johnny o'neil lsr habitat restoration and fuels reduction...

Johnny O'Neil LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction

Project

FEIS

Geology Resource Report

Prepared by:

Angie Bell

Geologist, Klamath National Forest

for:

Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger Districts

5 January 2011

Updated 21 March 2012

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1

Analysis Indicators and Methodology ....................................................................... 1

Spatial and Temporal Context .................................................................................. 1

Affected Environment ............................................................................................... 1

Environmental Effects .............................................................................................. 1

Alternative 1........................................................................................................................ 1

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 ........................................................................................................ 2

Compliance with law, policy, regulation, and the KNF Forest Plan ........................... 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3

Overview of Issues Addressed ................................................................................. 3

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

Affected Environment ............................................................................................... 5

Geology ............................................................................................................................... 5

Historical Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 6

Project Design Features for Geology ..................................................................... 10

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 11

Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 11

Spatial and Temporal Context (bounding of analysis area) for Effects Analysis ............. 12

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Proposed Activities ....................................... 12

Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................... 14

Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................................. 14

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ....................................................................................... 16

Alternative 3 – Modified Proposed Action ....................................................................... 22

Alternative 4 – No Temporary Roads ............................................................................... 25

References (Literature Cited) ................................................................................. 28

Appendix A- Regulatory Framework ...................................................................... 29

List of Tables

Table 1: Miles of altered channel by 7th field watershed from 1964 flood event in Horse Creek. (USFS

2002) ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Table 2: Cumulative effects modeling results from the CWE-Geo model of the current landslide potential

based on current and past actions for the 7th field watersheds. ........................................................... 15

Table 3: Proposed actions on unstable lands (active landslides, inner gorge, toe zones and steep dissected

granitic lands) in Alternative 2 ............................................................................................................ 16

Table 4: Proposed activities on ultramafic bedrock for Alternative 2 ........................................................ 17

Johnny O’Neil Geology Report

ii

Table 5: Cumulative effects results from the CWE-Geo model of the current landslide potential based on

past, present, reasonably foreseeable future and Alternative 2 proposed actions for the 7th field

watersheds. .......................................................................................................................................... 21



Table 7: Proposed activities on ultramafic bedrock for Alternative 3 ........................................................ 22



watersheds. .......................................................................................................................................... 24



Table 10: Proposed activities on ultramafic bedrock for Alternative 4 ...................................................... 25



watersheds. .......................................................................................................................................... 27

List of Figures

Figure 1: Geomorphology of the Horse Creek 6th Field watershed (outlined in black for reference). ......... 8

Figure 2: Bedrock geology of the Horse Creek 6th field watershed (outlined in black for reference) .......... 9

Figure 3: Alternative 2 and the geomorphology of the Horse Creek 6th Field watershed (outlined in black

for reference). ...................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 4: Alternative 2 and the bedrock geology of the Horse Creek 6th Field watershed (outlined in black

for reference). ...................................................................................................................................... 19


1

Executive Summary

Analysis Indicators and Methodology

Analysis indicators include the effects of alternatives on landslide potential, slope stability, and

hazard from naturally-occurring asbestos (NOA) in ultramafic rock.

Spatial and Temporal Context

The spatial analysis area for the effects to geologic indicators is the project area for landslides

and slope stability. Because some units and portions of units have greater likelihood of effects

than others, the area potentially affected can be site specific. For NOA hazards, the area

potentially affected is only units or portions of units that contain ultramafic rock. The short term

for geologic effects is immediately following implementation of the project for the first 5-10

years. Long-term effects are beyond 10 years and can be indefinite.

Affected Environment

The landscape of the project area is geologically active and prone to landslides. The area is

dominated by both active and dormant landslide activity, steep slopes and inner gorges of

streams, and areas containing ultramafic rock.

The geology of the project area is described generally in Final Environmental Impact Statement

for the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1995b), and more specifically in the Horse Creek

Ecosystem Analysis (USDA Forest Service 2002).

Environmental Effects

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 (the no action alternative) has no short-term impacts to landslide potential;

however, tree mortality due to disease or competition will increase landslide potential over the

long-term.

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of this alternative to the effects of reasonable foreseeable future actions within

the project area, as displayed in Appendix C, will not result in cumulatively significant effects.

The Horse Creek Road Rehabilitation project is projected to reduce the potential for landslide-

related sediment by 1,530 cubic yards per decade in the Lower Horse Creek 7th

field watershed.

