watershed management report berkeley tuolumne camp (permit ... · city of berkeley tuolumne camp...

Watershed Management Report

Berkeley Tuolumne Camp (Permit 46690)

Groveland Ranger District Stanislaus National Forest

Authors: Blair Church and Flynn, Consulting Engineers and 2M Associates, Planning and Landscape Architecture

October 19, 2017

City of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp Permit (46690) Watershed Management Report

i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

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

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Intent ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Issues and Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 7

Regulatory Framework .............................................................................................................................. 7 Land and Resource Management Plan ...................................................................................................... 7 Riparian Conservation Areas .................................................................................................................... 8 Management Areas ................................................................................................................................... 9 Federal Law ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Executive Orders ..................................................................................................................................... 10 State and Local Law ................................................................................................................................ 10 Other Guidance or Recommendations .................................................................................................... 11

Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 11 Spatial Scale ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Management Indicators ........................................................................................................................... 12

Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................... 14 Assumptions Specific to Watershed ....................................................................................................... 14 Watersheds .............................................................................................................................................. 15 Soils ......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Rim Fire and the Watershed .................................................................................................................... 17 Wetlands .................................................................................................................................................. 17 Key Watershed Values ............................................................................................................................ 18

Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................................................................................... 18 Vegetation Communities ................................................................................................................. 18 Water Supply and Water Quality .................................................................................................... 19

Environmental Effects .............................................................................................................................. 19 Past, Present, and Future Activities Related to the Analysis .................................................................. 19 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 20 Alternative 1 Cumulative Watershed Effects .......................................................................................... 32 Alternative 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Alternative 2 Cumulative Watershed Impacts ........................................................................................ 37

Required Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 37

Summary of Effects ................................................................................................................................... 38

Summary Comparison Environmental Effects ...................................................................................... 39

Compliance with Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017) and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ...................................................................................................................................... 40

Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures .................................................................................................. 40

Other Agencies and Individuals Consulted ............................................................................................ 41

References .................................................................................................................................................. 42


ii

Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Central Facilities Concept and 100-Year Floodplain Delineation ............................................ 25 Photos Photo 1: November 7 2014 - Alders sprouting in hazard logging area ................................................... 15 Photo 2: May 27, 2015 - General herbaceous cover ............................................................................... 15 Photo 3: May 27, 2015 - General herbaceous cover ............................................................................... 15 Photo 4: May 27, 2015 - General herbaceous cover ............................................................................... 15 Photo 5: May 27, 2015 - Black oak sprouting in Camp burned area ..................................................... 15 Photo 6: May 27, 2015 - Black oak sprouting in Camp burned area ...................................................... 15 Photo 7: Camp Dining Hall Foundation Wall - High Water Line, January, 1997 .................................. 20 Photo 8: Camp Dining Hall Foundation Wall - High Water Line, January, 1997 .................................. 20 Tables Table 1: Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017) .......................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Resource Mangagement Considerations and Indicators for Assessing Effects ........................ 13 Table 3: Unburned Discharge Rates for for South Fork Tuolumne River, Thimbleberry Creek and

Northside Drainage. .................................................................................................................. 21 Table 4: Alternative 1 - Annual Percent ERA ......................................................................................... 34 Table 5: Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the key issues ...................................... 38 Table 6. Summary Comparison of Environmental Effects to Watershed Resources ............................. 39 Appendixes Appendix A: Project Alternatives Appendix B: Watershed Management Requirements Appendix C: Soil Description Appendix D: Floodplain Delineation for the South Fork Tuolumne River, Thimbleberry Creek, and

Northside Drainage Appendix E: Floodplain Hydrology Information Appendix F: WRECO - Draft Bridge Design Hydraulic Study Report Appendix G: Tuolumne County Floodplain Ordinance Appendix H: Tuolumne County On-Site Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Ordinance


1

Executive Summary The City of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp (BTC) is located off of Hardin Flat Road on the Groveland Ranger District of the Stanislaus National Forest. This report addresses two action alternatives.

Under Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, the Forest Service, in partnership with the City of Berkeley, proposes issuance of a 30-year Term Special Use Permit (SUP or permit area) that will allow the City to reconstruct and operate BTC much as it was prior to the Rim Fire. The earliest BTC will become operational is projected to be 2021.

Under Alternative 2, a 30-year Term SUP allowing the City to reconstruct and operate BTC would not be issued and the City of Berkeley would abandon its efforts to reconstruct BTC. Actions related to Alternative 2 involve removing all existing facilities that were not destroyed during the Rim Fire, contouring the site to natural gradients, and maintaining water quality of the South Fork Tuolumne River by implementing selected best management practices for erosion control on lands that have been disturbed.

Analyses contained within this report and conclusions reached include:

1. A flood evaluation of South Fork Tuolumne River watershed effects on BTC permit area facilities and in particular in relation to the Forest Supervisor’s sideboard directive (March, 2015) that no overnight facilities may be located within the 100-year floodplain of the South Fork Tuolumne River1.

2. An analysis pursuant to Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management, California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code 21000-21177) and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387).

3. A delineation showing the 2- and 100-year return frequency floodplains of South Fork Tuolumne River through BTC and the 100-year event return frequency floodplains of two small drainages that run through BTC. These are the perennial, spring-fed Thimbleberry Creek from the south and, from the north, an intermittent drainage emanating from Sawmill Mountain referenced hereinafter as the “Northside Drainage”. The floodplain limits are superimposed on the Central Facilities Concept Plan (reference Figure 2).

4. A review of potential Rim Fire effects to the South Fork Tuolumne River’s 100-year peak flow. The analysis concludes that the critical peak discharge for the South Fork Tuolumne River watershed above BTC is the result of rain-on-snow or sudden snow melt peak discharges. These flows occur during the winter and spring months are not influenced by post-fire vegetation re-growth patterns. Based on available science, increases in flows related to the Rim Fire during summer and early fall storm events will be negligible by the time BTC becomes operational eight years after the Rim Fire.

5. The potential effects of BTC construction and operations on water quality and quantity of the Tuolumne River, Thimbleberry Creek, and other drainages that flow through the proposed Camp SUP area in relation to Riparian Conservation Area Objectives (RCOs) identified in the Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017). Included as management recommendations are a listing of Best

1 Setting finished floor elevations above the base flood elevation and incorporation of floodplain modeling in the design and construction of structures within the floodplain meets this sideboard per USFS email 5/8/2017.


2

Management Practices (BMPs) to be employed to reclaim and preserve the riparian conservation values of the South Fork Tuolumne River and related drainages within the BTC permit area.

6. An analysis of the effects of proposed water use related to the operations of BTC. Because the camp size is not proposed to be expanded, water use will be consistent with past use and impacts will be negligible or potentially be reduced through use of water-efficient Camp utilities.

7. A review of impacts to potential jurisdictional waters due to in-stream construction within the South Fork Tuolumne River for selected BTC features related to rehabilitating the swimming area. These facilities include repairs to existing weirs, and repairs and upgrades to existing retaining walls. This work will require federal and state regulatory permits.

8. An analysis of cumulative watershed effects (CWE) related to off-site effects on the beneficial uses of water including floodplains, municipal and private water supplies, and Wild and Scenic river designations. No cumulative effects to watershed beneficial uses were identified.

The following Management Requirements are recommended to avoid risk to life and property from flooding during operations of BTC and to ensure water quality protection of the South Fork Tuolumne River during construction and operations of BTC:

Related to Flooding and Water Quality

Management Requirement #1: During detail design of proposed BTC facilities and related site improvements, submit permit applications and associated documentation for the following to Forest Service for review and comment:

a. US Army Corps of Engineers (COE): Application, plans, and specifications for issuance of a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

Management Requirement #2: Update the floodplain map to reflect updated base mapping, base flood elevations, final structure placement and finished floor elevations and submit to the Forest Service and FEMA for review and acceptance.

Management Requirement #3: During detail design of BTC facilities to be constructed and related site improvements, submit permit applications and associated documentation for the following to Forest Service for review and comment:

a. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): Application, plans, and specifications for work to obtain a Stream Alteration Agreement pursuant to Fish and Game Code sections 1600 et seq.

Related to Flooding Risk

Management Requirement #4: Prior to BTC operations, provide a Camp Evacuation Plan for approval by the Forest Service that incorporates protocols and procedures for evacuation in response to summer season storm and/or winter and spring season rain-on-snow or sudden snowmelt events that may lead to high water flows.

Related Specifically to Water Quality



3

a. California Water Quality Control Board, Division of Drinking Water: Application, plans, and specifications for permit for surface water appropriation and treatment for drinking water under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1975 and Safe Drinking Water Act (Pub. L. 93-523).

b. Tuolumne County On-site Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Certification including percolation tests and soil profiles, system design plans and specifications (plot plan; grading plan; description of groundwater and soils; description of monitoring devices, system operation and function; and site evaluation and testing) necessary to obtain Certification of an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system pursuant to Tuolumne County Code Section 13.08. Reference Appendix G.

Management Requirement #6: Prior to the beginning (April) and after each BTC summer operating period (October), test the water quality of the South Fork Tuolumne River both at the Hardin Flat Road bridge and at the downstream boundary of the permit area. File results with the Groveland Ranger District.

Management Requirement #7: Protect beneficial uses of water through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with Regional Water Quality Management Plan (USDA 2011), the National BMPs for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (USDA 2012), and the Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017). Reference Appendix B.

Management Requirement #8: Follow Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017) for protection of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) through compliance with the Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs). The project will:

a. Prepare an Erosion Control Plan / Stormwater Pollution Prevention Control Plan as part of the construction documentation for Forest Supervisor approval prior to ground-disturbing activities. Prepare a BMP checklist before implementation.

b. Prior to construction activities, delineate riparian zones around all streams and special aquatic features within the permit area to be retained. Exclude ground-disturbing mechanized equipment from operating within riparian zones to be retained.

c. Clean equipment used for instream work prior to entering the water body. Remove external oil, grease, dirt and mud from the equipment and repair leaks prior to arriving at the project site. Inspect all equipment before unloading at site. Inspect equipment daily for leaks or accumulations of grease, and correct identified problems before entering streams or areas that drain directly to water bodies. Remove all dirt and plant parts to ensure that noxious weeds and aquatic invasive species are not brought to the site.

− Locate construction access perpendicular to the channel and minimize the number of channel crossings and channel damage. Upon completion of use, repair damage to the stream course, including banks and channels, to maintain a hydrologically stable channel.

− Remove all project debris from the stream in a manner that will cause the least disturbance.

− Minimize streambank and riparian area excavation during construction: stabilize adjacent areas disturbed during construction using surface cover (mulch), retaining structures, and/or mechanical stabilization materials.

− Keep excavated materials out of channels, floodplains, and wetlands. Install silt fences or other sediment- and debris-retention barriers between the water body and construction material stockpiles, and wastes. Dispose of unsuitable material in approved waste areas outside of the RCA.

− Conduct operations during the least critical periods for water and aquatic resources: when streams are dry or during low-water conditions.


4

d. Locate equipment staging and mitigate by use of erosion prevention measures to avoid sedimentation effects and delivery to a watercourse.

e. Implement erosion control measures as needed on all lands disturbed by construction following completion of construction (reference Appendix B).

f. Conduct watering during construction for dust abatement using approved existing water source locations. Treat construction approaches and staging areas to prevent sediment production and delivery to a watercourse. Water-drafting will use:

− Water-drafting vehicles will contain petroleum spill kits. − Screening devices for water drafting pumps with low entry velocity to minimize removal

of aquatic species, including juvenile fish, amphibian egg masses and tadpoles, from aquatic habitats. Pump intake screening specifications will be provided and put in the project file.

− Prohibit water drafting by more than one truck at a time. g. Allow temporary refueling and servicing only at approved construction staging sites. Rehabilitate

temporary staging, parking, and refueling/servicing areas immediately following use. − Prepare a Spill Prevention and Containment and Counter Measures (SPCC) plan where

total oil products on site in above-ground storage tanks exceed 1320 gallons. Review spill plans to ensure they are up-to-date.

− Install contour berms and trenches around construction-related vehicle service and refueling areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps to fully contain spills. Use liners as needed to prevent seepage to groundwater.

− Report spills and initiate appropriate clean-up action in accordance with applicable state and federal laws, rules and regulations. The hazardous materials coordinator's name and phone number will be available to Forest Service personnel who administer or manage activities utilizing petroleum-powered equipment.

− Remove contaminated soil and other material from Forest Service lands and dispose of this material in a manner according to controlling regulations.

h. Place burn piles a minimum of 50 feet away from South Fork Tuolumne River, Thimbleberry Creek, or intermittent streams and 25 feet away from ephemeral drainages unless otherwise approved by a hydrologist and/or soil scientist. Locate piles outside of areas that may receive runoff from roads. Burn piles in the fall or winter.

i. Conduct implementation and effectiveness monitoring using the Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) (USDA 2002) and the National Core Monitoring Protocols (FS -990b) (USDA 2012) as a supplement. Reference Appendix B.


5

Introduction Berkeley Tuolumne Camp (BTC) is located on Hardin Flat Road off of State Route 120. The latitude and longitude of the site are 37°48’42.6”N and 119°55’49.8”W respectively. The site is within the US Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest’s Groveland Ranger District. The camp is operated by a special use permit from the US Forest Service. Figure 1 illustrates the location of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp. Berkeley Tuolumne Camp was severely burned by the Rim Fire in 2013. The City of Berkeley is pursuing a 30-year Special Use Permit (SUP) from the Forest Service and reconstruction of the Berkeley Tuolumne Camp. The Camp setting and facilities are focused on the South Fork Tuolumne River. The watershed of the South Fork of the Tuolumne River extends from the high Sierra Nevada within Yosemite National Park to the confluence with the Tuolumne River, approximately 6 miles downstream From the Camp. The South Fork Tuolumne River drains a watershed area of approximately 68.3 square miles at the Hardin Flat Road bridge crossing. Appendix D illustrates the watershed delineation for the Camp. Upstream from the Camp, the South Fork Tuolumne River is fed by numerous small streams that include Long Gulch, Crane Creek, Rush Creek, Ackerson Creek, Hazel Greek Creek, and Soldier Creek. Thimbleberry Creek, with a watershed of approximately 92.35 acres traverses the proposed Camp permit area from the south to the river. The Northside Drainage, with a watershed of approximately 136.29 acres traverses proposed Camp permit area from the north. This Hydrology Report reviews conceptual site and development plans that portray anticipated improvements and use areas associated with the SUP. This report documents the potential impacts to that portion of the watershed for the South Fork Tuolumne River within the Camp SUP area and its relationship with the overall watershed. Under Alternative 1 BTC would be designed, constructed, and operated to avoid exceeding all Management Indicators to the extent possible for surface water and groundwater hydrology. Alternatives A complete description of the actions associated with two alternatives evaluated in this report is found in Appendix A. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) the Forest Service in partnership with the City of Berkeley would issue of a 30-year Term Special Use Permit (SUP) that would allow the City to reconstruct and operate BTC much as it was prior to the Rim Fire. The earliest BTC would become operational is projected to be 2021. Illustrations of the permit area, conceptual site and use plans, and conceptual revegetation plans for Alternative 1 are presented in Appendix A. Under Alternative 2, a 30-year Term SUP allowing the City to reconstruct and operate would not be issued and the City of Berkeley would abandon its efforts to reconstruct BTC. Actions related to Alternative 2 involve removing all existing facilities that were not destroyed during the Rim Fire, contouring previously developed lands on the site to natural gradients, and, to maintain water quality of the South Fork Tuolumne River, implementing selected Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion control on lands that have been disturbed.


