rated as Low AWC in the NF/MF Assessment and assigned an assessment values of 1.0. These map units are sand and gravel pits and rock quarries; they are barren of vegetation and vary in drainage, permeability, runoff and AWC. Because these areas are likely to have coarse materials and be devoid of vegetation Low AWC rating was assigned. This rating conforms with the rating assigned in the El Dorado NRCS. - Riverwash - Riverwash was unassigned by the ENF. This map unit is located along channels and is composed of highly stratified stony and bouldery sand that is typically barren. It has very rapid permeability with variable AWC and drainage conditions. It was assigned as Low AWC because of coarse textures and lack of vegetation. - Rock Outcrop - Rock outcrop was unassigned by ENF. They are described as bedrock outcrops of exposed metamorphic, andesite lahar, or granitic rocks highly resistant to weathering. They are essentially barren with only sparse grasses, shrubs, and stunted trees. They are assumed to have no AWC; they were assigned in the NF/MF Assessment an AWC assessment value of zero. A-5 - Cryumbrepts, wet - Cryumbrepts, wet was unassigned by ENF. They were assigned as Low AWC in the NF/MF Assessment because the TNF rated their Cryumbrepts, wet soils as having a “Very Low” AWC (<3.0"). Placer Co. NRCS For the Placer Co. NRCS soil survey, AWC was reported for each soil series in ranges of total inches. For each soil series, when the reported AWC range was within the range used in the NF/MF study (0<4.0, 4<6.0, 6.0<), assessment values of 1, 2, and 3 were assigned for the low, moderate and high categories, respectively. For each soil series, when the reported AWC range bridged two or more of the ranges used in the NF/MF, the assessment values were assigned by an averaging process which assigns a value representative of the numerical position between categories centroids (ie 1.00, 2.00, 3.00). For multiple soil map polygons, the assessment assigned values for each soil series were weighted through area-averaging. Some map unit AWC were changed and some of the mapping units were not rated for AWC by the NRCS...... Modifications: - 173 Pits and Dumps: Pits were unrated by the NRCS They were rated as Low AWC in the NF/MF Assessment and assigned an assessment values of 1.0. These map units are sand and gravel pits and rock quarries; they are barren of vegetation and vary in drainage, permeability, runoff, and AWC. Because these areas are likely to have coarse materials and be devoid of vegetation Low AWC rating was assigned. - 178 Riverwash: Riverwash was unassigned by the NRCS. This map unit is located along channels and is composed of highly stratified stony and bouldery sand that is typically barren. It has very rapid permeability with variable AWC and drainage conditions. It was assigned as Low AWC because of coarse textures and lack of vegetation. - 179 Rock outcrop: Rock outcrop is rated as Low AWC in the NF/MF assessment and an assessment value of 0.25 was assigned because 50-90% of the surface is rock outcrop and stone. For assessment purposes an assumption that 75% of the surface has essentially no AWC was adopted; and 25% has a variety of thin soils. - 180 Rubble: Rubble is unrated by the NRCS. This map unit was assigned a Low AWC assessment value of 1.0 in the NF/MF Assessment because these bodies are areas of stony and cobbly tailings from dredge and hydraulic mining. All soil has been washed away or buried and the surface is barren of significant vegetation and they have variable hydrologic parameters. These bodies are expected to be very coarse and retain little moisture. A-6 - 196 Xerothents, cut and fill area: Usually located along roadways, typically well drained, very rapid surface runoff and variable AWC. This map unit was assigned a Moderate AWC assessment value of 2.0 in the NF/MF Assessment because of variable conditions. - 197 Xerothents, placer areas: This unit was unassigned by the NRCS. This map unit was assigned a Low AWC assessment value of 1.0 in the NF/MF Assessment because these bodies are areas of stony, cobbly, and gravelly material commonly along channels are areas that have been placer mined with enough fine material sufficient to support grasses. - Rock outcrops when listed as subordinate map constituents were unrated by the NRCS. They are described as bedrock outcrops and are assumed to have no AWC; they were assigned in the NF/MF Assessment an AWC assessment value of zero. El Dorado Co. NRCS For the El Dorado Co. NRCS soil survey, AWC was reported for each soil series in a range of total inches. For each soil series, when the reported AWC range was within the range used in the NF/MF study (0<4.0, 4<6.0, 6.0<), assessment values of 1, 2, and 3 were assigned for the low, moderate and high categories. For each soil series, when the reported AWC range bridged two or more of the ranges used in the NF/MF, the assessment values were assigned using an averaging process which assigns an assessment value representative of the numerical position between categories centroids (ie 1.00, 2.00, 3.00). For multiple soil map polygons, the assessment assigned values for each soil series were weighted through area-averaging. Some map unit AWC were changed and some of the mapping units were not rated for AWC by the NRCS...... Modifications: - MmF - Metamorphic rock land were unrated by the NRCS. They were rated as Low AWC in the NF/MF assessment and an assessment value of 0.25 was assigned because 50-90% of the surface is rock outcrop. For assessment purposes an assumption that 75% of the surface has essentially no AWC was adopted; and 25% has a variety of thin soils. - MpB - Mixed alluvial land were unrated by the NRCS. This map unit was assigned a neutral, or Moderate AWC assessment value of 2.0 because these bodies highly variable recent alluvium adjacent to channels with depth to bedrock greater than 36" permeabilities moderate to rapid and are somewhat poorly to well drained. A-7 - PrD - Placer Diggings were unrated by the NRCS. This map unit was assigned a Low AWC assessment value of 1.0 in the NF/MF Assessment because these bodies are areas of stony, cobbly, and gravelly material commonly along channels are areas that have been placer mined with enough fine material sufficient to support grasses. - SaF - Serpentine rock land were unrated by the NRCS. They were rated as Low AWC in the NF/MF assessment and an assessment value of 0.25 because 50-90% of the surface is rock outcrop. For assessment purposes an assumption that 75% of the surface has essentially no AWC was adopted; and 25% has a variety of thin soils. - TaD - Tailing were unrated by the NRCS. This map unit was assigned a Low AWC assessment value of 1.0 in the NF/MF Assessment because these bodies are areas of stony and cobbly tailings from dredge and hydraulic mining and hardrock mine dumps. All soil has been washed away. These bodies are expected to be very coarse and retain little moisture. - W - Water were unrated by the NRCS. This map unit was assigned an AWC assessment value of zero in the NF/MF Assessment because precipitation to these bodies are direct runoff and retain no soil moisture that would be available to forest plant transpiration. - Rock outcrop when listed as subordinate map constituents were unrated by the NRCS. They are described as bedrock outcrops and are assumed to have no AWC; they were assigned in the NF/MF Assessment an AWC assessment value of zero. NF/MF WS Assessment: The AWC categories as assigned to soils in the four surveys to conform to the PRMS categories (see above) were given the following numerical values. Low = 1 Moderate = 2 High = 3 For rock outcrop units = 0 was assigned. These numerical values were attached to each principle soil constituent of each mapped units. The percentage of each soil constituents was normalized such that the total of the principle soil constituents totaled 100% of the mapped polygons. This eliminates the AWC assignments of the non-principle soil constituents. The numerical AWC values were used along with percent presence to derive an area-weighted average AWC rating with a possible range of 0.00 to 3.00. The continuum of numerical values were organized into AWC by the following categories. A-8 0.00-1.50 - Low 1.56-2.50 - Moderate 2.56-3.50 - High These values and interpretations apply to the entire mapped polygons and provide a weighted average AWC. A-9 GIS Covers ARWG – American River Watershed Group *All data listed are ArcInfo Coverages in UTM, Zone 10; NAD 27 Map Projection, unless otherwise noted. Name Description - Comments arwg_albers ARWG Area – Albers Map Projection. - A map projection commonly used for state-wide covers. Useful for checking data from other sources. big3d Three Dimensional Shaded Relief Map - Black and white image file. campground Approximate location of campgrounds and Day Use Areas. - Source: Data captured from Forest Recreation Visitor maps. - Items: o site_name – Name of the facility o agency – Administrating entity cat3_bndy American River Category III (watershed) Study Area - Source: Based on the North Fork and Middle Fork of the American River watershed basin as designated by the American River Watershed Planning Group. Last modification Aug. 2001, by C. Watson. change_det Change Detection - Changes in vegetation cover from 1991-1996. Based on computer comparison of satellite imagery. -Source/Metadata: http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/projects/change_detection/changedetectfr/html - Items: change_code - change_type o miv Moderate Increase in Vegetation o siv Small Increase in Vegetation o lnc Little or No Change o sdv Small Decrease in Vegetation o mdv Moderate Decrease in Vegetation o ldv Large Decrease in Vegetation o nvc Non-Vegetation Change. chip_parcel Placer County Prop. 204 Fuel Reduction Chipping - Source: Chipping reported by street address (by CDF), then matched to County Assessors Parcel cover. - Items: o st_number -street number o st_name - street name o st_type - street type (ave, rd, st, etc) o community - abbreviated name o chip_time – hours o chip_tons city Cities and Towns (with names) - Source: USFS Cartographic Feature Files. - Items: pname – community or site name contour_80 80 Foot Contour Interval - Source: Contour lines on an 80 ft. interval. Derived from 30 meter DEM from USGS. - Items: contour – contour line elevation in feet. county Boundaries of Counties in and adjacent to American River Watershed. - Source: USFS Cartographic Feature Files. - Items: o name – county name o abbrev – abbrebiated county name o num – county number eveg97 Existing Vegetation 1997 - Vegetation derived from satellite imagery. - Source/Metadata: www://.rsl.r5.fs.fed.us/frab/layers/eveg.html. Also see attached. - Items: o ecotile – ecological tile o covertype – vegetation cover type o size – tree size class o density – tree cover o origin – stand condition/origin o prod – site productivity o whrtype – wildlife habitat type o whrsize – wildlife habitat tree size o whr_range – wildlife habitat cover fb_apple_cdf Applegate Area Fuelbreak - Source: California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection. fb_cdf CDF Major Fuel Break System – Weimar/Applegate Area and Foresthill/Todd Valley/Michigan Bluff Area - Source: California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection. - Items: o name – road name o acres fb_codfish Codfish Area Fuel Breaks - Source: Foresthill Ranger District – Tahoe National Forest. fb_forks_pla Forks/Codfish Area Plantation Thinning Project - Source: Foresthill Ranger District – Tahoe National Forest. - Items: data – FS plantation ID number fb_mb_fhrd Michigan Bluff Shaded Fuel Breaks – Source: Foresthill Ranger District – Tahoe National Forest. fb_mb_pcrcd Michigan Bluff Shaded Fuel Breaks - Placer County Resource Conservation District. fire_freq01 Wildfire Frequency – Number of times sites have burned. -Forest Service jurisdiction fires greater than 10 acres, 1900 to 2001 and CDF/other jurisdictions fires greater than 300 acres, 1950 to 2001. - Items: burn_x – times burned fire_hist00 Wildfire History - -Forest Service jurisdiction fires greater than 10 acres, 1900 to 2000 and CDF/other jurisdictions fires greater than 300 acres, 1950 to 2000. Region cover type. The FIRES subclass contains the data including name, acres, cause, date, agency, and incident number. - Source: Joint project between USFS and Calif. Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection. - Items: o Name o acres_calc fire_hist00 (cont.) o cause Cause coding: 0-Unknown 10-Vehicle 1-Unidentified 11-Railroad 2-Lightning 12-Powerline 3-Campfire 13-Human (USFS) 4-Smoking 14-Prescribed 5-Debris or Garbage 15-VMP 6-Arson 16-Range Improvement Burns 7-Use of Equipment 17-Escaped Prescribed Burn 8-Playing with Fire 18-Management Ignited Prescribed 9-Miscellaneous Fire o date o agency Agency coding: ENF - Eldorado National Forest TNF - Tahoe National Forest TMU - Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit - USFS CDF/NEU – Nevada, Yuba, Placer Ranger Unit; CDF CDF/AEU - Amador-Eldorado Ranger Unit – CDF o incident_number. The incident_number is a unique identifier that combines state, year, agency id, incident number, and fire number. For example CA1981MVU00112600461 is a fire perimeter with a year of 1981, from the MVU (San Diego) ranger unit, incident number 1126, fire number 461. All missing or nonexistent data is "padded" with zeros. For example; CA1971ENF00000000654 is a 1971 fire from Eldorado NF with a USFS fire number 654. In the case of VMP fires, (vegetation management projects) the contract number is used in place of fire number and is padded with zeros, and the cause is coded 15 (VMP) or coded 16 (Range Improvement) for range improvement burns. When the fire contains an incident number and a contract number the incident number is used. fire2001 Fires occurring in the year 2001 within the Watershed. - Source: Star and Gap fire data from the incident management files. Ponderosa fire information from the Office of Emergency Management. - Items: o Acres o Cause o Date o Agency o incident_number. folsom_lake Folsom Lake geology General Bedrock Geology - Source: Data from Calif Division of Mines and Geology – original data entry at 1:750,000 scale. - Items: o formation - description code o description o rocktype. gov_admin Administrative boundaries of the governmental agencies within the watershed. - Source: Data from numerous sources of varying accuracies. Lands within national forest boundaries entered at 1:24,000 scale, other ownerships derived using county parcel boundaries. Land administration reflects ownership as of mid-2001. - Items: o govt_level - Federal, State o agency - State Parks, National Forest, BLM, State Lands Commission, Parks & Rec. o name - Tahoe National Forest, Eldorado National Forest, Blodget Forest, Folsom Lake Rec. Area, etc. hwy Primary and Secondary Highways – Source: Selected from road cover. lake Lakes and Reservoirs in and adjacent to ARWG - Source: USFS Cartographic Feature Files. - Items: names lookout Fire Lookout Tower sites - Source: from forest recreation visitor maps – Approximate Location. -Items: names mines_line Topographically Occurring Mine Sites-linear features - Source: From USGS/US Bureau of Mines - Items: o usgscode - USGS Quad ID number o quadname - USGS Quad name o type - mine feature description o minename - name of the mine/mining claim mines_poly Topographically Occurring Mine Sites-polygon features - Source: From USGS/US Bureau of Mines - Items: o usgscode - USGS Quad ID number o quadname - USGS Quad name o type - mine feature description o minename - name of the mine/mining claim o acres mines_point Topographically Occurring Mine Sites-point features - Source: From USGS/US Bureau of Mines - Items: o usgscode - USGS Quad ID number o quadname - USGS Quad name o type - mine feature description o minename - name of the mine/mining claim prop204_bndy ARWG Proposition 204 Project Area - Source: Based on the North Fork and Middle Fork of the American River watershed basin as designated by the American River Watershed Planning Group. Last modification Aug. 2001. quad_index US Geological Survey 7.5 min. Quad. Map Boundaries. - Source: From US Geological Survey - Items: o quad_name - USGS Quad name o r5_quad – Region 5 – Forest Service ID number o usgs_quad - USGS Quad ID number rail_rd Rail Road Tracks - Approximate location. - Source: Digitized from USGS Quad Maps. rainfall Average Annual Precipitation - Source: Isohytal precipitation map, from Calif. State rain_snow Rain, Rain on Snow and Snow Zones - Source: Derived from 30 meter DEM - Item: zone – rain (< 4,000 ft. elevation), rain on snow (4,000- 6,000 ft. elevation), snow (> 6,000 ft. elevation). rdls_wild Roadless, Wild and Scenic River and Designated Wilderness Areas - Source: USFS – Tahoe and Eldorado National Forest planning files. Data capture at 1:24,000 - Items: area_name, designation ria_le38 CDF Residential Inspection Areas – Todd Valley and Weimar Areas - Source: California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection. - Items: name – Area name river Major Rivers of the Watershed. - Source: Selected from USFS Cartographic Feature Files. - Items: name road_arwg Roads within the ARWG Planning Area. - Source: From county files, complied by Calif. State. - Items: o class (codes- no correlation to road characteristics found) o data – “trail” or “road” road_county Roads within Placer and Eldorado Counties. - Source: From county files, complied by Calif. State. - Items: o class (codes- no correlation to road characteristics found) shirt_mdw Shirt Tail Meadow Restoration Project – (FHRD-TNF) - Source: Selected from USFS Cartographic Feature Files. - Items: name shirt_trail Shirt Tail Interpretive Trail Construction Project – (FHRD-TNF) - Source: Digitized from USGS Quad map at 1:24,000 scale. slope_type General Slope Incision - Source: Data capture from general lines drawn by T. Biddinger and C. Watson on a contour map. - Item: slope_class – gentle/moderate/steep soil_enf Soils Resource Inventory (SRI) data for the Eldorado National Forest portion of the ARWG area. - Source: From the Eldorado NF 1996 SRI. soil_tnf Soils Resource Inventory data (SRI) for the Tahoe National Forest portion of the ARWG area. - Source: From the Tahoe NF Order III SRI. stream Perennial, Seasonal (intermittent) Streams and Diversions (ditches, etc). Routed cover – “streams”. - Source: Selected from USFS Cartographic Feature Files. Ephemeral streams not included. - Items: strcode - P (Perennial), S (intermittent), D (ditches and other diversions). take_line Approximate location of Bureau of Reclamation “Take Line” for the Auburn Dam Project. - Source: Data from BOR maps, digitized on county parcels map by R. Johnson. trail Approximate location of selected trails and trail types. - Source: Digitized from forest recreation visitor maps by R. Johnson. - Items: name trail_head Approximate location of trail heads for various trails and trail types in the watershed area. - Source: Data captured from numerous forest recreation visitor maps by R. Johnson. - Items: o site_name o agency trail_4wd Approximate location of selected 4x4 Routes. - Source: Data captured from forest recreation visitor maps by R. Johnson. wtrshd_huc5 Fifth Field Watersheds within ARWG - Source: Drawn by T.Biddinger. Data Capture at 1:24,000 scale. - Items: o huc5_name – 5th field watershed name o huc1 – 1st field watershed numeric code o huc2 – 2nd field watershed numeric code o huc3 – 3rd field watershed numeric code o huc4 – 4th field watershed numeric code o huc5 – 5th field watershed numeric code o h5_rd_dens – road density, road miles per square mile, by 5th field watershed wtrshd_huc6 Sixth Field Watersheds within ARWG - Source: Drawn by T.Biddinger. Data Capture at 1:24,000 scale. - Items: o huc5_name – 5th field watershed name o huc6_name – 6th field watershed name o huc1 – 1st field watershed numeric code o huc2 – 2nd field watershed numeric code o huc3 – 3rd field watershed numeric code o huc4 – 4th field watershed numeric code o huc5 – 5th field watershed numeric code o huc6 – 6th field watershed numeric code o rdmi_sqmi – road density, road miles per square mile, by 6th field watershed o rd_miles – miles of roads per 6th field watershed o sq_miles – area in square miles per each 6th field watershed o strm_miles – miles of streams per 6th field watershed American River Watershed Group - GIS Coverages 12/13/2001 Feature Coverages Description Extent Type .pdf name arwg_albers ARWG Area - Albers projection ARWG poly campground Campgrounds and Day Use Areas ARWG plus point cat3_bndy Cat. III Boundary Cat 3 poly all change_det Change detection Cat 3 poly "change_det" chip_parcel Placer Co.Prop. 204 Fuel Reduction Chipping ARWG plus poly "prop204" city Cities & Towns ARWG plus point "city_hwy" contour_80 80 ft. Contour lines ARWG arc "contour_80" county Counties in/adjacent to ARWG Area ARWG plus poly "prop204" eveg97 Existing Vegetation 1997 poly "eveg97" fb_apple_cdf Applegate Area Fuel Break - CDF arc "prop204" fb_cdf CDF Major Fuel Break System arc "prop204" fb_codfish Codfish Area Fuel Breaks - TNF poly "prop204" fb_forks_pla Forks/Codfish Area Plantation Thinning poly "prop204" fb_mb_fhrd TNF Shaded Fuel Break at Michigan Bluff poly "prop204" fb_mb_pcrcd PCRCD Shaded Fuel Break at Michigan Bluff arc "prop204" fire_freq01 Fire Frequency through 2001 Fire Season ARWG plus poly "fire_freq01" fire_hist00 Fire History through 2000 ARWG plus region fires2001 Year 2001 Wildfires ARWG poly folsom_lk Folsom Lake poly all geology Bedrock geology ARWG poly "geology" gov_admin Administrative Boundaries ARWG poly "gov_admin" hwy Primary and Secondary Highways ARWG plus arc "city_hwy" lake Lakes and Reservoirs ARWG plus poly all lookout Fire Lookout Tower Sites (Approx. Location) point mines_line Topogaphically Occuring Mine Sites-linear ARWG arc "mining" mines_point Topogaphically Occuring Mine Sites-points ARWG point "mining" mines_poly Topogaphically Occuring Mine Sites-polygon ARWG poly "mining" prop204_bndy Prop 204 Boundry 204 poly all quad_index USGS 7.5' Quad Boundaries ARGW plus poly "quad_index" rail_rd Rail Road Tracks (Approx. Location) arc rain_snow rain-on-snow zone (4,000-6,000') ARWG poly "rain_snow" rainfall Ave. Annual Precipitation ARWG poly "rainfall" rdls_wild Roadless, Wild & Scenic and Wilderness Areas ARWG poly "rdls_wild" ria_le38 CDF Residential Inspection Areas poly "prop204" river Major Rivers within the Watershed ARWG arc all road_arwg Roads within ARWG area ARWG arc "road" road_county Roads within Placer & Eldorado Counties ARWG plus arc shirt_mdw Shirt Tail Meadow Restoration Project poly "prop204" shirt_trail Shirt Tail Interpretive Trail Project arc slope_type Generalized Slope Incision ARWG plus arc "slope_type" soil_enf Soils - Eldorado N.F. poly soil_tnf Soils - Tahoe N.F. poly stream Perennial & Seasonal Streams + Ditches ARWG route "stream" take_line BOR "take line" for the Auburn Dam ARWG poly trail Various Trails and Trail Types ARWG plus arc trail_4wd Selected Four Wheel Drive Routes arc trail_head Trail Heads for Various Trails ARWG plus point wtrshd_huc5 5th Field Watersheds Cat 3 poly "wtrshd_h5" wtrshd_huc6 6th Field Watersheds Cat 3 poly "wtrshd_h6" big3d Three Dimensional Shaded Relief Image (B&W) image "three_d" Existing Vegetation The existing vegetation map layer is the source for CALVEG types. The CALVEG Classification System is a statewide system developed by the USDA Forest Service in Region 5 to serve as a standard for existing vegetation maps. (USDA Forest Service. 