This leads to a 7% reduction in the cumulative watershed effects risk ratio, using the GEO

model, as noted in the Hydrology resource report, available on the KNF website at

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=31052. The actual estimated sediment

available for landsliding will be reduced by 3,350 cubic yards by the Horse Creek Road

Rehabilitation project; therefore, the model reduction in landslide potential is an underestimate


2

and risk of landslides is substantially reduced. No other reasonable foreseeable projects are

currently planned or being implemented within segments of the project area that are geologically

active, prone to landslides, or containing ultramafic rock.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4


Landslide potential will be increased in the short-term due to the reduction of root support and

precipitation interception by trees from thinning. Increased stand health and reduction of fire

severity will decrease landslide potential over the long term. Temporary road and landing

construction will increase landslide potential indefinitely. The increase will be minimized, but

not negated, by hydrologic stabilization after completion of the project. Fuels reduction activities

(mastication, hand-piling, and underburning) will not impact slope stability in this project

because prescribed fire will be low severity due to the implementation of project design features

displayed in Table 2-1 (see also the Fire and Fuel resource report available on the KNF website

at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=31052. The naturally-occurring asbestos

(NOA) hazards will increase locally during ground-disturbing activities, but subside within a few

hours of cessation of the activity on ultramafic rock.

Alternative 2 will have the largest short-term and long-term increase in landslide potential of the

3 action alternatives, followed by Alternative 3. The main action influencing the landslide risk

will be the construction of temporary roads. The cumulative effect of the alternatives on

landslide potential will be nearly identical. The actions proposed in the alternatives will be small

relative to the impacts of past actions; therefore, the subtle difference between the alternatives is

small in the model output. All the risk ratios of the watersheds are currently under the threshold

of concern for the GEO model (explained in more detail in the Hydrology resource report,

incorporated by reference and available on the KNF website at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-

usda-pop.php/?project=31052. However, the Middle Creek (0.98) and Salt Gulch (0.98) 7th

field

watersheds have elevated risk ratios due to private harvest and wildfire respectively. Actions

proposed in the Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 increase the risk ratios of these two watersheds to

1.00 and 0.98 respectively.

Alternative 2 has the largest NOA hazard potential; the NOA hazard potential is almost as great

but slightly less in Alternative 3. Alternative 4 will have the lowest NOA hazard potential

because it will have the least amount of ground-disturbing activities such as stand treatments,

new temporary road construction and landings proposed on ultramafic rock.

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of these alternatives to the effects of reasonable foreseeable future actions will

not result in cumulatively significant effects. The Horse Creek Road Rehabilitation project is

projected to reduce the potential for landslide-related sediment by 1,530 cubic yards per decade

in the Lower Horse Creek 7th

field watershed. This leads to a 7% reduction in the cumulative

watershed effects risk ratio, using the GEO model. The actual estimated sediment available for

landsliding will be reduced by 3,350 cubic yards by the Horse Creek Road Rehabilitation


3

project; therefore, the model reduction in landslide potential is an underestimate and risk of

landslides is substantially reduced. No other reasonable foreseeable projects are currently

planned or being implemented within segments of the project area that are geologically active,

prone to landslides, or containing ultramafic rock.

Compliance with law, policy, regulation, and the KNF Forest Plan

All the alternatives proposed in this project will comply with laws, regulation, policy, direction

in the KNF Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1995a) related to geology and with the Aquatic

Conservation Strategy objectives that are included in the Forest Plan (Appendix F) as noted on

the KNF Forest Plan checklist for this project, available on the KNF website at

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=31052.

Introduction

The Johnny O’Neil LSR project area is located about 7 miles northeast of Seiad Valley,

California in the Horse Creek 6th

field watershed. This report focuses on the potential effect of

proposed activities on geologic resources, and hazards, including landslides and debris flows,

and airborne asbestos. It also provides resource protection measures which would greatly reduce

the potential for project-related adverse effects. For information on surface erosion and

hydrologic processes, refer to the soils and hydrology sections of the FEIS respectively. The

project proposes to thin plantations and natural stands and reduce fuels with underburning and

mastication.

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). There are a few

small active earthflows within these landforms. These landforms are common in the west

side of the project area. Disturbance of the layer of loose layer of material covering solid


4

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

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 existing and proposed roads,

proposed harvest, proposed mastication units, and prescribed burn areas. The KNF has

completed testing for naturally occurring asbestos testing on unauthorized routes that were added

to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) (Record of Decision for Motorized Travel

Management on the KNF, 2010). Forty-one samples were taken from routes in ultramafic rock

scattered throughout the western part of the KNF including the Johnny O’Neil LSR. Over the

entire Forest, no asbestos was detected in 29 of the samples (70%). The remaining samples were

found to contain low levels of chrysotile asbestos (less than 0.25%) including the route in the

Johnny O’Neil LSR.

Geologic Resources

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

geologic areas.

1. Groundwater- Springs are common in the project area, particularly within landslide

deposits on the east side of the project area in the Rainey Saddle Area. 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.


5

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;

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

are travertine springs in the Crawfish Gulch Area within the area of proposed treatment.

The impacts to these features will be avoided through project design features to minimize

disturbance.

Environmental Indicators

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

underburning, and mastication 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.

• Mile of new temporary road construction or temporary roads on existing roadbeds in

unstable lands: Comparing miles of temporary road construction and temporary roads on

existing roadbeds on unstable ground. To evaluate landslide potential, the amount of

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

(inner gorges, and toe zones of dormant landslides, active landslides) is tracked. This

allows an overall look at how much activity would be occurring in unstable areas by

alternative.

