Geology Report - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.… · Singleton Project Geology Report 4 Introduction The Singleton Project is

Singleton Project Geology Report

1

Singleton Project

Geology Report

Prepared by: Angie Bell, Forest Geologist

For:

Salmon/Scott River Ranger District

Klamath National Forest

1 June 2011


2

Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Overview of Issues Addressed .................................................................................................................. 4

Landslide and Debris Flow Hazards ..................................................................................................... 4

Naturally Occurring Asbestos Hazards ................................................................................................. 5

Geologic Resources .............................................................................................................................. 5

Environmental Indicators ...................................................................................................................... 5

Project Design Features ................................................................................................................................ 6

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................................................... 10

Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 10

Cumulative Watershed Effects Model - GEO ..................................................................................... 10

Spatial and Temporal Context................................................................................................................. 10

No Action ................................................................................................................................................ 11

Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................................. 11

Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................................... 11

Direct and Indirect Effects .................................................................................................................. 11

Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................................. 13

Compliance with Law, Policy and Regulation ............................................................................................ 15

References ................................................................................................................................................... 15

Appendix A- Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................... 16

Table of Tables

Table 1: Acres of unstable ground disturbed by proposed action by treatment. Unstable ground includes

active landslide, inner gorge, steep granitic ground and toe zones of landslides. * There are treatments

proposed on active landslides in the project. ............................................................................................. 12

Table 2: Cumulative watershed effects GEO model estimated of potential sediment delivery due to mass

wasting (yd3/decade). ................................................................................................................................. 14

Table of Figures


3

Figure 1: Geomorphology of the Singleton Project area with treatments. .................................................. 8

Figure 2: Bedrock geology of the Singleton Project area with treatments................................................... 9


4

Introduction The Singleton Project is located 4 miles east of Scott Bar, California in the Mill Creek and Indian Creek

6th field watersheds. The project proposes to employ commercial harvest and pre-commercial thinning

along with prescribed fire to treat natural and activity fuels. The project does not propose any new road

construction. The utilization of a temporary road on an existing roadbed is being proposed to access unit

537-9 and a short swing trail used for skidding is proposed to provide mechanical equipment access to

unit 540-12. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the effects of the proposed action on geologic

hazards and resources that may be present in the project area. These include landslide potential, naturally

occurring asbestos hazard, groundwater, and unique geologic areas (e.g. caves, special interest areas and

research natural areas).

The project area is underlain mainly by metasedimentary and metavolcanic bedrock. These bedrock types

are relatively stable in the Scott River Ranger District. There are few active landslides in the project area

and the dormant landslide deposits are most likely a result of past seismic events.

Overview of Issues Addressed

Landslide and Debris Flow Hazards

Landslides, or mass wasting, can adversely affect human life and property, watershed condition and fish

habitat. Management activities which can increase landslide rates include: a) Disturbance associated with

the construction of new or the re-opening of existing roads or landings. b) Removal of excessive

vegetation from unstable areas through logging or prescribed fire; and c) Disturbances to soil in unstable

areas associated with mechanized yarding of timber.

For this analysis, unstable areas are considered to be active landslides, toe zones of dormant landslides,

inner gorge features and steep dissected granitic lands (See Figure 1). Landslide hazards in the project

area can be addressed in three categories as described below:

1. Deep, Slow-Moving Landslides (earthflows and slumps) - A large proportion of the

project area is underlain by dormant landslides (slumps and earthflows). These features

tend to have a defined toe zone (foot of the landslide) that is steep and sensitive to

disturbance. Disturbance of the layer of loose layer of material covering solid rock

(regolith) and the concentration of surface runoff would increase the potential of

reactivating these features (DMG 1999).

2. Shallow Rapid Landslides (Debris Slides) - Several debris slides have occurred in Horse

Creek and its tributaries on steep (≥65%) slopes. Debris slides are common in such areas

of the KNF. Decreasing root support and cohesion would increase the probability of

shallow landsliding on steep ground (≥65%) and areas with previous active landsliding

(DMG 1999).