6

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

Intent There are two spatial perspectives presented in this report. First are the overall watershed effects on BTC development and operation pursuant to Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management, CEQA (Public Resources Code 21000-21177) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). This includes an evaluation of potential flooding as it relates to Alternative 1 and the Forest Supervisor’s sideboard regarding overnight accommodations within the 100-year floodplain of the South Fork Tuolumne River (Higgins, 2015)2.

Secondly, more localized water quantity and quality effects of actions associated with each alternative are considered.

2 Setting finished floor elevations above the base flood elevation and incorporation of floodplain modeling in the design and construction of structures within the floodplain meets this sideboard, per USFS email 5/8/2017.


7

In both cases, the intent of this evaluation is to provide management recommendations for how potential hydrology effects will be addressed in the detail design, construction and operations of BTC. Issues and Evaluation Key hydrology-related issues identified through the scoping process (FSH 1909.15, 12.4) to be addressed are:

1. Floodplain hazard and potential post-Rim Fire effects relative to the South Fork Tuolumne River’s 100-year storm event.

2. The relationship between water quality and the BTC’s waste discharge. 3. Existing drainage patterns and rate of surface runoff through the BTC permit area. 4. Riparian Conservation Area Objectives (RCOs) from the Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017) or

protection of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) and recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reclaim and preserve the riparian conservation areas of the South Fork Tuolumne River, Thimbleberry Creek, and Northside Drainage that flow through the BTC.

Additional evaluations include:

1. Impacts to waters of the United States. 2. Cumulative watershed effects to determine off-site effects on the beneficial uses of water

including floodplains, municipal water and supplies, and Wild and Scenic River designation. Regulatory Framework As a Federal agency, the Forest Service is bound by Federal laws, Executive orders, and Department of Agriculture directives, which are the basis for Forest Service programs and operations. The Stanislaus National Forest expresses these regulations, orders and directives in the Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017). The BTC project must adhere and implement the FPD as well as State laws, regulations, and codes governing development activities. The FPD includes a general framework or understanding for managing the forest resources. To meet the goals and achieve the objectives set forth in the FPD, ‘Management Practices’ and ‘Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines’ are established. Protection of water quantity and quality is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service (USDA 2007). Management activities on national forest lands must be planned and implemented to protect the hydrologic functions of forest watersheds, including the volume, timing, and quality of stream flow. Below are the relevant regulations for the Camp from both Federal and State requirements as well as the standards and guidelines outlined in the FPD pertaining to the camp: Land and Resource Management Plan Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017, p. 61 ) provides standards and guidelines for managing water quality and quantity forestwide. Standards and guidelines applicable to BTC are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017)

Practices (p. 61)

General Direction Standards and Guidelines (Desired Conditions)

Water Quality Management (18-A)

1. Comply with all applicable Federal and State water quality standards. Prevent or minimize as much as possible any water quality impacts which may be caused by Forest management activities. Achieve the goals for preventing or minimizing water pollution as stated in the Federal Clean Water Act. Implement water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) as

1. Implement water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) as needed for all Forest management activities. BMPs are a system of nearly 100 practices designed to minimize or prevent water pollution from Forest management activities. Reference Appendix B Table B-2 for a discussion and listing of


8

specified in the Management Agency Agreement with the California Water Resources Control Board for protection of non-point water pollution sources.

2. Comply with applicable provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) of the California Central Valley Regional Water Control Board

the water quality BMPs applicable to the project alternatives.

2. Monitor the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs in selected areas to determine if they are being carried out and if they are accomplishing their objectives.

Water Quantity Management (18-B)

Support all valid uses of water from the National Forest. Insure that such uses are carried out commensurate with Federal and State laws and regulations

Follow all Federal and State regulatory practices required in responding to proposals to develop the water resource

Watershed Maintenance and Improvement (18-D)

Maintain or improve watershed condition to provide stewardship of water and soil resources. Survey Forest watersheds and restore degraded areas to improve watershed condition.

Implement the following watershed recovery practices following major wildfires: 1. Restore ground cover as soon as possible

when necessary to reduce flood flows to protect life and property, to maintain soil productivity and/or to minimize stream sedimentation and cumulative watershed effects.

2. Conduct reforestation activities in a manner which reduces the potential for cumulative watershed effects, such as dispersing site preparation adequately over time and space and/or using techniques which minimize land disturbance.

Riparian Conservation Areas Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) are corridors along stream channels and surrounding meadows, springs and other wetland areas that provide habitat for plants that thrive on a high water table.

RCA’s are defined in the Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017) as follows:

1. Perennial Streams. 300 feet on each side of the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream.

2. Seasonally Flowing Streams (includes intermittent and ephemeral streams): 150 feet on each side

The majority of proposed facilities and use areas related to the construction and operations of BTC are within the RCA of either the South Fork Tuolumne River, Thimbleberry Creek, or the Northside Drainage. Therefore it is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that all of the BTC permit area is within a RCA.

The following desired conditions related to stream management for water quality and quantity within Riparian Conservation Areas direct this analysis.

1. Water quality meets the goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act; it is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment.

2. In-stream flows are sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved.

3. The connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats.


9

4. Soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover absorb and filter precipitation and sustain favorable conditions of stream flows.

5. The physical structure and condition of stream banks and shorelines minimizes erosion and sustains desired habitat diversity.

6. Wetlands provide desired habitat conditions and ecological functions.

Management Areas The Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017) identifies the existing BTC permit area as a Developed Recreation Site. Other forest-wide standards and guidelines (pp. 31-61) and management area direction that apply within or directly adjacent to this project include: Scenic Corridor with Retention Visual Quality Objective (p. 149); and, Developed Recreation Sites with Roaded Natural Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class (pp. 159-174). Land Allocations with associated management intent and objectives that also apply within or directly adjacent to this project include: CA Spotted Owl Protected Activity Centers (pp. 179-182); CA Spotted Owl Home Range Core Area (p. 184); Wildland Urban Intermix (pp. 185-186); General Forest (p. 191); Riparian Conservation Areas (pp. 187-191); and, Wildlife Urban Intermix Defense Zone (pp. 185).

Federal Law 1. Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent

possible, long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains.

2. Executive Order 12088 of October 13, 1978 requires Federal agencies to comply with environmental laws to be consistent with requirements that apply to a private person. Compliance will be in line with authorities and responsibilities of other Federal agencies, State, interstate, and local authorities as specified and granted in each of the various environmental laws.

3. The Clean Water Act of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987) establishes as Federal policy the control of point and non-point source pollution, and assigns the states the primary responsibility for control of water pollution. Compliance with the Clean Water Act by National Forest in California is achieved under state law.

4. The Regional Water Quality Management Handbook (USDA 2011) manages non-point source pollution on National Forests and relies upon implementation of prescribed regional BMPs as well as national BMPs (USDA 2012).

5. Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 475) defines original National Forest purposes to improve and protect the forests; to secure favorable conditions of water flows; and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States.

6. Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528) expands National Forest purposes to include watershed, wildlife and fish, outdoor recreation, range, and timber. Renewable surface resources are to be managed for multiple use and sustained yield of the several products and services that they provide. The principles of multiple use and sustained yield include the provision that the productivity of the land shall not be impaired.

7. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S. C. 1271.1287; PL 90-452) requires that the Forest Service manage for nondegradation and enhancement of water quality in designated rivers on national forests.


10

8. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331.4335, 4341.4346, 4346a-b, 4347) establishes a national policy encouraging a “productive and enjoyable harmony between humans and their environment.” All Federal agencies, including the Forest Service, are required to use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to planning and decision-making. In addition, Federal agencies are to prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of and alternatives to major Federal actions significantly affecting the environment.

9. Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4371.4374) establishes a national policy for the environment, which provides for the enhancement of environmental quality.

10. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614) provides for systematic, long-range planning in managing renewable resources. The plans are based on a national assessment conducted every 10 years. The plans are updated every 5 years and submitted to Congress.

11. National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600-1602, 1604, 1606, 1608.1614) amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, emphasizing interdisciplinary involvement in the preparation of land and resource management plans. The law reinforced the concept of multiple use management of Forest Service lands and added requirements for resource protection.

12. The Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. §1341) prohibits Federal agency officials from obligating funds in advance or in excess of Congressional appropriations. As a result, a Federal agency official cannot agree to commit the federal agency to future, indefinite, or potentially unlimited financial obligations or expenditures of funds for which there is no Congressional appropriation. All actions by the Forest Service as a Federal agency are covered by this act. However, under this handbook, implementation and monitoring of BMPs are required for funded Forest Service projects.

Executive Orders 1. Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent

possible, long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains.

2. Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands to preserve and enhance natural and beneficial values of wetlands

3. Executive Order 13693 Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade to manage stormwater and preserve and/or restore natural site hydrology.

State and Local Law 1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000-21006,

declares the maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this State now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern. This act also declares that it is the policy of the State to “take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the State” and “ensure that the long-term protection of the environment, consistent with the provisions of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.”

2. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, as amended in 2006, is included in the California Water Code and provides for the protection of water quality by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, which are authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Water Act in California.


11

3. State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife under Fish and Game Code Section 1602 for lake and stream bed alteration agreement states “an entity may not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream or lake…” without meeting requirements as per the California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et. seq. The Legislature finds and declares that the protection and conservation of the fish and wildlife resource of this state are of the utmost public interest.

4. The California Water Code consists of a comprehensive body of law that incorporates all State laws related to water, including water rights, water developments, and water quality. The laws related to water quality (section 13000 to 13485) apply to waters on the National Forests and are directed at protecting the beneficial uses of water.

Other Guidance or Recommendations 1. Forest Service Manuals applicable to hydrology for the BTC permit area include:

a. FSM 2504 addressing consumptive water uses and water use development on National Forest lands.

b. RS FSH 2509 outlining the Forest Service Southwest Region’s policies, Best Management Practices administrative procedures and adaptive management approaches to soil and water quality management.

c. FSM 2880 addressing geologic factors and principles which affect the safety, economy, and efficiency of Forest Service programs.

2. International Building Code as modified for use in California and Berkeley governs the building requirements for habitable and non-habitable structures constructed for the camp.

3. International Plumbing Codes as modified for use in California and Tuolumne County governs the plumbing requirements for habitable and non-habitable structures constructed for the camp.

4. Tuolumne County Division of Environmental Health Code Section 13.08.270A for Certification of an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system pursuant to Tuolumne County Code Section 13.08.

5. Tuolumne County Floodplain Code Section15.24 that governs the types of facilities, means, and methods for construction with a floodplain.

Methodology Spatial Scale The effects analysis focuses on the approximately 30-acre of proposed BTC SUP area in relation to: 1. The South Fork Tuolumne River watershed upstream from BTC in terms of effects on BTC

development and operation pursuant to Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management, CEQA (Public Resources Code 21000-21177) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). This includes an evaluation of potential flooding as it relates to Alternative 1 and the Forest Supervisor’s sideboard regarding overnight accommodations within the 100-year floodplain of the South Fork Tuolumne River (Higgins, 2015)3.

3 Setting finished floor elevations above the base flood elevation and incorporation of floodplain modeling in the design and construction of structures within the floodplain meets this sideboard, per USFS email 5/8/2017.


12

2. The South Fork Tuolumne River and Tuolumne River watersheds downstream from BTC in terms of cumulative effects.

3. The immediate SUP area and watersheds of Thimbleberry Creek and the Northside Drainage for localized effects of BTC construction and operations on water quality and quantity and Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs within a Riparian Conservation Area setting.

Temporal Scale Prior to the Rim Fire, BTC had been in continuous operation for 91 years. The BTC Special Use Permit would be for a 30-year period. Camp occupancy would occur no sooner than 2021. The period of analysis is for BTC construction in the 30-year permit period. Short-term effects related to construction are principally related to water quality and are anticipated to occur over a two- to three-year period. Longer term effects related to water quality, water use, and flood hazard occur over the life of the permit. Analysis Methodology A variety of hydrologic methods were considered to determine the recommended design discharge rates for the South Fork Tuolumne River, Thimbleberry Creek and the Northern Drainage. These methods include: the use of regional regression equations based on USGS Regional Flood Frequency Equation modeling to determine runoff rates for a variety of storm events; hydrologic modeling (HEC-HMS) to determine the potential impact of the Rim fire on predicted peak flow rates; timing of historic rainfall driven discharge rates; and the determination of soil burn severity and rapid assessment of vegetation condition after wildfire. Additional various factors which effect post-burn runoff rates are considered, including amount of time between fire and anticipated camp occupation, revegetation of the BTC watershed that has occurred to date, local watershed data and seasonality of peak flows, and a literature review regarding watershed response to post-fire conditions. On the basis of these analyses, it is recommended that the un-adjusted 100-year peak flow rates be used for the basis of design for the Berkeley Tuolumne Camp. Hydraulic modeling (HEC-RAS) using the recommended design flows is used to delineate the 100-year floodplain for the South Fork Tuolumne River, Thimbleberry Creek and the Northern Drainage. Additionally, the model was run for sub-critical flow to determine the impact to the base flood elevation at and upstream of the Dining Hall in the event that 100-year flows do not maintain a super-critical profile in this reach. While modeling output does suggest that the River flows are supercritical in this reach, the City will base Finished Floor Elevations of any structures on the higher (i.e. sub-critical) base flood elevations. Appendix D provides a detailed description of these analyses, results and recommendation. Management Indicators Each alternative is subject to discretionary approvals through the Forest Service and other agencies. Part of the approval process involves identifying the management indicators thresholds of significance for surface hydrology. The goals of the Stanislaus National Forest “Forest Plan Direction” (USDA 2017)4 presents the current Forest Plan management direction include maintaining and restoring connections of floodplains and channels to distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats (Forest Plan Direction p.12). Table 2 lists management indicators to be used in evaluating potential hydrological impacts.

4 USDA 2017. Forest Plan Direction. Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA. March 2017


13

Table 2: Resource Mangagement Considerations and Indicators for Assessing Effects

Resource Element

Management Consideration

Indicator Sources

Floodplain Hazard

Place overnight facilities within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.

• 100-year floodplain delineation

• Presence of structures or foundations in floodplain

• EO 11988 • CEQA (PRC 21000-21006) • Tuolumne County Floodplain

Code Section15.24

Floodplain Hazard

Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map that would impede or redirect flood flows.


• Structure design • Changes in flooding

patterns


Code Section15.24

Floodplain Hazard

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding.

• Structure design • Evacuation plans


Code Section15.24 Water Quality Violate any water quality standards

through waste discharge requirements. • Waste water system

design • Best Management

Practices

• Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 404 et seq.)

• Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 401.et seq)

• Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017)

• CEQA (PRC 21000-21006) • Tuolumne County Code Section

13.08 Water Quality and Riparian Function

Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a stream or river course, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

• Surface drainage design

• Best Management Practices

• Revegetation program % cover and riparian vegetation




• CEQA (PRC 21000-21006) Water Quality Create or contribute runoff water which

would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

• Stormwater management







• CEQA (PRC 21000-21006)

Water Quality Otherwise substantially degrade water quality




• CEQA (PRC 21000-21006) Wetlands Direct impact to identified wetlands. • Wetland fill (acres) • Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 404

et seq.) • Section 10 of the Rivers and

Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 401.et seq)

• CEQA (PRC 21000-21006) Catastrophic events

Inundation by seiche, tsunamis, mudflow, landslides, or debris flows.

• History of recorded events

• CEQA (PRC 21000-21006)


14

Resource Element

Management Consideration

Indicator Sources

• Vegetative recovery period after wildfire

Watershed Cumulative watershed effects to the detriment of off-site beneficial uses of water including municipal water and nearby water supplies, and Wild and Scenic River designations,

• Changes of water supply availability

• Presence of nearby water-dependent land uses

• Flow regime and scenic quality

• 40 CFR 1508.7 • Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of

1968 • Executive Order 11990 • Forest Plan Direction (2017) • CEQA (PRC 21000-21006)

Affected Environment Existing Conditions There are 18 permanent structures at the Camp that remained after the Rim Fire. These include: 15 tent cabin platforms on the south side of the river; and two tent cabin platforms and one accessible restroom on the north side of the river. Along the South Fork Tuolumne River the following features remain:

• Two concrete weirs that with annually installed flashboards were used to create the swimming area for the camp

• Concrete foundations and walls associated with the Dining Hall that define a portion of the 100-year floodplain of the river.

• Concrete foundations for two bridge structures that crossed from each river shoreline to the island in the river.

Drainage culverts exist under Hardin Flat Road for both the Northside Drainage and an intermittent drainage that flows into the main camp area. The latter drainage from Hardin flat Road is further culverted to discharge at a point under what was the Dining Hall. Along Thimbleberry Creek an undersized and non-functioning culvert essentially dams the creek and directs water underground such that during summer low-flow period connectivity with the river is interrupted. In 2013, immediately after the Rim Fire, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company cleared trees along their distribution line within the vicinity of the Camp. In 2014, a hazard logging operation was conducted removing all trees within an approximately 4-acre zone around what was the main Camp area along the south side of the river. Tree ground cover within the remainder of the Camp area consists either of areas that did not burn or areas with partially burned trees that were allowed to remain. Since the rim fire, vegetation has been recovering naturally. In the spring of 2014 herbaceous growth occurred but did not present total ground cover. However, some native trees were sprouting (See Photo #1). In the spring of 2015 there was essentially complete herbaceous ground cover with naturally regenerating black oak (Quercus kelloggii), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, white alder (Alnus rhombifolia) and willows (Salix spp.) among others. (See Photos #2 through #6)


15

Photo #1: November 7 2014 - Alders sprouting in hazard logging area near South Fork Tuolumne River

Photo #2: May 27, 2015 - General herbaceous cover



Photo #5: May 27, 2015 - Black oak sprouting in Camp burned area

Photo #6: May 27, 2015 - Black oak sprouting in Camp burned area


16

Watershed Indicators The following hydrology indicators and measures apply to the issuance of a Special Use Permit and reconstruction of the Camp.

1. Conditions that affect the 100-year floodplain: a. Seasonal patterns of historic flooding and flow rates b. Channel form c. Stream bank stability d. Pre- versus post-Rim fire vegetative cover

2. Conditions that affect water quality: a. Ground disturbance and use of best management practices for erosion control b. Presence of ground cover, retention of existing vegetation; addition in riparian areas c. Design of on-site waste water treatment facilities; soil conditions

3. Conditions that affect water temperature: a. Presence and retention of existing riparian vegetation b. Revegetation in riparian areas

4. Cumulative watershed effects: Equivalent roaded areas Watershed The South Fork Tuolumne River watershed above BTC is illustrated in Appendix D. For the purposes of this report, the principal watershed of interest is defined by the national watershed classification system (USDA 2013). This system is a spatial hierarchy of eight nesting watershed size classes ranging from very large (greater than 250,000 acres) to very small (less than 2,000 acres) (Weddle and Frazier, 2014). The South Fork Tuolumne River comprises 57,855 acres, classifying it as a Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Level 6. The South Fork Tuolumne watershed starts in the high country of Yosemite National Park above 8,500 feet and terminates at the confluence of the South Fork with the Middlefork Tuolumne River approximately 6.1 miles downstream of BTC. Given the large scale of the Rim Fire, the Stanislaus National Forest hydrologists suggest that HUC Level 6 watersheds are the most appropriate scale for watershed description and analysis of the effects of the Rim Fire Recovery Project (Weddle and Frazier, 2014). The United States Geological Survey has maintained a stream flow gauge near Rainbow Pool on the South Fork Tuolumne River just upstream of its confluence with the Middlefork beginning in 1923 until 1996 when the gauging was discontinued. Beginning in 1997, the City of San Francisco has maintained the gauge. The statistical analysis of the stream flow gauging for the South Fork Tuolumne River indicates that the mean annual flow for the river is 96.1 cubic feet per second (cfs).. Daily mean flow rates range from a high of 6,960 cfs to a low of 0.4 cfs. Stream gauge information indicates that the South Fork Tuolumne River conveys water all year long. There are two small local watersheds that drain into the South Fork Tuolumne River at the BTC site as described in Appendix D. These are:

1. Thimbleberry Creek, a perennial, spring-fed stream from the south. The watershed area is approximately 92.35 acres. The calculated 100-year floodplain discharge rate from the watershed is 60 cfs.

2. An unnamed intermittent drainage starting from Sawmill Mountain, herein referred to as “the Northside Drainage”. The watershed area is approximately 136.29 acres. The calculated 100-year floodplain discharge rate from the watershed is 77 cfs.

The South Fork Tuolumne River and the BTC SUP area are within the Mediterranean climate belt. The primary tree types consist of sugar and ponderosa pines mixed with black oak and alder. The slopes of the South Fork Tuolumne River in the vicinity of the camp average 0.03 vertical feet per horizontal foot.


17

BTC is located upstream from the USGS stream gauge, but is sufficiently close to the gauge such that the flow rates measured at the gauge station are highly indicative of the flow rates at BTC. The average annual precipitation at BTC is estimated to be 48 inches however the watershed has extensive areas above snowline, meaning that rainfall is not the principal generator of runoff from the watershed. Reference Appendix D for further explanation. Soils The soils of the entire BTC permit area have been identified by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service as Holland family, deep/moderately deep complex. This soil type occurs on slopes between 5 percent and 35 percent gradients. While the soil is well drained, its runoff classification is considered high. Some mass instability would exist, especially on slopes of over 50%. An overall description of the soil classification is found in Appendix C.

Rim Fire and the Watershed Critical peak discharges for the South Fork Tuolumne River watershed above BTC are the result of rain-on-snow or sudden snow melt events (Weddle and Frazier, 2014). These flows occur during the winter and spring months and are not significantly influenced by post-fire vegetation re-growth patterns. Related to summer and early fall storms methodologies to consider the severity of the impact of the Rim fire on vegetation and soil was considered using:

• Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) assessment, that includes consideration based on a Soil Burn Severity (SBS) index

• Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG) that includes consideration based o n a basal area loss index

These methodologies are further explained in Appendix D. Related to summer and early fall storms, eighty-eight percent of the watershed of the South Fork Tuolumne River is within the Rim Fire perimeter. Seventy-five percent of the watershed exhibits low and unburned soil conditions and twenty-five percent exhibits Soil Burn Severity (SBS) in the high to moderate range. The calculated weighted SBS index is 2.16, slightly above the Low SBS category. Eighteen and seventeen percent respectively of the lower and upper South Fork Tuolumne River watershed exhibit significant canopy mortality within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). For the immediate years after the Rim Fire, the South Fork Tuolumne River watershed would experience moderate stream sedimentation (Weddle and Frazier, 2014). Appendix D provides an illustration of the watershed limits. The calculated weighted SBS index for Thimbleberry Creek watershed is 2.53. The calculated weighted SBS index for the Northern Drainage watershed is 2.65. See Appendix D for further explanation. Wetlands A delineation of potential jurisdictional waters was prepared for the permit area (Live Oak Associates, 2016). Areas mapped within the South Fork Tuolumne River (1.2 acres) and the perennial wetland channel of Thimbleberry Creek (0.05 acre) using the ordinary high water mark would be considered Tributary Waters (1.25 acres total)


18

Two seasonal wetland channels totaling approximately 0.15 acre were identified within the study area that met the three technical criteria of jurisdictional wetlands. These two channels were:

• a drainage north of Hardin Flat Road crossing through a culvert toward the Camp • a drainage north of Hardin Flat Road starting near the archery range and running west of the leach

field. The potential jurisdictional waters mapped on the site are either part of the South Fork Tuolumne River itself, or Thimbleberry Creek that is directly connected to the river. The Tuolumne River is a tributary of the San Joaquin River, which is considered a traditional navigable water. Because all the delineated waters of the SUP area eventually drain into a traditional navigable water, they appear to meet the criteria of a water of the United States. Key Watershed Values Wild and Scenic Rivers The lowest two miles of the South Fork Tuolumne River is an eligible Wild and Scenic River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) are identified that makes a river unique among rivers of the United States (USDA 2017). Some ORVs are water-related such as Ecologic (that includes free flowing characteristics), Fish, and Recreation (water contact recreation such as boating and swimming). Other ORVs include Scenic, Historical/Cultural, Geologic, Wildlife, and other Recreation activities.

There are no water-related ORVs for the South Fork Tuolumne River. Its ORV is Scenic (high quality scenery of the river canyon).

Vegetation Communities Vegetation is a critically important watershed component. It shades soil to hold moisture, inputs organic matter that builds soil and provides cover that minimizes erosion and stream sedimentation. It also helps store water in the soil by intercepting precipitation, thus reducing excessive runoff and producing high quality water.

Hillslope vegetation in the Rim Fire area and around the BTC permit area is dominated by broad expanses of coniferous forests above the deep river canyons. These mid-elevation forests consist mostly of the Sierra Nevada mixed conifer association, which includes ponderosa pine, white fir, sugar pine, Douglas fir and incense cedar. As elevations increase within the watershed, the mixed conifer belt grades into Jeffrey pine and red fir-lodgepole pine stands in some locations. Grass-oak woodlands and mountain chaparral communities dominate river canyon vegetation, and oak stands often occupy drier sites at mid-elevations.

Rapid re-vegetation of the watershed by ground cover vegetation is promoted in burned areas where seed beds are not destroyed by the fire and nitrogen levels are increased by the deposition of ash. The estimated vegetative recovery period for the Rim Fire area is three to five years with a chance of success estimated to be 80% (US Forest Service, 2013). There is no positive correlation of a post-burn re-vegetated watershed to its previous hydrologic regime found in the research literature, but the correlation seems intuitive and is somewhat bolstered by the literature (Flores, Kvamme, Rust, Takenada, & Young, 2013) (US Forest Service, 2013) (Stanislaus National Forest, 2014).

Figure C-1 of Appendix A illustrates how the Rim Fire generally affected the BTC permit area. Seven vegetation communities were within the BTC permit area (Live Oak Associates, 2016). These include: approximately 4 acres of complex early seral Sierran mixed conifer forest that was burned and has been


19

cleared; complex mid-early seral Sierran mixed conifer forest that was partially burned; mid-early seral Sierran mixed conifer forest; white alder riparian forest; aquatic habitat of the South Fork Tuolumne River; seasonal wetlands; and perennial creek (Holland 1986).

Water Supply and Water Quality Though not under Forest Service management jurisdiction, water use developments on or near Forest Service lands can affect water resources and/or be affected by large natural events such as the Rim Fire or permitted uses such as BTC.

A water use development downstream from BTC is New Don Pedro Reservoir on the Tuolumne River in the Sierra Nevada foothills owned by the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts. This very large impoundment begins about one mile downstream of the Stanislaus National Forest boundary, and is the 6th largest reservoir in California, with a capacity of 2,030,000 acre feet. It receives stream sediment transported beyond the forest as a consequence of events such as the Rim Fire and other management activities.

In the immediate surrounding area, BTC has traditionally drawn water from the South Fork Tuolumne River for its operations. Immediately downstream from BTC is the community of Hardin Flat, consisting of rural residences, recreation cabins, and private campgrounds. A number of these uses also obtain their water from the South Fork Tuolumne River.

Environmental Effects For each alternative, the following describes by issue how each management indicator will be addressed by the project. Impacts are listed in the order presented in Table 2. Recommended Management Requirements are provided. Many potential impacts are related to implementation of BMPs to protect water quality within a Riparian Conservation Area. A complete list of specific RCOs, BMPs, and recommended actions for both alternatives are provided in Appendix B.

Past, Present, and Future Activities Related to the Analysis BTC had been in operation for 91 years prior to the Rim Fire. Over the years, flooding changed the structure of the Camp. In 1955 and 1964, floods washed away a number of tent cabins and other structures that had been constructed on the island in the South Fork Tuolumne River or within its floodplain. These facilities were subsequently relocated outside the floodplain on the north side of the river in what became known as Sun City. In 1997, then existing BTC facilities, including the Dining Hall, withstood with minimal damage what has been described as the 100- to 200-year flood event (Weddle and Frazier, 2014), see Photos #7 and #8.

During all the years of BTC operations, the camp’s primary water supply was obtained from the South Fork Tuolumne River. This use is proposed to continue. Likewise, during its 91 year history BTC campers used the waters of the South Fork Tuolumne River for a variety of camp programs including swimming, fishing, non-motorized floating, and outdoor education. During these times, no incidents of water quality issues were reported and are therefore not analyzed further.


20

Photos #7 and #8: Camp Dining Hall Foundation Wall - High Water Line, January, 1997 Prior to the Rim Fire, BTC waste water effluent was piped across the South Fork Tuolumne River via two pedestrian bridges connecting to the river’s island and a buried line on the island and then to a lift station located within the floodplain of the river. One incident of system malfunction was recorded. In that instance, the system lift station piping leaked effluent resulting in discharge into the river. Consistent with the Camp operations plan, the system was immediately shut down and downstream property owners were notified. Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Under Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, the Forest Service in partnership with the City of Berkeley, proposes issuance of a 30-year Term Special Use Permit (SUP) that would allow the City to reconstruct and operate the BTC much as it was prior to the Rim Fire. To that end the capacity of BTC would remain unchanged and it is anticipated that the educational programs of BTC would continue much as they were prior to the Rim Fire. The earliest BTC would become operational is projected to be 2021.

A full description of Alternative 1 actions is found in Appendix A.

Under Alternative 1 BTC would be designed, constructed, and operated to avoid exceeding all Management Indicators to the extent possible for surface water and groundwater hydrology.

Will Alternative 1 place overnight facilities within a 100-year flood hazard as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Yes, however any overnight facilities within the 100-year floodplain will have finished floors elevated above the base flood elevation, therefore removing the occupied level of the facility from the floodplain. USFS has indicated this is an acceptable approach to compliance with the sideboard (USFS email 5/8/2017).

The floodplain of the South Fork Tuolumne River and the ephemeral creeks that pass through the BTC are not delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However all rivers and creeks have floodplains associated with them and uses within the flood plains can cause redirection or displacement of flood water which may impact other uses within the floodplain.