• Acres of disturbance on ultramafic rock: To evaluate the airborne asbestos hazard, the

area for each activity on ultramafic rock is tracked.

• Miles of Temporary Road Construction in Ultramafic Rock: To evaluate the airborne

asbestos hazard, the area for each activity on ultramafic rock is tracked.

• 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

comparison of cumulative watershed effects from landslide processes between

alternatives.

Affected Environment

Geology

The Condrey Mountain Schist suite of rocks makes up the bedrock in the eastern two-thirds of

the project area. The schist underlies large deep-seated dormant landslides deposits. These

features are most likely thousands of years old, related to wetter climates and possibly past

earthquake activity. The dormant landslides have areas of intermittent deep-seated and earthflow

active landslide when portions of the deposit are reactivated during flood events. Typically, large


6

(10- to20-year) early winter storms produce landslides that have delivered coarse sediment to the

streams in the project area. The most recent storms occurred in 1964, 1974, 1997 and 2006.

The bedrock of the western third of the area proposed for treatment (in the LSR) consists of the

metasedimentary rocks of the Rattlesnake Terrain. The landslides in this area are shallow

landslide features that may trigger debris flows in low-order (headwater) streams and dry

depressions with poorly defined channels (swale) with sediment bulked in the channel. There is a

granitic intrusion which is covered with landside deposits in the Crawfish Gulch area. There are

a few small bodies of ultramafic rock near Robinson Creek and Rainey Saddle and a portion of a

larger body in the southwest portion of the proposed area for treatment.

Historical Disturbance

Many of the roads in the Johnny O’Neil LSR project area were built in the late 1950’s to support

the timber harvest and fire suppression activities. Harvest activities were the heaviest in

beginning in the 1970’s to the 1990’s. The county road next to the main stem of Horse Creek

was put in prior to 1955 to access private land. The main Fish Gulch road (Forest Service Road

46N50 within the LSR) was also built before 1955. Within the area designated as the Johnny

O’Neil LSR in 1995, prior to 1955 there was some timber harvest south of Seiad Gap and the

stands near Rainey Saddle. Additional regeneration harvest (clear cutting) occurred in the

Rainey Saddle area and south of Fish Gulch between 1955 and 1964; however, there was no

major road construction. There were clear cutting (40 acres) and road building activities in

Hamburg Gulch between 1955 and 1964. There were approximately 210 acres of timber harvest

activities in Middle Creek and the Rainey Saddle area between 1965 and 1975 along with road

building to support the harvest activities.

Wildfires have been suppressed to keep them small (< 1800 acres) over the past 60 years.

Suppression was possible due to the high road density in the project area. Fire suppression was

primarily to protect the private property in the watershed. The White Cloud fire (1935) burned

1,100 acres in the Lower Horse Creek drainage. The Red Fir fire burned 350 acres of the Middle

Horse Creek drainage in 1971 and the Buckhorn fire burned 1,100 acres in 1977. The Copper

Fire in 1987 burned 1,800 acres in the Salt Gulch and West Fork Horse Creek drainages. The

scars of the 1977 and 1987 wildland fires were still apparent on the 1999 air photos. There were

approximately 6,200 acres of salvage logging and plantations planted in response to the 1977 and

1987 wildfires in Horse Creek (USFS 2002, pg. 4-21).

Large flood events affected the watershed in 1955, 1964, 1970, 1974, 1997 and 2006. All of

these winter storms had a rain-on-snow component that increased their impact on mass wasting

processes. Debris slides triggered debris flows in several stream channels and landslides were

reactivated as a result of the storms. The magnitude and impact of the mass wasting processes

increased as the disturbance in the watershed increased. No debris flow alteration to channels

was seen in the 1955 air photos. The 1964 storm resulted in most of the streams in the Horse

Creek 6th

field watershed showing some length of channel altered by debris flows and flood

waters (see Table 1). There was some channel alteration in the lower portion of Horse Creek and


7

in Middle Creek as a result of the 1970 storm. There was some scour in Upper and Lower Horse

Creek as a result of the 1970 and 1974 storms. The 1997 storm event had minor effects on the

stream channels in the watershed. No systematic inventory of channel alteration was completed

for the 2006 flood event. It is probable that a few of the streams had channel alterations in 2006

but no evidence was observed during field visits.

Table 1: Miles of altered channel by 7th

field watershed from 1964 flood event in Horse

Creek. (USFS 2002)

7th

Field Watershed Miles of Altered Channel from 1964 Flood

Upper Horse Creek 1.28

Lower Horse Creek 5.19

Middle Creek 2.99

Buckhorn Creek 7.66

Landslides were also activated or reactivated during the storm events. Earthflows and deep-

seated landslides are common on the dormant landslide deposits of the eastern 2/3 of the

proposed area of treatment. The landslides in this area are almost all associated with human-

caused disturbances such as construction of roads and regeneration timber harvesting (clear

cutting). Debris slide features are more common than the deep-seated landslides on the eastern

1/3 of the proposed treatment area... These shallow landslides are often associated with

construction of roads or regeneration timber harvests. There are landslides in the LSR in

drainages north of Robinson Gulch (from the 1944 air photos) that are prior to management

activities in that part of the watershed. The debris slides in the LSR in the headwaters of West

Fork Horse Creek from the 1970 flood event are also not associated with any management

activities.