3. Debris Flows - Debris flows are sediment-laden flows which usually develop in channels,

and move rapidly downstream, mobilizing bed material, and stripping away vegetation.

They can be triggered by landslides in the headwaters during winter storms, or by high-

intensity, short-duration summer storms which do not trigger landslides. Inner gorge

features are commonly associated with debris flows. Disturbances in stream channels and


5

an increase in small materials due to management would increase debris flow probability

in the management area (DMG 1999).

Naturally Occurring Asbestos Hazards

Airborne asbestos is a human health hazard. Ultramafic rock is the most likely to contain

naturally occurring asbestos in the Klamath Mountains, which includes the Johnny O’Neil LSR.

If present, there is a potential for asbestos fibers to be introduced into the air by the removing

rock from quarries in ultramafic rock. The risk is also present during the construction of new

temporary roads, temporary roads on existing roadbeds, or landings in ultramafic rock. Figure 2

(Bedrock) shows the distribution of ultramafic rock relative to roads, vegetation management

actions and prescribed burn areas. None of the treatment areas or haul routes are underlain by

ultramafic rock and as a result it is not discussed further in this analysis.

Geologic Resources

Geologic resources which could be affected by the project include groundwater and unique

geologic areas.

1. Groundwater- Since this project consists mostly of thinning and underburning, effects on

the groundwater resource due to alteration in precipitation interception and

evapotranspiration are expected to be slight and the changes immeasurable. Effects on

groundwater are not addressed further as a result.

2. Caves- Caves are classified as significant if they meet the criteria specified by the Federal

Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988. No known caves occur within the project area,

and as a result, this resource is not addressed further.

3. Unique Geologic Areas- There are no Geologic Special Interest Areas in the project area

and as a result, Geologic Special Interest Areas are not addressed further in this report.

There are a few travertine springs in the project area. These features are primarily on

private land and none of these features were found in treatment areas. Therefore, they are

not discussed further in this analysis.

Environmental Indicators

Acres of disturbance on unstable ground: Comparing acres of disturbance from thinning

and underburning on unstable ground. To evaluate landslide potential, the amount of

disturbance (area) of each project activity on certain landslide-prone geomorphic terranes

(inner gorges, toe zones of dormant landslides, steep dissected granitic lands, and active

landslides) is tracked. This allows an overall look at how much activity would be

occurring in unstable areas by alternative.

Geo Model Risk Ratio: Comparing Risk Ratios from the GEO Model. The KNF has

adopted a management threshold for landslide sediment production of 200% over

background, and this translates to a risk ratio of 1.0. Watersheds with risk ratios of 1.0 or

greater exceed the threshold of concern. This indicator is an index which allows for the


6

comparison of cumulative watershed effects from landslide processes between

alternatives.

Project Design Features

Tractor Yarding –

o Tractors and mechanical harvesters would be excluded the unstable land

component of Riparian Reserves. These areas are in units 538-66 and 537-60 (see

Appendix B for maps).

Prescribed Fire in Riparian Reserves-

o Prescribed fire would be designed to result in low severity burns in all Riparian

Reserves.

o During underburning, fire would generally be backed down into Riparian

Reserves, and ignition would usually not occur there. However, there may be

exceptions where ignition inside the Riparian Reserve may actually allow for

lower severity fire in those areas.

Existing Roads and Landings –

o Improvements on the existing road to the project area would not over-steepen the

failed road cuts, would minimize sidecasting, and maintain the ditches and cross

drains or any outslope of the roadway.

o Minimum disturbance methods and clearing widths would be employed on

existing roads.

Skyline in Riparian Reserves –

o Cable corridors would be placed on the landscape as to minimize disturbance to

unstable lands (such as inner gorges, active landslides and toe zones).

o Where logs cannot be adequately suspended, gouging of the ground surface can

occur depending on size and number of trees yarded. Gouging in corridors as a

result of dragging logs would be water barred or covered with logging slash, as

necessary, to effectively mitigate erosion and concentration of surface runoff.