1981. CALVEG: A Classification of California Vegetation. Pacific Southwest Region, Regional Ecology Group, San Francisco CA. 168 pp.). The following are the general mapping and classification rules for the existing vegetation layer. Vegetation Mapping Criteria: • Minimum Mapping Size o 2.5 acres for contrasting vegetation conditions based on vegetation type, tree canopy closure, and overstory tree size (see tables 38, 40, and 39) o No minimum mapping unit for lakes and conifer plantations • Life Forms are initially generated from classification of Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery into the following hierarchical classes: o Conifer - greater than 10 percent conifer cover as the dominant type o Mix - greater than 10 percent conifer cover and greater than 20 percent hardwood cover o Hardwood - greater than 10 percent hardwood cover as the dominant type o Shrub - greater than 10 percent shrub cover as the dominant type o Grass - greater than 10 percent grass cover as the dominant type o Barren - less than 10 percent cover of any natural vegetation o Agriculture o Urban o Ice/snow o Water • Subsequently, the following items are mapped within Life Form classes: o Vegetation Type (CALVEG): Rules have been developed by Vegetation Zone for setting parameters for CALVEG mapping. Complete CALVEG mapping keys can be obtained from the Remote Sensing Lab. Contact Hazel Gordon (916-454-0812) for specific Zone keys for the CALVEG classification system. o Tree Density: Conifer and hardwood tree density is mapped as a function of canopy closure in ten- percent classes. In conifer/hardwood mixtures, relative density of each is mapped as well as total tree canopy closure, with conifer tree density stored in item DENSITY, hardwood tree density stored in DENSITY2, and total tree density stored in DEN_TOTAL. o Overstory Tree Size: Overstory tree size is mapped as a function of crown diameters of overstory trees as interpreted from aerial photography and satellite imagery. The plurality size condition of the predominant, dominant, and co-dominant trees in a stand is assigned a Regional size class (tables 39A and 39B). Additional Coverage Items: • Ecological Tile: The basic units used to store existing vegetation layers within a statewide existing vegetation library. Source is from Goudey and Smith (1994), Ecological Units of California-Subsections (map), USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco CA. Scale 1:1,000,000. • WHR Type, Size, Density, and Range: Corresponding parameters from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships classification system. Cover Items: Field Item Name Vegetation Zone VEGZONE Ecological Tile ECOTILE Vegetation Cover Type COVERTYPE Primary CALVEG VEGTYPE Tree Size Class SIZE Tree Density DENSITY Stand Cond./Origin ORIGIN Productivity PROD Secondary CALVEG VEGTYPE2 Tree Size Class SIZE2 Tree Density DENSITY2 Total Tree Density DEN_TOTAL WHR Type WHRTYPE WHR Size WHRSIZE WHR Density WHRDENSITY WHR Range WHR_RANGE Northwest Size NWSIZE Northwest Structure STRUCT Update Source Date UPDATE_DATE Update Source UPDATE_CAUSE VEGETATION ZONES CODE PROVINCE 1 North Coast and Montane 2 North Interior 3 North Sierran 4 South Sierran 5 Central Valley Central Coast and 6 Montane 7 South Coast and Montane 8 South Interior No NF's are in the Code 5 - Central Valley or the Code 8 - South Interior Vegetation Zones. VEGETATION COVER TYPE Covertypes (or life forms, as they are often called) are defined under Life Form Classification Rules in the Existing Vegetation section. Description is a general category briefly describing the individual covertype classes. COVER DESCRIPTION TYPE CON conifer forest/woodland HDW hardwood forest/woodland mixed conifer/hardwood MIX woodland SHB shrub HEB herbaceous BAR barren, rock, snow WAT water AGR agriculture URB urban/residential • All covertype labels are derived directly from CALVEG labels. The covertype label MIX is assigned when a primary vegetation type (conifer) and a secondary vegetation type (hardwood) was mapped in a given stand. CALVEG TYPE Fields in this table refer to the CALVEG classification system map classes. Vegtype is a two-letter code designating primary (dominant) and secondary (understory hardwood in MIX covertypes only) vegetation alliances. Vegtype codes apply to both the VEGTYPE and VEGTYPE2 themes in the CALVEG map products. Description is a short phrase that lists either the common vegetation name of the dominant vegetation alliance or the land-use category. Covertype is a three-letter code equivalent to cover types described in VEGETATION COVER TYPE. Prod assigns a commercial productivity code to each mapped vegetation type. Timberland productivity for these codes is further described in TIMBERLAND – PRODUCTIVITY. VEGTYPE DESCRIPTION COVERTYPE PROD AB Santa Lucia Fir CON P AC Cushion Plant HEB O AD White Bursage SHB O AG Agricultural AGR O AN Mendocino Manzanita SHB N AX Mixed Alpine Scrub SHB O BA Barren/Rock BAR O BB Bitterbrush SHB O BC Saltbush SHB O BG Black Greasewood SHB O BL Low Sagebrush SHB O BM Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany SHB N BP Bristlecone Pine CON N BR Rabbitbrush SHB O BS Basin Sagebrush SHB O BT Big Tree CON P BX High Desert / Montane Chaparral Transition SHB N C1 Ultramafic Mixed Shrub SHB P CA Chamise SHB N CB Salal - California Huckleberry Shrub SHB P CC Ceanothus Mixed Chaparral SHB N CD Southern Mixed Chaparral SHB N CG Greenleaf Manzanita SHB P CH Huckleberry Oak SHB N CI Deerbrush SHB P CJ Brewer Oak SHB N CK Coyote Brush SHB N CL Wedgeleaf Ceanothus SHB N CM Upper Montane Mixed Shrub SHB P CN Pinemat Manzanita SHB N CQ Lower Montane Mixed Chaparral SHB N CR Red Shanks Chaparral SHB N CS Scrub Oak SHB N CT Tucker Scrub Oak SHB N CV Snowbrush SHB P CW Whiteleaf Manzanita SHB N CX Montane Mixed Chaparral SHB P CZ Semi-Desert Chaparral SHB N DA Blackbush SHB O DB Desert Buckwheat SHB O DC Cholla SHB O DD Croton SHB O DE Arrowweed SHB O DF Pacific Douglas-Fir CON P DG Douglas-Fir - Grand Fir CON P DL Creosote Bush SHB O DM Bigcone Douglas-Fir CON P DO Ocotillo SHB O DP Douglas-Fir - Pine CON P DQ Douglas-Fir - Canyon Live Oak (obsolete) CON P DS Shadscale SHB O DT Douglas-Fir - Tanoak (obsolete) CON P DU Dune BAR O DV Mixed Desert Succulent SHB O DW Douglas-Fir - White Fir CON P DX Mixed Desert Shrub SHB O EA Engelmann Spruce CON P EP Eastside Pine CON P FM Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany HDW N FP Foxtail Pine CON N GF Grand Fir CON P GR Unknown Grass (obsolete) HEB O HC Pickleweed - Cord Grass HEB O HG Annual Grass/Forbs HEB O HJ Wet Meadows (Grass/Sedge/Rush) HEB O HM Perennial Grass/Forbs HEB O HS Cheesebush SHB O HT Tule - Cattail - Sedge HEB O IA Non-Native/Invasive Grass HEB O IC Non-Native/Ornamental Conifer CON O IG Non-Native/Ornamental Grass HEB O IH Non-Native/Ornamental Hardwood HDW O IM Non-Native/Ornamental Conifer/Hardwood Mixture CON O IS Non-Native/Ornamental Shrub SHB O JC California Juniper SHB N JP Jeffrey Pine CON P JU Utah Juniper CON N KP Knobcone Pine CON N LP Lodgepole Pine CON P LS Scalebroom SHB O MB Mixed Conifer - Giant Sequoia CON P MC Cuyamaca Cypress CON N MF Mixed Conifer - Fir CON P MG Gowen Cypress CON N MH Mountain Hemlock CON P MI Piute Cypress CON N MK Klamath Mixed Conifer CON P ML Baccharis (Riparian) SHB O MM Monterey Cypress CON N MN McNab Cypress CON N MO Baker Cypress CON N MP Mixed Conifer - Pine CON P MS Sargent Cypress CON N MT Tecate Cypress CON N MU Ultramafic Mixed Conifer CON P MY Pygmy Cypress CON N MZ Santa Cruz Cypress CON N NB Mixed Desert Wash Scrub SHB O NC Northern Coast Mixed Shrub SHB P NR Mixed Riparian Hardwoods HDW N NX Mixed Hardwoods HDW P PB Brewer Spruce CON P PC Coulter Pine CON P PD Gray Pine CON N PJ Singleleaf Pinyon Pine CON N PL Limber Pine CON P PM Bishop Pine CON P PO Port Orford Cedar CON P PP Ponderosa Pine CON P PQ Fourneedle Pinyon Pine CON N PR Monterey Pine CON P PS Shore Pine CON N PT Torrey Pine CON N PW Ponderosa Pine - White Fir CON P Q1 Live Oak - Madrone HDW N QA Coast Live Oak HDW N QB California Bay HDW N QC Canyon Live Oak HDW N QD Blue Oak HDW N QE White Alder HDW N QF Fremont Cottonwood HDW N QG Oregon White Oak HDW N QH Madrone (Black Oak) HDW P QI California Buckeye HDW N QJ Cottonwood/Alder HDW N QK California Black Oak HDW P QL Valley Oak HDW N QM Bigleaf Maple (Dogwood) HDW P QN Engelmann Oak HDW N QO Willow HDW N QP California Sycamore HDW N QQ Quaking Aspen HDW N QR Red Alder HDW P QS Willow - Aspen HDW N QT Tanoak (Madrone) HDW P QV Black Walnut HDW N QW Interior Live Oak HDW N QX Black Cottonwood HDW N QY Willow - Alder HDW N QZ Eucalyptus HDW P RD Redwood - Douglas-Fir CON P RF Red Fir CON P RS Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub SHB O RW Redwood CON P SA Subalpine Conifers CON P SB Buckwheat (White Sage) SHB O SC Blueblossom Ceanothus SHB P SD Manzanita Chaparral SHB N SE Encelia SHB O SG Sitka Spruce - Grand Fir CON P SH Coastal Bluff Scrub SHB O SK Sitka Spruce CON P SL Coastal Lupine SHB O SM Sumac (Rhus) SHB N SN Snow/Ice BAR O SO Coastal Cactus SHB O SP Sage (Salvia) SHB O SQ Mixed Soft Scrub Chaparral SHB O SR Sitka Spruce - Redwood CON P SS California Sagebrush SHB O TA Mountain Alder HDW N TC Tree Chinquapin HDW P TM Cottonthorn SHB O UB Urban/Developed URB O UD Desert Willow HDW N UI Desert Ironwood HDW N UJ Joshua Tree HDW N UL Catclaw Acacia HDW N UM Mesquite HDW N UP Palo Verde HDW N UT Tamarisk HDW N UW Fan Palm HDW N UX Smoke Tree HDW N WA Water WAT O WB Whitebark Pine CON N WF White Fir CON P WJ Western Juniper CON N WM Birchleaf Mountain Mahogany SHB N WP Washoe Pine CON P WW Western White Pine CON P TREE SIZE CLASS - CONIFER TYPES CODE TREE SIZE DESCRIPTION AVERAGE VISIBLE CROWN DIAMETER N Non-Stocked (Areas Not Reforested) 0 Seedlings (Derived From Plantation Age) 1 Saplings (Derived From Plantation Age) 2 Poles Crown Diameter Less Than 12 Feet 3 Small Crown Diameter From 12 To 24 Feet 4 Medium Crown Diameter From 24 To 40 Feet 5 Large Crown Diameter Greater Than 40 Feet X Not Determined TREE DENSITY CLASS CODE PERCENT CROWN CLOSURE 0 0 - 9 Percent Cover 1 10 - 19 Percent Cover 2 20 - 29 Percent Cover 3 30 - 39 Percent Cover 4 40 - 49 Percent Cover 5 50 - 59 Percent Cover 6 60 - 69 Percent Cover 7 70 - 79 Percent Cover 8 80 - 89 Percent Cover 9 90 - 100 Percent Cover X Not Determined STAND CONDITION / ORIGIN CODE DESCRIPTION YY Year Of Initial Planting SW Shelterwood Cut - Overwood Present, Code Size Class 3, Density 1 NS Non-Stocked Timberland OR Overstory Removal - Overwood Not Present, Code Size Class 1 Or 2, Density X TIMBERLAND - PRODUCTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION P Productive Forest Site, Capable Of Growing 10 Percent Cover Of Industrial Wood Tree Species N Non-Productive Site, Not Capable Of Growing 10 Percent Cover Of Industrial Wood Tree Species O Non-Forest Types Wildlife Habitat Relationships Vegetation Type, WHRTYPE CODE TYPE DESCRIPTION ADS ALPINE DWARF SHRUB AGR AGRICULTURE AGS ANNUAL GRASS ASC ALKALI SCRUB ASP ASPEN BAR BARREN BBR BITTERBRUSH BOP BLUE OAK FOOTHILL PINE BOW BLUE OAK WOODLAND CHP UNKNOWN SHRUB TYPE CON UNKNOWN CONIFER TYPE COW COASTAL OAK WOODLAND CPC CLOSED CONE PINE-CYPRESS CRC CHAMISE-REDSHANK CHAPARRAL CRP AGRICULTURE-CROPS CSC COASTAL SCRUB DFR DOUGLAS FIR DRI DESERT RIPARIAN DRY DRY LAKE BED DSC DESERT SCRUB DSS DESERT SUCCULENT SCRUB DSW DESERT WASH EPN EASTSIDE PINE EST ESTUARINE FEW FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND FWT FORESTED WETLAND GRS UNKNOWN GRASS TYPE JPN JEFFREY PINE JST JOSHUA TREE JUN JUNIPER KMC KLAMATH MIXED CONIFER LAC LACUSTRINE LPN LODGEPOLE PINE LSG LOW SAGEBRUSH MAR MARINE MCH MIXED CHAPARRAL MCN MIXED CONIFER MCP MONTANE CHAPARRAL MHC MONTANE HARDWOODS CONIFER MHW MONTANE HARDWOOD MRI MONTANE RIPARIAN NWT NONFORESTED WETLAND OVN AGRICULTURE-ORCHARD-VINYARD PGS PERENNIAL GRASS PJN PINYON-JUNIPER POS PALM OASIS PPN PONDEROSA PINE RDW REDWOOD RFR RED FIR RIV RIVERINE ROG REDWOOD OLDGROWTH RYG REDWOOD SECONDGROWTH SCN SUBALPINE CONIFER SEW SALINE EMERGENT WETLAND SGB SAGEBRUSH SMC SIERRAN MIXED CONIFER UAG URBAN-AGRICULTURE URB URBAN VFH VALLEY FOOTHILL HARDWOOD VOW VALLEY OAK WOODLAND VRI VALLEY FOOTHIL RIPARIAN WAT WATER WFR WHITE FIR WTM WET MEADOW XXX BARREN/ROCK/OTHER Wildlife Habitat Relationships, Tree Size SIZE SIZE CLASS AVERAGE VISIBLE CROWN DIAMETER 1 Seedling Less Than 1 inch 2 Sapling 1 to 6 inches 3 Pole 6 to 11 inches 4 Small Tree 11 to 24 inches 5 Medium/Large Greater Than 24 inches Tree 6 Multi Layered Size 5 Over Size 4 Or 3; Total Tree Crown Closure Greater Than 60 percent Wildlife Habitat Relationships, Tree Density DENSITY RANGE S 10 to 24 percent P 25 to 39 percent M 40 to 59 percent D 60 to 100 percent UPDATE SOURCE DATE CODE DESCRIPTION mm/dd/yy Month,day, year of source date or most recent update UPDATE CAUSE CODE DESCRIPTION F Fire related update A Accuracy assessment related update R Plantation related update C Update cause unkown H Harvest related update S Source image D Change detection related update Appendix E PLACER LEGACY DRAFT STRATEGY FOR THE CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Peter F. Brussard University of Nevada, Reno Thomas Reid Thomas Reid Associates Diana Stralberg Loren Clark Placer County Planning Department Tracy Grubbs Sierra Business Council INTRODUCTION In 1994 Placer County updated and adopted its General Plan, which contains numerous goals, policies, and programs that encourage the conservation of open space and the protection of agricultural resources. In 1998 the County formed a partnership with the Sierra Business Council to initiate the preparation of an implementation program to accomplish these goals. The result was the Placer Legacy Open Space and Agricultural Conservation Program. Placer Legacy is guided by an eleven member Citizens Advisory Committee that provides recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. An Interagency Working Group, consisting of representatives from state and federal agencies and local governments with jurisdiction in Placer County, will ensure that Placer Legacy is in compliance with all laws, regulations, policies, and ordinances. An independent Scientific Working Group will ensure that the conservation actions recommended by the County and its consultants are scientifically sound. The Placer County Planning Department, working with Thomas Reid Associates and other consultants, is now developing open space and agricultural conservation strategies in coordination with the Citizens Advisory Committee and appropriate local, state, and federal agencies. Open space issues include agricultural conservation, public safety, cultural resources, community edges and urban separators, outdoor recreation, and biological resources. This draft conservation strategy specifically addresses biological resources. CONSERVATION STRATEGY The biological resources conservation strategy of the Placer Legacy project intends to conserve biodiversity county-wide. It will do this by implementing the open-space and habitat conservation policies and programs contained in the 1994 General Plan and numerous community plans. Conservation areas and easements will be acquired only from willing sellers. It is anticipated that the costs of implementing the plan will be covered both by public funding and development impact Appendix E fees. General goals are (1) to conserve representative natural habitats within the Great Valley, Foothill, and Sierra Nevada ecoregions, (2) to identify and conserve smaller sensitive communities at the scales at which they occur, (3) to maintain or restore key ecosystem processes, and (4) whenever, possible, to reduce threats to biodiversity (e.g., unnecessary habitat conversion, fragmentation, or degradation; disruption of ecosystem processes; invasive exotic species). REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Much land in Placer County is privately held, and a substantial portion of the currently undeveloped private land is already entitled for development. If state or federally listed species are involved, developers will have to secure incidental take permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, or California Fish and Game. The cost of a permit is mitigation through a Section 7 consultation or a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under federal law or a more comprehensive Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under state law, plus the time it takes to negotiate these. If each developer has to negotiate his/her own HCP, mitigation tends to be done piecemeal and is dependent upon the landowner to provide the appropriate conservation measures. However, if Placer County develops an HCP or NCCP, mitigation can be coordinated, conservation standards and objectives can be set higher, and a much more effective reserve design will result plus the burden on the each individual landowner can be reduced. Furthermore, an HCP or NCCP will guarantee that lands set aside for conservation will be protected over the long term as specified in the applicable plan and not subject to the whims of politics. Conservation actions under Placer Legacy will be far more efficient under an HCP or NCCP because of its county-wide scope and long planning horizon. Placer County has developed a comprehensive database for conservation planning that is appropriate in scale and detail. In addition, the County will be in a much better position to acquire conservation lands outright, purchase conservation easements, undertake restoration projects, and develop incentives for sustainable use that correspond to local community values than would any individual effort. Placer Legacy will develop a countywide HCP/ NCCP in three distinct planning phases which are tied to habitat types. Planning phases have been prioritized by the immediacy of the threat to species in these habitat types. Table 1 shows the proposed schedule for phasing. ______Table 1. Major planning phases and conservation targets for regulatory compliance in Placer County. Phase 1 Western County vernal pool/grassland valley riparian salmonid habitat in streams Phase 2 Foothills foothill oak woodland E-2 Appendix E East Side Sierra Nevada Martis Valley/Tahoe Phase 3 West Side Sierra Nevada public and private timberlands East Side Sierra Nevada public and private timberlands ______ WESTERN COUNTY AND FOOTHILLS Valley Grassland/Vernal Pools Prior to European settlement, the valley grassland habitat was most likely a perennial bunchgrass prairie. The introduction of domestic livestock and the seeds of alien annual grasses, large-scale cultivation, and changes in the fire regime have resulted in the replacement of the original prairie with annual grassland. Valley grassland now consists mostly of introduced annuals, although native bunchgrasses and forbs occur sparsely throughout and some remnant stands of native prairie still may occur. The valley grassland community occurs as a ring around the Central Valley from sea level to about 3900 feet and also forms the understory for oak woodlands. Valley grasslands in Placer County are habitat for numerous sensitive animal species including Swainson's hawk and the burrowing owl, and they support the majority of the county's vernal pools. Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that form in shallow depressions of various sizes at sites where soils contain an impermeable layer that produces a perched water table. The depressions fill during winter rains and dry out completely by spring or summer. There are two types of vernal pools in Placer County. Northern volcanic mudflow vernal pools occur on Tertiary volcanic mudflows called lahars. These small pools form in irregular depressions in gently sloping surfaces on the Merhten Formation. A second type, northern hardpan vernal pools occur on acidic soils on old alluvial fans ringing the Central Valley. Pools tend to be clustered in archipelagos in localities where the proper conditions for their formation occur. California vernal pool vegetation is characterized by high endemism, and more than 70% of the plant species are native annuals. Introduced species comprise less than 7% of this flora; unlike the surrounding grassland, vernal pools have resisted invasions well. The number of species within an individual pool (alpha diversity) is usually low and is related to pool area, pool depth, and the amount of bare ground. However, the number of species among pools in an archipelago (beta diversity) is quite high. Thus, typical vernal pool plants are characterized by highly subdivided populations with low genetically effective sizes and low dispersability. A few vertebrates such as salamanders and spadefoot toads use vernal pools for breeding, but the vast majority of the pool fauna consists of invertebrates. Listed species that are found in vernal pools in Placer County include the vernal pool fairy shrimp and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp and one plant, the Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop. E-3 Appendix E Valley grassland/vernal pool habitats continue to disappear under agricultural, residential, and industrial development. Most of the few remaining pools have been damaged or disturbed, and they continue to face a variety of threats including inappropriate livestock grazing, off-highway vehicle use, watershed alteration, and trash dumping. Conservation efforts will focus on archipelagos of vernal pools; fencing off a single pool surrounded by development is not an effective strategy because of the low alpha diversity of individual pools. Furthermore, because of the complexity of vernal pool habitats and their associated watersheds, strategies for their conservation must include the surrounding grasslands. In particular, adequate habitat for the pollinators of the vernal pool flora must be included. The areal requirements of these pollinators is currently unknown but is a high-priority for future research (see below). We estimate that between 3-5,000 acres of high-quality vernal pool/grassland habitat could be available for one or more core conservation areas within the County. These core areas will be obtained from willing sellers through purchases or easements and will be conserved independently of any mitigation for future development. Selection criteria for acquisitions of remnant grasslands include the amount of endemism, extent of disturbance, and type of land use. For grassland/vernal pool complexes additional criteria include hydrology, position in the watershed, pool density, and pool species diversity and composition. As buildout occurs, vernal pool mitigation, paid for by impact fees, will occur along the perimeter of the core areas. At the present time, the total area necessary for effective vernal pool conservation is not known. However, this is a high-priority research item (see below). Valley/Foothill Riparian Riparian areas perform vital ecological services such as dissipating stream energy associated with high water, filtering sediment, capturing bedload, aiding floodplain development, improving ground-water recharge, and providing key fish and wildlife habitat. Many species, including a large number of sensitive species, are dependent on riparian zones during some or all of their life cycles. Valley foothill riparian (VRI) habitats occur in the Great Valley and Sierra Nevada Foothills subregions from sea level to about 3000 feet. They are generally associated with low velocity flows, flood plains, and gentle topography. In Placer County they are associated with perennial streams such as the Bear River, Dry Creek, Coon Creek, Pleasant Grove Creek and Auburn Ravine. A healthy, mature VRI forest has a canopy layer of cottonwood, California sycamore, valley oak, or some combination of the three. Research has repeatedly demonstrated causal linkages between riparian condition and fish habitat quality. Particularly important functions of riparian forests are their ability to provide shade and a source of wood to streams and to regulate inputs of nutrients and other materials. It is also well known that maintaining the physical connection between riparian forests along fish-bearing streams and the rest of the stream network is a necessary prerequisite for high quality stream habitat. VRI habitats provide food, water, migration and dispersal corridors, and escape, nesting, and thermal cover for a number of wildlife species. Fifty-five species of mammals and 147 species of birds are known to use VRI habitats in the Central Valley region. This represents 30% of the mammals and 27% of the birds in the entire state. E-4 Appendix E Periodic disturbance by flooding is necessary to maintain healthy riparian habitats. Thus, management prescriptions for upstream impoundments and diversions will have to be examined and possibly revised. Furthermore, the management of riparian ecosystems has to focus not only on the zone of vegetation immediately adjacent to the stream but also on a broader region that has direct influence on the stream. This broader area has three overlapping zones, (1) a community influence zone, the area recognized as clearly riparian, (2) the energy influence zone which includes all the riparian area that is likely to contribute energy and structure to the aquatic ecosystem, and (3) the land use influence zone in which human activity is likely to influence the aquatic ecosystem by increasing nutrients, sediment, and other factors. The land use influence zone increases as a function of the type of disturbance, the steepness of surrounding hillsides, and the erodibility of soils. Inappropriate livestock grazing also has a major impact on riparian zones. These relationships are probably multiplicative. Establishing variable-width riparian management zones (buffer strips) based on stream attributes, the riparian community, and hill-slope gradients, is probably the most effective strategy for conserving riparian zones. This action will result in stabilized stream banks and shoreline and improved water quality, help ensure viability of native species, maintain special habitats and plant and animal community diversity, increase watershed connectivity, maintain floodplains and water tables, and moderate streamflow and sedimentation. Developing scientifically sound guidelines for determining the width of riparian buffer strips is another high-priority research item (see below). Placer Legacy's conservation plan for valley/foothill riparian communities is to (1) establish and implement over time variable-width riparian management zones and restore riparian connectivity along key creeks using conservation easements from willing sellers, and (2) rehabilitate degraded stream reaches for frog/salmonid habitat in favorable localities by working with the 20 or so federal, state, and local agencies and private groups with ongoing projects and responsibilities in this area. Salmonid Habitat in Streams Anadromous salmonids (trout and salmon) have declined because dam construction prevents them from reaching much of their spawning habitat and because the accessible spawning habitats have been degraded from timber harvest, mining, road construction, and other activities that threaten stream and riparian quality. Overfishing and competition with hatchery salmon have played a role in the plight of native salmonids as well. Although all of the County's major streams supported anadromous salmonids, the Bear River was the only historically significant contributor to the total number of these fish in the Central Valley. Currently, west Placer County streams contribute more to genetic diversity than to total population numbers of any anadromous fish species. Placer Legacy's contribution to anadromous salmonid restoration will be to restore and maintain healthy tributary streams and riparian zones as discussed above. Oak Woodland Oak woodland is a 20- to 30-mile wide belt of oak-dominated communities growing between open grassland and montane forest or chaparral. The dominant trees are deciduous oaks, Quercus E-5 Appendix E lobata (valley oak), and Quercus douglasii (blue oak) along with Quercus wislizenii (interior live oak). At higher elevations, foothill (digger) pine, Pinus sabiniana, and black oak, Quercus kelloggii become important components in these communities. Ground cover in oak woodlands, except in rare remnant stands, is usually dominated by introduced annual grasses and forbs. Understory shrubs often are few and concentrated on shallower soils. Oak woodlands are important wildlife habitat, with over 300 vertebrate species relying on them for feeding, cover, or nesting sites. These communities are also very important to water quantity and quality, and they provide public recreation and aesthetics. Since European settlement, oak woodlands have been managed primarily for livestock and firewood production, and over 80% are in private ownership. Historically, losses of oak woodlands occurred because of clearing for range improvements and agriculture and fuel wood harvest. Old aerial photographs show that many of the existing oak woodlands in small-parcel rural residential areas are second-growth stands that have replaced fruit orchards abandoned about 50 years ago. The major losses of oak woodland now are from intensive residential and industrial development. Poor oak and understory shrub recruitment and regeneration are problems in some areas. Oak woodlands present a substantial management challenge at the landscape scale; road networks, fragmentation, and increasing interface with urban areas pose major threats to their biodiversity. Road networks increase wildlife mortality and provide invasion opportunities for invasive exotic species; fragmentation results in the isolation of small, extinction-prone populations; and urban encroachment brings household pets, humans, and fuels management policies into these habitats. If approved by the Board of Supervisors, Placer Legacy will attempt to acquire by purchase or easement a substantial acreage of oak woodlands in the area bisected by Coon Creek and the Bear River. This area has the largest stands of undeveloped and unfragmented oak woodlands in Placer County and is adjacent to similar stands in Nevada County. If successful acquisitions are made, the area will be managed as a regional park/conservation reserve. Most of the oak woodland in the southern and central parts of the county is zoned for rural residential development. In this area Placer Legacy will undertake a vigorous outreach and education program to educate land owners about the biological values of oak woodlands. This education program will be accompanied by a concerted effort to encourage landowners to adopt voluntary conservation and fire safety guidelines for their properties. Placer Legacy also will identify properties for easements to enhance north-south and east-west connectivity in the oak woodland zone. Ideally, such properties should be part of large, contiguous, high-quality stands of oak woodlands with connectivity to riparian zones. Both east- west and north-south connectivity in this zone are important to the County's biodiversity. The persistence of many foothill species depends on north-south connectivity, and up-elevation range shifts facilitated by east-west connectivity may allow for the persistence of species that can no longer live at lower elevations because of global warming. E-6 Appendix E Research is currently underway in areas zoned as rural residential in the oak woodland zone to determine the extent to which native biodiversity is conserved along the development-density gradient (see below). SIERRA NEVADA Habitat Types A series of major habitat belts resulting from changes in elevation and topography runs lengthwise (primarily north-south) along the Sierra Nevada. Most of these belts can be further subdivided into habitat types determined by elevation, exposure, soils, and past disturbance. Zonal habitat types develop within certain elevational boundaries on well-drained sites with moderate slope and well-developed soils. Intrazonal habitat types occur within or are interspersed with zonal habitats in places that have poor drainage, steep slopes, or unusual soils. Azonal habitat types, such as riparian zones and wet meadows, develop wherever the right conditions occur at any elevation. The major habitat belts and habitat types are shown in Table 2. ______Table 2. Major Sierra Nevada habitat types. ZONAL AND INTRAZONAL HABITATS Foothill woodland/chaparral belt (900'-5,600') Chamise-redshank chaparral Mixed chaparral Westside yellow pine belt (2,600'-7,900') Ponderosa pine Sierran mixed-conifer Montane hardwood-conifer Closed-cone pine. Montane hardwood White fir Eastside yellow pine belt (5,000'-6,500') Bitterbrush. Eastside pine Jeffrey pine Lodgepole pine-red fir belt (7,000'-10,000') Lodgepole pine Red fir Aspen Subalpine belt (9,000'-11,000') Subalpine conifer Alpine belt (10,600'-up) Alpine dwarf-shrub E-7 Appendix E AZONAL HABITATS Montane chaparral Montane riparian Wet meadow ______ In many respects, these are the most important habitat types in the County. Most of them are forests, and forests are fundamental to sustainability. Not only do forests provide commercial timber, fuel, many non-wood products, and recreation, but they also provide invaluable environmental services. They protect watersheds and thus regulate the quantity and quality of water flows. They protect soils with their moisture and nutrients. They modulate climate at local and regional levels through regulation of precipitation and albedo, and they help to slow global warming by acting as carbon sinks. These forest habitats also are home to a number of sensitive species including the bald eagle, northern goshawk, California spotted owl, Sierra Nevada red fox, and California wolverine. Conservation Needs The conservation of these habitat types is critically important for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in Placer County, but the checkerboard ownership pattern in the Sierra Nevada makes effective management at the landscape scale a major challenge. Public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management are interspersed with privately-owned lands. Much of the private land is owned by large corporations, but there are also many smaller holdings. Placer Legacy will provide opportunities for coordinated land management between a variety of public and private partners. Since so little is understood about how to manage entire landscapes to retain their ecological integrity, adaptive management approaches must be adopted by these partnerships. In 2000, the U.S. Forest Service is expected to amend 11 forest plans affecting nine million acres of public lands in the Sierra Nevada. The Agency's purpose is to address concerns related to the degradation of aquatic, riparian, old growth, and hardwood ecosystems. Placer County will review the several alternatives presented in the Agency's environmental impact statement and support the plan that will best protect and restore ecological processes and contribute to long- term ecological sustainability and human well-being. The County also will urge the Forest Service to exercise decisive leadership to bring about a new era of management for ecological and economic sustainability. Major Questions The following questions have been identified as important to ecological sustainability in the Sierra Nevada. However, these have not yet been addressed by the Citizen's Advisory Committee, the Interagency Work Group, or the Scientific Working Group in any detail. They will be addressed in Phase 3. Watershed restoration. What are the most effective and cost-effective ways to restore degraded watersheds? Suggested actions include the restoration of natural ecological processes, the rehabilitation of wet meadows, the reduction of road densities, the E-8 Appendix E establishment and maintenance of variable-width riparian buffers, and the strengthening of mitigation measures related to dams and other water developments. Wildlife habitat. What is the most effective way to support a diversity of wildlife and other species? Maintaining a variety of successional stages, including late-successional- old growth, is assumed to be very important. Sensitive areas. Ecologically significant areas and other conservation areas have been identified by the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, the Nature Conservancy, the California Native Plant Society, and other organizations. Should these areas receive special attention from Placer Legacy? Connectivity. A high level of landscape connectivity is critical to species persistence. Establishing and maintaining habitat connectivity will require land management agencies to coordinate with adjacent public and private landowners. How can this best be accomplished? Fire management. Can a regional approach to fire management be developed that is biodiversity-friendly, restores the natural role of fire within habitat types and across landscapes, reduces the risk of fire at the urban-wildland interface, and focuses fire suppression efforts in areas where substantial threat to human life and property may exist? Timber harvest. Does following best forest practices on both public and private lands significantly lessen the impacts of timber harvest? Are these practices especially important on lands adjacent to streams and wet meadows? Genetic diversity. The genetic diversity of forest resources is critical to sustainability. How can methods for conserving this diversity be developed and implemented on both public and private lands? Residential development. Many private lands in the Sierra Nevada are planned for or undergoing intensive residential development (e.g., Martis Valley, Squaw Valley, Alpine Meadows, and the Truckee River corridor). How can the impacts of these developments on ecological sustainability be minimized? Land exchanges and acquisitions. How can land exchanges and acquisitions be most useful in helping consolidate public land into larger and more manageable blocks? Monitoring. How can a scientifically sound regional monitoring program for tracking ecological and socioeconomic trends and assessing the results of adaptive management actions be developed and implemented effectively? PRIORITIZED RESEARCH NEEDS The following research needs have been identified as critical to effective conservation planning (Phases 1-3) and implementation (implementation phase). Although the information from Phase 1 projects will be needed before the information from projects focused on later phases, all of these projects should be funded and contracted as soon as possible. E-9 Appendix E Riparian Buffer Strips (Phase 1) Establishing variable-width riparian management zones (buffer strips) is probably the most effective strategy for conserving riparian zones. Thus, developing scientifically sound guidelines for determining the width of riparian buffer strip is a high priority. The product of this research must be a predictive model that uses stream attributes, soil types, topography, and kinds of disturbance to determine the community influence zone, the energy influence zone, and the land use influence zone. Vernal Pools (Phase 1) Patterns of alpha and beta diversity in vernal pool complexes in Placer County is essentially unknown, although this information is critical for effective reserve design. Furthermore, little information is available on the habitat requirements of pollinators of vernal pool plants. This information is critical to establish adequate buffers around vernal pool complexes. Research that addresses both of these questions should begin as soon as possible. Remnant Stands of Native Grassland (Phase 1) The California Native Plant Society will survey Placer County during the spring of 2000. If this survey locates any remnant stands of native bunchgrass prairie, these stands will be a high conservation priority. Groundtruthing Geographic Information System Layers (Phases 1-3) Over the past year the County has obtained an impressive electronic spatial database relevant to biological resource conservation. Coverages include vegetation, soils, land use, wildlife habitat relationships, riparian and vernal pool areas, known locations of sensitive species, and parcel ownership. Some of these coverages will need ground-truthing, however. These coverages need to be identified and the relevant information obtained in the field as soon as possible. Species Information (Phases 1-3) Placer County supports several hundred species of vertebrates, over a thousand species of vascular plants, and an indeterminate, but very large, number of invertebrates, nonvascular plants, fungi, and microbes. Planning for all of these species is clearly impossible. Thus, several groups of target species must be used as surrogates for species diversity in general. Information must be acquired on the following target groups as soon as possible for HCP/NCCP development and to maintain citizen interest in Placer Legacy. Species of conservation concern are species that are federally or state listed, proposed for listing, candidates