8

Figure 1: Geomorphology of the Horse Creek 6th Field watershed (outlined in black for reference).


9

Figure 2: Bedrock geology of the Horse Creek 6th field watershed (outlined in black for reference)

The star illustrates the naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) testing that has been done in the project area. Traces of NOA

were found in samples from the road on this ultramafic body.


10

Project Design Features for Geology

The following general measures will be applied to address geologic hazards and resources. They

will greatly reduce the potential for adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative watershed effects.

1. Roads and Landings- New temporary roads and landings will be constructed in matrix

lands (outside of Riparian Reserves), and away from locations where sediment could

directly enter streams. Following use, all temporary roads will be decommissioned, fills

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

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

surface runoff would be eliminated. Following use, all temporary roads will be

decommissioned, fills removed from draws, and natural runoff patterns re-established

(outsloping, dips, etc.). Any modification to temporary road alignments during the

implementation phase of the project (not analyzed in the planning phase) will be

reviewed by an earth scientist.

2. Skyline in Riparian Reserves –Cable yarding corridors would not be place in stream

Riparian Reserves parallel to the channel unless field assessment by an earth scientist and

sale planner or administrator determines that this can be accomplished without damage to

residual trees or soil.

3. Mechanical Equipment and Mastication- Tractors and mechanical harvesters will be

excluded from unstable land Riparian Reserves except in situations where field

investigation by an earth scientist determines that no adverse effects would occur. Water

bars would be constructed upon completion of the project to avoid diversion of runoff.

Best Management Practices (BMP) as outlined in the hydrology report would be

followed, as would specific measures recommended in the soils report. Mastication

equipment would follow the same general guidelines as tractors.

4. Prescribed Fire in Riparian Reserves- Prescribed fire will be designed to result in low

severity burns in all Riparian Reserves (including the unstable land component of

Riparian Reserves). During underburning, fire will generally be backed down into

Riparian Reserves, and ignition will 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. Specific problem spots, such as high concentrations of fuel

located on unstable areas, will be field reviewed by fuels and earth science personnel

during development of the burn plan and appropriate mitigations developed. The

potential for high severity fire can be mitigated by modifying the ignition pattern, or

handpiling of slash accumulations on unstable areas prior to ignition. Other unstable

areas within burn boundaries will be evaluated during development of burn plans, and

protected as necessary.

5. Protection of Unique Geologic Features: Several carbonate springs have been mapped

in Crawfish Gulch and the surrounding hillslope. Mechanized equipment would be

excluded from the carbonate spring areas. Similarly, cable yarding corridors would be

excluded from these areas unless full suspension can be attained. The bottom 250 feet of

Crawfish Creek in Unit 508 contains carbonate springs, as does the northern most point

of unit 427.


11

6. Asbestos- There is a small body of ultramafic rock north of Rainey Saddle which

underlies FS route 12 and 47N65. There is also a body of ultramafic rock underlying the

southwestern corner of the project area. Purchasers of the timber sale would be informed

of harvest units and roads underlain by ultramafic rock which may contain asbestos. If

haul-routes change during project implementation, any additional roads would be

checked against the bedrock map to determine if they are underlain by ultramafic rock,

and the asbestos standards applied. Standard mitigation measures would be applied,

including watering roads during use or surfacing with material which does not contain

asbestos. Crews constructing fire lines for underburns would similarly be informed of

areas underlain by ultramafic rock. Mitigation measures would be applied, including

constructing lines during wet soil conditions, or watering lines as appropriate. The

temporary road that has been proposed for construction between units 420 and 488 is

partially underlain by ultramafic rock.

Environmental Consequences

Methodology

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.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Considered in Cumulative Effects

Within the Horse Creek 6th

field watershed, two projects on the KNF are considered in projecting

potential cumulative effects of the Johnny O’Neil LSR project. These projects are selected

because their effects may be considered to overlap those of the Johnny O’Neil LSR project in

space and in time, they include activities that are similar to the project (thinning of timber,

temporary roads) and their environmental effects may be additive to those of the project. The two

reasonably foreseeable projects on the KNF are:

Middle Creek Project (planning ongoing) is located within the Middle Creek 7th

field sub-

watershed. The project entails approximately 70 acres of thinning of commercial-sized trees

(>10” in diameter at breast height (dbh)) using ground-based mechanical logging systems.