The peak 100-Year return frequency discharge rate for the South Fork Tuolumne River at Hardin Flat Road is 11,700 cubic feet per second (WRECO 2015). The 100-year return frequency describes an event that has a 1% change of being met or exceeded in a given year, and is the basis for all FEMA SFHA mapping. The Hardin Flat Road Bridge is sited on the north boundary of BTC. The Hardin Flat Road Bridge is being replaced with a clear span structure. This will not impact the 100-year floodplain through


21

the BTC and would in fact reduce the backwater effect and lower the 100- and 50-year water surface elevations at and upstream of the bridge and camp. The reduction in water surface elevation can be attributed to the increased conveyance capacity with the longer clear span of the bridge without piers (WRECO 2015).

Table 3 presents the discharge rates for various return frequencies estimated for the South Fork Tuolumne River, Thimbleberry Creek and the Northside Drainage that pass through BTC.

Table 3: Unburned Discharge Rates for South Fork Tuolumne River, Thimbleberry Creek, and Northside Drainage.

Return Frequency (years)

South Fork Tuolumne River (cfs)

Thimbleberry Creek (cfs) Northside Drainage (cfs)

2 1,096* 6 7 10 4,146* 22 28 50 9,107* 46 59 100 11,700** 60 77 * Area weighted discharge rate ** Weighted discharge rate from WRECO study (WRECO 2015) See also Appendix D, Table 1

Figure 2 illustrates the 100-year floodplain for the South Fork Tuolumne River, Thimbleberry Creek, and the Northside Drainage as they relate to the conceptual site and facility plans for the central camp area. Appendix D provides the technical description for the delineation of the floodplains, base floodplain elevation lines at 1’ contour intervals, the methodologies used, and the relationship to the Rim Fire and seasonal flooding. Recommended Management Requirements In order to ensure that all overnight facilities are designed as indicated above:

Management Requirement #1: During detail design of proposed BTC facilities and related site improvements, submit permit applications and associated documentation for the following to Forest Service for review and comment:

a. US Army Corps of Engineers (COE): Application, plans, and specifications for issuance of a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

Management Requirement #2: Update the floodplain map to reflect updated base mapping, base flood elevations, final structure placement and finished floor elevations and submit to the Forest Service and FEMA for review and acceptance.

Will Alternative 1 place structures within a 100-year flood hazard as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map that impede or redirect flood flows? While Alternative 1 does place some structures within a 100-year floodplain, these improvements are not expected to significantly impede or redirect flood flows. Figure 2 illustrates the 100-year floodplain for the South Fork Tuolumne River, Thimbleberry Creek, and the Northside Drainage in the central camp area.


22

Existing weirs in the South Fork Tuolumne River would be renovated to pre-Rim Fire conditions. Otherwise, their seasonal summer ponding function that has been in effect for over 50 years will remain unchanged.

Anticipated permanent day-use facilities to be retained or constructed within the 100-year floodplain of the South Fork Tuolumne Rivers are illustrated in Figure 2 and include:

1. Retention of existing weirs on main channel and north channel South Fork Tuolumne Rivers. 2. Stream bank foundation abutments for the foot bridge. 3. Bridge central foundation and observation deck on the river island. 4. Dining Hall foundation, retaining walls, and steps. 5. Six existing tent cabin deck footings and support posts where deck use would be limited to day

use activities. 6. New day use deck footings and support posts. 7. Accessibility ramps and paths of travel.

No other permanent improvements would be located in the floodplain. As traditionally has occurred prior to the Rim Fire, portable facilities such as picnic tables, chairs, and lifeguard stands would be stored in the Camp outside the floodplain during the winter/spring flood season. The same is the case for decomposed granite beach materials that are moved annually to above the floodplain and covered for winter storage at the close of summer BTC operations.

Cabins, decks, and structures within the central camp area would not be placed in or over Thimbleberry Creek and related drainages so as to not block or redirect waters along the channel banks that would in turn promote damage to creek banks, destruction of vegetation along the channel, and loss of forest duff.

Materials, carts, etc. would not be stored in creeks as they could obstruct drainage, cause increased velocities due to the restricted flow which increases erosion, and are a source of pollution that can enter the creek through the contact of creek water with the stored objects. Creek water flows directly to the South Fork Tuolumne River.

Camp features constructed within the delineated floodplain of the South Fork Tuolumne River would, at a minimum, be flood-proofed in accordance with the Tuolumne County Floodplain Ordinance (reference Appendix F). The ordinance requires that the structures be designed so that they are protected from the floodwaters:

1. Bridge soffits would include freeboard to comply with the requirements of the regulatory authority for debris clearance above the calculated water surface elevation during the 100-Year return frequency flood event.

2. Other permanent improvements that are located in the floodplain such as picnic tables, day use structures, and propane tanks must be designed to withstand the hydrodynamic, hydrostatic, and buoyancy forces of the floodwaters or in a manner that would allow them to be removed from the floodplain should an event occur.

3. All sanitary facilities such as septic systems and domestic water systems should not be located within the 100-year floodplain.

Based on the County Ordinance requirements, fundamental engineering design principles to be used for all structures developed within the South Fork Tuolumne River floodplain include:


23

1. Design for structures within the floodplain would comply with Tuolumne County Floodplain ordinance standards of construction (15.24.150).

2. Camp designs for the Dining Hall, pedestrian bridge, and day use decks finish floor elevations would be above the base flood elevation of the 100-Year return frequency flood event. Building decks below the 100-year water surface elevation would be constructed to withstand hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces during the flood event. Footings would be constructed to bedrock or to a depth below the scour depth to protect them from undermining during the flood event.

3. Foundations for structures and retaining walls would be designed to withstand the hydrodynamic loading and the hydrostatic loading from the floodwaters imposed by the South Fork Tuolumne River. Specific hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loadings would be generated during design of the foundations and retaining walls for these buildings and structures.

4. Foundation design would account for saturated ground that could induce an uplift force on structures caused by the buoyancy of the structure. Specific uplift forces would be estimated when a specific building design is developed.

5. Foundations for the Dining Hall and retaining walls would be constructed to connect to bedrock or to a depth below the scour depth for the river, whichever occurs first to protect the foundations from undermining during flood events. Foundations would be designed to withstand hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loadings imposed by the flooding event.

6. Foundations for the pedestrian bridge abutments and the abutments themselves would be constructed of concrete and would be founded on bedrock or constructed to a depth below the scour depth to protect them from undermining during flood events. The pedestrian bridge would include anchors designed to withstand hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loadings imposed by the flooding event. The bridge soffit would be elevated above the water surface elevation of the 100-Year return frequency flood event. Stairs would be constructed to be removed and stored out of the floodplain during periods when the camp is not in use.

7. Bridge soffits with freeboard to account for debris clearance above the calculated water surface elevation during the 100-year flood event.

8. Accessibility ramps and paths of travel would be constructed of firm and stable natural materials that can be easily replaced if washed out by a flood event.

Project development within the floodplain of the Northside Drainage consists of the staff housing parking area. The section of the Northside Drainage immediately adjacent to the parking area that has been disturbed from Rim Fire related tree removal would be contoured to accommodate the 100-year storm event and avoid the parking area.

During the detailed design phase, post-project hydraulic analysis would be conducted to confirm that there are no significant impacts to the elevation or extents of the floodplain at or upstream of the floodplain development described herein.

Pedestrian bridges or wildlife-friendly culverts across Thimbleberry Creek would be designed to accommodate passage of the 100-year peak flow.

Recommended Management Requirement In addition to recommended Management Requirement #1 and #2, in order to ensure that all facilities are designed as indicated above and do not significantly impact the floodwater levels:


24


a. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): Application, plans, and specifications for work to obtain a Stream Alteration Agreement pursuant to Fish and Game Code sections 1600 et seq.

Will Alternative 1 operations expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No. As shown on Figure 2, any overnight camping facilities located within the 100-year floodplain would be constructed such that finished floor elevations would be above the floodplain. Development of BTC would result in the construction or placement of other day use project elements (namely the Dining Hall, pedestrian bridge, and some day use structures) within the 100-Year return frequency floodplain of the South Fork Tuolumne River. These project elements would be designed to accommodate the 100-year flood in order to mitigate the risk to people and structures of loss, injury, or death as a result of flooding to a less than significant level.

There are no significant dams along South Fork Tuolumne River upstream of the site and no levees along the river near the site. Therefore, risk of loss, injury, or death as the result of flooding due to a dam or levee failure is considered less than significant.

Significant flooding on the South Fork Tuolumne River is the result of rain-on-snow events during winter or spring or sudden snowmelt events from extremely warm spring weather. Generally, these events do not happen when the camp is operational. Summer rain events, when the camp is occupied, do not generate sufficiently saturated soils to produce significant flood flows. It is estimated that maximum daily mean flow during camp operations would be 900 cfs (or 2,700 cfs assuming a three times increase in discharge due to burned watershed conditions) as compared to the 100-year event peak flow rate of 11,700 cfs. The camp operators would be trained regarding the connection of summer rainfall to rising water levels in the river and creeks and would inform campers and staff of the dangers associated with rising water levels.

CAMPGATEWAYSIGNS

x

RECYCLING

KIDDIECAMP

COURT

COURT

REPAIRSHOP

COURT

CHAIRCIRCLE

LOWERBEACH

KIDSDISCOVERY

AREA

PORTABLEBRIDGE

STEPS TOISLAND

DININGHALL

BEAVERHEADROCK

STAFF PARKING & CAMP /MAINTENANCE

OFFICESTORE

STAGE

BEACH

RIVERHALL

NATURECENTER

ISLAND

SHORTTERMPARKING

WATERTANKS

CAMPMANAGER’SCABIN

SAUNA

VIEWPOINT

RIVERVIEW DAY-USE DECKS

EXISTINGPARKING

FIRST AID /NURSE CABIN

CROSSWALK /PEDESTRIAN SAFETY SIGNS& CONTROLS

SIGN / GATE

RETAININGWALLS /ARCADE

BEACH

RETAININGWALLS

STORAGE

CARTS

CIT

THE ROCK

WATER TREATMENTPACKAGE PLANT

PNEUMATICTANK W/ PUMP

FIRE PUMPHOUSE

ARTS ANDCRAFTS CAMPER

PARKING

POWER POLE

SIGN / GATE

BOARDWALK RESTROOM

RESTROOM WOODSTORAGE

Natural Surfaced Trail: 4' wide

Stairs: 4' to 8' wide

Accessible Route: 5' to 8' wideCamp Paths

Restored Creek / DrainageChannel

Natural Surfaced Path: 4' to 6' wide

Structures

New

100-Year Floodplain

A= Accessible Tent Cabin

Existing

See also Appendix D, Figure 4 formethodoloty, HEC-RAS River StationLines, additional information about the 2-year floodplain, and delineationi of the 2-year floodplain.

Bridge / Wildlife-friendly Culvert

Central CampFacilitiesConcept Plan

2

LEGEND (see text for explanation)

Berkeley Tuolumne Camp

Figure

City of BerkeleyTuolumne CampPermit (46690)

This drawing is conceptual and for planning purposes only.Program information, scale, location of areas, and otherinformation shown are subject to review, field evaluation, andmodification. DRAFT: 3-3-17

Scale

North0' 50' 100'


26

Recommended Management Requirement In order to assure BTC operations do not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding the following Management Requirement is recommended.

Management Requirement #4: Prior to BTC operations, provide a Camp Evacuation Plan for approval by the Forest Service that incorporates protocols and procedures for evacuation in response to summer season storm and/or winter and spring season rain-on-snow or sudden snowmelt events that may lead to high water flows.

Will Alternative 1 construction or operations violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No.

Without the implementation of Management Requirements construction activities have the potential to increase levels of pollution in runoff that can create violations in water quality standards, and camp operations have the potential to increase levels of pollution in runoff. Camp operations also have the potential to produce pollutants due to trash, food wastes, spills of maintenance fluids, waste products from maintenance operations, and leaks from parked vehicles without the implementations of Management Requirements. .

Camp operations would employ an on-site sewage treatment system that has the potential to affect water quality of the South Fork Tuolumne River. This could be from breaks in effluent lines or from underground migration of effluent from the leach field area to the South Fork Tuolumne River. Waste water lines would be buried within camp. Alternative 1 proposes to relocate all waste-water treatment facilities above the 100-year base flood elevation (BFE) of the South Fork Tuolumne River. Effluent lines crossing the river would be attached to the Pedestrian Bridge above the 100-year BFE of the river. The lift station servicing the leach field area would also be sited outside the 100-year BFE of the river.

Construction of the BTC would require the City to obtain coverage under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State of California General Construction Permit to discharge stormwater. In conformance with that permit, a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would be in place prior to the start of construction and would be implemented during construction. One aspect of the SWPPP would be applying the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) for stormwater pollution prevention calculations to estimate potential soil loss in tons/year. RUSLE considers soil composition (sand, silt, clay), slope of erodible surface, and length of erodible surface. The SWPPP would implement the post-construction water balance requirements of the General Construction Permit The camp would also adhere to waste discharge requirements in its redevelopment and operation.

Prior to operations beginning at BTC, the design and testing of the Camp’s waste water disposal system will require certification from Tuolumne County.

Recommended Management Requirements In addition to recommended Management Requirements #1 - #4, to assure that all water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met, implement the following:

Management Requirement #5: During detail design of BTC facilities and related site improvements, submit permit applications and associated documentation for the following to Forest Service for review and comment:


27

a. California Water Quality Control Board, Division of Drinking Water: Application, plans, and specifications for permit for surface water appropriation and treatment for drinking water under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1975 and Safe Drinking Water Act (Pub. L. 93-523).

b. Tuolumne County On-site Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Certification including percolation tests and soil profiles, system design plans and specifications (plot plan; grading plan; description of groundwater and soils; description of monitoring devices, system operation and function; and site evaluation and testing) necessary to obtain Certification of an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system pursuant to Tuolumne County Code Section 13.08. Reference Appendix G.

Management Requirement #6: Prior to the beginning (April) and after each BTC summer operating period (October), test the water quality of the South Fork Tuolumne River both at the Hardin Flat Road bridge and at the downstream boundary of the permit area. File results with the Groveland Ranger District.

Management Requirement #7: Protect beneficial uses of water through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with Regional Water Quality Management Plan (USDA 2011), the National BMPs for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (USDA 2012), and the Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017). Reference Appendix B.

Management Requirement #8: Follow Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017) for protection of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) through compliance with the Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs). The project will:

a. Prepare an Erosion Control Plan / Stormwater Pollution Prevention Control Plan and BMP checklist as part of the construction documentation for Forest Supervisor approval prior to ground-disturbing activities. Reference Appendix B actions.

b. Prior to construction activities, delineate riparian zones around all streams and special aquatic features within the permit area to be retained. Exclude ground-disturbing mechanized equipment from operating within riparian zones to be retained.

c. Clean equipment used for instream work prior to entering the water body. Remove external oil, grease, dirt and mud from the equipment and repair leaks prior to arriving at the project site. Inspect all equipment before unloading at site. Inspect equipment daily for leaks or accumulations of grease, and correct identified problems before entering streams or areas that drain directly to water bodies. Remove all dirt and plant parts to ensure that noxious weeds and aquatic invasive species are not brought to the site.