for listing, or have a high likelihood of being listed during Placer Legacy's planning horizon. If these species are likely subject to "take" during future development, and if federal and state standards for issuing take authorizations are met by the biological resources conservation plan, species in this group may receive take authorizations. "Species profiles" of the 125 or so species that fit into this category are currently in preparation; about three quarters of them have been completed. Information contained in the species profiles includes regulatory status (state and federal), basic life history information, current distribution and abundance statewide and in Placer County, threats to persistence, potential conservation strategy, proposed monitoring program, and literature references and other sources of information. Species profiles will be peer-reviewed by both independent scientists and agency E-10 Appendix E biologists; after review they will be available to the general public on the "placerbiodiversity.com" web site. Regional endemics include species that are not listed but are known to have regionally significant populations in the county and are important to include in the planning process to ensure their long-term regional viability (e.g., California slender salamander, Batrachoseps attenuatus). Flagship species are species that are not rare or threatened but are popular with the general public. Although most are well covered by existing regulations, their inclusion in Placer Legacy planning is important to maintain citizen interest. Examples are oaks, mule deer, black bear, mountain lions, and western bluebirds. The presence of species of conservation concern, regional endemics, and flagship species on conservation lands or lands slated for development will be determined by field surveys as access allows. Small Patch Ecosystems and Associated Species (Phase 1-3) The present collection of vegetation coverages is adequate to identify coarse-scale ecosystems of matrix-forming vegetation and large-patch ecosystems. The former are defined by general, widespread climatic and elevational gradients (e.g., foothill woodland/chaparral belt, westside yellow pine belt), while the latter are relatively discrete communities defined by distinct physical factors and environmental regimes (e.g., chamise-redshank chaparral, closed-cone pine, montane chaparral, valley-foothill riparian). While these GIS coverages are adequate for much conservation planning, additional work will be necessary to identify small-patch ecosystems. These ecosystems, a few square meters to a few thousand hectares in extent, tend to be relatively discrete, geomorphologically defined, and spatially fixed; they often occur because of distinct abiotic factors (geologic outcrops, unique soils, or hydrologic features). Many local-scale invertebrate and plant species are closely connected with specific small-patch ecosystems. These species tend to be poor dispersers or they may be small-patch ecosystem specialists that exist as metapopulations. Examples include plants restricted to unusual soil types, amphibians known from only a few localities, or bats that require caves. Many of these species will require species-specific or site-specific conservation, management, and monitoring. The first step in locating these small-patch ecosystems and their associated species will be to assemble GIS coverages of topography, geology, vegetation, and soils at a sufficiently fine scale to identify both areas of rapid environmental change and "islands" of unusual soils, rock outcrops, topographic features (e.g., cliffs), or vegetation types and to identify small hydrologic features such as seeps and springs. The second step will be to survey these areas (at least those on public land or on privately-owned land for which access can be obtained) for unique elements of biodiversity. Right now the County does not have the staff or resources necessary for such an undertaking, but it would be an excellent project for one or more graduate students. There are a number of important outcomes of such a project. First, it will demonstrate that Placer Legacy has examined biodiversity at all relevant scales throughout the entire county. It will help E-11 Appendix E pinpoint potential locations of unique communities and species, and it can serve as a good demonstration to the public of what already has been lost. This project also will provide baseline data from which to model potential changes in biodiversity under various management scenarios. Moreover, such a study can help make the point that unique biodiversity can be found in many small areas throughout the county and that landowners should be careful stewards of these resources. Oak Woodlands (Phase 2) Research has begun to assess the pattern of species persistence along an urbanization and road- impact gradient in the oak woodland zone. The hypothesis to be tested is that species occurrences in this zone are more related to the intensity of land use than to biophysical factors (e.g., soils, exposure, slope). Since the biodiversity of oak woodlands consists of thousands of species of microbes, plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates, two indicator taxa that have proved previously to be useful in this regard (birds and butterflies) have been selected as surrogates for biodiversity as a whole. This research should be completed by the spring of 2001. Additional coverages will be necessary to establish the spatial arrangement of oak woodland patches and types of connectivity among them. Computer modeling will be necessary to evaluate the range of conservation options available. Other important research topics include (1) determining the types and densities of key habitat elements necessary to maintain biodiversity in the oak woodland habitat, and (2) identifying the appropriate combination of disturbance, acorn supply, spring precipitation, and predator pressure that leads to successful oak regeneration. Sierra Nevada River Basins (Phase 3) The major river basins (e.g., North Fork of the American, Middle Fork of the Rubicon, Bear, Yuba, Truckee) and the lower-order streams that drain into them have been identified as high conservation priorities. However, a detailed GIS analysis of these watersheds will be a prerequisite for informed decision-making, and this has not yet been done. Monitoring and Adaptive Management (implementation phase) Placer Legacy will develop adaptive management plans for its conservation lands. Adaptive management is far more than simply trial and error tinkering; rather, it has several key and obligatory steps which include a clear statement of management goals and objectives, conceptual models that explore policy alternatives, targeted research to provide necessary knowledge, selection of appropriate indicators for monitoring, monitoring of indicators, assessment of management effectiveness, and a clear connection between data and further management actions. Indicators for monitoring will include land cover measured by aerial photographs, population trends in species of conservation concern, presence of habitat indicator species, regional endemics, species associated with unique microenvironments, and invasive exotics such as star thistle. Additional monitoring may be specified in performance standards for a HCP/NCCP. Habitat indicator species. Many species that are small and difficult to survey will be conserved by conserving healthy habitats, so it is critical to identify more easily surveyed species that are sensitive to the general effects of land use. Taxa that include such species are freshwater mussels, E-12 Appendix E crayfish, amphibians, fishes, flowering plants, conifers, ferns, tiger beetles, odonates (dragonflies and damselflies), reptiles, butterflies (including skippers), mammals (especially bats), and birds. A suite of habitat indicator species will be selected from these taxa for each of the conservation lands in Placer Legacy. Species selected will be habitat-specific, relatively easy to sample, abundant enough to get reasonable sample sizes, and, whenever possible, chosen from taxa that are popular with the public. Habitat indicator species could include both resident species and species that use habitats in the county for migration or wintering. Population trends in species of conservation concern. If a species of conservation concern is found to be declining, the first step in reversing that trend is to determine whether it is declining because of a shortage of habitat (area-limited), a shortage of critical resources (resource-limited), an inability to disperse between suitable habitat (dispersal-limited), or is process-limited, (i.e., it would be able to persist if the habitat were managed in a different way). Area-limited species need additional habitat; species unable to disperse across unsuitable habitat require enhanced connectivity. The critical resource(s) identified as limiting for resource-limited species must be increased to a level that meets their needs. For process-limited species it is necessary to identify the processes (population, community, ecosystem) that are limiting and determine how these processes are linked to the persistence of these species, to show explicitly that designated conservation areas will support the appropriate intensity, rate, and frequency of these processes, and to demonstrate, at least qualitatively, how other management actions might affect these processes. Some species may not be limited by any of the above factors (e.g., it is not clear whether declining amphibians are primarily area-, resource-, dispersal-, or process-limited; many amphibian declines seem to be far too complex to fit neatly into these boxes). Others may be declining because of more straightforward problems such as the invasion of exotics such as star thistle or bullfrogs. In addition, many species themselves control key processes (e.g., gray foxes are key mesopredators and quite sensitive to urbanization). The complexities of managing multi-species reserves should not be underestimated. County-wide Monitoring (implementation phase) Placer Legacy also needs to develop a set of indicators that communicates information about changes and trends in the county's environment as a whole in much the same way as employment and inflation rates indicate the health of the economy. This set of environmental indicators will help focus appropriate attention on ecological conditions and help guide informed policy choices. These indicators must be credible, understandable, quantifiable, and broadly applicable. The data that support them must be clear and interpreted objectively. While some relevant data already are being collected regionally by federal or state agencies, other data need to be obtained by the county. These data include land cover, ecosystem resilience, and ecosystem productivity. Land cover--the types and extent of wetlands, riparian areas, grasslands, vernal pools, etc.--should be surveyed and reported on every five years to determine how conditions are changing. Ecosystem resilience (the capacity of ecosystems to sustain themselves) can be measured by trends in species diversity (as indicated by changes in lists of species of concern), invasive species, nutrient runoff, and soil quality; and a number of indices (e.g., NDVI) can measure ecosystem productivity directly from Landsat data. E-13 Appendix F A GUIDE TO PLACER COUNTY ECOLOGICAL ZONES A GUIDE TO AQUATIC AND WETLAND HABITATS - Peter F. Brussard (7/7/99) INTRODUCTION Aquatic and wetland habitats in Placer County include riverine (rivers or streams), lacustrine (lakes and ponds), and fresh emergent wetlands. Riverine, or lotic, habitats are characterized by intermittent or continually running water, while lacustrine (lentic) habitats are the water contained in inland depressions or dammed riverine channels. Riverine habitats range from small, headwater streams to major rivers; lacustrine habitats vary from small ponds to large lakes and reservoirs. Vernal pools are technically lacustrine habitats, but because of their conservation importance in Placer County they are treated separately. Fresh emergent wetlands (FEWs) may occur in association with various terrestrial habitats or with riverine or lacustrine habitats. FEWs range in size from small patches to areas covering several square miles. The boundary between wetland and upland habitats is generally considered to be the boundary between hydric and non-hydric soils. The boundary between wetlands and lacustrine or riverine habitats is the deep water edge of the emergent vegetation, about 6.6 feet in depth. DISTRIBUTION These habitats are found throughout California and Placer County. Lacustrine habitats can be found at virtually all elevations, but riverine and FEW habitats are more common below 7500-8000 feet. An enormous acreage of FEWs once occurred in the Sacramento Valley, but most of this was drained and converted to agriculture. VEGETATION Riverine habitats can be subdivided into an open water zone (depth greater than 6.6 feet), a submerged zone between open water and the shore, and the shore. Small streams may not have an open water zone. If the current is slow enough, rooted vegetation may occur in the submerged zone. If vegetation on the shore has a canopy cover of greater than 10% it is considered to be riparian habitat. Lacustrine habitats also show zonation. The limnetic, or open water zone, extends from the deepest part to the depth of effective light penetration. The littoral zone is shallow enough to permit light penetration and occurs at the edges of lakes and throughout most ponds. Rooted aquatic plants can occur in this zone. The shoreline zone borders on the water; if it has more than 2% vegetative cover it is classified as riparian. Fresh Emergent Wetlands are characterized by saturated or periodically flooded soils that support some combination of rushes, sedges, nutgrass, saltgrass, cattail, bulrush, and arrowhead. Vegetation may be distributed as concentric zones that follow basin contours and reflect the relative depth and duration of flooding, or if the bottom of the wetland is very uneven, the vegetation zones may be patchy rather than concentric. Appendix F FISHES AND WILDLIFE Fresh Emergent Wetlands are among the most productive wildlife habitats in California. They provide food, cover, and water for more than 160 species of birds and numerous mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Many species rely on this habitat type for their entire life cycle. Lacustrine habitats are used by 18 mammals, 101 birds, 9 reptiles, and 22 amphibians for reproduction, food, cover, and water. This represents about 23% of the terrestrial vertebrates in California. The open water zone of large rivers provides resting and escape cover for many species of waterfowl, and many fish-eating birds forage there. Near-shore waters and shoreline provide habitat for numerous fish-eating and insectivorous birds and mammals. Several Placer County species of particular interest, the Central Valley steelhead, chinook salmon, Sacramento splittail, and foothill yellow-legged frog, are completely dependent on healthy riverine habitats. Tahoe yellow-cress is confined to the shoreline zone of Lake Tahoe. The giant garter snake and the California black rail use FEWs almost exclusively. Lahontan cutthroat trout, mountain yellow-legged frog, and bald eagle use both riverine and lacustrine habitats, and the California red-legged frog and the peregrine falcon use those habitats plus fresh emergent wetlands. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT In California, where a large and growing human population competes with aquatic organisms for limited supplies of fresh water, amphibian populations are declining precipitously, and 77 of the115 native fish species are either extinct or in danger of extinction within the next 50 years. The situation with other aquatic organisms is presumably just as bad or worse, but their status is poorly known. The acreage of fresh emergent wetlands in California has decreased dramatically since the turn of the century due to drainage and conversion to other uses, primarily agriculture. Clearly, virtually all aquatic and wetland habitats in the state are in need of major conservation actions. Necessary management actions for aquatic and wetland conservation include (1) organizing management by watershed boundaries, not by administrative units or political borders; (2) restoring natural hydrologic regimes, including low and high flow events; (3) reconnecting rivers to their floodplains by de-channelization and other means; (4) restoring and managing riparian areas properly; (5) reducing or eliminating populations of non-native fishes, amphibians, invertebrates, and plants; (6) controlling water quality by decreasing nutrient and toxin loading and sedimentation; and (7) and educating people on the economic, aesthetic, and other values of properly functioning ecosystems. REFERENCES Mayer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. (eds.) 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California. California Resources Agency, Sacramento. Moyle, P.B., and R.M. Yoshiyama. 1994. Protection of aquatic biodiversity in California: A five- tiered approach. Fisheries 19: 6-18. Williams, J.E., and G.E. Davis. 1996. Strategies for ecosystem-based conservation of fish communities. Pp. 347-358 in Szaro, R.C., and D.W. Johnston (Eds.), Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes. Oxford University Press, NY. F-2 Appendix F A GUIDE TO VALLEY GRASSLAND HABITATS - Peter F. Brussard (7/7/99) INTRODUCTION Prior to European settlement, the Valley Grassland ecosystem was most likely a bunchgrass prairie with native annual grasses and forbs filling the interspaces between the bunchgrasses. Unfortunately, no detailed descriptions of the original community, other than “excellent pasture,” exist. However, botanists are fairly certain that the dominant bunchgrass was Stipa pulchra, purple needlegrass. Permanent alterations to the original ecosystem began when Europeans first reached the Americas. First, seeds of alien plant species, including scores of annual grasses, arrived in packing material, hay, and debris from Spain, and once these species became locally established, they were widely distributed throughout California by birds, mammals, and human activity. Second, domestic livestock shifted the timing and extent of grazing. Although the original bunchgrass prairie supported large numbers of native grazing ungulates, they tended to be seasonal residents. Livestock were maintained in the grasslands throughout the year and in increasingly large numbers during the gold rush period and afterward. Yearlong, heavy grazing favored the introduced annual grasses at the expense of the native perennial bunchgrasses. Third, large-scale cultivation which began in the Valley Grassland ecosystem during the latter half of the 19th century also has contributed to the replacement of the original prairie. Abandoned farmland came back as annual grassland rather than as the original community. Fourth, changes in the fire regime also may have favored annual grasses. DISTRIBUTION Valley Grassland occurs as a ring around the Central Valley from sea level to about 3900 feet. It also forms the understory for oak woodland communities. It borders on Valley Foothill Riparian, Fresh Emergent Wetland, Cropland, Orchard-Vineyard, and Pasture habitats at lower elevations and merges into woodland and chaparral habitats in the foothills. VEGETATION The Valley Grassland ecosystem now consists of a wide mixture of species, mostly introduced, annuals. Grasses include wild oats, soft chess, ripgut brome, red brome, wild barley, and foxtail fescue, and forbs include filaree, mullein, clovers, and many others. The boundaries of this ecosystem are probably little different from the original perennial prairie. A few small remnants of the original ecosystem still exist, and most of the original perennial species can still be found as scattered individuals throughout the ecosystem. The annual plants begin to germinate in the fall with the first good rains, grow slowly through the winter, grow rapidly in the spring, and mature between late April and June. A few warm-season annuals may reach their peak growth in summer. Since soil water deficits characterize this ecosystem for 4-8 months every year, most of the vegetation lives through the dry season in the seed stage. F-3 Appendix F WILDLIFE The original Valley Grassland ecosystem supported large numbers of pronghorn, deer, tule elk, jackrabbits and rodents. As European man and his domestic animals rapidly increased in numbers in the 1850s, the larger wild animals diminished, but the smaller ones remained numerous. The Valley Grassland ecosystem is still habitat for numerous native reptiles, birds, and mammals. Placer County species of particular interest include the California tiger salamander, Swainson’s hawk, the burrowing owl, and the mountain plover (if it occurs in the county at all). CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT Valley Grassland ecosystems continue to disappear under agricultural, residential, and industrial development, so their conservation should be an important goal for Placer Legacy. This dovetails well with open space conservation for agriculture, since these grasslands need to be managed as grazing systems. In the absence of livestock, annual grassland habitats often become dominated by tall, dense stands of grasses such as ripgut brome and wild oats that are not used by many wildlife species. In fact, annual grasslands can withstand fairly heavy livestock use with little soil erosion, high productivity, and little change in floristic composition. The introduced grasses are now permanent members of the ecosystem, and their elimination is inconceivable. Thus, they should be thought of as naturalized plant species rather than as invading species characteristic of rangeland in poor condition. REFERENCES Heady, H.F. 1977. Valley grassland. Pp. 491-513 in Barbour, M.G. and J. Major, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. John Wiley and Sons, NY. Mayer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. (eds.) 