Horse Heli (planning complete in 2007, implementation ongoing) is located partially in the

Middle Creek and Buckhorn 7th

field watersheds. Two NFTS roads (0.92 miles) will be

decommissioned in the Middle Creek 7th

field watershed, and NFTS roads (1.06 miles) will be

decommissioned in the Buckhorn Creek 7th

field watershed. In addition, the Horse Heli project

decision includes decommissioning of unauthorized roads (1.55 miles) in the Buckhorn Creek 7th


12

field watershed for a total of 3.53 miles of road decommissioning. One harvest unit is located

within Middle Creek 7th

field watershed and 26 units are within the Buckhorn Creek 7th

field

watershed.

Spatial and Temporal Context (bounding of analysis area) for Effects Analysis

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

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

stabilization. The spatial context is the Horse Creek 6th

field watershed with modeling done at

the 7th

field watershed level.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Proposed Activities

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of proposed project activities are described in general

terms below. Alternative specific analysis is outlined in the comparison of alternatives. Indirect

effects are those which occur in association with and as a result of direct effects, but may be

delayed in time, and be distributed over different space.


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

disturbance and compaction, 2) decreased root support and evapotranspiration, 3) rerouting of

surface runoff, 4) potential disturbance to the springs and wet areas if entered with equipment

and 5) introduction of dust into the air. 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 potential direct effects of mastication on the soil would be very

similar to those of ground-based yarding including production of dust, since tracked vehicles

would be used.

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 (Swanston & 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


13

would replace and exceed any lost root support or evapotranspiration, and also reduce the risk of

intense wildfire.

Salt Gulch and Lower Horse Creek watersheds are susceptible to shallow debris slides due to the

steepness of the slopes, the number of dry depressions with poorly defined channels (swale), and

inner gorges. The decrease in root support and localized re-routing of surface flow from thinning

and masticating would increase landslide potential in the short-term (Reid 2010). Middle Horse

and Middle Creek watersheds are susceptible to reactivation of deep-seated landslides and

earthflows due to the extent of landslide deposits and springs in the watersheds. The alteration of

ground water due to the decrease in interception and evapotranspiration would most likely

increase the landslide potential in these watersheds. The short-term reduction in canopy cover

would increase landslide potential but the increase in stand health and recovery of canopy would

reduce landslide potential over the long-term.

Construction of new temporary roads and landings would: 1) remove vegetation; 2) disturb

soils/regolith; 3) alter slopes through cuts and fills; 4) reroute surface runoff; and 5) introduce

dust into the air. Building temporary roads on existing roadbeds would remove trees and brush

which in some cases might be up to 40 years old. All of the road and landing activities would

have the potential to introduce dust into the air.

Temporary road and landing construction would increase landslide potential indefinitely in all

the watersheds due to irreversible changes in groundwater and surface hydrology. This impact

would be most pronounced in Lower Horse Creek watershed due to the steep slopes which may

require some roadcuts and/or fills. The landslide potential would be increased over the long-term

as a result of the hillslope modifications if full-bench temporary road construction is required.

These impacts would be minimized, but not negated, by effective hydrologic stabilization. The

hydrologic stabilization of the temporary roads would include the minimization of surface flow

concentration and the removal of any existing road fills. Building temporary roads on existing

roadbeds could increase landslide potential due to the removal of trees and brush, but the

subsequent hydrologic stabilization would have an offsetting effect by removing fills and

contouring to prevent concentration of surface water onto the hillslope. .

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. Construction of firelines would have the

potential to introduce dust into the air.

Prescribed fire, including underburning and handpile-burning, would not affect landslide

potential. If any pockets of moderate or high intensity burning occur, leading to large tree

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

concentrate surface flow onto unstable lands and would disturb the understory. The application

of drainage structures on mastication access trails (i.e., waterbars) where needed would reduce

the effects to negligible.


14

Operation in ultramafic areas under dry conditions could introduce asbestos fibers, if present,

into the air and pose a health hazard. Application of project design features and the Air Resource

Board’s Air Toxic Control Measures (where applicable) would mitigate this risk.

Dust generating activities such as thinning, new temporary road construction, building temporary

roads on existing roadbeds, mastication and underburning operations in ultramafic rock would

have a risk of exposure to NOA hazards, if NOA is present. The risk would be local and would

subside within a few hours of cessation of the activity as the dust subsides.

Cumulative Effects

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 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 (see Water (Hydrology)

section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS). 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.

Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 1 – 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. There would be no disturbance of ultramafic bedrock under the no action


15

alternative and, therefore, no NOA risk related to this alternative. 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 (see Vegetation section of

Chapter 3 of FEIS). 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

Since no actions are taken in this alternative, there are no additive effects and no cumulative

effects. However, the modeled effects of this alternative in the CWE analysis are due to the

effects of past fires, timber harvest or road construction. The effects of past and present activities

on landslide potential are summarized in Table 2. All of the 7th

field watersheds are below the

threshold of concern for the geo model. Salt Gulch has a risk ratio close to 1.0 due to the 1987

fire effects. Middle Creek has a risk ratio close to 1.0 as a result of harvesting on private land and

the high road density in the watershed.