Temporary Roads and Landings-

o On existing temporary roads, berms will be removed and conditions which

concentrate surface runoff would be eliminated.

o Following use, all existing temporary roads will be decommissioned, fills

removed from draws, and natural runoff patterns re-established (outsloping, dips,

etc.).


7

o The landing at the end of road 45N91Y is at the break in slope on an inner gorge.

The landing will be contoured to reduce the potential for the concentration of

surface run off to minimize mass wasting potential. (see Appendix B for map)

o The landing in unit 538-75 on existing roadbed has failed (slumped) in the past

delivering sediment to a bench feature below. To minimize further mass wasting

this landing will not be used for decking logs or piling material. (see Appendix B

for map)


8

Figure 1: Geomorphology of the Singleton Project area with treatments.


9

Figure 2: Bedrock geology of the Singleton Project area with treatments.


10

Environmental Consequences

Methods

Each alternative was evaluated according to: a) its potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects; b) the

environmental Indicators; and c) how well it would meet direction from laws, regulations, Forest Service

policy and the KNF Forest Plan. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects were assessed through field and

air photo assessments, and GIS analyses using the bedrock and geomorphology coverages. Aerial photos

were used to identify geomorphic features in units and along roads, to develop a history of landsliding and

debris flows in the project area dating back to 1944, and to prioritize units for field visits. Units on

unstable lands, as identified on the Forest geomorphology coverage, or on air photos, were selected for

field review.

Cumulative Watershed Effects Model - GEO

The landslide model (GEO) which is used to evaluate cumulative watershed effects predicts the

volume of landslide sediment (cubic yards) which would likely be delivered to the stream system

under a variety of road, timber harvest, and fire conditions. Landslide production coefficients

were developed in the Salmon River basin, about 40 miles south of the project area. A risk ratio

is used as an indicator of the potential for adverse cumulative watershed effects. The risk ratio is

determined by comparing post-project sediment production to that which would occur under

background conditions (fully forested with no roads, harvest or fire).

The affected environment (current conditions) includes the effects of past and present actions.

The relative change in sediment production (percent over background) is computed as follows:

post-project sediment production, minus background sediment production divided by

background sediment production, times 100. When the percent over background approaches,

200%, it is assumed that the risk for adverse cumulative watershed effects rises rapidly, and this

value is considered a management threshold. This value of 200% was developed by analyzing

model outputs for the entire KNF, and identifying those which appeared to exhibit actual

physical signs of adverse cumulative watershed effects. The risk ratio is computed by dividing

the threshold value of 200% by the computed post-project percent over background. When the

percent over background equals 200%, the risk ratio is 1.0. This analysis follows the procedure

described in 2004 Cumulative Watershed Effects analysis models (USFS 2004). The cumulative

effects of the project are the added effects produced by the project to those of the past, present,

and reasonably foreseeable future actions as described earlier.

Spatial and Temporal Context

Effects are analyzed in the context of short and long term. Short term effects are taken to be 0-5

years, during which site conditions should essentially recover from the proposed thinning and

underburn activities. The long term is taken to be greater than 5 years. The effects of high

severity wildfire would likely last up to 50 years. New temporary roads are considered to be


11

permanent fixtures, and never fully recover, since cuts and fills remain, even after hydrologic

stabilization. The spatial context is the project area (the Indian and Mill Creek 6th

field

watersheds) with modeling done at the 7th

field watershed level.

No Action

This is the no action alternative. This is the continuation of the current level of management and use. It

includes road maintenance, dispersed recreation (e.g., hunting, camping, fishing, and hiking), watershed

restoration activities and a modeled wildfire.

