Cold Springs Project - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · Black Hills National Forest . July 29, 2011 . ... productivity and water quality from

Cold Springs Project

Soils and Hydrology Report

Prepared by:

P. Cavan Maloney Hydrologist

for: Northern Hills Ranger District

Black Hills National Forest

July 29, 2011

Cold Springs Project Soils and Hydrology Report

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.


iii

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5

Overview of Issues Addressed ................................................................................................ 5 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 5

Soils ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ 8 Desired Condition .................................................................................................................. 13

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 15 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 15 Alternative 1 – No Action ..................................................................................................... 17 Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action ............................................................................ 17

References ................................................................................................................................. 27 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Framework ........................................................................... 30 Appendix B. WEPP Modeling Assumptions ............................................................................ 32 Appendix C. Design Criteria ..................................................................................................... 33 Appendix D. Watershed Conservation Practices and Best Management Practices .................. 35

List of Tables

Table 1. Affected subwatershed for the Cold Springs Project ........................................................ 5Table 2. Soil map units, description, and extent within the Cold Springs project area ................... 6Table 3. Estimated road densities for affected subwatersheds within the project area (miles per

square mile of open roads) ...................................................................................................... 9Table 4. Acres by silvicultural or fuel treatment method .............................................................. 18Table 5. Cold Springs road activities ............................................................................................ 18Table 6. Detrimental soil disturbance ratios for project area treatment types ............................... 20Table 7. Estimated sediment delivery to road crossings by alternative ......................................... 22Table 8. Estimated volume and risk of sediment delivery through the WIZ as a result of

implementing the proposed action ......................................................................................... 23Table 9. Equivalent clearcut by watershed. Note: the estimated threshold value for the affected

subwatersheds is 15 percent. ................................................................................................. 26Table 10. Summarized timber harvest, noncommercial vegetation treatments, and fuel treatments

within 7th Code HUC 10120203030101 ............................................................................... 30Table 11. Summarized timber harvest, noncommercial vegetation treatments, and fuel treatments

within 7th Code HUC 10120203030102 ............................................................................... 31Table 12. Project design criteria .................................................................................................... 33Table 13. Water bar spacing by road or trail grade (percent) ........................................................ 41

List of Figures

Figure 1. Slopes with stability concerns within the Cold Springs project area ............................... 7Figure 2. Cold Springs Project affected subwatersheds and streams .............................................. 8Figure 3. Cold Springs project area stream crossings – West Fork Spearfish Creek .................... 10Figure 4. Cold Springs project area stream crossings − Spearfish Creek ...................................... 11Figure 5. Wetlands and springs within the Cold Springs project area ........................................... 12


5

Introduction The Cold Springs Project Soils and Hydrology Report describes an assessment of the current condition of the proposed project area and the potential effects to soil and water resources from the implementation of thinning, fuel reduction, and road maintenance and reconstruction activities. The analysis will concentrate on the potential impacts from the introduction of prescribed fire, and the cutting, of live, dead, or dying trees and shrubs to soil productivity, stream stability, and water quality. The analysis utilized existing information from previous fuels reduction analyses, recent field surveys, spatial data, and computer modeling.

Overview of Issues Addressed

The current issues relevant soil and water resources within the Cold Springs Project area were developed from internal review and external scoping comments from the public. The primary issues surrounding soil and water resources are related to (A) immediate impacts to soil productivity and water quality from road use, road reconstruction, temporary road construction, road maintenance, and mechanical equipment which is utilized to cut and remove fuels; and (B) the indirect impact of sediment delivery to nearby stream channels. The primary concerns are that the proposed fuels reduction and thinning activities will disturb soil productivity, create erosion, and in turn, produce sediment delivery, affecting water quality and stream stability

Issue Indicators The indicator for soil productivity is percent detrimental soil disturbance (% disturbed activity area).The indicator for water quality and stream stability is sediment delivered at the local site scale (cubic yard per year) and equivalent clearcut area at the sixth field watershed level (%ECA).

Affected Environment The majority of the project area is located within one 6th code subwatershed (6th Code HUC) − Upper Spearfish Creek (see Table 1). Upper Spearfish Creek is rated as a Class II watershed for watershed condition (USDA 2006a) The 13,969 acres of National Forest System lands include approximately 11,800 acres with forest cover. Ponderosa pine forest covers approximately 83 percent of the area.

Table 1. Affected subwatershed for the Cold Springs Project

HUC 6 Name HUC 7 Code Total Watershed Acres

Upper Spearfish Creek 10120203030101 8,672 Upper Spearfish Creek 10120203030102 8,476

The subwatersheds all have terrain that has relatively gentle slopes. Slopes are gently to occasionally moderately steep, rolling prairie grassland stringer meadows bounded by ponderosa pine forests. Slopes in the project area mostly range between 0 to 20 percent (nearly 80 percent of the project area). Stream dissection is generally low with some moderate stream dissection occurring within the Upper Spearfish Creek and Clayton Draw.

Soils Soils in the project area are dominated by the soil map unit 184E (Stovho-Lail-Trebor complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes) and 75E (Lail-Trebor complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes) (see Table 2). Both of these soil map units have T erosion values of 5 tons per acre per year, which indicates that both


6

of these soils are fairly productive or resilient. All soil units except for 187G are well suited for forestland harvesting equipment. The ratings are based on slope rock fragments on the surface, plasticity index, content of sand, the unified classification of the soil, depth to a water table, and ponding. Standard rubber-tire skidders and bulldozers are assumed to be used for ground-based harvesting and transport. However, soil rutting hazards are rated severe for all map units. This indicates that although soils are well suited for withstanding the impacts of forest harvesting equipment, when the soils get wet or saturated, soil rutting and compaction can occur quickly, on both harvest units and on unsurfaced roads. Ground cover is good (typically 100 percent in undisturbed forested areas) as there are thick pine needle mats and an abundance of graminoids covering the forest floor (Shepperd and Battaglia 2003).

Soil surveys were conducted within the project area to determine the extent and intensity of detrimental soil disturbance that has resulted from past forest management treatments. The surveys were conducted in 2008 by the Northern Hills District Hydrology/Soils staff (USDA 2008b). Their surveys and data analysis indicate that detrimental soil disturbance is not occurring to a substantial extent and is well within the 15-percent forest plan standards.

Table 2. Soil map units, description, and extent within the Cold Springs project area

Map Unit Symbol Acres Soil description Soil texture

Percent of project area (acres are rounded to

the nearest acre)

131F 4.5 Pits, quarry 0

134C 117.2 Redbird-Heath silt loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes silt loam 1

178D 545 Stovho silt loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes

slightly decomposed plant material/silt loam 4

181C 1204 Stovho-Lail-Trebor complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes


184E 6,452 Stovho-Trebor complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes


187G 1,043 Trebor-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent slopes


190E 5 Vanocker-Citadel complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes


28B 377 Silt loam, cool, 0 to 6 percent slopes silt loam 3

54B 387 Heath silt loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes silt loam 3

75E 3,076 Lail-Trebor complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes


78C 440 Lail-Stovho complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes

slightly decomposed plant/ silt loam material/silt loam

3

96C 42 McCaffery cool-Lail complex 0


7

The Forest Plan (Plan guideline 1108) identifies five soil types (Lakoa, Larkson, Citadel, Rokoa, Mathias) that are of concern for slope stability concerns. None of these soil types exist within the project area. Forest Plan guideline 1108 also directs the Forest to field survey treatment areas where road construction or large portions of timber canopy are proposed for removal. Surveys for the Cold Springs Project were conducted in 2008, and slope stability concern areas were identified (see Figure 1). The areas depicted in orange (A02, A05, A06) are areas that were identified as potentially unstable due short pitches of slopes exceeding 55 percent. Those areas next to Highway 85 are also oversteepened and should not receive any road construction or large-scale canopy removal.

Figure 1. Slopes with stability concerns within the Cold Springs project area


8

Roads through the meadow areas are particularly susceptible to rutting and erosion. As noted above, soil rutting is a problem when soils are wet. Roads that are not engineered and surfaced which cross meadows are very likely to cause resource damage. This is the case with National Forest System (NFS) Road 209.3D which goes up the middle of the meadow in Clayton Draw. Forest System Road 232.1 as it passes Yellow Jacket Spring also shows rutting due to vehicle traffic during wet road conditions.

Hydrology The only major stream in the project area (Figure 2) is Spearfish Creek, and all of its length within the project area is considered to be intermittent. Most of the streams in the project area are grassland prairie swales to irregularly continuous intermittent streams with bed and bank scour. Streams tend to be grass-lined and in many cases are bounded by dense grass. There are 21 miles of intermittent streams and 18 miles of ephemeral streams.

Figure 2. Cold Springs Project affected subwatersheds and streams


9

There are no streams listed by the State of South Dakota as not meeting beneficial uses (cold water aquatic life, salmonid spawning) within the project area (SDDENR 2010).