Table 2: Cumulative effects modeling results from the CWE-Geo model of the current landslide

potential based on current and past actions for the 7th

field watersheds.

Current [past & present]

Drainages [7th-field]

Background Harvest

& Fire

Roads Road

treatments Current

1/

Risk ratio

3/

[cumulati

ve] [cumula

tive] [direct/ indirect]

[cumulative]

East Fork Horse Creek 10,421 1,155

10,624

22,200 0.57

West Fork Horse Creek 8,268 850

6,412

15,530 0.44

Middle Horse Creek 7,857 1,949

9,581

19,387 0.73

Salt Gulch 5,486 2,731 8,067 16,285 0.98

Lower Horse Creek 19,329 880

20,224 -452

39,981 0.53

Middle Creek 18,941 4,866 31,268 -375 54,701 0.94

Buckhorn Creek 30,589 7,560

31,803 -377

69,575 0.64

Horse Creek 100,892 19,992 117,98 -1,204 237,660 0.68


16

6th -field 0

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and

Plans

Alternative 1would comply with law, regulation, Forest Service policy and direction in the KNF

Forest Plan, including Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.

Summary of Effects

The increased tree mortality due to no action would increase the landslide potential in the

watersheds due to the loss of root cohesion and alteration to evapotranspiration. Salt Gulch and

Middle 7th

field watersheds are close to the threshold of concern due to past wildfire, harvest and

road construction.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 is the proposed action. This alternative proposes treatments to protect and enhance

late-successional habitat and communities on approximately 7,250 acres. Approximately 1530

acres of thinning would occur in plantations and natural stands. Underburning would occur on

6390 acres throughout the project area. Mastication would occur on 740 acres and handpile and

burning on 120 acres. Approximately 2 miles of new temporary road would be constructed for

the project and 5.7 miles of temporary road on existing roadbeds would be used. All temporary

roads would be hydrologically stabilized after project completion. Approximately 42 existing

small (<.75 acre) landings would be used and 4 existing larger landings (1.5 to 2 acres). A

maximum of 150 new landings would be constructed, most of which are small and 3 of which

could be larger (1.5 to 2 acres).


granitic lands) in Alternative 2

Alt 2

Harvest

units

(acres)

Underburn

(acres)

Mastication

(acres)

Temporary

Roads on

Existing

Roadbeds

(feet)

New

Temporary

Roads (feet)

East Fork Horse

Creek 0 11 0 0 0

Middle Creek 0 0 10 0 0

Lower Horse

Creek 66 580 1 940 115

Middle Horse

Creek 1 188 1 0 0

Salt Gulch 3 40 6 0 0

West Fork

Horse Creek 0 5 2 0 0

Total 70 824 20 940 115


17

Table 4: Proposed activities on ultramafic bedrock for Alternative 2

Alt 2 Units Mastication Underburn

Temporary

Roads on

Existing

Roadbeds

(feet)

New

Temporary

Roads (feet)

Umrx (acres) 5.3 0.2 117 na na

Umrx (feet) na na na 0 350


18

Figure 3: Alternative 2 and the geomorphology of the Horse Creek 6th Field watershed (outlined in black for reference).


19

Figure 4: Alternative 2 and the bedrock geology of the Horse Creek 6th Field watershed (outlined in black for reference).


20

Design Features and Mitigation Measures

Outlined below are the unit specific mitigation measures that are in addition to the general

measures discussed above.

• Unit 508 – Full suspension across Crawfish Gulch to avoid damage to the travertine

springs and associated features in the drainage.

• Unit 427 – No harvest or disturbance to the landslide scarp on the eastern edge of the

unit. There is a definite break in slope from 10% on the bench to 70% on the scarp. The

presence of groundwater (and travertine springs) and the steepness of the scarp make it

sensitive to disturbance.

• Unit 439 – Exclusion of ground-based equipment on the northern 1/3 of the unit to avoid

disturbance on the active landslide in the headwaters of Horse Creek.

• Unit 447 – Equipment exclusion on the earthflow feature and spring complex in the

southern end of unit.

• Unit 455 – Equipment exclusion on the active landslide in the southwestern corner of the

unit.


The increase to landslide potential would be larger in alternative 2 than both alternative 3 and

alternative 4 in the short-term. The difference is a result of the difference in acres that would be

thinned, treated for fuels and the miles of temporary road constructed or re-opened overall and

on unstable lands (See Table 3). The reduction in landslide potential due to stand health and fire

resiliency, over the long-term, would be slightly larger in alternative 2 compared to alternative 3

and alternative 4. Although, due to the difference in temporary road construction, the small

difference in landslide potential due to stand health is lost. The overall long-term landslide

potential would be higher in alternative 2 than in alternative 3 and 4.