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California. California Resources Agency, Sacramento. Sawyer, J.O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. F-4 Appendix F A GUIDE TO OAK WOODLAND HABITATS - Peter F. Brussard (7/7/99) INTRODUCTION “Oak woodland” is a zone of oak-dominated communities growing between open grassland and montane forest or chaparral. The dominant trees are deciduous oaks, Quercus lobata (valley oak), and Quercus douglasii (blue oak). At higher elevations, foothill (digger) pine, Pinus sabiniana, becomes an important component in these communities. The lower elevational border of oak woodland is well defined by the absence of oak trees and the appearance of true grassland. The upper border, where an increasingly dense woodland becomes forest, is more difficult to define. Relict forest trees well within the present woodland zone and eroded forest soils that are now supporting woodland suggest that the upper border may have moved upward after destructive logging and severe burning of the lowest elevation forests occurred. Ground cover in oak woodlands is now dominated by introduced annual grasses and forbs. Understory shrubs are few and concentrated on shallower soils. Since European settlement, oak woodlands have been managed primarily for livestock production, and over 80% are in private ownership. Historically, losses of oak woodlands occurred because of clearing for range improvements and agriculture; the major losses now are from intensive residential and industrial development. Poor oak recruitment and regeneration is a major problem in many areas. In addition to their value as rangeland, oak woodlands are important wildlife habitat, and they provide public recreation and aesthetics. Since virtually all of the state’s water flows through or is impounded in the oak woodland belt, these communities are also very important to water quantity and quality. . DISTRIBUTION Oak woodlands occur in the Great Valley and Sierra Nevada Foothills subregions as a 20 to 30 mile wide belt ranging from nearly sea level to about 4500 feet in elevation. VEGETATION Oak woodland is conventionally divided into three different community types, valley oak woodland, blue oak woodland, and blue oak-foothill pine woodland. Valley oak woodland. On deep, well-drained alluvial soils, usually in valley bottoms, valley oak forms nearly pure, parklike stands of large trees (mature valley oaks range in height from 50-115 feet). A few live oaks (Q. wislizenii, interior live oak) may be mixed in. These stands blend into riparian forests (Valley Oak type of Valley Foothill Riparian) along stream courses and on active floodplains. The understory of valley oak woodland consists of a carpet of introduced annual grasses and forbs, and the shrub layer, if present, contains bird-dispersed species such as poison oak, toyon, and coffeeberry. At lower elevations, valley oak woodlands merge with annual F-5 Appendix F grasslands or border on agricultural land. In the foothills they intergrade with blue oak woodland or blue oak-digger pine woodland. Blue oak woodland. Blue oaks are relatively slow-growing, long-lived trees that can reach 80 feet in height. On shallower, well-drained upland soils, they form savanna-like stands on dry ridges and gentle slopes. Interior live oak and valley oak also may be present where the soils are deeper. The shrub layer in these communities is rarely extensive, often occurring only on rock outcrops. Shrubs include poison oak, coffeeberry, buckbrush, California buckeye, and several species of manzanita. The understory is typically composed of annual grassland species such as bromegrass, wild oats, foxtail, and fiddleneck. Blue oak woodland intergrades with annual grasslands or valley oak woodland at lower elevations and blue oak-foothill pine woodlands at higher elevations. Blue oaks are well adapted to dry, hilly terrain where the water table is usually unavailable, and they have an unusual tolerance for severe drought, shedding their leaves under extreme moisture stress. Blue oak-foothill pine woodland. This community differs from blue oak woodland in having conifer and shrub components. Blue oak and foothill pine typically comprise the overstory, with blue oak the most abundant species. Interior live oak and California buckeye are typical associates. The shrub layer is patchy and includes several species of manzanita, ceanothus, redberry, coffeeberry, poison oak, California yerba-santa, and California redbud. The understory consists of annual grasses and forbs. At lower elevations these woodlands merge with annual grassland, blue oak woodland, and valley oak woodland. At higher elevations, tree and shrub density and the number of evergreens increases until this community merges with mixed chaparral or forest types. WILDLIFE Oak woodlands are one of the richest wildlife habitats in California, with over 300 vertebrtate species relying on them for feeding, cover, or nesting sites during all or some part of the year. The California tiger salamander, Swainson’s hawk, and the Truckee barberry are Placer County species of particular interest that are found in oak woodlands. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT Oak woodlands have decreased by over 1,000,000 acres during the last 50 years because of agricultural, residential, and industrial development. Moreover, in many places, blue and valley oaks have reproduced poorly during this time period. Even when germination occurs, seedling survival usually fails. Valley oak regeneration. The failure of valley oak regeneration seems to be related to competition for soil nutrients and moisture between oak seedlings and introduced annuals, consumption of acorns and seedlings by wild and domestic animals, and flood control projects. Valley oaks are tolerant of flooding while other components of the community that are potential predators or competitors are not. Blue oak regeneration. Poor blue oak regeneration also is related to competition for soil moisture from introduced annual grasses and the consumption of acorns and seedlings by insects, domestic livestock, and wildlife. Blue oak is somewhat shade-intolerant, and disturbances producing openings in the canopy may be necessary for seedling growth and survival. F-6 Appendix F Livestock and wildlife relationships. Some ecologists think that the lack of regeneration in oak woodlands can be explained by the consumption of acorns and seedlings by cattle. However, the cessation of livestock grazing does not generally result in oak regeneration because wildlife and insects also cause heavy damage to acorns and seedlings. Populations of deer and many other species of mammals and birds that eat acorns and young oaks are probably more abundant now than in the past because of land use changes and predator control. However, some of these species have positive effects on oak regeneration; acorns buried by scrub jays, yellow-billed magpies, western gray squirrels, and California ground squirrels are more likely to germinate because they root better and are less likely to be eaten. Fire. Frequent fires historically occurred in oak woodlands, and fire control has affected regeneration negatively in both valley and blue oaks. Young trees of both species will sprout when fire damaged, but older trees will not. Thus, frequent fires tend to maintain oak stands of younger age classes, but a century of fire control has resulted in the predominance of older trees. When these stands eventually burn, they do not regenerate themselves. Furthermore, the absence of frequent, non-catastrophic ground fires encourages the invasion of evergreen oaks, and their seedlings seem to be more browse resistant than those of deciduous oaks. Conservation management. Active management of blue oak woodlands has increased regeneration in some areas. Recruitment enhancement techniques include reducing the intensity and duration of browsing pressure on woody vegetation, using fire to manipulate the understory, creating gaps in the canopy, and minimizing livestock use until regenerating blue oak saplings are taller than the browse level. For maintaining biodiversity in oak woodlands it is also necessary to conserve important habitat elements such as snags and downed wood. Oak woodlands also present a substantial management challenge at the landscape scale; fragmentation and increasing interface with urban areas pose major threats to their biodiversity. The former results in the isolation of small, extinction-prone populations, and the latter brings household pets, humans, and fire suppression policies in contact with these habitats, . Encouraging cluster development and conserving connecting corridors between oak woodlands can help reduce these threats. Oak woodlands offer an excellent opportunity for adaptive management to (1) identify the appropriate combination of disturbance, acorn supply, spring precipitation, and predator pressure that leads to successful regeneration, (2) determine the types and densities of key habitat elements necessary to maintain biodiversity at the stand scale, and (3) establish the spatial arrangement of oak woodland patches and types of connectivity among them that best conserves their biodiversity at the landscape scale. REFERENCES Griffin, J.R. 1977. Oak woodland. Pp. 383-415 in Barbour, M.G. and J. Major, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. John Wiley and Sons, NY. Mayer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. (eds.) 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California. California Resources Agency, Sacramento. F-7 Appendix F Sawyer, J.O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Standiford, R.B., J. Klein, and B. Garrison. 1996. Sustainability of Sierra Nevada Hardwood Rangelands. Pp. 637-680 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Vol II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. University of California Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, Davis. F-8 Appendix F A GUIDE TO VERNAL POOL HABITATS - Peter F. Brussard (7/7/99) INTRODUCTION Vernal pools or “hogwallows” are seasonal wetlands that form in shallow depressions of various sizes at sites where soils contain an impermeable layer such as caliche, claypan, hardpan, or some other material that produces a perched water table. The depressions fill during winter rains and dry out completely by spring or summer. Vernal pools have been a part of the California landscape for at least ten thousand years judging from the number of endemic species restricted to this habitat. There are two types of vernal pools in Placer County. Northern volcanic mudflow vernal pools occur on Tertiary volcanic mudflows called lahars. These are usually small pools, forming in irregular depressions in gently sloping surfaces. In the foothills of the Sierra Nevada this type of pool is found primarily on the Merhten Formation. A second type, northern hardpan vernal pools occur on acidic soils on old alluvial fans ringing the Central Valley. DISTRIBUTION In the western United States, vernal pools are found from southern Oregon into northern Baja California. In California they are found on lower coastal mountain terraces from Sonoma County south to San Diego County and in the Central Valley from Shasta County south to Kern County. In Placer County, vernal pools are most common in the Valley Grassland ecosystem, but they also occur in Blue Oak Woodland. Pools tend to be clustered in archipelagos in localities where the proper conditions for their formation occur. VEGETATION California vernal pool vegetation is characterized by a high proportion of plants that are endemic or regionally restricted to that habitat, and several genera show evidence of recent adaptive radiation. A recent study listed 101 plant species known to occur in vernal pools; more than 70% are native annuals; introduced species comprise less than 7% of this flora. Unlike the surrounding grassland, vernal pools have resisted invasions well. The vegetation in vernal pools is arranged concentrically. The first zone corresponds to the pool bottom, the second occurs around the pool margin, and a third zone is on higher ground and supports typical annual grassland species. Because of winter flooding there is a sharp boundary between the grassland and the pool zones. Plant cover in the grassland zone may exceed 100%, while most pools have a characteristically low total cover, frequently less than 15-30%. Species richness is highest in the marginal zone, slightly lower in the grassland zone, and considerably lower in the pool. The number of species within an individual pool (alpha diversity) is usually low and is related to pool area, pool depth, and the amount of bare ground. However, the number of species among pools in an archipelago (beta diversity) is quite high. Thus, typical vernal pool plants are characterized by highly subdivided populations with low genetically effective sizes and low dispersability. F-9 Appendix F WILDLIFE A few vertebrates such as salamanders and spadefoot toads use vernal pools for breeding, but the vast majority of the pool fauna consists of invertebrates. Most are widespread species, but a few are endemic. The invertebrate fauna of vernal pools is not well studied, and it is likely that further work will result in the description of additonal endemic species. Placer County species of particular interest that are found in vernal pools are two invertebrates, the vernal pool fairy shrimp and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp, one vertebrate, the California tiger salamander, and one plant, the Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT Prior to the 1950s the primary threats to vernal pools were grazing, water impoundments, and conversion to agriculture. More recently, urbanization, industrial development, and infrastructure construction have resulted in losses as high as 97 percent. The few remaining pools have been damaged or disturbed, and they continue to face a variety of threats including livestock grazing, off-highway vehicle use, watershed alteration, and trash dumping. Conservation efforts have been slow to develop because these small, ephemeral ecosystems are easily overlooked, especially during the dry season, and few people consider them important. Conservation efforts must focus on archipelagos of vernal pools; fencing off a single pool surrounded by development is not an effective strategy. Furthermore, because of the complexity of vernal pool habitats and their associated watersheds, strategies for their conservation must include the surrounding environment. In particular, adequate habitat for the pollinators of the vernal pool flora must be included. Conservation strategies include fencing for the protection of pool archipelagos, elimination of artificial drainages that alter pool hydrology, and creation of new pools using a variety of impervious substrates followed by innoculation with topsoil salvaged from other pools or with seeds of selected species. The results of vernal pool restoration are mixed, ranging from qualified successeses to dismal failures. The lack of detailed knowledge of the physical and biological attributes of natural reference pools makes the evaluation of restoration success quite difficult. REFERENCES Holland, R., and S. Jain. 1977. Vernal pools. Pp. 515-533 in Barbour, M.G. and J. Major, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. John Wiley and Sons, NY. Sawyer, J.O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Thelander, C.G. (ed.). 1994. Life on the Edge. A Guide to California’s Endangered Natural Resources. Wildlife. BioSystems Books, Santa Cruz, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Vernal Pools of Southern California Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. Witham, C.W., E.T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren, Jr., and R. Ornduff (Eds.), Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems—Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. F-10 Appendix F A GUIDE TO SIERRA NEVADA HABITATS - Peter F. Brussard The final habitats that the Biodiversity Working Group will consider are those found in the middle and eastern parts of the county in the Sierra Nevada Foothills and Sierra Nevada ecological subregions. In many respects, these are the most important habitat types in the county. Most of them are forests, which are fundamental to sustainability. Not only do forests provide commercial timber, fuel, and many non-wood products, but they also provide invaluable environmental services. They protect watersheds and thus regulate the quantity and quality of water flows. They protect soils with their moisture and nutrients. They modulate climate at local and regional levels through regulation of precipitation and albedo, and they help to slow global warming by virtue of being carbon sinks. These forest habitats also are home to a number of species of particular interest, including the bald eagle, northern goshawk, California spotted owl, Sierra Nevada red fox, California wolverine, and Truckee barberry. Thus, the conservation of large, continuous blocks of these habitat types, especially late successional-old growth (LSOG) stands, is especially important for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in Placer County. The distribution of many of these Sierra Nevada habitat types is determined primarily by elevation and exposure. On a regional scale this results in a series of major habitat belts that run lengthwise along the Sierra. These are the foothill woodland-chaparral belt, the east-side and west- side yellow pine belts, the lodgepole pine-red fir belt, the subalpine belt, and the alpine belt. Most of these belts can be further subdivided into habitat types, the distribution of which within or among belts is determined by elevation and exposure, topography, soils, and past disturbance. Zonal habitat types develop within certain elevational boundaries on well-drained sites with moderate slope and well-developed soils. Intrazonal habitat types occur within or are interspersed with zonal habitats in places that have poor drainage, steep slopes, or peculiar soils. Azonal habitat types, such as riparian zones and wet meadows, develop wherever the right conditions occur at any elevation. Most of the habitat types that follow represent a so-called climax state--the vegetation that eventually appears at a site after recovery from a major disturbance such as fire or logging. The major exception is montane chaparral, which is often a seral, or intermediate, stage in the development of the climax vegetation at a site. ZONAL AND INTRAZONAL HABITAT TYPES Foothill woodland/chaparral belt (900'-5,600') Foothill woodland/chaparral belt habitats include valley oak woodland, blue oak woodland, blue oak-digger pine woodland, chamise-redshank chaparral, and mixed chaparral habitat types. The first three have been covered previously. Chamise-redshank chaparral. This habitat type consists of nearly pure stands of chamise or redshank or a mixture of both species. It generally occurs below and intergrades into mixed chaparral. Fire occurs regularly in this habitat type, and annuals, perennial herbs, and subshrubs dominate for several years after a fire. As the habitat matures, shrub cover increases and herbaceous cover declines. The primary land management consideration in this habitat type is fire; long-term fire suppression can lead to stand senescence and declines in deer, small mammals, birds, and reptiles. Mixed chaparral. Mixed chaparral is a brushland habitat type dominated by shrubs with thick, stiff, heavily cutinized, evergreen leaves. It is floristically rich, supporting a high diversity of woody plants. Compared to chamise-redshank chaparral, mixed chaparral generally occupies more F-11 Appendix F mesic (wetter) sites at higher elevations or on north-facing slopes. At upper elevations it grades into ponderosa pine or mixed conifer types and frequently forms the understory of these habitats. Fire is a major factor in this habitat type, and many of its constituent species sprout from root crowns after fires. No wildlife species are confined to mixed chaparral, and, as in chamise- redshank chaparral, management usually focuses on selecting alternative fire management regimes. Westside yellow pine belt (2,600'-7,900') Ponderosa pine. In Placer County, ponderosa pine stands occur above oak woodland and montane hardwood habitats and below Sierran mixed conifer. Prior to European settlement, LSOG stands of ponderosa pine were parklike, with widely-spaced, large trees and very little understory. Periodic ground fires maintained this condition. Under fire suppression, shrubs and shade-tolerant conifers such as white fir grow to form a dense understory under the ponderosa pines. This understory usually ladders fire into the tree