− Locate construction access perpendicular to the channel and minimize the number of channel crossings and channel damage. Upon completion of use, repair damage to the stream course, including banks and channels, to maintain a hydrologically stable channel.

− Remove all project debris from the stream in a manner that will cause the least disturbance.

− Minimize streambank and riparian area excavation during construction: stabilize adjacent areas disturbed during construction using surface cover (mulch), retaining structures, and/or mechanical stabilization materials.

− Keep excavated materials out of channels, floodplains, and wetlands. Install silt fences or other sediment- and debris-retention barriers between the water body and construction material stockpiles and wastes. Dispose of unsuitable material in approved waste areas outside of the RCA.

− Conduct operations during the least critical periods for water and aquatic resources: when streams are dry or during low-water conditions.


28

d. Locate equipment staging and mitigate by use of erosion prevention measures to avoid sedimentation effects and delivery to a watercourse.

e. Implement erosion control measures as needed on all lands disturbed by construction following completion of construction. Reference Appendix B actions.

f. Conduct watering during construction for dust abatement using approved existing water source locations. Treat construction approaches and staging areas to prevent sediment production and delivery to a watercourse.

− Check all water-drafting vehicles daily and repair as necessary to prevent leaks of petroleum products from entering RCAs. Water-drafting vehicles will contain petroleum-absorbent pads, which are placed under vehicles before drafting. Water-drafting vehicles will contain petroleum spill kits. Dispose of absorbent pads according to the Hazardous Response Plan.

− Use screening devices for water drafting pumps. Use pumps with low entry velocity to minimize removal of aquatic species, including juvenile fish, amphibian egg masses and tadpoles, from aquatic habitats. Pump intake screening specification will be provided and put in the project file.

− Prohibit water drafting by more than one truck at a time. g. Allow temporary refueling and servicing only at approved construction staging sites. Rehabilitate

temporary staging, parking, and refueling/servicing areas immediately following use. − Prepare a Spill Prevention and Containment and Counter Measures (SPCC) plan where

total oil products on site in above-ground storage tanks exceed 1320 gallons. Review spill plans to ensure they are up-to-date.

− Install contour berms and trenches around vehicle service and refueling areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps to fully contain spills. Use liners as needed to prevent seepage to groundwater.

− Report spills and initiate appropriate clean-up action in accordance with applicable state and Federal laws, rules and regulations. The hazardous materials coordinator's name and phone number will be available to Forest Service personnel who administer or manage activities utilizing petroleum-powered equipment.

− Remove contaminated soil and other material from Forest Service lands and dispose of this material in a manner according to controlling regulations.

h. Place burn piles a minimum of 50 feet away from the South Fork Tuolumne River, Thimbleberry Creek, or intermittent streams and 25 feet away from ephemeral drainages unless otherwise approved by a hydrologist and/or soil scientist. Locate piles outside of areas that may receive runoff from roads. Burn piles in the fall or winter.

i. Conduct implementation and effectiveness monitoring using the Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) (USDA 2002) and the National Core Monitoring Protocols (FS -990b) (USDA 2012) as a supplement.

Will Alternative 1 construction substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No. As shown on Figure 2, construction of the BTC would alter existing surface drainage patterns, but would not alter the course of the South Fork Tuolumne River. Minor drainages that previously flowed into the Dining Hall would be redirected into Thimbleberry Creek.

Ground-disturbing construction activities have the potential to create significant amounts of erosion if runoff is not controlled. All camper and staff parking areas would be gravel. The BTC entrance, turn-


29

around, and service access to the Dining Hall would be pervious asphalt. The result is that construction of BTC would increase the amount of pervious surfacing over that which existed before the Rim Fire thus reducing potential of erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

All ground areas disturbed by construction would be hydromulched. Additionally, Alternative 1 includes a conceptual revegetation plan (reference Appendix A) covering approximately 5 acres of the SUP area that are associated with enhancing the lower sections of Thimbleberry Creek and the North side Drainage, or were severely burned by the Rim Fire and disturbed by subsequent hazard tree removal actions. Revegetation of these areas would, over time, provide 100 % forest cover over the main Camp use areas and multiple benefits including enhancement of surface runoff water quality, habitat connectivity, and camp educational programs.

Recommended Management Requirement Implementation of recommended Management Requirements #5 through #8 above will address how construction will occur so as not to result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Will Alternative 1 construction or operations create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Storm drainage facilities utilized to control, convey, and dispose of runoff from the camp would be designed for the 10-year design storm return frequency. Storms that exceed the rainfall intensities of the 10-year design storm return frequency would exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. Major storm flow patterns would be investigated to ensure that storms that exceed the design capacity of the storm drainage facilities are safely channeled to disposal in the South Fork Tuolumne River.

Construction Construction activity can be a major source of sediment, dust, and trash when rainfall occurs on a construction site or runoff drains through a construction site.

The Clean Water Act and associated regulations created the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit System to control the quality of runoff from construction sites. The State of California Water Resources Control Board issues coverage under a General Construction Permit for the discharge or runoff from construction sites that disturb one acre or more of soil to waters of the United States. The South Fork Tuolumne River meets the definition of waters of the United States. The permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the quality of the runoff by eliminating sources of pollution and/or treating runoff. BMPs, principally those from the California Water Quality Association Best Management Practices Web Portal (CASQA, web page), would be implemented during construction to reduce or eliminate the contact of these sources of pollution with runoff. The General Construction Permit requires that the Risk Level be determined for the construction project and the BMPs and runoff monitoring prescribed in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan be consistent with Risk Level. The footprint of construction of the new camp would disturb soil to varying degrees. Graded areas (contouring for surface drainage, leach field, new parking areas, water tanks, etc, would disturb approximately 4 to 5 acres of soil. Localized ground disturbance from construction of other Camp facilities (footings, routes of travel, trails, etc.) would total approximately an additional 3 acres. Therefore the construction site would require coverage under the General Construction Permit to discharge runoff from the site and the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP to control the quality of the runoff from the site. Due to the slopes, soil type, direct connection of the runoff to the South Fork Tuolumne River, and the cold spawn migratory nature of the river, it is probable that the site would be classified as Risk Level 2 or 3.


30

Materials and Storm Drain Systems Surface materials proposed for use in BTC would decrease the amount of impervious paving over that which exists in the present condition or existed before the Rim Fire. Parking areas would be gravel. Permeable asphalt paving would be used where feasible for the BTC entrance, turn-around, and service drive to the Dining Hall.

Runoff reduction BMPs (reference Appendix B, Table 2) will be implemented to reduce runoff rates and volumes and to reduce potential for flooding within the project. These BMPS include, but are not limited to use of:

1. Permeable pavements, where soil conditions are conducive to infiltration, to reduce runoff from paved areas. The use of these pavement types will be made on a case-by-case basis based on types of traffic use (light duty vehicles vs. heavier trucks and equipment), subsoil conditions, and downstream drainage facilities.

2. Gravel on a geotextile fabric for parking areas.

3. Infiltration trenches in lieu of drainage ditches where needed to avoid concentration of runoff and reduce erosive velocities.

4. Stabilized surfaces in ditches where infiltration trenches will be ineffective.

5. Slopes that distribute extreme stormwater runoff from camp drives as soon as possible to reduce the amount of concentrated runoff within infiltration ditches.

Drainage from metal roofed structures will employ low-impact development principles to disperse stormwater runoff. Runoff will be direct (no gutters or collection systems) to surface/ground catchment areas individually designed for each structure.

Revegetation All ground areas disturbed by construction would be hydromulched. Additionally, the proposed conceptual revegetation plan (reference Appendix A) covering approximately 5 acres of the SUP area would moderate surface runoff conditions.

Operations Operation of the camp has the potential to increase the sources of pollution in runoff due to parked vehicles, trash, and degradation of forest ground cover and understory plants in heavy traffic areas.

Pedestrian Circulation Erosion would occur when ground is left bare and unprotected from the erosive forces of rainfall and runoff. The cause of the unprotected ground is generally attributed to lack of vegetative cover and forest duff in those areas that experience heavy pedestrian and vehicle use to access cabins.

Delineation of travel paths with a stabilized or natural material with water bars and re-vegetation of the areas outside of the paths with native plants is proposed. Education programs for the campers were prior to the Rim Fire, and would continue to be, conducted to encourage use of the paths and discourage creating volunteer paths that contributes to loss of vegetation and further erosion.

Paths for cabin access and for general foot traffic throughout the camp would be clearly delineated and stabilized with a permeable material. Trail drainage would be implemented in conformance with the Forest Service trail design standards to reduce concentrating runoff in trails, which increases erosion. Water bars draining into vegetated areas would be used as a typical method for controlling runoff that


31

concentrates in trails. Crowning trails and reconstructing trails with frequent dips and switchbacks are other means for controlling drainage on trails.

Recommended Management Requirement No additional Management Requirement recommendations are required. Implementation of recommended Management Requirements #1 through #3 and #5 through #8 above will assure that BTC construction and operations will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Will Alternative 1 operations otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Uses in and over creeks can be sources of pollution in creek channels. Potential pollution sources include non-naturally occurring compounds and their residues, suspended solids, and trash. The presence of these compounds and particularly their residues and trash unfortunately increases with increased human contact.

Site drainage would be directed away from facilities where activities generate trash or the use of products that could be spilled or drained such as trash bin areas, bathhouse restroom area, food preparation areas, etc.

Tent cabins and other overnight camp structures would be located outside the 100-year floodplain of Thimbleberry Creek and other drainage channels to keep sources of pollution from directly entering the creeks.

Solid waste storage areas may be a significant source of pollution due to trash, residues from wet trash, and hydraulic fluid and lubricant drips from solid waste hauling vehicles. The recycling facility would include trash and other container bins that would be water tight and covered at all times. The use of bear-resistant lids on camp solid waste bins would be an effective means to ensure that lids remain closed at all times. The recycling facilities pad would be checked periodically for stains, which indicate leaking residue from wet trash, accumulated trash, or vehicle fluid leaks. Residues would be cleaned from the slab and if discovered leaking hydraulic fluid of lubricants would be cleaned from the concrete pad and the leaking vehicle repaired. Trash would not be allowed to accumulate, but would be deposited in the solid waste bins with lids down and fastened.

Camp equipment, dry goods, furnishings, and other articles from the camping experience would not be stored within the delineated floodplain of the river or within creek channels during the winter season.

Recommended Management Requirements No additional Management Requirement recommendations are required. Implementation of recommended Management Requirements #1 through #3 and #5 through #8 above will assure that BTC operations will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality.

Will Alternative 1 construction or operations affect identified wetlands? The following actions would effect identified potential jurisdictional waters with the BTC permit area.

1. Repair existing weirs within the South Fork Tuolumne River.

2. Repair and structurally upgrade existing retaining walls along the summer low-flow channel banks of the South Fork Tuolumne River.


32

3. Construction of bridges or wildlife-friendly culverts, contouring, and revegetation of the disturbed sections of Thimbleberry Creek and related intermittent drainages within the central camp area. Generalized grading plans are shown on Figure 2. Conceptual revegetation plans are presented in Appendix A.

4. Contouring and revegetation disturbed sections of the intermittent Northside Drainage to enhance riparian habitat corridor conditions and to direct surface stormwater flows away from constructed facilities.

Repairs to weirs and retaining structures that have historically existed within BTC would not represent new fill of wetland areas per se. Providing either bridges or wildlife-friendly culverts, contouring, and revegetation actions related to sections of Thimbleberry Creek and the Northside Drainage represent a beneficial effect and, while altering the channels, wetlands would not be filled but generally expanded. All actions would require Section 404 permitting under the Clean Water Act and a Stream Alteration Agreement pursuant to California Fish and Game Code. Should there be any identified impacts requiring mitigation, such mitigation would be subject to those individual permits.

Recommended Management Requirements No additional Management Requirement recommendations are required. Implementation of recommended Management Requirements #1 through #3 and #5 through #8 above will assure that BTC operations will not impact wetlands or, if applicable, appropriate mitigation actions will be required as part of individual permits.

Will Alternative 1 operations be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflow, landslides, or debris flows? No. The waves in a seiche are stationary in the horizontal plane and do not progress forward. The waves move up and down. Seiches occur most frequently in enclosed or semi-enclosed basins such as lakes, bays, and harbors. There are no such water bodies near the site.

A tsunami is a series of water waves caused by the displacement of a large volume of a body of water, usually an ocean, but can occur in large lakes. There are no such water bodies near the site. Mudflow is movement of a large mass of loose sediment (commonly suspended particles and silt) and water.

The BTC site does not have a history of mudflows.

Vegetative recovery of the South Fork Tuolumne River watershed after the Rim Fire (reference Photos 1 – 6 and Appendix D) during the eight years prior to camp operations would mitigate potential catastrophic landslides or debris flows affecting BTC.

There are no Management Requirement recommended as BTC is not subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflows, landsides or debris flows.

Alternative 1 Cumulative Watershed Effects The following projects and activities were considered in the cumulative effects analysis for the BTC Project: the Rim Fire Recovery Project, Soldier Creek project, Crush multi-product timber sale, livestock grazing, and activities occurring on private lands. There are no other projects anticipated that would affect the cumulative effects analysis area.

Potential cumulative watershed impacts on the environment result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects


33

can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.7).

A cumulative watershed effect (CWE) is any cumulative effect that involves water movement through a landscape, either because water-related resources are affected or because a change in watershed processes generates the effect (Reid in press). As sediment production and movement is tied to water movement and affects water-related resources, a sediment cumulative effect is also considered a CWE.

The process for analyzing cumulative watershed effects (CWE) consists of two steps: (1) an evaluation which consists of determining the risk of cumulative effects using a predictive model and researching watershed history, and (2) field evaluation of stream course indicators of cumulative effects.

Equivalent Roaded Area The Rim Fire Recovery EIS Watershed Report and the Rim Fire reforestation (45612) conducted CWE Equivalent Roaded Acreage (ERA) analyses of the lower and upper South Fork Tuolumne River watersheds. That analyses are incorporated in this report by reference and are available in the Project Record.

Step 1, the risk of cumulative effects, was evaluated using the Forest Service ERA methodology that has been adopted by Region 5 as a method of addressing cumulative watershed effects (USDA Forest Service 1990). ERA values are calculated using a computer model developed on the Stanislaus National Forest (Rutten and Grant 2008). The model is designed as a preliminary indicator for managers to determine whether or not past and present land management disturbances in a given watershed approach or exceed a threshold of concern (TOC). The TOC for each watershed is determined based on the watershed’s relief ratio, geology, precipitation regime, and stream channel classification. The ERA model is intended to predict risk of cumulative effects, not actual effects. As such, it is an initial screen for focusing field evaluation priorities.

Understanding watershed history (i.e. past management activities, hydrologic events, wildfire) is important to build a temporal context of past impacts, current condition and potential future effects. Analysis of watershed history, including land disturbance history, is essential to help predict effects of future management activities on water quality and watershed condition. This history is considered in the ERA model spreadsheets. The temporal scope analyzed is based upon the estimated time of recovery from each past activity or event. It varies by activity and ranges from 1 to 10 years. The temporal scope for known future activities also varies by activity and ranges from 1 to 10 years into the future. Not all future activities used to calculate ERA values have a defined proposed action. Therefore, assumptions were made about when and where activities would likely occur.