The NOA hazard potential is would not be measurably different between alternative 2 and

alternative 3. The ground disturbing activities in ultramafic rock is nearly identical between these

two alternatives (see Table 4 & Table 7). The NOA hazard potential for alternative 2 would be

higher than in alternative 4. There would be no new temporary road construction in ultramafic

rock in alternative 4and the acres of thinning in ultramafic rock is reduced (Table 10).

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative watershed effects model for landslide potential for this alternative is summarized

in Table 5. The risk ratio for landslide potential would be below threshold for all the watersheds.

The risk ratio would be elevated in Salt Gulch and Middle Creek 7th

field watersheds, with ratios

of 0.98 and 1.00 respectively. The elevated risk ratio in Salt Gulch is due to the impacts of the

1987 wildfire that burnt in the watershed. The risk ratio in Middle Creek is 1.00 mainly a result

of private timber harvest and the high road density in the watershed. Temporary road

construction has a large impact on the landslide potential in each watershed. However, the


21

attribution to the risk ratio is small due to the small area disturbed. The main player in the change

in the risk ratio is the thinning activities. These are low to moderate disturbances in the model

and are small relative to the past disturbances in the watersheds.

Table 5: Cumulative effects results from the CWE-Geo model of the current landslide potential

based on past, present, reasonably foreseeable future and Alternative 2 proposed actions for the

7th field watersheds.

Alt. 2 and Future Action


Acres Background Units &

Landings Temp Roads

Current + proposed

Risk ratio

[direct/ indirect]

[direct/ indirect

]

[cumulative]

East Fork Horse Creek 4,707 10,421 48 14

22,223 0.57

West Fork Horse Creek 3,348 8,268 0

15,492 0.44

Middle Horse Creek 3,325 7,857 1,208 35

20,586 0.81

Salt Gulch 2,405 5,486 72 10 16,266 0.98

Lower Horse Creek 7,971 19,329 1,727 244

41,998 0.59

Middle Creek 8,047 18,941 473 94 56,686 1.00


71,717 0.67

Horse Creek 6th -field

38,955 100,892 3,527 377 244,967 0.71


Plans

This alternative of the Johnny O’Neil 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.

Summary of Effects

The short-term landslide potential for this alternative would be higher than both alternative 3 and

4. The temporary road construction proposed in this alternative causes alternative 2 to have an

elevated long-term landslide potential compared to alternative 4 but similar to alternative 3. The

NOA hazard potential is similar to alternative 3 but higher than alternative 4.


22

Alternative 3 – Modified Proposed Action





burning on 90 acres. Approximately 1.4 miles of new temporary road would be constructed for








Alt 3

Harvest

units

(acres)

Underburn

(acres)

Mastication

(acres)

Temporary

Roads on

Existing

Roadbeds

(feet)

New

Temporary

Roads (feet)

East Fork Horse

Creek

0 11 0 0 0


Lower Horse

Creek

37 581 1 400 115

Middle Horse

Creek

1 188 1 0 0


West Fork

Horse Creek

0 5 2 0 0

Total 41 835 9 400 115


Alt 3

Harvest

units

(acres)

Underburn

(acres)

Mastication

(acres)

Temporary

Roads on

Existing

Roadbeds

(feet)

New

Temporary

Roads (feet)


23

Umrx (acres) 5.0 0.2 117 na na

Umrx (feet) na na na 0 350













unit.


The increase to landslide potential would be smaller in alternative 3 than alternative 2 but larger

than alternative 4 in the short-term. The difference is a result of the difference in acres that would

be thinned, treated for fuels and the miles of temporary road constructed or re-opened overall and

on unstable lands (See Table 3). The reduction in landslide potential due to stand health and fire

resiliency, over the long-term, would be slightly smaller in alternative 3 compared to alternative

2 and higher compared to alternative 4. Although, due to the difference in temporary road

construction, the small difference in landslide potential due to stand health is lost. The overall

long-term landslide potential would be higher in alternative 3 than in alternative 4, but smaller

than alternative 2.

The NOA hazard potential is would not be measurably different between alternative 2 and

alternative 3. The ground disturbing activities in ultramafic rock is nearly identical between these

two alternatives (see Table 4 & Table 7). The NOA hazard potential for alternative 3 is higher

than in alternative 4. There is no new temporary road construction in ultramafic rock in

alternative 4and the acres of thinning in ultramafic rock is reduced (Table 10).

Cumulative Effects


in Table 8. The risk ratio for landslide potential would be below threshold for all the watersheds.

The risk ratio would be elevated in Salt Gulch and Middle, with ratios of 0.98 and 1.00


24

respectively. The elevated risk ratio in Salt Gulch is due to the impacts of the 1987 wildfire that

burnt in the watershed. The risk ratio in Middle is 1.00 mainly a result of private timber harvest

and the high road density in the watershed. Temporary road construction has a large impact on

the landslide potential in each watershed. However, the attribution to the risk ratio is small due to

the small area disturbed. The main player in the change in the risk ratio is the thinning activities.

These are low to moderate disturbances in the model and are small relative to the past

disturbances in the watersheds.