crowns, resulting in intense, stand-replacing burns that also threaten life and property. Sierran mixed-conifer. This habitat type is an assemblage of conifer and hardwood species that forms a multilayered forest. Burning and logging have caused a wide variability in stand structure and composition. Dominant trees are ponderosa pine, sugar pine, Douglas fir, incense cedar, white fir, and California black oak. Because of fire control, white fir is almost ubiquitous in the understory. The mixed conifer forest supports a large number of wildlife species including several Placer County species of particular interest. A grove of giant sequoia is a striking associate of this habitat type in Placer County as well. Montane hardwood-conifer. This habitat type is interspersed with ponderosa pine and Sierran mixed-conifer habitats and often occurs on coarse, well-drained soils as a mosaic of pure stands of conifers interspersed with pure stands of broad-leaved trees. The canopy is often dense and bi-layered with little understory. Common tree species include ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, California black oak, incense cedar, white alder, dogwood, and bigleaf maple. This habitat has high vegetational and floristic diversity with large numbers of endemic species. Mature montane hardwood-conifer forests are valuable to cavity-nesting birds, and many amphibians are found on the forest floor in more mesic areas. Closed-cone pine. In Placer County this habitat type most often consists of patches of pure stands of knobcone pine within chaparral, montane hardwood-conifer, or mixed conifer habitats. These habitats are typically found on soils that are more rocky and infertile than those supporting the zonal habitat type. There is usually a well-developed shrubby understory. This habitat type is fire dependent; closed-cone pines have serotinous cones that are sealed tightly by resin and only open and spread their seeds when the resin is melted by a fire. Many wildlife species use this habitat, but none seems to be dependent on it. Montane hardwood. In Placer County this habitat type usually consists of relatively pure stands of canyon live oak. There is a poorly developed shrub stratum and a sparse herbaceous layer. These habitats are characteristic of steep, rocky, south-facing slopes of major river canyons and interface with mixed hardwood-conifer, ponderosa pine, and Sierran mixed-conifer habitats. Many species of birds and mammals that feed on acorns, as well as a diversity of amphibians and reptiles that are found on the forest floor, utilize this habitat type. White fir. In the Sierra Nevada white fir habitat occurs between mixed conifer and red fir habitats. It is characterized by a closed-canopy overstory of even-aged white fir trees with relatively few understory species. Fire influences this habitat by causing a mosaic of even-aged F-12 Appendix F stands in different successional stages. The white fir habitat type is the coolest, most mesic nonriparian habitat within the yellow pine forest zone, and, as stands mature, many trees die, resulting in many snags and downed wood. Thus, excellent habitat is provided for cavity nesting and insect gleaning bird species. Eastside yellow pine belt (5,000'-6,500') Bitterbrush. In Placer County bitterbrush habitats are found on low elevation flats and slopes with deep soils on the east side of the Sierra Nevada. While the dominant species in this habitat is antelope bitterbrush, it rarely occurs in pure stands. Rather, it is usually associated with big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, Mormon tea, and desert peach. Sometimes there is a sparse overstory layer of ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, or curlleaf mountain mahogany. Bitterbrush is an important browse plant for mule deer, pronghorn, cattle, sheep, and horses, and many species of birds, rodents, and insects consume its seeds. Eastside pine. A small amount of eastside pine habitat occurs in eastern Placer County. Ponderosa pine is the dominant tree species, with Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, white fir, incense cedar, and western juniper as associates. Undergrowth may include big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, greenleaf manzanita, ceanothus, mountain mahogany, mule ears, and arrowleaf balsamroot. Logging, bark beetles, and fire are the major disturbances in this habitat type. Disturbance usually increases the understory, particularly manzanita and ceanothus, and the brush may become so dense in the absence of fire that livestock and big game cannot use an area. On the other hand, brush also creates a high degree of structural diversity which favors many other species of wildlife. Jeffrey pine. In Placer County, the Jeffrey pine habitat type occurs on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada above and intermingled with eastside pine. A single tree layer is characteristic, giving the impression of openness and light. A sclerophyllous shrub layer consisting of greenleaf manzanita, squaw carpet, and snowbush is usually present at higher elevations; at lower elevations the shrubs are usually antelope bitterbrush and sagebrush. Jeffrey pine habitats are self- perpetuating under a regime of periodic ground fires. This habitat is moderately species-rich, due in part to the value of its seeds as food for many birds and mammals. Lodgepole pine-red fir belt (7,000'-10,000') Lodgepole pine. Lodgepole pine habitats are typically found below or intermixed with red fir habitats. Lodgepole pine usually forms monospecific stands; occasional associates include aspen, red fir, and mountain hemlock. The understory is typically sparse except where lodgepole pine habitats are associated with meadow edges. There, grasses, sedges, and forbs are abundant. Many Sierran meadows have been invaded by lodgepole pine over the last few centuries; the reasons for the invasions are not at all clear. Lodgeple pines establish rapidly and reproduce at an early age. This continued recruitment within stands produces overcrowding which weakens the trees and makes them suceptible to insects, and dead and moribund trees create large quantities of fuel that increase the probability of wildflire. The lodgepole pine habitat type has low structural diversity and supports relatively few animal species. However, the wolverine, northern goshawk, and bald eagle, Placer County species of particular interest, use lodgepole pine habitat, particularly at meadow edges. Red fir. In Placer County, red fir habitats occur on frigid soils in the higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada. These habitats are usually monospecific with very few plant species other than red fir in any layer. Heavy shade and a thick layer of duff tend to inhibit understory vegetation. F-13 Appendix F Windthrows, lightning fires, insect outbreaks, and logging tend create an even-aged stand structure. At lower elevations red fir habitats intergrade with mixed conifer habitats on drier sites and with lodgepole pine on wetter sites. At higher elevations, red fir habitats intergrade with subalpine conifer habitats. Northern goshawk, Sierra Nevada red fox, and California wolverine, along with a number of other sensitive and rare species, utilize red fir habitats, particularly LSOG. Aspen. Aspen habitats occur primarily at higher elevations near seeps, streams, and meadows, and they may consist of pure stands of quaking aspen or aspen in association with willows, alders, pines, and firs. In Placer County aspen habitats most often occur in the lodgepole pine-red fir zone, but they also can be found in mixed conifer, Jeffrey pine, and subalpine conifer habitats. All aspen stands spread by root suckering, resulting in a mosaic of clones of different ages. This is often evident in the fall when the leaves of each clone turn color at different times. Aspen habitats support a greater diversity and abundance of birds than adjacent forests and shrublands because of higher insect production and more nesting cavities. On the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada aspen habitats are important nesting sites for northern goshawks, a Placer County species of particular interest. Long-term fire suppression or excessive grazing and browsing by ungulates may result in the disappearance of aspen from an area. Subalpine belt (9,000'-11,000') Subalpine conifer. Typical subalpine conifer habitats are open forests of several species of conifers of low to medium stature. Placer County species include western white pine, lodgepole pine, and mountain hemlock. A sparse shrub understory may be present. Subalpine conifer habitats intergrade with red fir and lodgepole pine habitats at lower elevations and with alpine dwarf shrub habitats at timberline. Near timberline the trees are shaped by wind and snow into krummholtz-- shrubby, mat-like forms only a few feet tall. Although fires and windstorms provide natural disturbance in this habitat, it has been little disturbed by human influence in California. Because of the severe climate and short growing season, this habitat supports fewer wildlife species than any other forested habitat in the state. However, the California wolverine, a Placer County species of particular interest, finds subalpine conifer habitat suitable. Alpine belt (10,600'-up) Alpine dwarf-shrub. The alpine dwarf-shrub habitat is found above timberline where it replaces subalpine conifer habitat. The environment is cold, dry, and windy, and the growing season is very short. The vegetation of this habitat consists of low growing grasses, sedges, and forbs with an admixture of dwarf shrubs, often cushion plants. Plant species diversity is surprisingly high, but only a handful of wildlife species use this habitat. AZONAL HABITAT TYPES These habitats are found throughout the Sierra, wherever the appropriate conditions occur, irrespective of belt or zone. Montane chaparral. Montane chaparral habitats in Placer County are found in both the eastside and westside yellow pine forest belts and in the lodgepole pine-red fir belt. They are characterized by several species of shrubs including whitethorn ceanothus, snowbrush ceanothus, greenleaf manzanita, pinemat manzanita, bitter cherry, huckleberry oak, Sierra chinkapin, and California buckthorn. Most of these species are fire-adapted and sprout back from the root crown after a burn. One type of montane chaparral forms a permanent community on shallow soils F-14 Appendix F overlying fractured granite bedrock. The more common type, found on deeper soils, is a transient community which follows a disturbance to a forested habitat. This type of montane chaparral is an important link in forest regrowth since the shrubs build up nutrient levels, especially nitrogen, to the point where trees can survive. Many birds and mammals use montane chaparral habitat. Deer in particular depend on this habitat type for foraging, fawning, and escape cover. Montane riparian. The montane riparian zone occurs as a narrow, often dense strip of broadleaved, winter deciduous trees associated with lakes, ponds, meadows, rivers, streams, and springs. Montane riparian can occur as stringers of shrubby willows or alders along creeks or seeps; in other situations an overstory of white alder, quaking aspen, black cottonwood, and willows may be present. Montane riparian provides important habitat and migration corridors for many species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals and modulates associated aquatic habitats for fish and invertebrates. Lahontan cutthroat trout, mountain yellow-legged frog, and willow flycatcher are Placer County species of particular interest that require healthy montane riparian habitats. Wet meadow. Wet meadows can occur in virtually all of the habitat types in the Sierra Nevada wherever water is at or near the surface during most of the growing season. These habitat types have a simple structure consisting of mostly perennial herbaceous plants (grasses, sedges, rushes, and forbs). Shrub and tree layers are usually absent or sparse except near the meadow's edge. In the Sierra Nevada wet meadows provide important habitat for several species of amphibians and reptiles, including the mountain yellow-legged frog, a Placer county species of particular interest. REFERENCES Hanes, T.L. 1977. California chaparral. Pp. 417-469 in Barbour, M.G. and J. Major, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. John Wiley and Sons, NY. Lanner, R.M. 1999. Conifers of California. Cachuma Press, Los Olivos, CA. Major, J., and D.W. Taylor. 1977. Alpine. Pp. 601-675 in Barbour, M.G. and J. Major, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. John Wiley and Sons, NY. Mayer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. (eds.) 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California. California Resources Agency, Sacramento. Rundel, P.W., and D.J. Parson. 1977. Montane and subalpine vegetation of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade ranges. Pp. 559-599 in Barbour, M.G. and J. Major, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. John Wiley and Sons, NY. Sawyer, J.O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Storer, T.I., and R.L. Usinger. 1963. Sierra Nevada Natural History. University of California Press, Berkeley. White, K.L., and K.L. Cole. The closed-cone pines and cypress. Pp. 295-358 in Barbour, M.G. and J. Major, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. John Wiley and Sons, NY. F-15 A WATERSHED-BASED APPROACH FOR SETTING CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Peter Brussard & Ted Beedy and the NH 2020 Scientific Advisory Committee 4/02/01 INTRODUCTION Setting conservation priorities for Nevada County is a complex and daunting task. Approaches can be species-based, habitat-based, or both. A species-based approach would focus on the occurrences of listed and other special-status species, while a habitat-based approach might consider mapped vegetation types, ecosystem types, or watersheds as analytical units. A combined approach employs a combination of "coarse filters" that cover broad geographic scales and "fine filters" focused on specialized habitats and a carefully selected suite of special-status species most at risk. In Nevada County we will use watersheds as analytical units for the coarse filter. There are many advantages to this approach, including: • Considerable biological diversity is associated with aquatic ecosystems, and many of these species (e.g., fishes) reach their distributional limits at watershed boundaries. In Nevada County many of the special-status species and sensitive habitats are associated with aquatic systems. • Watershed boundaries are coincident with the boundaries of many key ecological processes such as surface water flow and most nutrient inputs. • Excellent scientific literature exists on ecosystem experimentation at the watershed scale. • Aquatic and riparian systems are good indicators of the health of the overall ecosystem. • In California, water is the most limited and limiting resource for both the natural and human economy. • Using watersheds as conservation units boundaries has two disadvantages: • Administrative boundaries rarely coincide with watershed boundaries. • Terrestrial ecosystem types do not stop at watershed boundaries, and many species move freely from one watershed to another. • However, administrative boundaries rarely coincide with the boundaries of any ecologically or biologically significant area, and if the dynamics and linkages among different habitats and populations are of conservation concern it is easy to focus on landscapes that encompass more than one watershed. WATERSHED MAPPING AND ANALYSIS Nevada County has three major drainage basins, the Yuba, Bear, and Truckee. The Yuba and Bear rivers are tributaries of the Feather River which drains into the Sacramento River and eventually into the Pacific Ocean. The Truckee River originates in Lake Tahoe and flows north and east into Pyramid Lake, Nevada, a terminal water body in the Great Basin. Watersheds defined by smaller stream systems (first- to third- or fourth-order) will be mapped for each of these major river drainages, using the CalWater system as the basic analysis unit. Based on the CalWater system, 98 separate watersheds have been mapped in Nevada County. GIS coverages, including various topographic, edaphic, hydrologic, geologic, cultural, and vegetative features and the known occurrences of special-status species, will be assembled for each watershed. Metadata for each coverage will be fully developed. Several landscape-scale indicators of potential habitat quality will be developed for each watershed from these coverages even though the quality of the coverages may vary. This approach will provide a first cut at the identification of watersheds that are prime candidates for conservation areas and those that have lower conservation value. INDICATORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND QUALITY First Priority Items: General watershed statistics provide necessary background information for subsequent analyses. These include, but are not limited to: • area • elevational range • ecological subregion, section, and subsection (Miles and Goudey 1997) • average annual precipitation • means and variances of precipitation and temperature over the past 50 years Land cover composition and pattern in most watersheds will be a mosaic of native and cultural vegetation types. Dominance of agricultural or other human-modified ecosystems not only reflects land use pressure but also the potential for erosion and low water quality (Hunsaker and Levine 1995). A vegetation map of Nevada County will be prepared from the Rosenberg data set (RDS). In some cases finer resolution may be required (e.g., localized, sensitive plant communities such as found in wetlands or serpentine formations); these will be classified according to the Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995) system. A soils map may be necessary to locate some of these areas. These vegetation and soils coverages will be aggregated and crosswalked to the California Department of Fish and Game's California Wildlife Habitat Relations (WHR) (Zeiner et al. 1990) cover types, and a WHR coverage will be prepared as an overlay of the watershed and vegetation maps. In addition to native vegetation, mapped WHR cover types will include cultural vegetation such as pasture, cropland, orchard-vineyard, and urban. Summary statistics (e.g., 34% blue oak woodland, 21% orchard-vineyard, etc.) will be prepared for each WHR and RDS cover type in each watershed. Coverages of existing parcel sizes and their General Plan designations within each watershed, along with summary statistics and histograms of the frequency of each type of parcel size, also will be prepared. Maps and data analyses required include: • vegetation cover (RDS and WHR) • acreage and percentages of urban, agricultural, and natural vegetation • acreage and percentages of different types of natural vegetation (WHR and Rosenberg data set) • acreage and percentages of early-, mid-, and late-seral habitats in coniferous forest areas • areas with large size classes of oak woodlands parcel sizes, general plan designations, and summary statistics and histograms Percentage of residential or agricultural land on slopes greater than 5% is an indicator of potential soil loss and runoff. Maps and data required: • 30 meter Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) to derive slope, elevation, and aspect • agriculture and development on steeper slopes Land use and disturbance history is important for understanding ecosystem composition, structure, and functional organization. For example, supposedly "pristine" oak woodlands in Placer County, California, were orchards as recently as 60 years ago, according to aerial photographs taken in 1938. Maps and data required are: • logging history • agricultural history • mining history • fire history Land cover patch sizes are important predictors of the habitat value of a given watershed to a particular species or group of similar species (Ritters et al. 1996). In general, large habitat patches support higher densities and diversities of plants and animals than do small patches. Maps and data analysis required are: • cover types • frequency histograms of WHR cover type patch sizes Small patches of sensitive habitat types are important for species with low dispersal powers such as many rare plants, invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians. Maps and data required are: • soils • geology • maps and extent of serpentine/gabbro substrate • maps of caves, cliffs, and rock outcrops Percentage of land in public ownership or private protected status within a watershed and in adjacent watersheds provides an indication of the feasibility of aggregating large blocks of land into conservation areas. Lands in conservation easement status adjacent to protected public lands (e.g., state parks and wildlife areas) have especially high potential for inclusion in regional conservation planning efforts. Data and maps required: • extent of public lands and private conservation easements • extent of INCA Tier 1 sites • extent of TNC portfolio sites • average parcel sizes of private land not in conservation easements Roads and transportation corridors fragment habitats, and roads in particular can be major sources of erosion (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Therefore, the extent and number of areas larger than 100 ha that are