Step 2, field evaluation, is necessary for comparing the modeled ERA prediction with actual and expected future field conditions. Project-related water quality parameters and watershed condition are evaluated via in-stream and near-stream indicators of condition. This evaluation is essential to help interpret cumulative effects of past projects and potential cumulative effects given proposed activities and other reasonably foreseeable future activities. Field review was used to verify that the geographic and temporal extent of analysis was adequate for evaluation of cumulative watershed effects (Connaughton 2005).

Table 4 below summarizes ERA results for the South Fork Tuolumne River HUC 6 analysis from the Rim Fire Reforestation Watershed Management Report and compares them to a TOC of 12-14%. Neither the upper or lower watersheds exceed the TOC threshold.


34

Table 4: Alternative 1 - Annual Percent ERA (Source: Rim Fire Recovery EIS Watershed Report)

HUC Level and Name 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2026 6 - Lower South Fork Tuolumne River

8.40 7.84 7.47 6.72 6.13 5.40 4.62 3.84 3.14 2.66

6 - Upper South Fork Tuolumne River

1.54 1.35 1.15 0.97 0.81 0.76 0.73 0.69 0.66 0.64

Both watersheds were below the established TOC of 12-14% in 2016 with decreasing concern over time. From 2019, the time construction is anticipated, to 2026 the average TOC is 5.6% for the Lower South Fork Tuolumne River and 0.93% for the Upper South Fork Tuolumne River watersheds.

BTC, as a historic permitted organization camp, is considered a “constant feature” in ERA modeling. As a constant feature, it would have no recovery timeframe assigned in an ERA analysis. It would have a coefficient of 1.

The proposed BTC permit area of 30.0 acres is 0.0005% (effectively “0%”) of the 57,800-acre South Fork Tuolumne River watershed area. This percentage is further reduced in that only approximately half of the permit area would involve construction and intensive use activities. Maintaining BMP erosion-control measures as outlined in Appendix B to function effectively throughout the permit area during construction, and in accordance with an approved erosion control plan, would result in BTC having no measurable cumulative effect on the ERA analysis.

Water Supply The following construction or operation actions could involve cumulative watershed effects to the detriment of off-site beneficial uses of water including municipal water and supplies, and Wild and Scenic river designations:

1. Draws of water from the South Fork Tuolumne River for construction-related purposes. 2. A one-time draw of approximately 280,000 gallons of water from the South Fork Tuolumne

River for fire prevention storage purposes. 3. Draws during camp operations of a calculated 18,000 gallons per day of water from the South

Fork Tuolumne River for BTC operations. 4. Potential use of water for plant establishment related to the revegetation program, estimated to

not exceed a total of approximately 2,500 gallon per day, one day a week during the dry season, for a three-year period for either hand watering of plants or a temporary irrigation system. Intensive revegetation would focus on riparian corridors, intermittent drainages, and areas around Hardin Flat Road. Other general forest revegetation programs would not involve irrigation.

The combination of effects from all of the proposed BTC Project activities associated with Alternative 1 are not expected to cause long-ranging adverse cumulative effects to downstream water supplies, either municipal (New Don Pedro Reservoir) or of uses in Hardin Flat.

The one-time draw of 280,000 gallons (0.86 acre feet) of water from the South Fork Tuolumne River for fire prevention storage purposes would occur in the springtime immediately prior to opening BTC.

The daily water use of BTC would be the same as prior to the Rim Fire. No reported incidents of downstream water shortages have occurred during the 91-year history of BTC operations prior to the Rim Fire.

Recommended Management Requirements


35

No additional Management Requirement recommendations are required. Consumptive water use will be consistent with historic use. Implementation of recommended Management Requirements #1 through #3 and #5 through #8 above, would assure that all cumulative watershed effects are minimized and that the water quality of supplies of downstream uses will be maintained.

Wild and Scenic Rivers The South Fork Tuolumne River has a continuous two mile segment upstream from its confluence of the main channel of the Tuolumne River that is eligible as a Wild and Scenic River with a scenic classification (high quality scenery of the river canyon). The BTC permit area is not visible from this segment of the river and there will be no impact on eligibility. Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2, a 30-year Term SUP allowing the City to reconstruct and operate would not be issued and the City of Berkeley would abandon its efforts to reconstruct BTC. Actions related to Alternative 2 involve removing all existing facilities that were not destroyed during the Rim Fire, contouring previously developed lands on the site to natural gradients, and, to maintain water quality of the South Fork Tuolumne River, implementing selected BMPs for erosion control on lands that have been disturbed.

A full description of Alternative 2 actions is found in Appendix A.

Will Alternative 2 place overnight facilities within a 100-year flood hazard as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No facilities are proposed in Alternative 2 and there will be no impacts. Will Alternative 2 place structures within a 100-year flood hazard as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map that impede or redirect flood flows? Under Alternative 2, existing weir and retaining walls would be removed. Under the alternative, no additional facilities are proposed within the 100-year floodplain. There will be no impedance or redirection of flood flows after decommissioning BTC.

Will Alternative 2 operations expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? There are no upstream dams from the existing BTC permit area. No facilities are proposed in Alternative 2. There will be no significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding.

Will Alternative 2 construction violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Removing existing facilities and contouring disturbed lands associated with Alternative 2 have the potential to increase levels of pollution in runoff, which can create violations in water quality. Decommissioning BTC would require the City to obtain coverage under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State of California General Construction Permit to discharge stormwater.

In conformance with that permit, a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would be in place prior to the start of decommissioning and would be implemented during ground-disturbing activities. One aspect of the SWPPP would be applying the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) for stormwater pollution prevention calculations to estimate potential soil loss in tons/year. It considers soil composition (sand, silt, clay), slope of erodible surface, and length of erodible surface. The SWPPP would implement the post-demolition water balance requirements of the Demolition Permit.

Recommended Management Requirements


36

Implementation of Management Requirements #5, #7, and #8 as presented under Alternative 1 are applicable to Alternative 2 and would assure that all water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met. Reference also Appendix B, Table B-2 for a listing of applicable Best Management Practices to be used.

Will Alternative 2 construction substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Decommissioning BTC would remove existing weirs and retaining walls along the South Fork Tuolumne River. While minor variations may result in edge conditions following the first seasonal storms after removal, the overall course of the river would not be changed.

Bridges or wildlife-friendly culverts will be used along the lower sections of Thimbleberry Creek and other minor drainages in the existing camp permit area.

Recommended Management Requirements Implementation of recommended Management Requirements #1, #5, #7, and #8 in Alternative 1 are applicable to Alternative 2 and would address how construction will occur so as not to result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

Will Alternative 2 construction create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? All facilities within the camp permit area would be removed, including all impervious paving and other impervious materials. The site would be contoured to accommodate natural runoff patterns. Disturbed lands will be hydromulched. There would be no contribution of runoff water that would provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Will Alternative 2 operations otherwise substantially degrade water quality? After decommissioning the camp permit area will left in a relatively natural state. There would be no ongoing operations remaining that would substantially degrade water quality.

Will Alternative 2 construction or operations affect identified wetlands? The following actions will manipulate identified wetlands with the BTC permit area.

1. Remove existing weirs within the South Fork Tuolumne River.

2. Remove existing retaining walls along the summer low-flow channel banks of the South Fork Tuolumne River.

3. Remove culverts, contour and hydro-mulch along Thimbleberry Creek and related intermittent drainages.

Repairs to weirs and retaining structures that have historically existed within the South Fork Tuolumne River and removing culverts in Thimbleberry Creek represent a beneficial effect. All actions would involve Section 404 permitting under the Clean Water Act and a Stream Alteration Agreement pursuant to California Fish and Game Code. Should there be any identified impacts requiring mitigation, such mitigation would be subject to those individual permits. Recommended Management Requirement


37

Implementation of recommended Management Requirements #1 and #3 under Alternative 1 above would assure that BTC decommissioning would not impact wetlands or, if applicable, appropriate mitigation actions would be required as part of individual permits.

Will Alternative 2 operations be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflow, landslides, or debris flows? After decommissioning the camp permit area would be left in a relatively natural state. There would be no ongoing operations remaining. As with Alternative #1, there are no opportunities for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow events in the area.

Alternative 2 Cumulative Watershed Impacts The following projects and activities were considered in the cumulative effects analysis for Alternative 2: the Rim Fire Recovery Project, Soldier Creek project, Crush multi-product timber sale, livestock grazing, and activities occurring on private lands. There are no other projects scheduled that would affect the cumulative effects analysis area.

The following construction or operation actions could involve cumulative watershed effects to the detriment of off-site beneficial uses of water including municipal water and supplies, and Wild and Scenic River designations.

1. Draws of water for decommission-related activities. Water Supply After decommissioning, there will be no use of water. During decommissioning a relatively minor amount of water will be needed for dust control and other construction actions.

Recommended Management Requirement No mitigation actions are necessary.

Wild and Scenic Rivers The South Fork Tuolumne River has a continuous two mile segment upstream from its confluence of the main channel of the Tuolumne River that is eligible as a Wild and Scenic River with a scenic classification (high quality scenery of the river canyon). The BTC permit area is not visible from this segment of river. Decommissioning activities will not be seen from this segment and there will be no impact on eligibility. Required Monitoring The following monitoring conditions are associated with the recommended Management Requirements:

1. Review of permit applications and implementation monitoring of permit conditions.

2. Review of pre-construction floodplain field staking.

3. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring of the Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) (USDA 2002) and the National Core Monitoring Protocols (FS -990b) (USDA 2012) during construction.

4. Annual permit review of field conditions related to ongoing operations and erosion and sedimentation.


38

5. Testing of the water quality of the South Fork Tuolumne River at both the Hardin Flat bridge and the downstream boundary of the Permit area prior to the beginning (April) and after (October) each BTC summer operating period. Results would be filed with the Groveland Ranger District.

Summary of Effects Table 5 summarizes and compares the effects of the two alternatives related to key project watershed and hydrology issues.

Table 5: Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the key issues

Issue

Indicator Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

Place overnight facilities within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.



• Any overnight camping facilities located within the 100-year floodplain would be constructed such that finished floor elevations would be above the floodplain. Compliance with the Tuolumne County Floodplain ordinance standards of construction for building within a floodplain would be required.

• No overnight facilities associated with alternative

Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map that would impede or redirect flood flows.



patterns

• Day use facilities within 100-year floodplain requiring federal and state permits cause no significant changes in flooding patterns

• County floodplain ordinance and building codes require appropriate structural design

• Facilities to be removed within 100-year floodplain requiring federal and state permits

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding.

• Structure design • Evacuation plans

• County floodplain ordinance and building codes assure appropriate structural design

• City evacuation plan in place prior to occupancy

• No use or structures proposed with alternative

Violate any water quality standards through waste discharge requirements.

• Waste water system design


• Federal, state, and county permits require measures to assure no significant water quality impacts

• Best Management Practices to be followed identified

• Federal and state permits require measures to assure no significant water quality impacts


Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a stream or river course, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.




• Federal and state permits require measures to assure no substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site would occur


• Stream restoration and revegetation program benefits riparian and wildlife habitat corridors

• Federal and state permits require measures to assure no significant water quality impacts


• No revegetation program associated with alternative

Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the

• Stormwater management

• Surface drainage

• Federal and state permits and required review of site design plans by Forest Service will assure the

• Removal of existing impervious materials will reduce sources of polluted


39

Issue


Alternative 2

capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.


Practices • Revegetation

program % cover and riparian vegetation

runoff water would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems


• Stream restoration and revegetation program of disturbed areas benefit management of runoff

runoff. • Best Management Practices to

be followed identified

Otherwise substantially degrade water quality




• Removal of existing impervious materials will reduce sources of polluted runoff.


Direct impact to identified wetlands.

• Wetland fill (acres) • Beneficial impacts to Thimbleberry Creek and the Northside Drainage through grading and revegetation program

• None

Inundation by seiche, tsunamis, mudflow, landslides, or debris flows.



• No relationship to key issue • No relationship to key issue

Cumulative watershed effects to the detriment of off-site beneficial uses of water including municipal water and nearby water supplies, and Wild and Scenic river designations,

• Changes of water supply availability



• No detrimental relationship to other beneficial uses

• No detrimental relationship to other beneficial uses

Summary Comparison Environmental Effects A summary comparison of the effects of the alternatives and conclusions are provided in Table 6.

Table 6. Summary Comparison of Environmental Effects to Watershed Resources

Resource Element


Alternative 2

Floodplain Hazard




patterns • Evacuation plans

• Any overnight camping facilities located within the 100-year floodplain would be constructed such that finished floor elevations would be above the floodplain.

• Compliance with the Tuolumne County Floodplain ordinance standards of construction for building within a floodplain would be required.

• With recommended Management Requirement facilities within 100-year floodplain will be designed to withstand flood events such that no hazards are presented or changes in flooding levels occur.

• No long-term hazards are represented by proposed actions.


40

Resource Element


Alternative 2

• With recommended Management Requirement evacuation plans are assured to protect life.

Water Quality and Riparian Function

• Stormwater management • Surface drainage design • Waste water system


Practices • Revegetation program %

cover and riparian vegetation

• With recommended Management Requirements, Best Management Practices will be implemented such that no significant impacts would result to existing water quality.

• Proposed revegetation program will benefit riparian functions.

• With recommended Management Requirements, Best Management Practices will be implemented such that no significant impacts would result to existing water quality.

• No effect on existing riparian functions will occur.

Wetlands • Wetland fill (acres) • No wetland fill associated with proposed actions.

• No wetland fill associated with proposed actions.

Catastrophic events



• No likelihood of effects from catastrophic events.

• No likelihood of effects from catastrophic events.

Watershed • Changes of water supply availability



• No demonstrated impact. • No demonstrated impact.

Compliance with Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017) and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The project will comply with the Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017) and all other relevant Federal, State and local laws, regulations, policies and plans related to watershed protection, flooding and flood hazards, and Riparian Conservation Area objectives.

Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures Alternative 1 will involve overnight uses within the 100-year floodplain of the South Fork Tuolumne River only if finished floor elevations would be above the base flood elevation.

With recommended Management Requirements related to structural design of facilities within the 100-year flood flows of South Fork Tuolumne River and implementation of an evacuation plan prior to BTC operations, Alternative 1 will not present a foreseeable hazard to life or property.

With recommended Management Requirements both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 will not significantly impact the water quality of the South Fork Tuolumne River and will be in conformance with the Riparian Conservation Area objectives of the Forest Plan Direction (USDA, 2017).


41

Other Agencies and Individuals Consulted

1. Mary Moore, Stanislaus National Forest.

2. Barry Hecht, Balance Hydrologics, Berkeley, California

City of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp Permit (46690) Watershed Report

42

References Beschta, R.L., J.J. Rhodes, J.B. Kauffman, R.E. Gresswell, G.W. Minshall, J.R. Karr, D.A. Perry, F.R.

Haeur, and C.A. Frissell. 2004. Postfire management on forested public lands of the western United States. Conservation Biology 18: 957-967.

Brooks, K.N., P.F. Ffolliott, H.M. Gregersen, and L.F DeBano. 1997. The role of fire in riparian, wetland, and aquatic systems. In: Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds. 2nd ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press: 358-360.