There is a history of logging, grazing, and mining, within the project boundaries. More recently, recreation in the form of summer camping and fall hunting have become prevalent within the affected watersheds. Some dispersed residential development on private lands also occurs along State Highway 85 and in the southwestern third of the project area. Approximately 1,700 acres are privately owned within the project area.

All of the affected watersheds within the project area have road and trail networks which are affecting streams and water quality to some extent. Generally, the closer the road to the valley bottom/stream channel, the greater the effect. Out of 93 miles of roads within the project area, approximately 26 miles are within 180 feet of perennial streams. At the watershed scale, road/trail densities can indicate a high level of road impact to watershed condition (Gucinski et al. 2001). The road densities in these watersheds are relatively high due to the history of relatively intense forest management (see Table 3).

Table 3. Estimated road densities for affected subwatersheds within the project area (miles per square mile of open roads)

7 Code HUC Subwatershed Estimated Road Density (miles/sq. mile open roads)

10120203030101 2.5 10120203030102 3.6

Forest roads within the project area are variably in- or out-sloped throughout their length. The road network appears to have a somewhat consistent engineered system of drainage ditches and cross relief drains. The road prism is also drained at irregularly spaced dips in the bed. The running surface was occasionally rilled between drainage points, although usually no more than a few inches, where drainage points or cross-drains 250 to 300 feet between structures. Rutting from late fall hunting traffic on the native surface roads was frequently encountered. Roads not surfaced with crushed rock become rutted quickly when the fine-textured native soils are saturated during precipitation events.

There are 70 stream crossings within the project area. Road crossing surveys completed by the district in 2008 covered both culverts and low water crossings. Twenty crossings were examined—12 crossings were low water fords and the rest were culverts. The only concerns found were an erosion problem at site SFC4utrib0802 (see Figure 3) and a culvert blockage (maintenance problem) at siteSFC9utrib0801 (see Figure 4) (USDA, 2008a). Computer modeling with Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) estimates that sediment delivery at road crossings is less than 0.1 ton per year. The amount of ground cover consisting of grasses and pine needle duff is apparently enough to prevent substantial erosion from being delivered from roads for lengthy distances.


10

Figure 3. Cold Springs project area stream crossings – West Fork Spearfish Creek


11

Figure 4. Cold Springs project area stream crossings − Spearfish Creek

Five acres of wetlands are identified in the National Wetlands Inventory. These wetland areas have been delineated based on remote sensing and may not meet all wetland criteria for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology to be considered jurisdictional wetlands. Lender Spring and Yellow Jacket Spring are the two named springs within the project


12

area. There are 22 springs within the project area, most of which have been developed for stock watering sites (see Figure 5). The areas where riparian vegetation exists are limited to relatively narrow zones around the springs. The riparian vegetation occurs here due to the accessible water in the shallow water table. Riparian vegetation generally does not occur within the intermittent streams associated with the meadows in the project area, as these meadows tend to dry out in the summer months and the deeper water table does not support the riparian vegetation.

Figure 5. Wetlands and springs within the Cold Springs project area


13

The project area does not overlap any designated municipal watershed. There are no streams within the project area that have a developed floodplain, or a floodplain that would be managed under Executive Order 11998.

Desired Condition

Black Hills National Forest Goals, Guidelines, and Standards There is specific direction in the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 2006a) pertaining to the soil and water resource. Listed below are the goals and objectives that apply to this project.

Goal 1: Protect basic soil, air, water, and cave resources. Objective 102. Use a qualitative survey which emphasizes riparian condition, such as the Proper Functioning Condition methodology, to refine the preliminary watershed health assessments (Forest Plan-FEIS, Appendix J, 1996) within the next planning period. This survey would focus first on Class III watersheds, and could be supplemented with additional quantitative methods, as needed, for the design of watershed improvements. Class I watersheds do not need to be surveyed unless information becomes available which suggests there was an error in classification.

Objective 103. Maintain or improve long-term stream health. Achieve and maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems to provide stream-channel stability and aquatic habitats for water quality in accordance with State standards.

Objective 104. Maintain or enhance watershed conditions to foster favorable soil relationships and water quality. A. Implement projects to improve watershed conditions on an average of at least 300 acres annually over the plan period. B. Achieve and maintain stable stream beds and banks, diverse riparian vegetation, and effective ground cover that control runoff and erosion.

Objective 107. Restore degraded wetlands except were exemption are allowed by a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit.

Objective 108. Manage for sustained or improved water flows.

The Forest Plan also lists standards and guidelines for the different resources. Standards and guidelines are used to determine if individual projects are in compliance with the Forest Plan. The following Standards and Guidelines are applicable to the soil and water resources for the Cold Springs Project. Some of the standards in the following list have additional information listed with them. This information is design criteria that are listed in the Watershed Conservation Practices (WCP) Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2006b).

Standard 1101. When doing projects, analyze the cumulative effects of disturbances on long-term soil productivity.

Standard 1102 (WCP 14). Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and nutrients on all lands.

Standard 1103 (WCP 13). Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced land to no more than 15 percent of any land unit. “Land treatments” are human actions that disturb vegetation, ground cover, or soil. “Land unit is a mapped soil unit.”


14

Standard 1110. Initiate re-vegetation as soon as possible, not to exceed 6 months after termination of ground-disturbing activities. Re-vegetate all disturbed soils with native species in seed/plant mixtures that are noxious-weed free.

Standard 1112 (WCP 2). Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each land unit to prevent harmful increased runoff.

Standard 1116 (WCP 1). Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff.

Standard 1201 (WCP 5). Conduct actions so that stream pattern, geometry, and habitats are maintained or improved toward robust steam health.

Guideline 1208. Design water developments to minimize damage to channel capacity, aquatic habitat, and riparian vegetation.

Standard 1210. Maintain enough water in perennial streams to sustain existing stream health.

Standard 1301 (WCP 3). In the watershed influence zone (WIZ) next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands, allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition.

Standard 1302 (WCP 6). Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns in wetlands to sustain their ecological function, per 404 regulations.

Standard 1304. As opportunities arise, and need dictates, relocate or implement mitigation measures for roads, trails, water tanks, ponds, water catchments, and similar facilities currently located within the Watershed Influence Zone (WIZ).

Existing Laws, Executive Orders, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR) assigns water quality standards on the beneficial uses of each water body, as a part of the requirements of the Clean Water Act. All streams within South Dakota are assigned the beneficial uses of irrigation, fish, and wildlife (SDDENR 2010)

• Coldwater Permanent Fish Life Propagation Waters

• Domestic Water Supply Waters

• Fish and Wildlife Propagation, Recreation, and Stock Watering Waters

• Immersion Recreation Waters

• Irrigation Waters

• Limited Contact Recreation Waters

Clean Water Act of 1977 The objective of the act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters (Section 101(a)). It also regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters (waters of the United States) (Section 404). The Forest Service abides by the Clean Water Act through the implementation of best management practices (BMP) otherwise


15

known as Soil and Water Conservation Practices (WCPs) within the Forest Service. A BMP is a practice, or a combination of practices, that is determined by a state or designated area-wide planning agency to be the most effective, practicable means of preventing, or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. BMPs are certified by SDDENR, and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, in compliance with section 208 of the Clean Water Act (Pl-500).

National Forest Management Act 1976 The objectives of this act ensure that forest planning and management activities provide for the conservation and sustained yield of soil (site productivity) and water resources.

Executive Order 11990, 1977; Wetlands Management E.O. 11990 requires Federal agencies to follow avoidance, mitigation, and preservation procedures with public input before proposing new construction in wetlands. To comply with E.O. 11990, the Federal agency would coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and mitigate for impacts to wetland habitats.

Executive Order 11998, 1977; Floodplain Management E.O. 11998 requires all Federal agencies to take actions to reduce the risk of flood loss, restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values in floodplains, and minimize the impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare.

Environmental Consequences

Methodology Impacts to soils that may result from the Cold Springs Project were estimated by taking soil disturbance point data using the protocol described in General Technical Report WO-82a (Page-Dumroese et al. 2009). Soil disturbance points were taken within proposed treatment areas. Soil disturbance point data from monitoring was also used from similar projects in the project area to aid in an estimate of what the project impacts would be to soil resources.

The hydrology analysis for this project is a compilation of data and information from the United States Geological Survey data and stream flow modeling for NFS lands within the project area, recent resource surveys for the proposed project, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of spatial data, and sediment delivery and yield modeling using the Forest Service GIS interfaces for the Water Erosion Prediction Project computer model (FSWEPP, ERMIT).

Source areas for potential watershed impacts were identified in the field and located on maps spatially using GIS. Relative impacts to watershed condition through erosion and sediment delivery were then estimated for both the no-action (current condition) and the action alternatives using the FSWEPP model. The results of these analyses were then used to show a comparison between the no-action and proposed action alternatives.

The Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP: Disturbed) (WEPP: Road) models were used for direct and indirect effects analysis of prescribed fire, tree harvest, and road use erosion predictions (Elliot et al. 1999, Elliot et al. 2000). WEPP is designed to assist as a tool to evaluate erosion and sediment delivery potential from forest roads, harvest activities, prescribed fires, and wildfires, using input values for forest conditions developed by scientists at the Rocky Mountain Research Station (Elliot et al. 1999). WEPP was used to estimate maximum sediment delivery


16

distances and used average hill slope and road slope conditions, and a 30-year climate record period. Estimates of erosion and sedimentation are not considered absolute values, but rather are estimates only for the purpose of comparing alternatives.