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

There would not be new ground disturbance to impact landslide potential due to the effects of

taking no action. However, no treatment in the project area would lead to increased mortality due

to competition in the timber stands over time. Without treatment the species diversity of the

timber stands would decrease, making the stand more likely to be impacted by high intensity and

severity wildfire. The large tree mortality would increase landslide potential by reducing root

cohesion (Swanson & Dryness 1973) and precipitation interception (Reid 2010). Alterations to

evapotranspiration and precipitation interception processes due to tree loss would also increase

landslide potential across the watersheds. High severity wildfire, which is associated with tree

mortality, would increase the landslide potential should an event occur.

Cumulative Effects

The current risk ratio for the GEO model for the 7th

field watersheds in the project area are in

Table 2. The Upper Indian Creek 7th

field watershed is over the threshold of concern. This is

primarily due to the high road density in the watershed. The rest of the 7th

field watersheds are

below the threshold of concern for slope stability (GEO model).

Compliance with Law, Policy and Regulation

This alternative of the Singleton Project complies with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Objectives, as well as direction in the Northwest Forest Plan, and the Klamath National Forest

Land management Plan.

Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects of the thinning with ground-based yarding logging system are 1) soil/regolith disturbance

and compaction, 2) decreased root support and evapotranspiration, and 3) rerouting of surface runoff.

Skyline yarding would have direct effects of disturbing and displacing the soil and disturbance to residual

vegetation in cable yarding corridors caused by dragging logs. Where logs cannot be adequately

suspended, gouging of the ground surface may reroute surface runoff.

The ground-based and cable/skyline treatment stands overlaps with 19 acres of unstable land. These

landforms are inner gorges which will not be entered by mechanical equipment. Along with that much of


12

the inner gorge is within the hydrologic RR in which no commercial harvest will be implemented.

Therefore the disturbance on these landforms will be negligible. The 104 acres of roadside fuels

treatments that occur are mainly in inner gorge landforms and involve non-commercial thinning so the

disturbance will be minimal and not likely to increase landslide potential in the watershed.

The effect of changes to evapotranspiration on landsliding processes is dependent on the timing of the

potential landslide-producing storm. In the Klamath Mountains, most major landslide producing storms

occur in the early winter when evapotranspiration processes have little impact on the hillslope hydrology

(Swanson & Dryness 1973, Reid 2010). Summer storms tend to be short duration, high intensity storms.

The main player in hillslope hydrology during these storms is precipitation interception. A decrease in

interception will increase the amount of water that enters the shallow groundwater and unsaturated zone

of soil (vadose zone) effecting local groundwater tables (Reid 2010). This is especially true for unstable

lands which are sensitive to groundwater changes, such as dormant landslide deposits (DMG 1999).

In the short term, thinning would generally result in a small to negligible increase in landslide rates due to

the minimal reduction in root support, evapotranspiration and precipitation interception. In the long term,

thinning would be expected to produce healthier stands which would replace and exceed any lost root

support or evapotranspiration, and also reduce the risk of intense wildfire.

Prescribed underburning would result in the killing or setting back of low understory vegetation and the

addition of ash to the soil. There would be a small risk of small isolated areas (a few acres in size) burning

at moderate or high severity.

Prescribed fire, including underburning and handpile-burning, would not affect landslide potential. If any

pockets (greater than ~ ½ acre) of moderate or high intensity burning occur, leading to large tree

mortality, landslide potential would be increased locally in the long term.

The PDFs for landing construction will minimize the impacts of landing use and construction on slope

stability. The temporary road on an existing road bed and the swing trail are on relatively flat ground

(~40%) and is on a stable landform. The use and subsequent hydrologic stabilitization will not impact

slope stability in the watershed.

Table 1: Acres of unstable ground disturbed by proposed action by treatment. Unstable ground

includes active landslide, inner gorge, steep granitic ground and toe zones of landslides. * There

are treatments proposed on active landslides in the project.