not transected by roads or transportation corridors are major indicators of the conservation potential of a watershed. Maps and data analyses required are: • road network • miles of roads by road type per square mile of watershed area • miles of major transportation corridors • miles of utility corridors • areas without maintained roads > 100 ha • erosion potential of major soil types and slopes Aquatic resources are particularly important to Nevada County's conservation efforts since a majority of sensitive species are associated with aquatic/riparian areas. Aquatic habitat types should be classified according to the system developed by Moyle and Ellison (1991), and crosswalked back to the Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995) and WHR schemes when appropriate. Maps and data required are: • miles of permanent and intermittent streams • extent of lakes or other lentic waters • number of dams and diversions • miles of free-flowing versus impounded streams • ditches, canals, reservoirs, and other artificial modifications to the • natural flow regime • extent of Aquatic Diversity Areas • extent of Pacific River Council Critical Aquatic Refuges • isolated springs, wet meadows, fens, bogs, seeps Riparian extent and distribution are key indicators of habitat quality within a watershed. Some coverages are available; in other cases accurate information for mapping will have to come from aerial photographs. While the vegetation can be classified initially by using Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995) and/or WHR units, field measurements of local habitat conditions, (e.g., the presence of special habitat elements such as snags and large woody debris) ultimately will provide the assessment of habitat quality. Maps and data required: • extent of riparian habitat Records of occurrence of all red- and yellow-list species in the County and an assessment of total vertebrate species richness by habitat type are obvious determinants of conservation priorities. Maps and data analyses required: • NDDB and other locality data for all red- and yellow-list species • total vertebrate species richness by habitat type (estimated fromWHR models) • Secondary Priority Items (important, but will require fairly complex analyses and will be done after the priority items are completed): o Connectivity and degree of fragmentation are significant determinants of the spread and magnitude of disturbance factors including fire, disease, and flooding (Turner et al. 1989, EPA 1994), the sustainability of plant and animal populations (Wiens et al. 1993), and the overall diversity of plants and animals in a given area (Hansen and Urban 1992). Since connectivity and fragmentation are habitat- and species-specific, this analysis will be done for major habitat types and for each red- and yellow-listed species if appropriate data are available. o Buffering around riparian areas is important for conservation. Fixed-width buffers tend to be more politically expedient, but variable-width buffers are more biologically realistic (Kondolf et al. 1996). o maps with various fixed buffer widths o maps with variable buffer widths o roads in riparian zones as defined by both vegetation type and by various buffer widths TARGET TAXA Nevada County has thousands of species of microbes, fungi, plants, and animals. Most of these species are in taxonomic groups that are toodifficult to survey or are too poorly known taxonomically to provide useful information. Thus, better-known groups (target taxa) will be used to characterize biodiversity as a whole. The following taxonomic groups have been considered as potential target taxa for conservation planning. Habitat assessments and limited field surveys will be performed by specialists on these taxa during the summer of 2001 and possibly in 2002 (see below); other taxa can be surveyed and added to the County's data base as time and resources permit in future years. Vascular plants. Over a thousand species of vascular plants occur inNevada County. The California Native Plant Society maintains a list of rare and sensitive species, however, many undocumented rare plant populations are probably extant. Macrofungi. Nevada County supports a high diversity of macrofungi, that are of some interest to the public. These species are important in the nutrient cycling and other ecosystem functions, especially in old- growth conifer and oak forests and in riparian habitats. Butterflies. Most butterflies are fairly wide-ranging generalists, but a feware specialists on small-patch ecosystems, and some are of conservation concern. As a group they are the most well-known and charismatic of the terrestrial invertebrates. Mammals. Mammals play important roles in their ecosystems as predatorsand prey, and some species are quite charismatic and of great public interest. Many mammals are of conservation concern, especially most medium-sized carnivores (e.g., fisher, marten, wolverine, and red fox) and bats. Birds. These are popular with the public, and many are of conservation concern. Most species are easily surveyed, and substantial existing information on the population status, seasonal occurrence, and habitat use is available from members of the Sierra Foothills Audubon Society andother active field ornithologists in Nevada County. Reptiles. Reptiles are of increasing conservation concern (Gibbons et al. 2000); however, some groups are difficult to survey. Amphibians. Most species are of conservation concern, and many show a strong sensitivity to environmental change. Terrestrial and aquaticamphibian species need to be surveyed separately. Fishes. Fishes play key roles in aquatic ecosystems and are better known than any other aquatic organisms. Over 50% of California's native fishes are of conservation concern. Others. Other taxa will contain some state or federal species of concern (e.g., Button's Sierra sideband snail), and local expertise may be available to add others to the database (e.g., molluscs, crayfish, caddis flies, tiger beetles). SELECTING FOCAL SPECIES A preliminary list of all species in each target taxon that are likely occur in Nevada County will be prepared using existing data sources including local check-lists, published sources such as WHR and technical papers, and/or range maps, and local experts. These species will be categorized as green, red, or yellow list species. Red list species are those that are federally- or state-listed, proposed for listing, candidates for listing, or meet criteria for listing. Yellow list species include local endemics not on the red list; species identified as being "locally common," "uncommon," or "rare," riparian and old-growth specialists, neotropical migrant birds, most reptiles and amphibians, most bats, and species whose status is unknown. Yellow list species also would include those taxa included in DFG's lists of Species of Special Concern, USFWS's Species of Concern, and the California Native Plant Societies' list of rare plant taxa (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Green list species include the remaining native taxa that have no special state or federal protected status. Many are ecological generalists (occur in several habitat types and are not specialized on a single resource at any time during their lives) and some are known to be common and widespread in the county. These species are not currently of conservationconcern. Vertebrate lists will be compiled for each major WHR cover type in Nevada County. These lists will be as complete as possible and will include all red-, yellow-, and green-list species. These lists will be used to compile species richness indices for each cover type, an index of habitat value. Red-, yellow-, and green-list species will be used to develop species richness indices or individual cover types, and lists will be re-visited regularly to ensure that green-list species have not slipped into the yellow category. Red- list species are clearly of conservation concern, and yellow-list species may be so in the future. For red- and yellow-list species, records of occurrence in the County will be mapped using NDDB and other databases, and brief "species profiles" and quick reference tables will be prepared. Information in the species profiles and tables will include state and federal regulatory status (if any), basic life history information, current statewide distribution and abundance, range-wide population trends, known threats to persistence and susceptibility to various stressors, habitat associations and specific records of occurrence in Nevada County, and any other ecological information that will help determine the species' local status. Literature references and other sources of information also will be included. The species lists for each target taxon will be peer-reviewed by recognized experts at universities, state and federal agencies, consulting firms, and local conservationorganizations. IDENTIFICATION OF SURVEY WATERSHEDS The species profiles, occurrence records, and GIS coverages will be used to identify watersheds in the County that contain occupied or potential habitats for each red- and yellow-listed species. The California WHR system will be most useful for terrestrial vertebrates; Moyle and Ellison's (1991) categories may be helpful for fishes and amphibians. Special-status plants and invertebrates are likely to be small ecosystem specialists and thus will require the use of more detailed maps and the Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995) classification system. This information, combined with the results of the watershed mapping and analysis of indicators of environmental status and quality, will highlight watersheds in Nevada County that need to be surveyed. SURVEYS The field surveys for the NH 2020 project will be performed using a two-phased approach to ensure that they are as efficient and cost- effective as possible. This flexible survey approach can be adapted to focus on specific taxa or watersheds where key information is lacking, or where specific data needs are identified by the SAC. The overall goal of the field surveys will be to develop an accurate and comprehensive county-wide data base of sensitive biological resources. Phase I Surveys: Phase I field surveys will include initial site-reconnaissance visits to a subset of the 98 mapped watersheds in Nevada County that were predicted to have high conservation value based on the GIS analysis. Surveys of these targeted watersheds will be directed by Dr. Ted Beedy, Scientific Coordinator for the NH 2020 project, who will be assisted by a team of experienced local biologists. Goals of these surveys will be to verify the accuracy of the mapped of the mapped GIS information, obtain watershed-level photographs, characterize the extent and quality of existing native habitats, and to identify specific areas where more intensive, Phase II, surveys by taxonomic experts would be desirable. All Phase I and II surveys will be conducted along public roads, on public lands, and on private lands by written invitation from the landowners only. We anticipate that the Phase I field surveys for western Nevada County will be completed by the end of May 2001, while those in the central and eastern parts of the county probably will not be completed until the end of August, 2001. As discussed below, the more intensive Phase II surveys can be initiated when suitable, accessible lands and key taxonomicquestions have been identified. Phase II Surveys: The Phase II surveys will employ recognized taxonomic experts who will visit the targeted watersheds and sites that were identified in the Phase I surveys. Goals of the Phase II surveys will be to compile species lists, photograph specific sensitive resources, and to make qualitative assessments of the extent, quality, and continuity of high- quality habitat and potential high-quality habitat for red-listed, and yellow-listed species in the targeted watersheds. Particular attention will be paid to the habitat mosaic and to the connectivity among these habitats needed for sustainable populations of these special-status taxa. The Phase II surveys will start at low elevations in the spring of 2001 and will move to higher elevations, east and west of the Sierra crest, as the summer progresses. If funding is available to perform Phase II field surveys in the targeted watersheds, it would be desirable to identify the following taxonomic experts: A botanist/ vegetation specialist to conduct assessments for sensitive vegetation types (e.g., oak woodlands, riparian habitats, wet meadows), vegetation assessments, note exotics and sensitive species, compile a partial floristic list, perform a qualitative fungal assessment, and field-verify the previously mapped WHR vegetation polygons in specific areas. An ornithologist to compile a list of all bird species detected in each watershed study area and to assess the habitat potential for red- and yellow-list bird species. Focused surveys may be performed for certain target taxa such as black rails, spotted owls, and willow flycatchers in appropriate habitat areas. A mammalogist to assess habitat potential for red-list and yellow-list mammals including large carnivores, furbearers, desert rodents, and bats. A herpetologist to assess habitat potential for sensitive reptiles and amphibians. Focused surveys for northwestern pond turtles and other highly visible reptiles also could be performed. Focused surveysalso could be conducted for special-status amphibians such asfoothill yellow-legged frogs, mountain yellow-legged frogs, and California red- legged frogs. An aquatic biologist familiar both with fish, aquatic habitats, and aquatic invertebrates to assess the conservation potential of streams, lakes, and other aquatic resources. An entomologist who specializes in butterflies to assess the butterfly fauna with respect to rare and sensitive species and indicators of less- disturbed vegetation types. Several trips to each sample area are necessary to assess the butterfly fauna accurately (i.e., to cover spring-, late spring-, and summer-emerging species). In addition to the Phase II team, a geoomorphologist/geologist/soils expert should assess erosion potential and sedimentation, outcrops of unusual rocks and soils, and areas that may harbor important small- patch ecosystems in each surveyed watershed. This phased approach of having taxonomic experts making strategic visits to specific areas is effective for watershed-level analyses where it is desirable to obtain data from a number of specific sites in a short period of time. Many special-status species, especially endemic invertebrates and plants, may not be located without performing specific surveys for them. Thus, as time and funding permit, surveys also will be conducted for these species, for small-patch ecosystems, and for yellow-listed species that are not likely to be provided "coverage" by red-listed species. Some of this effort will be expended in searching for particularly good examples of blue oak woodland (e.g., with native grasses and forbs in the understory and some indication of reproduction) and old-growth conifer forests. Data derived from the Phase II assessments will be used to refine the vertebrate species lists and lists and occurrence information for red-list and yellow-list species for specific watersheds in Nevada County. The final vertebtrate species lists will be summed for the mapped WHR cover types to develop a species-richness indices for each habitat. The composite "wildlife habitat value" map will be included as a GIS layer for use in planning and display purposes. All Phase II surveys will follow the following protocols: • All survey sites must be GPS'd, and the results of each survey must be added promptly to the County's database. • All sites will be photographed extensively at stand scales using either high-quality conventional or high-resolution digital cameras. These photographs are important not only for understanding habitat types but also for education and outreach to the public about the need for and benefits of conservation. • Along selected streams, aquatic habitat types will be classified by the Moyle and Ellison (1991) system. • Data on riparian systems will include a qualitative description of vertical structure (i.e., vegetation layers), horizontal structure (i.e., width and extent of vegetation along a stream), composition of dominant species, and a categorical estimation of canopy cover. • The presence of exotic plants and the amount of bare soil will be noted for riparian sites. • An assessment will be made of the presence of red-listed species at the sample sites. However, because of time and funding limitations, no effort will expended on estimates of abundance except perhaps for qualitative descriptors. PRIORITY RANKING OF CONSERVATION LANDS The evaluation of existing data using GIS analyses and a phased field verification of selected sites will begin the process of determining the conservation value of the County's watersheds and of spatially explicit localities within them. These areas will be ranked by a clearly described protocol, and high-ranking areas may then be considered to be high priorities for management as conservation areas. If sufficient data are available, aquatic habitats can be ranked by the rating system developed by Moyle and Yoshiyama (1994). Yellow-listed species that have similar distributions and habitat requirements as the red-listed species will be provided protection by conserving and managing habitat for red-listed species. For example, Willow Flycatcher is a red-listed species that needs ungrazed or lightly grazed montane riparian habitat; providing for its needs also will provide "coverage" for many other species that depend on wet meadows and riparian habitats, including yellow warblers. However, some yellow-listed species, especially highly localized taxa with specialized requirements, will not be "covered" by red-listed species and will require special conservation efforts. RESEARCH PROJECTS Several survey and research projects need to be planned for the future to ensure that Nevada County's biodiversity conservation goals are met. Projects may be needed to obtain information that will allow the County to develop a more comprehensive conservation strategy or to assess changes in biodiversity as a result of subsequent conservation actions. The following projects have been suggested, but the list is not exhaustive, and other projects may assume a high priority as the process goe forward. Developing indices of biotic integrity for streams. Moyle and Marchetti (1999) have described how indices of biotic integrity can be developed for Sierra Nevada watersheds. At the very least this should be done for watersheds that have been ranked as high priority conservation areas. The ecological integrity of aquatic communities is not only an indicator of acceptable environmental conditions for native species but also indicates that the water resource is of an acceptable quality for other wildlife andmany human uses (Yoder and Smith 1999). If appropriate expertise is available, some groups of aquatic invertebrates could be added to increase number of indicators used. Appropriate widths and setbacks for riparian and wetland buffers. This is a highly controversial, but extremely important, issue for maintaining biological diversity in Nevada County. In the absence of any scientifically-based guidelines, current decision-making and recommendations in CEQA documents are often inconsistent and contradictory. Focused studies need to be conducted to determine the minimum widths of riparian corridors and wetland buffers that are required to sustain normal animal movements and ecosystem functions. It will also be important to study which taxa are lost as movement corridors narrow. Demographic studies to determine source/sink areas. Hansen et al. (1999) showed that high-productivity, low-human impact riparian areas served as source habitats for many bird species in the Greater Yellowstone Ecoregion. Riparian areas with a high level of human disturbance tended to be population sinks, largely because of house pets and generalizedpredators that thrive in urban-wildland interfaces. Similar studies covering more habitats and taxa might be undertaken in Nevada County if time and funds permit. Population trends in species of conservation concern. Population trends, including reproduction, should be monitored in red-listed species and yellow-listed species suspected or found to be declining. These studies are particularly important for Neotropical migrant songbirds since their abundance in Nevada County may relate more to events during the period when they are absent from the County than when they are present. So-called "foundation" species such as blue oaks also should be targeted for demographic studies as should all amphibians due to their apparently global decline. The results of these studies must be integrated into adaptive management programs designed to reduce the declines of these sensitive taxa. Spread and impacts of exotic species. While some species not native to Nevada County are not invasive and apparently are harmless or even useful components of natural communities, others are major pests. Some exotics may be considered desirable to certain constituencies (e.g., brook trout, bullfrogs, wild turkeys, wild pigs), but many of these species have important impacts on the native biota and may require control or local eradication. Exotics need to be considered on a case-by-case basis; for those known or suspected to be problems, records of occurrence in the County should be mapped and species profiles should be prepared. Data in the profiles should include basic life history information, current statewide distribution and abundance, range-wide population trends, habitat associations in Nevada County, and any other ecological information that will help determine the degree of threat posed by the species. Literature references and other sources of information such as known or suspected strategies for reduction or elimination also should be included. Tracking and mapping invasive exotics will be very important to maintaining the County's biodiversity. Conservation strategies for wide-ranging species of conservation concern. Species such as wolverine and fisher probably do not maintain viable populations in Nevada County. However, managing large blocks of matrix ecosystems for these species could promote their recovery in the northern Sierra. Thus, baseline studies on these species might be desirable in the future, and if populations exist, additional research could be conducted on the feasibility of management actions that might increase Nevada County populations. MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Adaptive management is far more than simply trial and error tinkering; rather, it has several key and obligatory steps which include a clear statement of management goals and objectives, conceptual models that explore policy alternatives, targeted research to provide necessary knowledge, selection of appropriate indicators for monitoring, monitoring of indicators, assessment of management effectiveness, and a clear connection between data and further management actions. Indicators for future monitoring will include land cover, large- scaleecological processes such as fires and floods, population trends in species of conservation concern, presence of habitat indicator species in appropriate habitats, and the progress of invasive exotics. The results of this monitoring must be integrated into the management programs. LITERATURE CITED EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Landscape Monitoring and Assessment Research Plan. US EPA 620/R-94/009. Office of Research andDevelopment, Washington, D.C. Gibbons, J.W., D.E. Scott, T.J. Ryan, K.A. Buhlman, T.D. Tuberville, B.S. Metts, J.L. Greene, T. Mills, Y. Leiden, S. Poppy, and C.T. Winne. 