Actual erosion and sediment delivery rates would be expected to be lower than the WEPP model output figures reflect. This is because the WEPP model does not readily account for mitigation measures to control erosion and sedimentation that the Forest Service would implement. In particular, the model does not account for the improvements in road and trail drainage and design features to reduce erosion and sedimentation from the transportation system. Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Practices (also known as BMPs) have been found to reduce impacts to water quality and soil resources (Seyedbagheri 1996; Thomas 2007; Thomas 2008; Thomas 2009).

Cumulative watershed effects were analyzed using the equivalent clearcut area (ECA) method. The ECA model analysis is described in PNW-GTR-637 (USDA Forest Service 2005). Cumulative watershed effects are measured using the ECA model, which generates an index of cumulative disturbance (for both soil and water resources) by considering disturbance type, extent, and recovery over time. Although the model has many limitations, it provides an index of vegetative disturbance that can be used to compare the existing condition of different watersheds, and the potential impacts among land management alternatives. It uses a clearcut acre as the basis for comparing effects of various resource management treatment activities and features. A road surface, in the context of the method, is considered to be a native surface forest road (total clearcut), bare of vegetation, severely compacted and practically impervious, that sheds water and possibly conveys some distance to all water precipitated upon it. Thinning and prescribed fire vegetation treatments are considered to be a percentage of a totally clearcut acre with some portion of the acre left in a vegetated condition but reduced in hydrologic function. Judgment of the effect of proposed actions is made in consideration of current conditions, as determined by field observations, and those environmental parameters that are deemed relevant to the response of watershed hill slopes and channels in the project area.

Effects are assumed mitigated over time by natural processes, if not by specific actions done after the project for that purpose. The period of time for hydrologic recovery, generally of all activities (excluding road construction), for Black Hills National Forest lands is long term or greater than 15 years, based on surveys of soil conditions and expected vegetative recovery of treated and burned slopes on the Forest.

This analysis assumes that all project design features and BMPs/WCPs will be implemented and are effective. The Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, and the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which defines the Region 2 Forest Service responsibilities in implementing South Dakota’s nonpoint source management program and in achieving Federal compliance with sections 313 and 319(k) of the Clean Water Act on NFS lands within South Dakota. In the MOU (USDA 2009), Forest Service Region 2 has developed WCPs (USDA Forest Service 2006b) that mirror or meet the State of South Dakota BMPs.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis Analysis for direct and indirect effects concentrates on the affected subwatersheds (Table 1). Cumulative effects are assessed at the scale including all affected sixth field watersheds. For the purpose of this analysis, short-term effects are considered to last no more than 3 to 5 years. Medium-term effects are those which last beyond 5 years, but less than 15 years. Any effect


17

which has an impact on water quality, water yield, or riparian habitat that lasts longer than 15 years is considered a long-term effect.

Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis The list of connected actions, past, present, and foreseeable activities relevant to cumulative effects analysis is located in Appendix A.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct Effects There would be no change from the soil or water resources current condition resulting from the no-action alternative. There would be no additional impacts to soil and water resources as a result of not implementing the proposed action.

Indirect Effects Under the no-action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No fuels management activities would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Road maintenance and repair, and trail maintenance and repair would continue. This alternative would allow the project area to continue on its current trend without the proposed management actions. There would be no additional indirect effects to water, riparian, or aquatic resources.

Cumulative Effects There would be no change from the soil or water resources current condition resulting from the no-action alternative. There would be no additional impacts to soil and water resources as a result of not implementing the proposed action. Therefore, there would be no additional cumulative effects to soil or water resources.

Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action The Forest Service is proposing to treat stands now to reduce the risk of insect and disease epidemics that could lead to an increase in severe wildfire, and address problems with conifer encroachment in aspen stands. Under the proposed action, the total area for commercial, noncommercial, and prescribed burn outside of vegetation treatment units is 5,144 acres to restore desirable forest composition (both conifer and aspen), apply fire into the landscape, and reduce excess forest fuels to attain acceptable fire hazard conditions. However, up to 11,761 acres of the 13,989 acres of affected subwatersheds may be treated to treat pine beetle-infested stands with sanitation or salvage harvest (see Table 4 and Table 5).


18

Table 4. Acres by silvicultural or fuel treatment method

Commercial Vegetation Treatments Acres

Aspen Release 83 Commercial Thin 1,398 Commercial Thin, 50 percent canopy cover 25 Single-tree Selection 523 Single-tree Selection, 50 percent canopy cover 108 Shelterwood Preparation 531 Shelterwood Preparation, 50 percent canopy cover 107 Shelterwood Removal 357 Shelterwood Establishment 1,290 Total Commercial Treatment Area 4,424

Noncommercial Vegetation Treatments Acres Aspen Release 242 Aspen Release Following Commercial Treatment 247 Precommercial Thin 155 Precommercial Thin Following Commercial Treatment 1,060 Precommercial Thin & Aspen Release Following Commercial Treatment 107 Wildlife Timber Stand Improvement 83 Wildlife Timber Stand Improvement Following Commercial Treatment 34 Total Noncommercial Vegetation Treatment 1,9281

Fuel Treatments

Acres Broadcast Burn 240 Broadcast Burn Following Vegetation Treatment 657 Pile and Burn Following Vegetation Treatment 279 Slash, Pile and Burn Following Vegetation Treatment 494 Total Fuel Treatment Area 1,6702

Sanitation

Sanitation/Salvage and Noncommercial Sanitation Within Commercial Treatment Units3 4,424 Sanitation/Salvage and Noncommercial Sanitation, Outside Treatment Units4 7,337

Table 5. Cold Springs road activities

Transportation Actions Miles

New National Forest System Road Construction 4.0

Non-system Road to System Road Conversion 2.4

Temporary Road Construction 7.8 National Forest System Road Reconstruction/Pre-use Maintenance 48.1 Forest System Road Decommissioning 2.3

Total Miles of Transportation Activities 64.6

1 Both commercial and noncommercial treatments are planned on 1,448 acres. 2 Fuel treatments follow vegetation treatment on 1,430 acres. 3 The area of sanitation treatment would depend on the level of mountain pine beetle infestation; all treatment units (4,424 acres) have the potential for sanitation treatment. 4 The area of sanitation treatment would depend on the level of mountain pine beetle infestation, all forest stands (11,761 acres) have the potential for sanitation treatment.


19

Design Features and Mitigation Measures The project would implement project design features and best management practices in order to comply with Forest Plan requirements and other laws and regulations. The full list of project design features is listed in Appendix C. The following measures are highlighted below due to their critical nature in meeting Forest Plan direction and other laws and regulations.

Water influence zones (WIZ) are delineated for those stream reaches that have been determined perennial under most conditions of climate or intermittent with prolonged dry season base flow sustained by groundwater storage. They have also been delineated around wetlands and springs (FSH2509.25)

The WIZ provides both a linkage and a transitional habitat between hillslopes and upland terrestrial habitats and the aquatic habitats within stream channels. Another purpose of the WIZ is to prevent potential erosion from the activity reaching the stream channel and to preserve adequate canopy for cover, shading, and recruitment of large woody material. WIZ segments were established on perennial and intermittent stream reaches, springs and wetlands, and lakes and ponds in the project area. The WIZ for this project is 100 feet for all streams, seeps, lakes, and ponds (FSH 2509.25). The WIZ is exclusive of heavy equipment, except when there is a need for a crossing of a stream or a designated access to upslope treatment areas. Further, there would be no active lighting, or mechanical line construction within the WIZ. Cut materials would be available for end lining out of the WIZ, but only where there is enough deflection so as to get one-end suspension.

The modified proposed action alternative, through project design features, incorporates Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Practices (USDA Forest Service 2006b; SDDENR, 2003 that are designed to protect and restore watershed resources (see Appendix D). All of these measures included in the action alternatives have evolved through extensive research and development (Burroughs and King 1989), and have been monitored and modified over several decades, with the express purpose of improving measures and making them more effective. Federal and State site evaluations of BMP control measures (Seyedbagheri 1996; USDA 2010b) have found the practices to be effective in protecting beneficial uses.

Direct Effects

Soils

Soil Disturbance The effects of the proposed action on soils are direct effects and will be limited to the actual proposed vegetation and fuels treatment activity area locations. The impacts from the project activities are expected to occur from the use of ground-based mechanical equipment used for felling and yarding. Concerns regarding effects to soils are (1) surface soil displacement from log and brush skidding, and the turning action of tracked ground-based equipment, and (2) the potential for the compaction of soils due to the weight and vibration of the ground-based equipment. Soil disturbance surveys were conducted to analyze and address soil displacement concerns. Soil compaction concerns were analyzed through a field (Cold Springs Soil Health Surveys, 2008) and GIS review of the soil units proposed for ground-based treatment. The risk for compaction was evaluated based on the inherent physical properties of the affected soil units and their potential for compaction (see Table 6).