Treatment Acres on Unstable Lands

Ground-based Harvest 11

Cable Harvest 8

Handpile/Burn 9

Underburn 63

Roadside Treatment 104

Sediment Sources: Unstable Lands


13

A suite of landslides blocked FS 45N60 in Section 30 in 1964. The landslides have stabilized and

have re-vegetated to a point where the best option is to not attempt remediation. The removal of

the trees (10”-18” in diameter) in order to re-stabilize the roadway would increase the landslide

potential to unacceptable levels and put watershed health at risk. There is a 48” culvert remaining

along this portion of the road, but no means of access for removal due to the landslides. The

culvert was functioning correctly at the time of the field visit in 2010.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects model was ran for the Singleton Project for mass wasting (GEO) includes

past actions, wildfires, and the current road system. The present actions modeled include

Tennessee Thin, McBaldy, Edsel, Straddler, and several private timber harvest plans (e.g. Upper

Mill Creek, Little Baldy, Deadwood and Little Ferry THPs). The Singleton CWE report

(Bousfield 2011) has a complete list of past and present action included in the model output. The

past and present actions are included in the current condition. There were no reasonable

foreseeable actions at the time of analysis. The 7th

field drainages are under threshold for the

GEO model with the exception of Upper Indian Creek. This drainage is over the threshold of

concern mainly due to the high road density. The proposed activities have minimal impact on

landslide potential. The risk ratio does not increase over the current condition for any of the

watersheds as a result of the Proposed Action. This combined with the small number of unstable

landforms, as compared to other parts of the Klamath Mountains, the cumulative effects of the

project on landslide potential will be minimal and insignificant.

The project is impacting few unstable landforms and the implementation of the PDFs will

minimize the impacts to slope stability by the Propose Action. The proposed action would not

measurably impact slope stability in the project area.


14

Table 2: Cumulative watershed effects GEO model estimated of potential sediment delivery due to mass wasting (yd3/decade).

Current [Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable ] Proposed Action

Drainage (7th field) Background Harvest &

Fire Roads Current

Current Risk Ratio

Units & landings

Post-Project

Risk Ratio

Upper Indian Creek 11,508 6,772 19,547 37,827 1.14 1 1.14

Lower Indian Creek 4,694 527 4,528 9,749 0.54 0.54

Rattlesnake Creek 5,886 1,353 6,188 13,426 0.64 0 0.64

Upper Mill Creek 12,379 1,417 17,174 30,970 0.75 37 0.75

South Fork Mill Creek 9,811 2,825 11,411 24,047 0.73 0 0.73

Lower Mill Creek 2,974 98 2,398 5,470 0.42 0.42

Big Ferry-Swanson 17,882 3,256 14,036 35,174 0.48 1 0.48

Watershed (6th field)

Indian Creek 16,201 7,299 24,075 47,576 0.97 1 0.97

Mill Creek 25,164 4,340 30,983 60,487 0.70 37 0.70


15

Compliance with Law, Policy and Regulation

This alternative of the Singleton Project complies with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Objectives, as well as direction in the Northwest Forest Plan, and the Klamath National Forest

Land management Plan.

References

(DMG) Division of Mines and Geology. 1999. Factors Affecting Landsliding in Forested

Terrain. Note 50. California Department of Conservation.

Reid, L. 2010. Cumulative Watershed Effect of Fuel Management in the Western United States:

Chapter 6 – Cumulative Effects of Fuel Treatments on Channel Erosion and Mass

Wasting. USDA, US Forest Service. RMRS-GTR-231.

Swanson, D., Dyrness, C. 1973. Stability of Steep Land. Journal of Forestry.

USFS. Elder, D., Reichert, M. 2004. Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis: Quanitative

Models for Surface Erosion, Mass-wasting and ERA/TOC. Klamath National Forest.

USFS 2000. Lower Scott Ecosystem Analysis. Klamath National Forest, November 2002.


16

Appendix A- Regulatory Framework The following statutory authorities govern geologic resources and services activities essential to

Forest Service programs:

FSM-2880.11 - Statutory Authority

1. Organic Administrative Act of June 4, 1897, as Amended (30 Stat. 34, as Supplemented

and Amended; 16 U.S.C. 473-478, 482-482(a), 551. (FSM 2501.1.) This act authorizes the

Secretary of Agriculture to issue rules and regulations for the occupancy and use of the

National Forests. This is the basic authority for issuing special use permits for the collection

of vertebrate paleontological resources for scientific and educational purposes on National

Forest System lands.