2000.The global decline of reptiles, déjà vu amphibians. Bioscience 50: 653-666.. Hansen, A.J., J.J. Rotella, M.P.V. Kraska, and D. Brown. 1999. Dynamic habitat and population analysis: An approach to resolve the biodiversity manager's dilemma. Ecological Applications 9: 1459-1476. Hansen, A.J., and D.L. Urban. 1992. Avian response to landscape pattern: the role of species life histories. Landscape Ecol. 7:163-180. Hunsaker, C.T., and D.A. Levine. 1995. Hierarchical approaches to the study of water quality in rivers. Bioscience 45: 193-203. Kondolf, G. M., R. Kattelmann, M. Embury, and D.C. Erman. 1996. Status of Riparian Habitat. Pp. 1009-1030 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Vol II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. University of California Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, Davis. Miles, S.R., and C.B. Goudey (compilers). 1997. Ecological Subregions of California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA. Moyle, P.F., and J.P. Ellison. 1991. A conservation- orientedclassification system for the inland waters of California.Calif. Fish and Game 77: 161-180. Moyle, P. B., and M.P. Marchetti. 1999. Applications of indices of biotic integrity to California streams and watersheds. Pp. 367-380 in Simon, T.P., (ed.) Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Moyle, P.B., and R.M. Yoshiyama. 1994. Protection of aquatic biodiversity in California: A five-tiered approach. Fisheries 19: 6-18. Ritters, K.H., R.V. O'Neill, and K.B. Jones. 1996. Assessing habitat suitability at multiple scales: a landscape-level approach. Biological Conservation Sawyer, J.O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Pavlik 1994. California Native Plant Society's inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. Fifth edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14: 18-30. Turner, M.G., R.H. Gardner, V.H. Dale, and R.V. O'Neill. 1989. Predicting the spread of disturbance across heterogeneous landscapes. Oikos 55: 121-129. Wiens, J.A., N.C. Stenseth, B. Van Horne, and R.A. Ims. 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66: 369-380. Yoder, C.O., and M.A. Smith. 1999. Using fish assemblages in a state biological assessment and criteria program: essential concepts and considerations. Pp. 17-56 in Simon, T.P., (ed.) Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Prepared by: Peter Brussard & Ted Beedy and the NH 2020 Scientific Advisory Committee 4/02/01 FOREST-SOURCED BIOMASS UTILIZATION: Developing a “Futures Commodity” This “white paper” assessment begins with a base hypothesis, and continues with a presentation of assumptions and observations regarding barriers and potential opportunities surrounding expansion of forest-sourced biomass economic utilization. Conclusions and preliminary recommendations summarize the concepts, offered as a platform for debate and discussion, and for possible future grant solicitation development. HYPOTHESIS: An effective economic model may be developed for forest-sourced biomass utilization based on similarities to infrastructure and market characteristics of urban waste-stream segregation, resource recovery and recycling. ASSUMPTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS: BIOMASS MARKET COLLAPSE Since the fall of 1996, California and much of the western United States has suffered from the loss of the market for "clean white chip" (2” to 3” heartwood) forest-sourced biomass. This market had facilitated timber management by supporting removal of pre- commercial and otherwise non-merchantable trees through sale of the biomass as “hog fuel” (feedstock) for large regional biomass energy facilities. The market collapse was a secondary economic impact of the deregulation of energy generation, following significant changes in the laws controlling energy generation contract management and pricing. Loss of a market for forest biomass was particularly damaging to rural economies; entire rural regions lost a key industry, often dramatically compounding the impact of sawmill closures of a decade ago. Loss of a market for “clean white chip” has increased the cost of timber harvest and other vegetative management practices, including fire break and power transmission corridor maintenance. Biomass accumulations have only recently been widely recognized as a significant environmental problem. Loss of an economic incentive for such a major element of environmental impact mitigation is resulting in increased fuel loading in many forested areas and threatening the health and safety of forest itself and the habitations now scattered throughout the forestlands with the very real potential for catastrophic wildfire. Such a dramatic reduction in percentage of salable resource has significantly altered the nature of forest resource contract valuation, and has negatively affected our society’s ability to adequately manage forested lands. © Theroux Environmental Consulting 10/14/04 White Paper: Biomass Utilization 10/14/04 GEOGRAPHIC MARKET ISOLATION Road conditions and distance (or “transport heuristics”) to the nearest major end-user, usually a large bioenergy facility, are key determinants to market access. As the economics worsen, the viable transport capability decreases, and the means of transport shift from long term contracts to more expensive occasional shipment agreements. Transport heuristics can be assessed against the changing marketplace characteristics to indicate which geographic areas are accessible to the remaining market, and which become geographically isolated. Fluctuations in current market price (including changes in energy regulations and/or energy contract pricing) modify the distance of economic transport, but do not significantly change the economics for the aggregators: prices at the further reaches remain critically low, often not economical. As time has passed, the remote and geographically isolated small-industry capability to economically collect and process biomass has decreased: lack of a regular market results in diverted business plans (formal or informal), reduced equipment purchase and maintenance, inability to pool or even locate equipment resources, and attrition of trained labor force. DISPERSED RESOURCES Biomass resources are dispersed. Seldom is there sufficient material generated at any one location, from any one project, during any relatively short time frame, to justify a long- term contract. The “spot market” sales approach, wherein small lots are offered as they might become available and purchased as the specific need arises, provides little reason to risk large capital and man-power investment. Many types of commodity resources are initially dispersed, and many secure markets are constructed to aggregate them, albeit often with minimal margin for profit. Staged aggregation is critical to amassing sufficient volumes to make processing economical: small volumes collected locally must be of sufficient value to pay for the initial collection, processing and storage. High-volume, low-value resources such as biomass must find value through consistency and predictability of acquisition. Gathering a few pounds of newspapers from a thousand separate garages could be seen as closely analogous to aggregating dispersed forest biomass, IF we had a reliable predictive mechanism included in the biomass aggregation model. For most other commodity "recyclables", our knowledge of waste stream characterization and resource recovery potential per capita, per region, has proven critical to sustaining an economically viable recycling industry. Recycling resources are now known well enough in most California urban regions to allow us to “map out” the economics of potential recovery efforts before we invest in the aggregation and processing infrastructure. © Theroux Environmental page 2 of 6 White Paper: Biomass Utilization 10/14/04 BIOMASS SCALING At present, one element of data missing from almost all USFS timber stand harvest and health management programs is the quantification of the non-merchantable materials. Data sheets used in timber cruising don't actually estimate biomass to be generated per forest stand type, per prescription, per project. Neither is there a "back-check": actual volumes of non-merchantable materials generated as a result of a specific project are seldom if ever quantified. We usually don't "scale" the biomass, at least not with the same accuracy that we might apply to "marketable" resources. Without a predictive tool and the means to improve upon predicted accuracy, there is currently no commonly applied, statistically reliable mechanism though which we may determine how much of what kind of biomass will be generated when, and where. Current methods of data collection, processing and analysis for statistically accurate merchantable resource management, e.g., for salable timber, utilize highly developed geographic information system (GIS) tools. This existing data handling infrastructure is quite capable of accepting, incorporating and making available for analysis the additional information that would be generated through “biomass scaling” with little modification. By including non-merchantable resource quantification and characterization in existing GIS, an information pool can be generated to augment and facilitate marketing of the resource. EXCESS BIOMASS AS “WASTE” “Excess biomass” can be defined as vegetative material that (a) unacceptably increases risk of fire and/or structural damage, (b) must be removed for development to take place, and/or (c) results from on-going landscape maintenance. There is a measurable cost for “excess biomass” management. There is also a separate and measurable cost accrued if excess biomass management does not occur. Biomass is one of the only natural resources that can cost when not used. Misplaced resources that cost to be correctly managed may be provisionally classified as “waste”. Proper and timely waste recovery through utilization therefore can defer disposal or damage costs and result in a net benefit. The resultant cost/benefit ratio usually determines the economics of management; anything that significantly modifies either side of the ratio changes the nature and extent of economically viable management. Deferred waste management costs, for example, increase the economic viability of excess biomass management. State and federal statue does not define residual biomass generated from timber harvest or forest management practices as a “waste”; forest biomass management falls outside of classic solid waste management rules and regulations. One rather unfortunate result of this separation from standard waste management practice is an absence of transfer of those lessons learned during almost three decades of “modern” waste management and resource recovery. © Theroux Environmental page 3 of 6 White Paper: Biomass Utilization 10/14/04 ECONOMIC SUPPORT & SUBSIDIZATION Newspapers, cans, bottles, etc., can only be gathered at the lowest level (e.g.: from individual garages) with the financial support of (a) community and/or governmental subsidy, or (b) an inherently strong per-unit price, over sufficient time to reach a “bankable” level of market stability. Neither such support mechanism is available under the current market conditions for the vast bulk of forest-sourced biomass. When value can be immediately added to a raw resource, at or near the point of origin, export from that region gains a degree of economic viability. No "easy", consistent means of adding value has been found that can support initial forest biomass acquisition and processing throughout the region of generation. Whatever amount of community-based and/or agency funded biomass collection and processing does occur in any one area, the effort is usually undersized and under-funded when compared to the volume and extent of materials considered “in excess”. The argument that subsidizing biomass removal lowers insurance costs related to fire safety has so far not been sufficient to dramatically increase funding for biomass management, despite a wide variety of programs with this focus. The more alarming realization that catastrophic fire removes all value, as has been the motive force behind implementation of the California Fire Plan, remains inadequate to generate the support necessary, from this narrow perspective of biomass utilization, to fiscally rebuild the biomass management infrastructure. The economics must be generated from within the system; it must become self-sustaining. The best economy for both data gathering and biomass collection comes where adequate but slight and non-disruptive changes can be made to existing processes. A few extra measurements in an already-planned field assessment regime requires far less cost and time than a completely separate data collection effort strictly focused on “biomass scaling”, and as an added benefit assures the direct relationship of the new information to the standard data. Similarly, extraction and resource tracking methods for biomass collection should be a natural extension of existing timber and vegetation management contracts, rather than unique operations to designed harvest biomass in absence of other resource management. “FUTURES COMMODITY” Commodities markets for raw and minimally processed resources tend to fluctuate widely, especially in their early development. This characteristic was quite evident for our initiation of standard “recycling” market development for resource recovery of cans, bottles, paper, etc. When the market was strong, all was cop esthetic; when prices would fall, there would arise great moldering piles of cardboard and newsprint. Our “predictive” strategies were not any better developed for these recycling market commodities during the early 1980’s than for biomass, today. © Theroux Environmental page 4 of 6 White Paper: Biomass Utilization 10/14/04 Market volatility can be somewhat compensated by the advent of longer-term contracts that depend for risk reduction on a reasonable certainty of known-quality resource availability in the future. Long-term contracting benefits improve economics systemically: all aspects, from initial collection and processing through transport to end-use management find additional value in the flow of the resource when risks can be balanced with benefits over longer time frames. Predictability of the resource base is necessary to establish a consistent, dependable, high-volume flow of resources with the bankable characteristics of a "futures commodity". Superior marketing characteristics accompany commodities that can be selectively contracted for “in the future”: (a) risk reduction increases financing options; (b) collection, processing and storage operations can be justified by pre-existing contracts; (c) brokerage contracts can be constructed, where both the purchase and the sale are pre- arranged; (d) end-users can schedule the biomass receipt, and prepare their process for additional manufacturing or other resource use. SUSTAINABLE BIOMASS MANAGEMENT Given effective biomass scaling, with the advent of functional and regionally specific data management mechanisms and the construction and stabilization over time of an economically viable marketplace, we can realize an excellent additional benefit. Through the GIS-based, temporally modeled tracking and fine-tuning of biomass extraction and utilization, we enable detailed life-cycle cost/benefit assessment that directly links environmental and economic metrics. By regionalizing, by determining and actively assessing specific regions of biomass management, we can begin to understand just how much of this particular resource we might expect to remove for use without unacceptable levels of environmental impact. Both the positive and negative aspects of this level of land management can be statistically monitored in direct comparison to market fluctuations, industrial practices, watershed characteristics, life style recreational activities, and regulatory interaction. We can begin to directly address the question of sustainability for one critical element of our forest management practices. CONCLUSIONS & PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Existing data collection and processing methods need to be modified to include prediction and verification of the quantity and quality of biomass resources that will first become available, and later be removed, from any one region. The resulting information needs to © Theroux Environmental page 5 of 6 White Paper: Biomass Utilization 10/14/04 be coordinated both geographically and temporally, and offered (in addition to more traditional trade venues) in an organized and searchable form over the Internet. Data assessment should result in a feed-back mechanism that directs modification to data generation and processing flow. This responsiveness should affect all aspects, from field techniques of measurement and estimation through methods of statistical analyses to final summation and presentation. Sufficient data must be accumulated to actually show statistical accuracy to the predictive models. This is largely subject to the existing schedule of projects in a region, in that early market viability must be expected to rely heavily on not having to originate removal operations in absence of other merchantable resource extraction. At least one cycle of seasons, and probably more, will be required for data trends to become evident. It will also take at least this long to make the construction of this new information source known to the broader marketplace. The majority of the business of mining such information for the open market should be left to those specializing in “futures commodities” brokerage. Techniques, tools and training are already available for this service sector. Making the data publicly available and advertising that availability will attract entrepreneurial brokers with a strong pre- existing knowledge base of the potential markets, markets only available through higher- volume, longer-term contracting. The broker’s expertise, and eventual success, will to a degree depend on the actual structure of queries for extracting and presenting the information. Therefore, data presentation should remain flexible and able to respond to rapid changes in the marketplace, to be “market-driven”. During any one month, the demand might be for a certain volume of softwoods in one area, while lumber-grade oak speculation increases in a different region. It is the nature of the market to shift dramatically; the tools we construct to address market information needs must respond to the sharpest shifts as close to “real time” as technologically possible. The capability of an interactive relationship to develop between resource aggregator and broker is now greatly enhanced through Geographic Information Systems posted to the Internet. As with other market research, multiple layers of web-based information management should rather rapidly come into practice. Trade associations can provide a strong impetus in secondary organization that supports basic research, while business- to-business web trade should complement actual contract development. © Theroux Environmental page 6 of 6