20

Table 6. Detrimental soil disturbance ratios for project area treatment types

Treatment Type Activity Area Acres

Current Avg. Detrimental Disturbance

Ratio

Expected increase in Detrimental Disturbance

Ratio

Expected Total Post-

Project Detrimental Disturbance

Ratio

Aspen Release 572 <3% ≤1 to 5% ≤8% Thinning, Selection and Shelterwood 3,852 <5% ≤5% ≤10%

Wildlife Stand Improvement 117 <3% ≤4% ≤7% Broadcast Burn 897 <3% ≤3 – 5% ≤5% Pile and Burn 279 <5% ≤3% ≤11% Slash, Pile, and Burn 494 <3% ≤1% ≤4%

Sanitation Salvage 11,761 <3% ≤5% <8%

The inherent resilience of the soils within the project area allow for the relatively frequent silvicultural treatment cycles. Recent monitoring of past harvest areas within the project area shows relatively minimal detrimental soil disturbance impacts. This is mainly due to the productivity of the soils and their dry bearing strength. Grasses and pine needle duff mats quickly reclaim disturbed soil areas and prevent any long-term soil resource damage. Detrimental soil disturbance ratios exceeding 15 percent are typically considered to not be meeting standards and guidelines for the maintenance of long-term soil productivity (FSH 2509.18). None of the proposed vegetation treatments are expected to exceed the 15-percent threshold.

The temporary roads (7.8 miles), skid trails, and landings (90 existing and up to 245 newly created) to be utilized for vegetation treatment activities were considered in conjunction with the treatment units. Temporary roads, skid trails, and landings generally produce short to midterm detrimental soil disturbance impacts if they are not treated and rehabilitated Temporary roads and landings can take up to 5 years to be rehabilitated due to access and landing needs for residual fuels treatments. None of the proposed temporary roads cross an existing stream channel. They do cross the edges of some meadows, but in all cases are well away from any WIZ area. The landings are all located outside of meadows or on the margin (within the transition zone) between the meadow grassland and forested area.

However, according to soil disturbance monitoring in the project area, the rehabilitation rates post activities are relatively rapid. Recent soil disturbance monitoring indicates that these features are readily rehabilitated due to the local soil productivity and resilience of basal vegetation. This is most likely due to the implementation of WCPs/BMPs and the natural aggressive revegetation of grass vegetation. Therefore, the project-induced soil disturbance is assumed to be reclaimed and restored to a non-detrimental soil disturbance condition within 5 to 10 years, as long as project design criteria and WCPs/BMPs are applied.

The impacts to soils from the current road system are primarily associated with the public using roads that are not part of the transportation system and user-defined off-highway vehicle roads and trails. The 209.3D road in Clayton Draw is currently a site where road use is creating detrimental soil disturbance conditions, as vehicles are creating ruts and small gullies in the meadow. The decommissioning of that road segment will be a net benefit in terms of the overall percentage of detrimental soil disturbance within the subwatershed. The road segment (NFS Road


21

232.1), which passes by Yellow Jacket Spring, that has some problems associated with wet season travel and road surface rutting will be improved or maintained to Forest Service road standards through project implementation road maintenance.

Therefore, the direct effects are expected to be some short-term soil displacement and some slight compaction associated with skid trails. Pile burning will also create isolated high burn severity locations (generally less than 1/10th of an acre each). These effects are expected to last short- to mid-term (less than 10 years), and are not expected to contribute to the overall long-term detrimental soil disturbance ratio.

Long-Term Soil Productivity There will be no direct effects to long-term soil productivity. As described in the “affected area” section and above in “soil disturbance,” the local soils are resilient as long as they are not impacted with ground-based equipment during wet or saturated soil conditions. Long-term soil productivity will be maintained through the implementation of project design features and WCPs/BMPs. Recent monitoring has shown that soil disturbance, and therefore, long-term soil productivity are maintained within forest plan standards for disturbance.

Soil Stability None of the soils identified in the Forest Plan for slope stability issues are found in the project area. There are some areas of steep slopes which are may have slope instability (Slope Stability, 2008, Northern Hills District) but those areas are typically short sections of steep slopes (over 30 percent slopes). Road construction is proposed in one of those concern areas; however the road route avoids the steep sections and will not require impacting the oversteepened slope areas. Further, vegetation treatment units will be retaining at least 80 square feet basal area on slopes greater than 55 percent (see project design features, Appendix C). Therefore, soil stability will be maintained through the avoidance of road construction and clear cutting on oversteepend slopes where treatment areas have been identified as a concern for slope stability.

Wetlands There will be no road construction or vegetation treatment activities that affect wetlands. The wetlands will have a WIZ buffer (100 feet) that will exclude these activities. There may be some prescribed fire which creeps into a wetland area, but the prescribed fire prescriptions will limit burning to seasons and times where it is unlikely that wetlands will burn with any high severity or intensity. Therefore, it is expected that the avoidance of wetlands will result in very minor if any impacts to wetlands.

Hydrology

Water Quality The direct effects to water quality will be limited to a very few locations and situations where roads with drivable fords cross streams. There are no temporary roads or landings proposed to be constructed within WIZ areas. The impact of the road crossings will be negligible (and more likely beneficial over time) as most of the current crossings will be upgraded to conform to BMPs. Stream crossings for log yarding activities would be required to meet WCPs/BMPs for log skidding activities. The storm-proofing of these road crossings and implementation of WCPs/BMPs are expected to minimize sediment input or disturbance to stream channels (Burroughs and King 1989). Any disturbance to a stream that might occur would be identified and rehabilitated following BMP and timber contract processes.


22

The WEPP road modeling indicates that there would not be a substantial difference in sediment delivery at road crossings from the current condition due to implementation of the proposed action. There are currently 70 stream crossings and the project would not add any more through either new or temporary road construction. Road traffic is expected to increase for limited periods of time during implementation, and potentially could increase sediment delivery; however, sediment delivery at crossings should actually stay the same or slightly decrease due to upgrades at the stream channel approaches to meet BMP guidelines (Table 7).

Table 7. Estimated sediment delivery to road crossings by alternative

Treatment Level Tons Sediment per Year per Crossing

Alternative 1- No Action 0.1 Alternative 2- Proposed Action 0.1

There would be no direct effects to streamflow, wetlands, or WIZ areas. The implementation of WIZ buffers precludes any direct effects. All effects to streamflow, wetlands, and WIZ areas are classified as indirect effects that happen at a different time or place from the implementation of project activities.

Indirect Effects

Soils There would be no indirect effects from or to the soil resource. All of the effects to the soil resource are considered to be direct effects.

Long Term Soil Productivity There will be no indirect effects to long-term soil productivity. As described in the “affected area” section and above in “soil disturbance,” the local soils are resilient as long as they are not impacted with ground-based equipment during wet or saturated soil conditions. Long-term soil productivity will be maintained through the implementation of project design features and WCPs/BMPs. Recent monitoring has shown that soil disturbance, and therefore, long-term soil productivity are maintained within Forest Plan standards for disturbance.

Soil Stability None of the soils identified in the Forest Plan for slope stability issues are found in the project area. There are some areas of steep slopes which are may have slope instability (USDA 2008c) but those areas are typically short sections of steep slopes (over 30 percent slopes). Road construction is proposed in one of those concern areas; however the road route avoids the steep sections and will not require impacting the oversteepened slope areas. Further, vegetation treatment units will not be retaining at least 80 square feet basal area on slopes greater than 55 percent (see project design features, Appendix C). Therefore, soil stability will be maintained through the avoidance of road construction and clear cutting on oversteepend slopes where treatment areas have been identified as a concern for slope stability.

Wetlands There will be no road construction or vegetation treatment activities that affect wetlands. The wetlands will have a WIZ buffer (100 feet) that will exclude these activities. There may be some prescribed fire which creeps into a wetland area, but the prescribed fire prescriptions will limit


23

burning to seasons and times where it is unlikely that wetlands will burn with any high severity or intensity. Therefore it is expected that the avoidance of wetlands will result in very minor if any impacts to wetlands.

Hydrology

Water Quality Indirect effects to water resources and riparian areas are those effects which occur off-site (not directly on the waterbody) and do not immediately affect water quality, riparian health, or stream channels (such as is the case with the local area of a road crossing). The effects usually occur at a later time or place as a result of precipitation events and runoff (erosion from an activity unit or landing to a stream after a storm event for example).

Treatments adjacent to the WIZ usually pose the most risks for impacts to water quality, riparian health, and stream channels. Therefore, for the purposes of this project, treatment activities were delineated for locations outside of the WIZ. Further, project design criteria (Appendix C) to protect water, riparian, and aquatic resources were developed. Effects to the WIZ would be controlled through the combined implementation of project design features and WCPs/BMPs.