2. Preservation of American Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431 et

seq.). (FSM 2361.01.) This act authorizes permits for archeological and paleontological

exploration involving excavation, removal, and storage of objects of antiquity or permits

necessary for investigative work requiring site disturbance or sampling which results in the

collection of such objects.

3. Federal Aid Highway Act (72 Stat. 913; 23 U.S.C. 305). This section of the United States

Code allows federal funding for mitigation of archeological and paleontological resources

recovered pursuant to Federal aid highway projects.

4. Multiple Use -- Sustained Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (MUSY) (74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C.

528-531). (FSM 2501.1.) This act requires due consideration for the relative values of all

resources and implies that the administration of nonrenewable resources must be considered.

5. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of August 4, 1954, as Amended (68

Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 1001). (FSM 2501.1.) This act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture

to share costs with other agencies in recreational development, ground-water recharge, and

water-quality management, as well as the conservation and proper use of land.

6. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of July 9, 1956, as Amended (33 U.S.C. 1151)

(FSM 2501.1); Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat. 816)

(FSM 2501.1), and Clean Water Act of 1977 (91 Stat. 1566; 33 U.S.C. 1251). (FSM

2501.1, 7440.1.) These acts are intended to enhance the quality and value of the water

resource and to establish a national policy for the prevention, control, and abatement of water

pollution. Ground water information, including that concerning recharge and discharge areas,

and information on geologic conditions that affect ground water quality are needed to carry

out purposes of these acts.

7. Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1131-1136).

(FSM 2501.1.) This act describes a wilderness as an area which may also contain ecological,

geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. These

geological features are generally identified for wilderness classification purposes.

8. National Forest Roads and Trails Systems Act of October 13, 1964 (78 Stat. 1089; 16

U.S.C. 532-538). (FSM 7701.1.) This act provides for the construction and maintenance of


17

an adequate system of roads and trails to meet the demands for timber, recreation, and other

uses. It further provides that protection, development, and management of lands will be under

the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of product and services (16 U.S.C. 532).

Geologic conditions influence the final selection of route locations.

9. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 2, 1968 (82 Stat. 906 as Amended; 16 U.S.C.

1271-1287). This act states that it is the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers

of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstanding scenic,

recreation, geologic, fish and wildlife, cultural, or other similar values shall be preserved in

free-flowing condition.

10. National Environmental Policy Act of January 1, 1970 (NEPA) (83 Stat. 852 as

Amended; 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331-4335, 4341-4347). (FSM 1950.2.) This act directs all

agencies of the Federal Government to utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach which

will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences in planning and in decision

making which may have an impact on man's environment. Geology is one of the applicable

sciences.

11. Mining and Minerals Policy Act of December 31, 1970 (84 Stat. 1876; 30 U.S.C. 21a).

This act provides for the study and development of methods for the disposal, control, and

reclamation of mineral waste products and the reclamation of mined lands. This requires an

evaluation of geology as it relates to ground water protection and geologic stability.

12. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1536,

1538-1540). This act provides for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and

their habitats.

13. Archeological and Historical Conservation Act of 1974 (AHCA) (88 Stat. 174; 16 U.S.C.

469). (FSM 2361.01.) This act requires all Federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the

Interior when a construction project threatens to irreparably harm or destroy significant

scientific, prehistoric, historic, or archeological data. The paleontological resource may have

significant scientific and historic value.

14. Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 143; 42 U.S.C. 5121, 5132). Section 202(b) states that

the President shall direct appropriate Federal agencies to ensure timely and effective disaster

warnings for such hazards as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and mudslides. The

Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 70 of April 12, 1977, "Warnings and Preparedness for

Geologic Related Hazards," implies coordination with the U.S. Geological Survey in such

warnings.

15. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of August 17, 1974 (RPA) (88

Stat. 476; 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614) as Amended by National Forest Management Act of

October 22, 1976 (90 Stat. 2949; 16 U.S.C. 1609). (FSM 1920 and FSM 2550.) This act

requires consideration of the geologic environment through the identification of hazardous

conditions and the prevention of irreversible damages. The Secretary of Agriculture is

required, in the development and maintenance of land management plans, to use a systematic

interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological,

economic, and other sciences.

16. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (90 Stat. 2795; 42 U.S.C.

6901) as Amended by 92 Stat. 3081. This act, commonly referred to as the Solid Waste

Disposal Act, requires protection of ground water quality and is integrated with the Safe


18

Drinking Water Act of December 16, 1974, and Amendments of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 300(f)).

(FSM 7420.1.)

17. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of August 3, 1977 (SMCRA)

(30 U.S.C. 1201, 1202, 1211, 1221-43, 1251-79, 1281, 1291, 1309, 1311-16, 1321-28). This

act enables agencies to take action to prevent water pollution from current mining activities,

and also promote reclamation of mined areas left without adequate reclamation prior to this

act.

18. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) October 31, 1979 (93 Stat. 721; 16

U.S.C. 470 aa). This act protects archeological resources, and prohibits the removal, sale,

receipt, and interstate transport of archeological resources obtained illegally from public

lands. Archeological resources include paleontological resources in context with

archeological resources. Also, this act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits

for archeological research, investigations, studies, and excavations.

19. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as

amended (CERCLA) (94 Stat. 2767; 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq). This act provides authority to

the Environmental Protection Agency and to other federal agencies, including the United

States Department of Agriculture, to respond to release of hazardous substances, pollutants,

and constituents. It also provides for joint and several liability to potentially responsible

parties (PRPs) for cleanup costs of existing water contamination. See also FSM 2160.

20. Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4546; 16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq). This act provides that Federal lands be managed to protect and maintain, to the extent

practical, significant caves.

FSM-2880.12 - Executive Orders

The following Executive Orders provide direction for geologic resources and services activities

on National Forest System lands:

1. Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Environment, May

13, 1971 (3 CFR 559, 1971-75 Compilation). This Executive Order directs agencies to

preserve, restore, and maintain the historic and cultural environment of the Nation.

2. Executive Order 12113, Independent Water Project Review, January 5, 1979. This

Executive Order requires an independent water project review by the Water Resources

Council on preauthorization reports and preconstruction plans for Federal and federally

assisted water and related land resource plans. The technical review will evaluate each plan

for compliance with the Council's principles and standards, agency procedures, other Federal

laws, and goals for public involvement.

Other Management Directives

1. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP): The KNF

LRMP Geology Standards and Guidelines provide a framework for the geologic resources

and hazards evaluation and geologic report content. The geologic hazards include naturally

occurring asbestos and unstable lands. The geologic resources outlined in the Standards and


19

Guidelines include rock sources, cave resources, and water. The LRMP also includes the

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) (Appendix A) which emphasizes a watershed-based

analysis of the effect of existing and proposed activities in the watershed on water quality

(including sediment delivery).

2. Klamath National Forest Sufficiency Standards for Geology: This suite of guidelines

outlines the goals and standards for evaluating geologic hazards and resources on National

Forest lands (Appendix B). The goals of the assessments are to assure we:

1. Manage for Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.

2. Protect water quality and quantity to meet State and Federal water quality standards,

Forest Service policy and 2880 manual direction.

3. Protect public health, safety, welfare and property from geologic hazards on National

Forest System Lands.

4. Protect geologic resources (minerals, groundwater, geothermal power, rock aggregate,

Geologic Special Interest Areas, and caves) from being adversely affected by land

management activities.


20

Appendix B: Project Design Feature Figures


21


22


23

Documents

Geology Report - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.… · Singleton Project Geology Report 4 Introduction The Singleton Project is