CDFW. 2014. Definition of Heritage and Wild Trout Waters. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/REsources/WildTrout/WT_WaterDef.asp

Chase, E.H. 2006. Effects of Wildfire and Salvage Logging on Site Conditions and Hillslope Sediment Production: Placer County, California. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 72p.

Chou, Y.H., S.G. Conard, and P.M. Wohlgemuth. 1994. Analysis of Postfire Salvage Logging, Watershed Characteristics, and Sedimentation in the Stanislaus National Forest. Proceedings of the 1994 ESRI User Conference: 492-499.

Connaughton, J.L. 2005 (24 June). Memorandum to heads of federal agencies from the Council of Environmental Quality. Guidance on the consideration of past actions in cumulative effects analysis.

CREP. 2008. Clavey River Watershed Assessment. Volume I (Assessment) and Volume II (Appendices). Clavey River Ecosystem Project. Sonora, CA.

(CVRWQCB) California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. 2005. Implementation, Forensic and Effectiveness Monitoring and Reporting Program. Order No. R5-2005-0052 for Individual Discharges Under Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges Related to Timber Harvest Activities. Sacramento, CA. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waivers/r5-2005-0052.pdf

(CVRWQCB) California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. 2010. The Integrated Report – 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments and 305(b) Surface Water Quality Assessment. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/tmdl/impaired_waters_list/index.shtml

(CVRWQCB) California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. 2011. The water quality control plan (basin plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region: The Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin. 4th ed., rev. Sacramento, CA. 131p. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/index.shtml

Elliot, W.J. and D.E. Hall. 2010 Disturbed WEPP Model 2.0 Ver. 2013.07.01. Moscow, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Online at http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp


43

Frazier J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J.B. Reiner, D.L. Azuma, J.L. Furnish, B.P. Staab, and S.L. Grant. 2005. Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region - Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA. 111p.

Frazier, J. 2006. Mechanized Equipment Operations in Riparian Conservation Areas. Unpublished document . On file with: USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest Resource Program Area, Sonora, CA.

Frazier, J.W., S.J. Holdeman, and S.L. Grant. 2008. StreamScape Inventory Technical Guide. Version 3. USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area. Sonora, CA. 32p. Frese, Adam. 2013-2014. CalFire. Sonora, CA. Timber Harvest Activities on Private Land. Personal Communication. 10/30/2013, 11/5/2013, 11/7/2013, 1/2/2014, 1/9/2014, 1/11/2014, 1/13/2014, 1/14/2014.84

Gotvald, A.J., N.A. Barth, A.G. Veilleux, and C. Parrett. 2012. Methods for determining magnitude and frequency of floods in California, based on data through water year 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5113, 38 p., 1 pl., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5113/

Harrison, N.M. 2012. Understanding the Effects of Soil Exposure in Fuels Treatments that Balance Fuel Reduction and Erosion Control in the Tahoe Basin. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 116p.

Hawkins, C.P, R.H. Norris, J.N. Hogue, and J.W. Feminella. 2000. Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Biological Applications. 10(5): 1456-1477. Hubbert, K., M. Busse, and S. Overby. 2013. Effects of Pile Burning in the LTB on Soil and Water Quality. SNPLMA 12576 Final Report. 66p. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5441924.pdf

Hecht, Barry. Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 2016. Letter to City of Berkeley, Parks Recreation and Waterfront re: Hydrology Analysis and Berkeley Tuolumne Camp.

Higgins, Jeanne. Forest Supervisor, Stanislaus National Forest. 2015. Letter to City of Berkeley, Parks Recreation and Waterfront re: Berkeley Tuolumne Camp Concept Plan.

Janicki, A. 2010. Soil Quality Monitoring Report, Groveland Ranger District, Stanislaus National Forest, Long Shannahan Unit. 1p. Unpublished document. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370.

Kottek, M., J. Grieser, C. Beck, B. Rudolf, and F. Rubel. 2006. World Map of Koppen-Geiger Climate Classification. Meteorologische Zeitschrift. 15(3): 259–263.

Lacey, S.T. 2000. Runoff and sediment attenuation by undisturbed and lightly disturbed forest buffers. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 122: 121-138.

Litschert, S.E. and L.H. MacDonald. 2009. Frequency and characteristics of sediment delivery pathways from forest harvest units to streams. Forest Ecology and Management. 259 (2009): 143–150.

Madej, M.A. 2001. Erosion and Sediment Delivery Following Removal of Forest Roads. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 26: 175-190.

McIver, J.D., and L. Starr. 2001. A Literature Review on the Environmental Effects of Postfire Logging. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 16(4): 159-168.


44

McIver, J.D. 2003. Sediment Transport and Soil Disturbance After Postfire Logging. Hydrological Science and Technology 2002 AIH Annual Meeting, Hydrologic Extremes: Challenges for Science and Management, October 13-17, 2002, Portland, OR, Volume 19, No. 1-4:335-347

Nicia, Eric. Eldorado National Forest. 2014. Rim Fire Recovery Project Soil Report.

Peterson, D.L., J.K. Agee, G.H. Aplet, D.P. Dykstra, R.T. Graham, J.F. Lehmkuhl, D.S. Pilliod, D.F. Potts, R.F. Powers, and J.D. Stuart. 2009. Effects of timber harvest following wildfire in western North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-776. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p.

Powers, R.F. 2002. Effects of Soil Disturbance on the Fundamental, Sustainable Productivity of Managed Forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. PSW-GTR-183: 63-81.

Reeves, G.H., P.A. Bisson, B.E. Rieman, and L.E. Benda. 2006. Postfire Logging in Riparian Areas. Conservation Biology: 20(4): 994-1004.

Robichaud, P.R., W.J. Elliot, L. MacDonald, R. Coats, J.W. Wagenbrenner, S.A. Lewis, L.E. Ashmun, and R.E. Brown. 2011. Evaluating Post-fire Salvage Logging Effects on Erosion. Final Report Joint Fire Science Program 06-3-4-21. 21p.

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.

Rutherford, J.C., N.A. Marsh, P.M. Davies, and S.E. Bunn. 2004. Effects of Patchy Shade on Stream Water Temperature: How Quickly do Small Streams Heat and Cool? Marine and Freshwater Research 55: 737-748.85

Rutten, L. and S.L. Grant. 2008. Cumulative Watershed Effects Excel Based Analysis Model. Version 2.0. USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area. Sonora, CA.

Shakesby, R.A., D.J. Boakes, C. Coelho, A.J. Bento Goncalves, and R.P.D. Walsh. 1996. Limiting the Soil Degradational Impacts of Wildfire in Pine and Eucalyptus Forests in Portugal. Applied Geography, 16(4): 337-355.

Silins, U., M. Stone, M.B. Emelko, and K.D. Bladon. 2009. Sediment Production Following Severe Wildfire and Post-Fire Salvage Logging in the Rocky Mountain Headwaters of the Oldman River Basin, Alberta. Catena 79:189-197.

Smith, H.G. G.J. Sheridan, P.N.J. Lane, and L.J. Bren. 2011. Wildfire and Salvage Harvesting Effects on Runoff Generation and Sediment Exports from Radiata Pine and Eucalypt Forest Catchments, South-Eastern Australia. Forest ecology and Management 261:570-581.

(STF) Stanislaus National Forest. 1992-1998. Water quality best management practices evaluation program, BMPEP V28 monitoring data sheet. 6p. Unpublished document. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370.

(STF) Stanislaus National Forest. 2004. Water quality best management practices evaluation program, BMPEP. Brown Darby. 59p. Unpublished document. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370.


45

(STF) Stanislaus National Forest. 2007. Water quality best management practices evaluation program, report of BMPEP monitoring 2006. 4p. Unpublished document. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370.






(STF) Stanislaus National Forest. 2013. Water quality best management practices evaluation program, report of BMPEP monitoring 2012. 10p. Unpublished document. On file with: USDA Forest Service, 86

Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370.

Weddle, Tracy L. and Frazier, Jim. Stanislaus National Forest, Groveland and Mi-Wok Ranger Districts. 2014. Rim Recovery Environmental Impact Statement, Watershed Management Report. USDA Forest Service. 1990. Cumulative off-site watershed effects analysis. Soil and water conservation

handbook. R-5 FSH 2509.22 Amend. 2 7/88. San Francisco, CA. Chapter 20.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Eldorado National Forest Cumulative Off-Site Watershed Effects (CWE) Analysis Process. Eldorado National Forest, Placerville, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Investigating water quality in the pacific southwest region: best management practices evaluation program user’s guide. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, California.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Borax (Sporax®) Final Report. SERA TR 04-43-21/06-30-02b. Forest Health Protection. Arlington, VA. 136 p.


46

USDA Forest Service. 2007. USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan: 2007-2012. USDA Forest Service. FS-880. 38p.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Water Quality Protection on National Forests in the Pacific Southwest Region: Best Management Practices Evaluation Program, 2003-2007. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, California. 28p.

USDA Forest Service. 2017. Forest Plan Direction. Stanislaus National Forest. Sonora, CA. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd535378.pdf

USDA Forest Service, 2011. FSH 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Chapter 10 Water Quality Management Handbook, Best Management Practices. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service, 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1-National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. Washington, DC. April. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Science Synthesis to Promote Resilience of Social-ecological Systems in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades (Draft). Pacific Southwest Research Station. January 2013. 504 p.

USDA Forest Service. April, 2016.. Rim Fire Reforestation (45612) Watershed Management Report. Stanislaus National Forest, CA.

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

USGS. 2013. Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) (4 ed.): Techniques and Methods 11–A3, 63 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/11/a3/.


A-1

Appendix A: Project Alternatives Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) In response to established purpose and needs, the Forest Service proposes, in partnership with the City of Berkeley, issuance of a 30-year Term Special Use Permit that would allow the City to reconstruct and operate the BTC much as it was prior to the Rim Fire. These actions would occur on NFS lands located on either side of Hardin Flat Road.

The Proposed Action includes a Forest Plan Amendment expanding the developed recreation site and allowing the Special Use Permit to encompass 30.0 acres including the Small Falls and Sugar Pine Trails extending away from the main camp (see Figure 2.01-2). About 12 acres of the permit area is proposed to be developed for the main camp area and all support facilities. The Special Use Permit would be in effect for a term period of 30 years and may be renewed upon review and approval by the Forest Service.

Project implementation would begin in the spring of 2019 with initial construction to rebuild the majority of the Camp infrastructure and facilities. Overall construction of initial facilities is anticipated to last for approximately 2 years. Minor construction and/or facility renovation activities may occur throughout the permit period. The Proposed Action does not include reconstruction of the Hardin Flat Road Bridge across the South Fork Tuolumne River that has been proposed by Tuolumne County.

Construction Activities The Proposed Action includes the following detailed activities associated with constructing features as outlined in Table A-1.

1. Construct facilities and site amenities in accordance with the Final Guidelines for Federal Outdoor Developed Areas (United States Access Board, October 2013), and City of Berkeley Building Code with additional reference to the guidelines of the American Camping Association Standards.

2. Facilities would include: entrance, parking; vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, including pedestrian bridges; utility infrastructure; common-use facilities; individual cabins and tent cabins; education and outdoor recreation facilities; open day-use recreation and interpretation areas; and, retaining walls and weirs associated with the operation of a swimming area within the South Fork Tuolumne River.

3. Contour and restore the central BTC area, disturbed and culverted sections of Thimbleberry Creek and related intermittent drainages, and disturbed sections of the Northside Drainage to direct surface flows away from constructed facilities and create riparian habitat and wildlife corridors.

4. Implement a revegetation program on areas burned by the Rim Fire within Camp, ground areas disturbed by construction, and selected riparian zones along drainages within the permit area.

5. In the long term, re-establish a managed forest shade canopy over the BTC and enhance riparian corridors along the South Fork Tuolumne River and its drainages to achieve the Forest Plan Visual Quality Objectives. Follow Forest Service guidelines in the preparation of the Revegetation/Reforestation program (FSH 2509.22, 12.51 Exhibit 04, BMP 5.4 - Revegetation of Surface-disturbed Areas).

a. Enhance erosion control and the water quality of camp drainages and the South Fork Tuolumne River.


A-2

b. Encourage biodiversity and enhance wildlife linkages through the BTC to adjacent forest uplands.

6. Construct the Small Falls Trail and Sugar Pine Trail and other nature trails within the permit area based on the following:

a. Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (USDA 2006). b. Forest Service - Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook (USDA 2004). c. FSH 2309.18 - Trails Management Handbook; Amendment No. 2309.18-91-2 (USDA 1991). d. EM-7720-103 - Engineering Management Series - Standard Specifications for Construction

and Maintenance of Trails (USDA 1996).

7. Conduct ongoing vegetation management activities in cooperation with the Forest Service to remove hazard trees within the permit area.

Table A-1 lists and describes initial site and facility construction included in the Proposed Action (see Figures 2.01-3 and 2.01-4).

Table A-1 Alterntaive 1 ( Proposed Action): Site and Facility Construction Activities

Feature Characteristics Preliminary Quantity / Size

Circulation and Infrastructure Hardin Flat Road • Crosswalks 3

• Vehicular and pedestrian safety signs various • Camp gateway signs 4 • Underground utilities

Entrance turn-around and access to Dining Room

• Permeable paving 9,000 square feet • Compacted gravel with concrete wheel stops: all

parking areas and entrances • Compacted gravel with surface markings for

accessible spaces

55,000 square feet

• Entry signs 1 General drives and parking • Total spaces (located either along main entrance, near

Staff camp, or opposite Camp north of Hardin Flat Road)

133 spaces

• Accessible spaces 7 spaces (3 van accessible)

Accessible routes of travel • Varies from 5 to 8 feet wide; compacted soil (firm and stable) and water quality containment (water bars and vegetated areas); wood boardwalks in selected locations

2,150 linear feet

Foot paths to family tent camps • 4 to 6 feet wide; compacted soil and duff, water bars, and water quality containment; wood boardwalks if steep cross-slope; wood stairs on steep grades

3,900 linear feet

Nature Trails • 3 to 4 feet wide, natural surface 1,500 linear feet Small Falls Trail • 3 to 4 feet wide, natural surface 2,200 linear feet Sugar Pines Trail • 3 to 4 feet wide, natural surface 1,350 linear feet Electrical Supply • Overhead from PG&E to water treatment package

plant 175 linear feet

• Overhead from PG&E to restroom in Staff cam 75 linear feet • Underground within remainder of camp areas 3,430 linear feet

Electrical Solar Supply • To be determined Water Supply • In-stream pump, SF Tuolumne River with standpipe

and underground line to storage tank 1

• Well (existing) 1 • Flocculation tank and water treatment package plant

with concrete foundation, wood framing and metal


A-3


roof structure • Concrete water storage tank(s) with wood fascia,

screening fence; 140,000 gallon capacity each 2

• Fire pump house 1 • Pneumatic tank with pump 1 • Underground water lines 5,210 linear feet • Fire hydrants 9

Wastewater Treatment • Main camp: buried septic tank 1 (13,000 gallon capacity)

• Staff camp: buried septic tank 1 (2,000 gallon capacity)