As noted in the direct effects section, road crossings are the most likely locations for effects to water, riparian, and aquatic resources. There are no temporary roads or landings proposed in streams or within the WIZ in the project. Therefore, the existing stream crossings are the locations where there is a potential for an effect to stream channels or water quality. The other potential for effects to water, riparian, and aquatic resources would be from activities outside of the WIZ that could be transported downslope through the WIZ to a stream channel. Sediment delivery from upslope activities could potentially be transported through the WIZ to downslope intermittent streams. Table 8 displays the analysis of the potential for sediment delivery through the intermittent WIZ stream buffers.

Table 8. Estimated volume and risk of sediment delivery through the WIZ as a result of implementing the proposed action

Treatment Type Tons per square mile

in first year of disturbance

“Average” Annual Hillslope Sedimentation tons per square mile per

year

Wildfire (Slopes up to 10%) 1,497.6 37.4

Wildfire (Slopes up to 20%) 2,835.0 70.9 Wildfire (Slopes up to 40%) 4,748.8 118.7

Prescribed Fire (Low Intensity- Slopes up to 10%) 76.8 0.3



Thinning (Slopes up to 10%) 12.8 0.6 Thinning (Slopes up to 20%) 25.6 1.3

Thinning (Slopes up to 40%) 44.8 2.2

Access Roads (Low Traffic) 1.2 to 15 1.2 to 15

Access Roads (High Traffic) 3.2 to 15 3.2 to 15


24

The WEPP model was run using the WIZ buffer width (100 feet) and the road densities that are on the upper end of the range for the affected watersheds (3.6 miles per square mile vs. using 2.5 miles per square mile). By utilizing the more conservative values, the model outputs present a reasonable upper bound for impacts and sediment delivery to streams. The WEPP results for prescribed fire indicate that there is an initial potential for a slight input of sediment from the burning activities, which drops to nearly background levels within the first year. Thinning activities and road use are not expected to deliver substantial amounts of sediment to stream channels. For example, the prescribed fire on 20-percent slopes would equate to approximately ¼ ton per acre of sediment delivery for treated stands adjacent to streams (172.8 tons per 640 acres = 0.27 tons per acre).

Streamflow Road drainage systems may alter a stream’s water yield. These changes occur when subsurface and surface flow is captured at road cuts and in ditches, and redirected into a channel (USDA Forest Service 1996). Roads can also direct water away from a stream (USDA Forest Service, 1996). The effects of road drainage can include an increase in peak discharge, changes in the shape and timing of the hydrograph, increases in the total discharge, and potentially a decrease in water quality (USDA Forest Service 1996). However, flow regimes do not appear to be adversely affected by the dense road networks in the Black Hills. During field reviews by Forest personnel, peak flows of streams were not shown to increase due to road density (USDA Forest Service 1996). Roads are occupying areas where trees or biomass would be. This creates an opening in the forest floor and reduces the evapotranspiration rates on these areas making more water available for ground water recharge or streamflow. Normally roads tend to change flow regimes by delivering water more quickly to streams making their peak flows higher.

Recent research indicates that effects from peak flows, although of concern, should be confined to a relatively discrete portion of the network where channel gradients are less than approximately 0.02 percent and streambeds are composed of gravel and finer material. Furthermore, data supports the interpretation that if peak flow increases do occur, they can only be detected in flows of moderate frequency and magnitude. Beyond that, they are likely not detectable (Grant et al. 2008). Therefore, it is unlikely that there would be any detectable changes from the current condition resulting from either the new road construction or the vegetation treatments.

Riparian Areas Those riparian areas that do exist within the project area are associated with springs and wetlands where there is enough water for riparian vegetation to thrive. These areas are scheduled to receive a WIZ buffer of 100 feet. There will be no treatments that effect riparian vegetation with the possible exception of prescribed fire. Since prescribed fire will only be allowed to creep into wetland and spring WIZ areas, it is not foreseen that fire intensity or organic material consumption will be high. The season and timing of prescribed fire activities are designed to be implemented at a time of the year when wetland and spring areas will be moist and resistant to high-severity, high-intensity fire. Therefore, it is not expected that there will be any measurable effect to riparian areas, and there would be no substantial change from the current condition.

Water Influence Zones Water influence zones would be delineated and implemented for all streams, wetlands, and springs within the project area that are adjacent to treatment activities. These WIZ areas are exclusive of ground based treatment activities and direct lighting of prescribed fire. However, end lining, hand thinning, and prescribed fire backing into WIZ areas may occur. The instances where


25

these exceptions will occur are expected to be few due to the lack of woody vegetation in WIZ areas and the proposed prescribed fire prescription for cool, low-severity, low-intensity burns. With the exception of some potentially slight reductions to sediment delivery resulting from road maintenance activities, it is not expected that the WIZ areas will be substantially impacted or altered from the implementation of the proposed project. Overall, the project would have a neutral impact on WIZs. The project is affecting a very small portion of the available WIZ area within the project boundary, but of those acres, there would be a neutral effect due to the limitations on cutting riparian vegetation, ground cover maintenance standards, and road maintenance at stream crossings.

Further, improvements in road drainage and implementation of WCPs/BMPs associated with project-related road use and maintenance should decrease the overall long-term impact of sedimentation on stream channels.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area was delineated based on affected 7th Code Hydrologic Unit subwatersheds. The affected subwatersheds and their acreages are listed in Table 1.

A degree of activity within a watershed, beyond which an adverse effect might be expected, is termed a threshold of concern. Thresholds of concern for affected subwatersheds are usually developed based on a sensitivity index which includes slope, vegetative cover, geology/erosion hazard rating, and critical watershed elements (public drinking water sources, and other waterbodies highly susceptible to water quality degradation). Thresholds of concern are expressed as a percentage of a watershed that is in equivalent clearcut area (ECA) (USDA 1974), and in this case, is 15 percent ECA within any of the affected subwatersheds.

The percent ECA (Table 9) shows the relative disturbance level attributed to each watershed by resource management activities and existing conditions prior to and after the implementation of an action alternative, which is estimated here as 2011.

Implementation of the proposed action would initially increase the ECA values over the current condition beyond the threshold of concern in the short term. However, the thinning and fuel treatment generally raise the ECA values due to their broad-scale coverage. The intensity and impact of the treatments are of such a nature that they don’t present a long-term impact. The resilience of the local soils and the implementation of project design criteria and WCPs/BMPs will assure that ECA values and impacts to the affected subwatersheds will be within threshold of concern values within 3 to 5 years. The prescribed burning effects are, however, expected to be relatively light to moderate from a hydrologic standpoint. The prescribed burns are expected to be low-intensity over most of the proposed burn areas, and hydrologic soil conditions are expected to recover to pre-fire levels relatively rapidly (within 1 to 3 years).

ECA modeling is an index of overall watershed disturbance and does not account for spatial location or mitigation factors which reduce erosion and ground disturbance. Therefore, it is not expected that the project will have a substantial impact at the watershed scale due to the relatively small additions in ECA attributable to the project activities. Although the ECA values indicate some slight increases over current values, the actual impacts associated with the project should be benign or slightly beneficial when considered in the context of reintroducing fire into the ecosystem and the implementation of project design features and WCPs/BMPs.


26

Table 9. Equivalent clearcut by watershed. Note: the estimated threshold value for the affected subwatersheds is 15 percent.

7 Code HUC Subwatershed Acres Threshold

of concern

Current Condition

ECA, percent

Immediate post project ECA, percent

3 to 5 years post project,

percent

2011 2013 2016 to 2018

10120203030101 8,672 15% 3 17 2 10120203030102 8,476 15% 5 32 12

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Forestwide directives for project standards (USDA Forest Service 2005) are to implement best management practices (BMP) (USDA Forest Service 2006) that meet State and Federal guidelines in water quality protection and appropriate standards in Forest Service manuals and handbooks.

Water influence zones (WIZ), in accordance with the Forest Plan, are established for all perennial and intermittent reaches, wetlands, and springs in the project area. These buffers are treatable, but are exclusive of equipment entry, except on established roads and trails.

The project watersheds’ existing conditions are all functioning well within their thresholds of concern (the encompassing 6th code watershed is rated as a Class II watershed), but they are not in a natural pristine condition and are functioning in a managed system, and are therefore, functioning at risk in terms of hydrologic condition and aquatic resources. Nevertheless, the proposed action itself does not increase the overall impact to watersheds and aquatic resources over the long term. Total ECA in both affected watersheds is under 15 percent of total equivalent clearcut area. Based on this analysis, it is not expected that the proposed project will further decrease the condition of these watersheds.

Monitoring Recommendations Forestwide standards and guidelines require monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of WCPs/BMPs and mitigations to achieving water quality goals. Guidance for BMP use and effectiveness evaluation for the Forest Service is provided in documentation (USDA Forest Service 2010b). In addition, conducting soil quality surveys on treatment areas (utilizing the methodology described in General Technical Report WO-82a) is recommended to determine whether project treatments are meeting soil quality guidelines.


27

References Black Hills Forest Resource Association, 2001. South Dakota Silviculture Best Management

Practices Audit Project Final Report. Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation.

Black Hills Forest Resource Association, 2009. 2009 Field Audit Report: Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation of South Dakota Best Management Practices.