Landings Temp Roads

Current + proposed

Risk ratio

[direct/ indirect]

[direct/ indirect]

[cumulative]


22,223 0.57


15,492 0.44


20,630 0.81

Salt Gulch 2,405 5,486 72 10 16,266 0.98

Lower Horse Creek 7,971 19,329 1,224 141

41,411 0.57

Middle Creek 8,047 18,941 473 94 56,686 1.00

Buckhorn Creek 9,153 30,589 71,717 0.67


38,955 100,892 3,068 294 244,424 0.71


Plans

This alternative of the Johnny O’Neil project would comply with the Aquatic Conservation

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

Forest Land management Plan.

Summary of Effects

The short-term landslide potential for this alternative would be higher than alternative 2 but

lower than alternative 4. The temporary road construction proposed in this alternative causes


25

alternative 3 to have an elevated long-term landslide potential compared to alternative 4 but

similar to alternative 2. The NOA hazard potential is similar to alternative 2 but higher than

alternative 4.

Alternative 4 – No Temporary Roads





burning on 90 acres. Approximately 0.1 miles of new temporary road would be constructed for








Alt 4

Harvest

units

(acres)

Underburn

(acres)

Mastication

(acres)

Temporary

Roads on

Existing

Roadbeds

(feet)

New

Temporary

Roads (feet)

East Fork Horse

Creek

0 11 0 0 0


Lower Horse

Creek

22 581 1 400 0

Middle Horse

Creek

0 188 1 0 0


West Fork

Horse Creek

0 5 2 0 0

Total 22 835 9 400 0


Alt 4

Harvest

units

(acres)

Underburn

(acres)

Mastication

(acres)

Temporary

Roads on

Existing

Roadbeds

New

Temporary

Roads (feet)


26

(feet)

Umrx (acres) 3.4 0.2 117 na Na

Umrx (feet) na na Na 0 0










• Unit 414 – Equipment exclusion on the small earthflow (active landslide) in the swale in

the center of the unit.




unit.


The increase to landslide potential would be smaller in alternative 4 than alternative 2 and 3 in

the short-term. The difference is a result of the difference in acres that would be thinned, treated

for fuels and the miles of temporary road constructed or re-opened overall and on unstable lands

(See Table 9). The reduction in landslide potential due to stand health and fire resiliency, over

the long-term, would be slightly smaller in alternative 4 compared to alternative 2 and 3. The

overall long-term landslide potential would be lower in alternative 4 than in alternative 2 or 3.

The NOA hazard potential for alternative 2 and 3 would be higher than in alternative 4. There

would be no new temporary road construction in ultramafic rock in alternative 4and the acres of

thinning in ultramafic rock is reduced (Table 10).

Cumulative Effects


in Table 11. The risk ratio for landslide potential would be below threshold for all the

watersheds. The risk ratio would be elevated in Salt Gulch and Middle Creek sub-watersheds,

with ratios of 0.98 and 0.99 respectively. The elevated risk ratio in Salt Gulch is due to the

impacts of the 1987 wildfire that burnt in the watershed. The risk ratio in -Middle is 0.99 mainly

a result of private timber harvest and the high road density in the watershed. Temporary road

construction has a large impact on the landslide potential in each watershed. However, the

attribution to the risk ratio is small due to the small area disturbed. The main player in the change


27

in the risk ratio is the thinning activities. These are low to moderate disturbances in the model

and are small relative to the past disturbances in the watersheds.







Landings Temp Roads

Current + proposed

Risk ratio

[direct/ indirect]

[direct/ indirect]

[cumulative]


22,190 0.56


15,492 0.44


20,584 0.81

Salt Gulch 2,405 5,486 70 3 16,257 0.98

Lower Horse Creek 7,971 19,329 850 4

40,900 0.56

Middle Creek 8,047 18,941 450 33 56,602 0.99


71,717 0.67


38,955 100,892 2,628 52 243,742 0.71


Plans

This alternative of the Johnny O’Neil project would comply with the Aquatic Conservation

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

Forest Land management Plan.

Summary of Effects

The short-term landslide potential for this alternative would be lower than alternative 2 and 3.

The temporary road construction proposed in alternatives 2 and 3 would be elevated long-term

landslide potential compared to alternative 4. The NOA hazard potential is smaller than

alternative 2 or 3.


28

References (Literature Cited)

Resource air photos 1955 (bw) 14P-156:160,14P-175:182, 20P-140-148; 1964 ENU (bw) 18-

133:145, 14-77:79; 1965 DCC (bw) 16FF-145:150; 1975 (c) 2475-265:269, 2475-271:275,

2475-247:252, 2475-224:229; 1999 (c) 599-155:161, 599-49:54, 599-32:39,499-196:199.

(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.

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

USFS 2002. Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis. Klamath National Forest, November 2002.


29

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

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


30

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

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

(FSM 7420.1.)


31

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

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

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


32

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.

johnny o'neil lsr habitat restoration and fuels reduction...

Documents