• Buried wastewater lines within central Camp and Hardin Flat Road

2,820 linear feet

• Burried septic holding tanks 1@ 13,000 gallons 1@ 2,000 gallons

• Lift station in hard-sided wood with metal roof structure

3

• Leach field 2,000 linear feet Pedestrian / Utility Bridge • Shoreline abutments with central support column and

overlook point; utilities and deck above 100-year floodplain; pedestrian load; movable steps to island

1 (6 feet x 200 feet)

Administrative and Staff Facilities Staff Cabins • Concrete piers and wood framing ; hard-

sided wood with metal roof structure; electricity; sleeps 2 per cabin

28 (336 square feet each)

• Accessible cabins 2 (400 square feet each)

• Common decks per 4 cabin groupings 5 (500 square feet each)

Counselor-in-Training and Manager Tent Cabins • Concrete piers and wood framing; deck platform, canvas, and wood shade structure features; sleeps 8 per tent cabin

2 (210 square feet each) 1 deck (280 square feet)

Counselor-in-Training Coordinator Tent Cabin • Sleeps 1 in tent cabin 1 (160 square feet) Nurse’s Cabin and First Aid Station • Concrete piers and wood framing; hard sided wood

with metal roof structure for clinic area; tent cabin for nurse; electricity; accessible

1 (580 square feet) 1 deck (80 square feet)

Camp Manager’s Cabin • Year-round residence; concrete foundation; hard sided wood with metal roof structure; all-weather with heat and electricity; accessible

1 (800 square feet)

Camp Maintenance Mechanic’s Cabin • Concrete piers and wood framing; hard-sided wood with metal roof structure; electricity; accessible

1 (400 square feet)

Maintenance Shop/Storage • Concrete foundation; hard sided wood with metal roof structure; electricity; outdoor fenced storage area

1 (400 square feet)

Office/Store • Concrete foundation; hard sided wood with metal roof structure; electricity

1

Camper Facilities Family Tent Cabins • Concrete piers and wood framing; deck platform and

canvas tent; wood shade structure; 22 with electricity; 5 accessible

77 (from 425 to 625 square feet including decks)

Dining Hall and Kitchen • 1-story structure (group dining area, commercial kitchen, and storage); concrete foundation; wood and metal framing; hard-sided wood, metal, and metal roof structure; stone fireplace; restroom

1 (8800 square feet; 800 square foot deck)

Recycling Center • Concrete with stone or wood fascia; metal framing 1 (500 square feet) Recreation Hall / Arts and Crafts • Multi-use recreation and social gathering room;

storage; concrete foundation; wood and metal 1 (3,000 to 3,500 square feet; 1,000


A-4


framing; hard-sided wood, metal, stone, and metal roof structure; restroom

square foot deck)

Restrooms • Hard-sided wood or concrete with stone, and metal roof structure; electricity; hot and cold water; maintenance closet

5 new (size varies); 1 existing

Showers • Concrete floors; stone wall enclosures; hot and cold water; maintenance closet; open ceiling

3 new (220 square feet each); 1 existing

Laundries • Hard-sided wood and metal roof structure; electricity; hot and cold water; maintenance closet

3 (120 square feet each)

Social, Recreation, and Education Structures/Use Areas Weirs (existing) • Retrofit existing concrete foundation and wood weir

slats 2

Swimming area retaining walls • Reinforced concrete with stone fascia 4 (275 linear feet) Chair circle • Wood arbor shade structure; canvas tent with umbrella

shade features; compacted native soil and duff with erosion control and water quality containment

1

Nature Center • Wood framing ; hard-sided wood and metal roof structure; outdoor deck

1 (800 square feet; 320 square f00t deck)

Stage and Amphitheater • Stage with steel and wood framing; amphitheater with concrete and wood seating

1

Kiddie Camp • Fenced area; contained sand; 2 storage sheds; deck; shade structures

1 (1,800 square feet)

Children’s Discovery Area • Open use area; discovery features; contained sand 1 (size to be determined)

Sports Courts • Permeable paving; spectator seating 3 (3,600 square feet total)

Common use decks • Wood framing; decks and shade structure 4 (900 square feet each)

Sauna • Hard-sided stone and metal roof structure 1 Kiddie Beach • Stone retaining walls; contained granite fines 1 Adult Beach • Stone retaining walls; contained granite fines; level

concrete deck areas 1

Archery Range • Shade structure waiting area: shooting line and targets 1 Miscellaneous storage sheds • On decks or concrete foundations; wood framing and

siding; metal roof 6 (96 square feet each)

Other future recreation features • Ropes course; disk golf course; temporary horse corral (at archery range); geocaching course

4 (location and size within permit area to be determined)

Other Site Activities Grading and erosion control • General contouring and fine grading for drainage

control and stream restoration; BMPs for erosion control

4-5 acres

Revegetation and erosion control • Erosion control mulching; liner and container planting; plant protection and hand weeding; temporary irrigation or hand watering for establishment period

6 acres

From a revegetation perspective, the topographic aspect of the Permit Area varies widely. Consistent with overall Forest Plan goals and the riparian setting of the central BTC on the north-facing slope of the South Fork Tuolumne River, revegetation would emphasize dense riparian vegetation and conifers shading the river, Thimbleberry Creek, and related drainages. High to moderate stand densities and canopy cover would be targeted for mid-slope areas of the BTC. Within that framework, along the Hardin Flat Road


A-5

corridor, revegetation would accomplish dual goals of a shaded fuel break and screening of BTC facilities and parking areas. The south-facing leach field area, that was entirely burned, would be managed into an open hillside meadow. The remaining south-facing areas would be managed as a more open forest.

Those portions of the Permit Area that did not burn or were only partially burned, such as around the staff camp area and the downstream portions of the central BTC would be managed consistent with safety and the above goals. A general goal for all areas of BTC is to prevent new infestations of noxious weeds and the spread of existing weeds as the result of project activities. This would reduce the quantity and extent of noxious weeds, and manage their adverse impacts on ecosystem structure and function, contribution to fine fuels, competition to young seedlings and impacts to biodiversity and native plants. Within the BTC area, weed-free mulch, mechanical, and hand methods would be used to remove and discourage noxious weeds. This is particularly important for new plantings.

Figure 2.01-5 presents a conceptual area mosaic of revegetation of burned areas within the central BTC and the broad objectives for each mosaic unit. Table A-2 provides a general listing of species keyed to that mosaic.

Table A-2 Generalized Species List for Revegetation

Botanical Name Common Name Planting Zone (Figure 2.01.4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Trees Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple Yes Yes Yes Alnus rhombifolia White Alder Yes Yes Yes Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar Yes Yes Yes Cornus nuttallii Western Dogwood Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Corylus cornuta californica Hazelnut Yes Yes Pinus lambertiana Sugar Pine Yes Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa Pine Yes Yes Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir Yes Yes Yes Yes Quercus kelloggii Black Oak Yes Yes Yes Yes Salix spp. Willow Yes Yes Yes Yes Sequoiadendron giganteum Giant Sequoia Yes Yes Yes Shrubs and Ground Covers Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita Yes Amelanchier alnifolia Western Serviceberry Yes Yes Chamaebatia foliolosa Mountain Misery Yes Yes Yes Yes Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lilium pardalinum Leopard Lily Yes Yes Philadelphus lewisii Mock Orange Yes Yes Yes Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry Yes Yes Seed Note: Forest Service approved native erosion control mix

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

All seeds and plants used in revegetation would be native to the immediate region surrounding the BTC. It is anticipated that the majority of planting would be conducted in the fall using small contract-grown container plants (liners) although in select locations more mature trees may be transplanted or planted from larger containers. All revegetation would be consistent with Forest Service goals and objectives for revegetation (FHS 2609.26).

Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2, a 30-year Term SUP allowing the City to reconstruct and operate BTC much as it was prior to the Rim Fire would not be issued and the City of Berkeley would abandon its efforts to


A-6

reconstruct BTC. No Forest Plan Amendment would be necessary and current forest-wide standards and guidelines (USDA 2017, p. 31-61) and management area direction (p. 159-161) that apply within or directly adjacent to the existing SUP area would remain unchanged. Condition 11 contained in the existing SUP would direct Alternative 2 actions:

“Upon abandonment, termination, revocation, or cancellation of this permit, the permittee shall remove within a reasonable time all structures and improvements except those owned by the United States, and shall restore the site unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. If the permittee fails to remove all such structures or improvements within a reasonable period, they shall become property of the United States but that will not relieve the permittee of liability for the cost of their removal and restoration of the site.”

Decommissioning Activities Alternative 2 would include the following specific actions by the City of Berkeley:

1. Dismantle and remove all remaining structures, access improvements, and below ground utilities within the SUP area as determined in cooperation with the Forest Service. Table A-3 describes the features that remain within the SUP area that were not destroyed by the Rim Fire or not immediately removed after the fire and their disposition under the alternative.

2. Coutour as necessary all lands disturbed by removal of facilities within the existing SUP area to reflect natural slope conditions.

3. Hydromulch all lands disturbed by facility removal and install other erosion control measures using best management practices (BMPs) sufficient to protect the water quality of the South Fork Tuolumne River and its tributary drainages consistent with the goals and objectives for Riparian Conservation Areas (p.187-191).

Table A-3: Alternative 2 Site and Facility Decommissioning Activities

Feature Action (removal of feature unless specified) Approximate Quantity / Size

Circulation and Infrastructure Entrance (turn-around and access route to Dining)

• Entry sign and gate • Portion of entrance drive outside of Tuolumne County

Hardin Flat Road right of way • Paved drive to Dining hall and parking area • Re-contour

19,950 square feet

Foot Paths (throughout Camp) • Re-contour 3,900 linear feet

Hillside Trail • Re-contour 1,200 linear feet Sugar Pines Trail • Re-contour 1,350 linear feet Water Supply • Water storage tank and foundation

• Remaining water tank foundations • Underground water line distribution system

1 5

Wastewater Treatment • Buried septic tanks and underground wastewater lines • Remaining lift station facilities and foundation • Leach field

1

Electrical Utilities • Cut existing pole in Sun City at 1’ above grade and remove; no ground disturbance

• Overhead lights (sports courts) • Underground electrical service lines • All underground features within Sun City to remain in

1 2


A-7

Feature Action (removal of feature unless specified) Approximate Quantity / Size

place; no ground disturbance Pedestrian bridges • Foundations 4

Camp Facilities Family Tent Cabins • Camp area south of river: Wooden decks tent cabin

frames, and concrete foundations • Sun City: dismantle cabins and cut structural posts 1’

above grade; leave all concrete foundations in place; no ground disturbance

15 2

Restrooms • Sun City restroom 1 Foundations • Miscellaneous reinforced concrete pads, foundations,

footings, and low walls camp area Varies

Weirs • Concrete foundation and metal weir slats 2 Swimming area retaining walls (2) • Concrete 240 linear feet Stage and Amphitheater • Amphitheater with concrete stairs and metal seating

supports 1

Sports Courts (3) • Paving 3,850 square feet Adult Beach • Concrete retaining walls; level concrete deck areas 1

Archery Range • Shade structure waiting area 1 Other Site Features Grading and erosion control • General contouring and fine grading of all disturbed areas

• Hydromulch • BMPs for erosion control

4 to 5 acres

Drainages • Culverts within permit area Varies

Spring • Concrete basin 1

WEiR

CAMPMANAGER’SCABIN

REC HALL

ARTS &CRAFTS

CAMP GATEWAY SIGNS

Structures

New

A= Accessible Tent Cabin

Existing

Natural Surfaced Trail: 4' to 5' wide

Granite or Wood Stairs: 4' to 5' wide

Natural Surfaced AccessiblePath: 5' to 8' wide

Camp Paths

Creek / Drainage Channel

Natural Surfaced Path: 4' to 6' wide

100-Year Floodplain

Bridge

Bridge / Wildlife-friendly Culvert

NOTE: The Concept Plan presentedis preliminary and approximate.Final site layout, including circulation,building footprints and locations,may change during detailed design.


Figure


This drawing is conceptual and for planning purposes only.Program information, scale, location of areas, and otherinformation shown are subject to review, field evaluation, andmodification.

Scale

North0' 50' 100'

Central CampFacilitiesConcept Plan

2.01-4

COURT

REPAIRSHOP

CHAIRCIRCLE

CAMPGATEWAYSIGNS

LOWERBEACH KIDDIE

CAMP

PORTABLEBRIDGE

STEPS TOISLAND

DININGHALL

BEAVERHEADROCK

PARKING & STAFF CAMP

OFFICESTORE

STAGE

BEACH

NATURECENTER

ISLAND

VIEWDECKEXISTING

PARKING

CROSSWALK /PEDESTRIAN SAFETY SIGNS& CONTROLS

SIGN / GATE

RETAININGWALLS /ARCADE

RETAININGWALLS

SAUNA

CIT

THE ROCK

WATER TREATMENTPACKAGE PLANT

SIGN / GATE

RESTROOM

BUCK & POLEFENCING

A

A

FFE 3518

A

A

SERVICEENTRANCE MAINTENANCE

AKIDS

DISCOVERYAREA




Scale

North0' 50' 100'

1

5

2

2

6

5

8

4

3

2

6

7

9

4

9

9VegetationZone Concept

2.01-5

2

10

74

7


Zone 1: South Fork Tuolumne River, Island and Edge• Provide shade to river, its fishery, and day use areas(island and beaches)• Enhance riparian wildlife corridor functions

Zone 2: Riparian/Floodplain• Enhance riparian wildlife corridor functions• Shade the river and its fisheries

Zone 3: Riparian/Thimbleberry Creek• Enhance riparian wildlife corridor functions• Provide a focal amenity and shade for family tentstructures and central BTC use areas• Provide for groundcover to manage stormwater andenhance of water quality

Zone 4: Intermittent Drainages• Enhance wildlife corridor functions• Provide a focal amenity and shade for family tentstructures• Provide groundcover to manage stormwater andenhance water quality of runoff from Hardin FlatRoad culvert and internal camp pathway system

Zone 5: Mixed Forest/Common Use Areas• Provide relatively fast-growing open forest shadecanopy for BTC• Provide for groundcover to manage stormwater andenhance water quality of runoff from internal BTCpathway system• Consider selective use of transplanted or largecontainer trees for shade

Zone 6: Mixed Forest, Shade and Erosion Control• Provide relatively fast-growing open to moderatelydense shade canopy for BTC• Provide for groundcover to manage stormwaterrunoff and enhance water quality

Zone 7: Mixed Forest• Provide visual screening between central BTC andHardin Flat Road• Provide relatively fast-growing open to moderatelydense shade canopy for BTC

Zone 8: Hillside Meadow• Develop meadow suitable for maintenance of leachfield functions• Provide raptor foraging habitat

Zone 9: General Upland/Mixed Forest• Allow natural succession

Zone 10: Fuel Modification of Existing Forest• Allow natural succession• Provide for groundcover to manage stormwaterrunoff and enhance water quality


Scale

North0' 50' 100'

Priority Revegetation ProgramArea

NOTE: HAZARD TREE REMOVAL IN ALL CAMP AREASON AN ANNUAL OR AS-NEEDED BASIS

NOTE: The Concept Plan presented ispreliminary and approximate. Final sitelayout, including circulation, buildingfootprints and locations, may changeduring detailed design.

watershed management report berkeley tuolumne camp (permit ... · city of berkeley tuolumne camp...

Documents