Burroughs, E.R., Jr., and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General Technical Report INT-GTR-264. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. 21 p.

Elliot, Bill et al. 1999. WEPP: ROAD (Draft 12/1999). WEPP interface for predicting Road Runoff, Erosion, and Sediment Delivery. Technical Documentation. USDA Forest Service Rocky, Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/wepproaddoc.htm

Elliot, Bill et al. 2000. WEPP: Disturbed (Draft 02/2000). WEPP interface for Disturbed Forest and Range Runoff, Erosion, and Sediment Delivery. Technical Documentation. USDA Forest Service Rocky, Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/distweppdoc.html

EPA. 2010. Pollution Prevention. Best Management Practices. www.epa.gov/ebtpages/pollbestmanagementpractices.html.

Grant, G.E., S.L Lewis, F.J. Swanson, J.H. Cissel, and J.J. McDonnell. 2008. Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel Response: A State-of-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experimental Station, Portland, Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-760.

Gucinski, Hermann, Michael J. Furniss, Robert R. Ziemer, and Martha H. Brookes. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-509. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p.

Page-Dumroese, et al. 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. Volume I Rapid Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Report WO-82a.

Seyedbagheri, Kathleen A. 1996. Idaho Forestry Best Management Practices, A compilation of Research on their effectiveness. General Technical Report INT-GTR-339.

Shepperd, W.D. and M.A. Battaglia. 2002. Ecology, siliviculture, and management of Black Hills ponderosa pine. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-97. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 112 p.

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR). 2003. Forestry best management practices for South Dakota. Pierre, South Dakota

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2010. The 2010 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment.

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/wepproaddoc.htm�

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/distweppdoc.html�


28

Thomas, S. 2007. Best Management Practices/Watershed Conservation Practices Summary Report 2002-2006. Mystic Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest.

Thomas, S. 2008. Best Management Practices/Watershed Conservation Practices Summary Report 2002-2007. Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest.

Thomas, S. 2009. Forest Plan (WCPs ) Monitoring Report: Field Season 2009. Mystic Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1974. Forest hydrology part II—hydrologic effects of vegetation manipulation. 229 p. Unpublished report. On file with: Natural Resources, Umatilla National Forest, 2517 SW Hailey Ave., Pendleton, OR 97801

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1996. Final environmental impact statement for the revised land and resource management plan for the Black Hills National Forest. Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. December 1996.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Black Hills National Forest: Forest Plan Best Management Practices Evaluation. Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2005. Software for Calculating Vegetation Disturbance and Recovery by Using the Equivalent Clearcut Area Model. Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-637.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2006a. Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2006b. Forest Service Handbook. Denver, Colorado. FSH 2509.25- Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2008a. Cold Springs Stream Crossing Survey. Northern Hills Ranger District. Black Hills National Forest

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2008b. Cold Springs Soil Health Survey. Northern Hills Ranger District. Black Hills National Forest

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2008c. Cold Springs Slope Stability Survey. Northern Hills Ranger District. Black Hills National Forest

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2009. Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region and the Northern Region FS Agreement #09-MU-11020000-014 and South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2010a. FY 2009 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Black Hills National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2010b. Forest Service National Core Best Management Practices. Nonpoint source pollution control for Water Quality Management on Forest System Lands. Draft FSH 2509.22.


29


30

Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Framework The following activities have the potential to overlap in time and space with the proposed action. The following activities were determined to be relevant in considering and analyzing potential cumulative effects. The following projects were not added to the equivalent clearcut area (ECA) analysis as they no longer have an effect on the watershed from a hydrologic perspective or were too disperse to be measureable.

• Travel management and road maintenance • Firewood cutting • Motorized recreation including snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles • Dispersed recreation • Noxious weed control: monitoring of noxious weeds, prevention and control measures.

The following activities are not associated with vegetation management, but were included in the ECA analysis:

• Power line right-of-way and maintenance activities (9 miles) • Gravel extraction (1 acre) • Range allotments (7th Code HUC 10120203030101, 5,532 acres (Griffith, Wildcat,

Wolff); 7th Code HUC 10120203030102, 6,471 acres (Deadman, Griffith, Wildcat, Little Spearfish).

Table 10 and Table 11 show past vegetation or fuels treatments within the two affected subwatersheds. This information was specifically used in the ECA analysis.

Table 10. Summarized timber harvest, noncommercial vegetation treatments, and fuel treatments within 7th Code HUC 10120203030101

Treatment Acres

Burning of Piled Material 267 Commercial Thin 6,396 Natural Changes (excludes fire) 76 Piling of Fuels, Hand or Machine 79 Precommercial Thin 339 Rearrangement of Fuels 1,465 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) 180 Site preparation for natural regeneration 184 Special Cut 14 Tree Encroachment Control 130 Wildlife Habitat Mechanical treatment 45 Wildlife Habitat Rehabilitate openings 21


31

Table 11. Summarized timber harvest, noncommercial vegetation treatments, and fuel treatments within 7th Code HUC 10120203030102

Treatment Acres

Burning of Piled Material 730 Commercial Thin 11,575 Compacting/Crushing of Fuels 126 Natural Changes (excludes fire) 136 Piling of Fuels, Hand or Machine 313 Precommercial Thin 482 Rearrangement of Fuels 2,495 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) 53 Shelterwood Preparatory Cut 34 Site preparation for natural regeneration 17 Special Cut 26 Tree Encroachment Control 160


32

Appendix B. WEPP Modeling Assumptions Road WEPP modeling assumptions:

Soils: Silt Loam

Rock Content: 20 percent

Surface Traffic: Native surface materials, High Traffic

Road Design: Insloped Bare Ditch

Road Gradient: 4 percent

Road Length: 200 feet

Road Width: 15 feet

Fill gradient: 50 percent

Fill length: 15 feet

Buff gradient: 25 percent

Buff length: 10 feet (to simulate a road/stream crossing situation)

Disturbed WEPP modeling assumptions

Soils: Silt Loam

Rock Content: 20 percent

Slope Length: 300 feet for upper and lower elements

Low Burn Severity 70 percent cover

Moderate Burn Severity 45 percent cover

Moderate burn severity modeled by reducing cover on low severity fire option

High Burn Severity 20 percent cover


33

Appendix C. Design Criteria

Table 12. Project design criteria

Applies to: Measure

All Activities Brush Disposal: • Rehabilitation of slash pile sites would include site preparation and seeding to

return the sites to productivity and control the spread of noxious weeds.

All Activities

Meadows: • White spruce will not be removed from wet meadows unless they are considered

a safety hazard. • Surface-disturbing activities (e.g., log skidding, location of landings, brush piling,

temporary roads construction, etc.) will be avoided as much as possible in meadows. If, during implementation, activities such as these cannot be located outside of meadows, the district hydrologist, botanist, range management specialist, and wildlife biologist will be contacted prior to implementation to determine if special requirements are warranted to protect site integrity.

All Activities

Soil and Water: • Some proposed activities would take place on soils identified as having a potential

for mass erosion. The following provisions, intended to minimize the amount of exposed bare soil, off‐site transport, and soil displacement, are to be implemented: (1) on slopes over 30 percent, harvesting and skidding methods that minimize the amount of soil displaced into piles or windrows would be used to leave soil intact and in place; and (2) prescribed burns on slopes over 30 percent would be conducted when soil, duff, and large fuels are sufficiently moist to retain duff as ground cover for prevention of erosion.

• Some proposed activities would take place on soils that are more susceptible to compaction. The following provision, intended to reduce the risk of detrimental compaction, would be implemented: Heavy equipment would avoid streams and swales (low‐lying or depressed and often wet stretches of land) except to cross at designated points, build crossings, or conduct restoration, unless protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil.

• To reduce potential for compaction and/or rutting, the following measure applies on all soil map units: Heavy equipment will be operated for land treatments only when soil moisture is below the plastic limit (soil moisture exceeds the plastic limit if the soil can be rolled into 3‐mm threads without breaking or crumbling), the soil is protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow, or the top 2 inches of the soil are frozen (Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook management measure 13/design criteria (b)).

• No wheeled or tracked equipment will be allowed within 100 feet of perennial or intermittent streams or springs.

• No wheeled or tracked equipment will be allowed within 100 feet of wetlands.

Timber Harvest

Soil and Water: • In stands where slopes exceed 55 percent, ensure that a tree overstory

component with at least an 80 basal area density remains following timber harvest and post-sale activities. If there is a need to reduce basal area density below this level, consult the district hydrologist for field verification of the site to determine further potential of slope stability impairment associated with additional levels of basal area reduction.

• Skid trails and temp roads: Place slash in a well‐distributed pattern across the skid trail surface and install water bars, where necessary, following harvest activities.

• When logging in previously disturbed stands, use existing skid trails and landings whenever possible.

• Avoid locating any temporary roads, skid trails, or log landings within 100 feet of perennial or intermittent streams, springs, or wetlands.


34

Table 12. Project design criteria

Applies to: Measure • Avoid conducting vegetation treatments that remove overstory trees within 100

feet of perennial or intermittent streams, springs, or wetlands. • Wheeled or tracked harvest equipment will not operate on slopes exceeding 40

percent.

Prescribed Fire

Soil and Water: • Prescribed burns in some sites would take place all or partly on soils with severe

erosion hazard. These burns would take place only when burn severity could be kept low.

• Small wetlands located in or immediately adjacent to any burn units would be excluded from areas to be burned and protected from disturbance. No active ignition would occur within the WIZ that is adjacent to wetlands. Fire would be allowed to creep into wetlands.

• Prescribed burn plans will include monitoring measures to evaluate the breakdown of hydrophobic soils, where applicable, following burn implementation.

Transportation System

Soil and Water: • New road construction is to be designed to limit cut and fill slopes where possible,

particularly when located above steep slopes. • Construction of landings, roads, and tractor and skid trails would be avoided

within 100 feet (or a distance equal to the mean height of mature dominant late seral vegetation, whichever is more) of perennial springs, and wetlands. If this is not possible, crossings would be constructed and restored to prevent headcutting, gullying, erosion, and sediment transport to ephemeral or perennial channels. Creation of large water-collection points, such as road ditches or excessively large water bars, would be avoided, particularly up‐gradient of existing rotational site features, such as slumps and landslides. A greater frequency of water bars than that identified as the maximum spacing recommended in FSH 2509.25 for the Rocky Mountain Region is to be used. FSH 2509.25 direction disclosed that the listed spacings were maximum spacings and should be reduced if warranted by onsite factors, such as amount of road use, downslope stability, erosion, etc. Forestry Best Management Practices for South Dakota (2003) identifies suggested drainage feature spacings (p. 12) that have narrower spacings between drainage features as compared to FSH 2509.25. The 2009 Field Audit Report ‐ Implementation Monitoring of SD Forestry Best Management Practices further supports the greater need for more frequent spacing of water bars. The audit identified some areas with insufficient numbers of water bars on native surface roads. Temporary road cuts exceeding 2 feet would be avoided. If this is infeasible because of steep slopes, temporary roads would be re‐contoured.

• Where feasible, existing haul roads would be reconstructed with rolling grades instead of ditches and culverts.

• Water bars and sediment barriers would be placed 10 to 20 feet below water bar outlets and culvert outlets on skid trails steeper than 15 percent.

• Engineering staff would consult with a forest hydrologist and fisheries biologist on design of stream crossings. Fill slopes would be protected with riprap, gabions, prompt seeding, or other measures approved by the hydrologist, fisheries biologist, or soil scientist.

• Placement of structures would comply with Federal and State laws regarding construction in and near waterways, including placement of fill and measures to control sedimentation.

• Generally, do not locate any new system roads or temporary roads within 100 feet of streams (perennial, intermittent or ephemeral), springs, or wetlands. If a stream crossing is required, ensure that it is constructed to prevent headcutting, gullying, erosion, and sediment transport to stream channels by implementing Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices.


35

Appendix D. Watershed Conservation Practices and Best Management Practices

Best Management Practice Effectiveness Best management practices (BMPs) are by definition “methods that have been determined to be the most effective and practical means of preventing or reducing pollution” (EPA 2010). BMPs are implemented to control or limit nonpoint source pollution. The general thought is that if BMPs are implemented, then the project would meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act and protect water quality.

“BMPs are developed by the State of South Dakota… to ensure compliance with federal and state water-quality standards” (USDA Forest Service 2006a). In the Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) of the Forest Service, these best management practices are included within the Region’s Watershed Conservation Practices (USDA Forest Service 2006b). Under the 2009 Memorandum of understanding (MOU) (#09-MU-11020000-014) between the State of South Dakota’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR) and the Forest Service, the Forest Service is allowed to follow the Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices in lieu of the State of South Dakota Best Management Practices. The MOU defines the roles of the Forest Service and SDDENR for compliance with the Clean Water Act for nonpoint source pollution. Following the Water Conservation Practices Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2006b), the Forest Service is meeting the requirements of the BMPs established by SDDENR.

The effectiveness of BMPs has been questioned. The Black Hills National Forest completed a Forest Plan BMP Evaluation (USDA Forest Service 2003). Chapter 4 cites two studies done on the Black Hills National Forest by the Black Hills Forest Resource Association (2001) and the Wyoming Timber Industry Association (2001) which concluded that “These results highlight the consistent application and effectiveness of BMPs in the Black Hills and other National Forests” (USDA Forest Service 2003). The evaluation reviewed other studies or reports and concluded that “These studies highlight the effectiveness of BMPs in forests throughout the United States” (USDA Forest Service 2003). This evaluation demonstrates that BMPs are effective.

In 2009, the Black Hills Forest Resource Association conducted BMP field reviews for application and effectiveness monitoring. The Jimmy timber sale, which is located in the adjacent 6th code subwatershed, was a selected timber sale for the audit. The Jimmy timber sale was evaluated as meeting or exceeding required BMPs (Black Hills Forest Resource Association 2009).

Applicable Watershed Conservation Practices

Management Measure 1 A- In each watershed containing a third order and larger stream, limit connected disturbed areas

so that total stream network is not expanded by more than 10 percent. Progress toward zero connected disturbed areas as much as practicable. Where it is impossible or impracticable to disconnect a particular connected disturbed area, minimize the areal extent of the individual connected disturbed area as much as practicable. In watersheds that contain stream reaches in diminished stream health class, allow only those actions that will maintain or reduce watershed-scale connected disturbed areas.


36

B- Design the size, orientation, and surface roughness (that is, slash and other features that would trap and hold snow on site) of forest openings to prevent snow scour and site desiccation.

Management Measure 2 A- Maintain organic ground cover of each activity area so that pedestals, rills, and surface runoff

from the activity area are not increased. The amount of organic ground cover needed will vary by different ecological types and should be commensurate with the potential of the site.

B-Restore the organic ground cover of degraded activity areas within the next plan period, using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants.

Management Measure 3 A- Allow no action that will cause long-term change to a lower stream health class in any stream

reach. In degraded systems (that is, At-risk or Diminished stream health class), progress toward robust stream health within the next plan period.

B- Allow no action that will cause long-term change away from desired condition in any riparian or wetland vegetation community. Consider management of stream temperature and large woody debris recruitment when determining desired vegetation community. In degraded systems, progress toward desired condition within the next plan period.

C- Keep heavy equipment out of streams, swales, and lakes, except to cross at designated points, build crossings, or do restoration work, or if protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. Keep heavy equipment out of streams during fish spawning, incubation, and emergence periods.

D- Ensure at least one-end log suspension in the watershed influence zone (WIZ). Fell trees in a way that protects vegetation in the WIZ from damage. Keep log landings and skid trails out of the WIZ, including swales.

E- Locate new concentrated-use sites outside the WIZ, if practicable, and outside the riparian areas and wetlands. Armor or reclaim existing sites in the WIZ to prevent detrimental soil and bank erosion.

M- Do not excavate earth material from, or store excavated earth material in, any stream, swale, lake, wetland, or WIZ.

Management Measure 4 A- Install stream crossings to meet Corps of Engineers and State permits, pass normal flows, and

be armored to withstand design flows.

B- Size culverts and bridges to pass debris. Engineers work with hydrologists and aquatic biologists on site design.

C- Install stream crossings on straight and resilient stream reaches, as perpendicular to flow as practicable, and to provide passage of fish and other aquatic life.

D- Install stream crossings to sustain bankfull dimensions of width, depth, and slope, and keep streambeds and banks resilient. Favor bridges, bottomless arches, or buried pipe-arches for those streams with identifiable floodplains and elevated road prisms, instead of pipe culverts.


37

Favor armored fords for those streams where vehicle traffic is either seasonal or temporary, or the ford design maintains the channel pattern, profile, and dimension.

E- Install or maintain fish migration barriers only if needed to protect endangered, threatened, sensitive, or unique native aquatic populations, and only where natural barriers do not exist.

Management Measure 5 A- Add or remove rocks, wood, or other material in streams or lakes only if such action maintains

or improves stream and lake health. Leave rocks and portions of wood that are embedded in beds or banks to prevent channel scour and maintain natural habitat complexity.

B- Do not relocate natural stream channels if avoidable. Return flow to natural channels where practicable. Where reconstruction of stream channels is necessary, construct channels and floodways with natural stream pattern and geometry, stable beds, and banks, and provide habitat complexity.

Management Measure 6 A- Keep ground vehicles out of wetlands unless protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2

inches of frozen soil. Do not disrupt water supply or drainage patterns into wetlands.

B- Keep roads and trails out of wetlands unless there is no other practicable alternative. If roads or trails must enter wetlands, use bridges or raised prisms with diffuse drainage to sustain flow patterns. Set crossing bottoms at natural levels of channel beds and wet meadow surfaces. Avoid actions that may dewater or reduce water budgets in wetlands.

C- Avoid long-term reduction in organic ground cover and organic soil layers in any wetland (including peat in fens).

E- Avoid any loss of rare wetlands such as fens and springs.

F- Do not build firelines in or around wetlands unless needed to protect life, property, or wetlands. Use hand lines with minimum feasible soil disturbance. Use wetland features as firelines if practicable.

Management Measure 8 A- Design all ditches, canals, and pipes with at least an 80 percent chance of passing high flows

and remaining stable during their life.

Management Measure 9 A- Construct roads on ridge tops, stable upper slopes, or wide valley terraces if practicable.

Stabilize soils onsite. End-haul soil if full-bench construction is used. Avoid steep slopes steeper than 70 percent.

B- Avoid soil-disturbing actions during periods of heavy rain or wet soils. Apply travel restrictions to protect soil and water.

C- Install cross drains to disperse runoff into filter strips and minimize connected disturbed areas. Make cuts, fills, and road surfaces strongly resistant to erosion between stream crossing and at least the nearest cross drain. Revegetate using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants.


38

D- Construct roads where practicable, with outslope and rolling grades instead of ditches and culverts.

E- Retain stabilizing vegetation on unstable soil. Avoid new roads or heavy equipment use on unstable or highly erodible soils.

F- Use existing roads unless other options will produce less sediment. Reconstruct for long-term soil and drainage stability.

G- Avoid ground skidding on sustained slopes steeper than 40 percent and on moderate to severely burned sustained slopes greater than 30 percent. Conduct logging to disperse runoff as practicable.

I- During and following operations on outsloped roads, retain drainage and remove berms on the outside edge except those intentionally constructed for protection of road grade fills.

J- Locate and construct log landings in such a way as to minimize the amount of excavation needed and to reduce the potential for soil erosion. Design landings to have proper drainage. After use, treat landings to disperse runoff, prevent surface erosion, and encourage revegetation.

Management Measure 10 A- Design all roads, trails, and other soil disturbance to the minimum standard for their use and to

“roll” with the terrain as feasible.

B- Use filter strips, and sediment traps if needed, to keep all sand-sized sediment on the land and disconnect disturbed soil from streams, lakes, and wetlands. Disperse runoff into filter strips.

C- Key sediment traps into the ground. Clean them out when 50 percent full. Remove sediment to a stable, gentle, upland site and revegetate.

D- Keep heavy equipment out of the filter strips except to do restoration work or build armored stream or lake approaches. Yard logs up out of each filter strip with minimum disturbance of ground cover.

E- Build firelines outside filter strips unless tied into a stream, lake, or wetland as a firebreak with minimal disturbed soil. Retain organic ground cover in filter strips during prescribed fires.

F- Design road ditches and cross drains to limit flow to ditch capacity and prevent ditch erosion and failure.

Management Measure 11 A- Do not encroach fills or introduce soil into streams, swales, lakes, or wetlands.

B- Properly compact fills and keep woody debris out of them. Revegetate cuts and fills upon final shaping to restore ground cover, using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Provide sediment control until erosion control is permanent.

C- Do not disturb ditches during maintenance unless needed to restore drainage capacity or repair damage. Do not undercut the cut slope.


39

D- Space cross drains according to road grade and soil type as indicated below. Do not divert water from one stream to another.

E- Empty cross drains onto stable slopes that disperse runoff into filter strips. On soils that may gully, armor outlets to disperse runoff. Tighten cross-drain spacing so gullies are not created.

F- Armor rolling dips as needed to prevent rutting damage to the function of the rolling dips. Ensure that road maintenance provides stable surfaces and drainage.

G- Where berms must be used, construct and maintain them to protect the road surface, drainage features, and slope integrity while also providing user safety.

H- Build firelines with rolling grades and minimum downhill convergence. Outslope or backblade, permanently drain, and revegetate firelines immediately after the burn. Use certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants.

J- During winter operations, maintain roads as needed to keep the road surface drained during thaws and break-ups. Perform snow removal in such a manner that protects the road and other adjacent resources. Do not use riparian areas, wetlands or streams for snow storage or disposal. Remove snow berms where they result in accumulation or concentration of snowmelt runoff on the road or erodible fill slopes. Install snow berms where such placement will preclude concentration of snowmelt runoff and will serve to rapidly dissipate melt water.

K- On roads with high/heavy traffic use, require maintenance agreements and/or use of road surface stabilization practices and dust abatement supplements.

Management Measure 12 A- Site-prepare, drain, decompact, revegetate, and close temporary and intermittent-use roads and

other disturbed sites within one year after use ends. Provide stable drainage that disperses runoff into filter strips and maintains stable fills. Do this work concurrently. Stockpile topsoil where practicable to be used in site restoration. Use certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants.

B- Remove all temporary stream crossings, restore the channel geometry, and revegetate the channel banks using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants.

C- Restore cuts and fills to the original slope contours where practicable and as opportunities arise to re-establish subsurface pathways. Use certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Obtain stormwater discharge permits as required.

D- Establish effective ground cover on disturbed sites to prevent accelerated onsite soil loss and sediment delivery to streams. Restore ground cover using certified native plants as practicable to meet revegetation objectives. Avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants.

Management Measure 13 A- Restrict roads, landings, skid trails, concentrated-use sites, and similar soil disturbances to

designated sites.

B- Operate heavy equipment for land treatments only when soil moisture is below the plastic limit, or protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil.


40

C- Conduct prescribed fires to minimize the residence time on the soil while meeting the burn objectives. This is usually done when the soil and duff are moist.

Management Measure 14 A- On soils with surface soil (A-horizon) thinner than 1 inch, topsoil organic matter less than 2

percent, or effective rooting depth less than 15 inches, retain 80 to 90 percent of the fine (less than 3 inches in diameter) post-treatment logging slash in the stand after each clearcut and seed-tree harvest. Consider need for retention of coarse woody debris slash in each activity area to balance soil quality requirements and fuel loading concerns.

B- If machine piling of slash is done, conduct piling to leave in place and to avoid displacing soil into piles or windrows.

Management Measure 15 B- Locate vehicle service and fuel area, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps and

areas on gentle upland sites. Mix, load, and clean on gentle upland sites. Dispose of chemicals and containers in State-certified disposal areas.

C- Locate temporary labor, spike, logging and fire camps such that surface and subsurface water resources are protected. Consideration should be given to disposal of human waste, wastewater and garbage, and other solid wastes.

Management Measure 16 A- Install contour berms and trenches around vehicle service and refueling areas, chemical

storage and use areas, and waste dumps to fully contain spills. Use liners as needed to prevent seepage to groundwater. Prepare Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan per the requirements of 40 CFR 112.

E- Inspect equipment used for transportation, storage or application of chemicals daily during use period for leaks. If leaks or spills occur, report them and install emergency traps to contain and clean up.

F- Report spills and take appropriate clean-up action in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws, rules and regulations. Contaminated soil and other material shall be removed from National Forest System (NFS) lands and disposed of in a manner according to State and Federal laws, rules and regulations.

Forestry Best Management Practices for South Dakota Streamside management zones are strips of land at least 50 feet wide adjacent to a surface water body or perennial stream. A streamside management zone acts as a filter that traps sediment, logging debris, pesticides, and other pollutants.

Roads provide adequate drainage from the surface or all permanent and temporary roads. Recommended techniques include, but are not limited to, using outsloped or crowned roads, drain dips, or insloped roads with ditches and cross drains. Space road drainage features so that peak drainage flow on or in ditches will not exceed the capacity of the individual drainage structure.

Energy dissipaters and debris racks: Both structures reduce water velocity and prevent erosion. Dissipaters include riprap and vegetated ditches. Construct energy dissipaters (rock piles, logs,


41

etc.) where necessary at the downstream end of the ditch relief culverts to reduce the energy of the emerging water.

Crossdrains, culverts, water bars, dips, and other drainage structures should not discharge onto erodible soils or fill slopes unless outfall protection is installed.

Prevent downslope movement of sediment by using sediment catch basins, drop inlets, changes in road grade, headwalls, or recessed cut slopes. Route road drainage through streamside management zones, filtration fields, or other sediment trapping structures. Install road drainage features above stream crossings to route discharge into filtration zones before entering a stream.

Water bars: Water bars are excavated channels with a berm. Water bars are constructed across a road to intercept and divert water from side ditches and road or trail surfaces. Waterbars are best suited for roads that receive little use for extended periods of time. They are difficult to drive over and are easily eroded when subjected to heavy traffic. Install water bars at the top of any sloping road or trail. Space additional water bars along the road or trail to its base using the suggested spacing the table (Table 13).

Table 13. Water bar spacing by road or trail grade (percent)

Road or Trail Grade (percent)

Spacing between Water Bars (feet)

2 250 5 135 10 80 15 60 20 45

The uphill end of a water bar should extend beyond the side ditch of the road or trail. The downhill end should extend far enough beyond the road to disperse the water onto undisturbed ground. The water bar should have a 30- to 35-degree angle downslope from a line perpendicular to the direction of the road or trail. The water bar should have a 2 to 4 percent outslope along this angle. Water diversion structures such as water bars, culverts, and dips must be in place and operative before stabilization activities are initiated.

Documents

Cold Springs Project - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · Black Hills National Forest . July 29, 2011 . ... productivity and water quality from