Tahoe National Forest Watershed Management

Advisors: Carol Purchase, Forest Service Luke Rutten, Forest Service

Submitted August 2014

Luis Duran

California State University, Fresno

June 2014 – August 2014

D u r a n | 1

Table of Contents

Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Project Approach .............................................................................................................................................. 6

Project Outcomes .............................................................................................................................................. 8

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 10

Works Cited...................................................................................................................................................... 11

Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

Appendix B ....................................................................................................................................................... 13

Appendix C ....................................................................................................................................................... 15

D u r a n | 2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Program Manager Julie Lappin, Nicole Barnhart, and everyone

else at Water Resources Institute at California State University, San Bernardino for allowing

me the opportunity to work along with the Forest Service. Thank you for always answering

my questions and for helping me throughout this whole process. This project was

supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2011-38422-

31204 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. I also want to thank my

advisors Watershed Program Manager Carol Purchase and Zone Hydrologist Luke Rutten

and everyone else at the Tahoe National Forest. I have gained a broader understanding of

watershed management and the Forest Service in general. This has been a great learning

experience made possible by all of you. Thank you.

D u r a n | 3

Executive Summary

The Tahoe National Forest has many roads going through the forest. The Forest

Service has a classification system for their roads. The levels are ML 1’s to ML 5’s and U –

roads, or unauthorized roads. ML 2 to ML 5 roads are accessible to everyone. ML 1 to ML 3

and unauthorized roads are usually dirt roads. ML 1 and unauthorized roads are supposed

to be closed. The purpose of this this project was to evaluate ML 1’s and unauthorized

roads on several different watersheds.

The criteria for evaluating these roads included information that was provided on the Soil

and Water Road Condition Index forms (SWRCI). The SWRCI is a road-condition

assessment guide for watershed analysis. The key in using this guide is to help soil

scientists and hydrologists identify the effects that roads have on soil and water.

In order to get around, we were provided with physical maps as well as maps on the Juno

GPS/GIS device. These maps contained four different watersheds that included Deer Creek–

Scotts Flat, South Yuba River–Jefferson Creek, Headwaters Deer Creek, and Headwaters

Greenhorn Creek watershed. Our task was to fill out an SWRCI form for each road. These

forms had step by step directions when evaluating each road. The criteria used for

evaluating these roads included examining the shape of the road, hill slope location, road &

hill slope gradient, surface material, surface drainage, traffic level, amongst other type of

information. We also had a camera to take photos of the beginning and end of each road,

signs of erosion, stream crossings and other relevant features. All of this information was

documented and uploaded to the computer. In the end, with the data we collected we were

able to provide recommendations on which roads to keep and which ones to eliminate.

D u r a n | 4

Project Objectives

Our goal for this project was to assess the roads on all four watersheds which include Deer

Creek – Scotts Flat, South Yuba River–Jefferson Creek, Headwaters Deer Creek, and

Headwaters Greenhorn Creek watershed. The name of the project we worked on was the

Western Nevada County Community Defense Project - Deer Creek which contained all four

of these watersheds. Appendix A shows a map of this project.

Soil and Water Road Condition Index is a tool that provides road condition assessment for

watershed and project scale analysis. This guide helps soil scientists and hydrologists

identify the effects that roads have on soil and water quality. It also helps us identify at-risk

or impaired road segments and provides information on whether roads need maintenance

or reconstruction. Possible solutions that could be implemented through the use of SWRCI

include maintenance, road closure, relocation, reconstruction, or decommissioning.

The specific tasks we set to take on included filling out Soil Water Road Condition Index

forms (SWRCI) for each road, entering SWRCI data onto the Juno GPS, as well as taking

relevant pictures of each road and filling out photo log forms. All this information was then

uploaded onto the computer.

There are many different careers within the forest service that include careers in biology,

geology, hydrology, archeology, and other science fields. However, there is also a business

aspect within the agency which can offer careers in the field of business. A potential career

pathway for me could be working as an accountant for the Forest Service. The mission of

the Forest Service is “Caring for the land and serving the people.” I believe in the agency’s

mission because I think it is important to protect the land and the natural ecosystems

D u r a n | 5

within. Working for the Forest Service as an accountant would be a great opportunity for

me since I have a business background and I believe in the forest service mission.

D u r a n | 6

Project Approach

“The National Best Management Practices (BMP) Program was developed to improve

agency performance and accountability in managing water quality consistent with the

Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and State water quality programs. “(National Core BMP

Technical Guide) Therefore, it is imperative that the Forest Service improves its watershed

management. As a result, conducting road assessments plays an important part in

improving watershed management and restoration. The focus is to ultimately ensure water

quality is protected. Thus, the sole purpose in assessing these roads is to keep the roads

functional and maintained in order to reduce adverse soil and water effects.

Our advisors Carol and Luke drove us around the ML 1s and unauthorized roads for the

first 2 weeks. As they drove us around the watershed sites we became more familiar and

more comfortable with the area and eventually began to drive on the roads and around the

watersheds by ourselves. We drove through these roads using a forest service vehicle.

Driving through many of these roads was not easy. Some of the roads were narrow so we

had to be very cautious and drive slowly, especially through rocky and steep sections. The

forest service places a great emphasis on driver safety. Therefore, one of the practices we

learned and performed when driving on these roads was to have the passenger get out of

the vehicle and help the driver back up. As a reminder, there was a sticker on the

dashboard with this safety practice known as G.O.A.L which stands for Get Out And Look.

As a result, we found ourselves performing this safety precaution many times.

When assessing each road, we had to go through the SWRCI form step by step. See

Appendix B for an example. Step 1 included identifying the road surface shape, hill slope

D u r a n | 7

location, road gradient, hill slope gradient, and road surface material. Step 2 was to identify

road surface drainage, condition of stream crossing, road subsurface drainage, diversion

potential, road stream connectivity, road surface condition, cut slope & fill slope condition.

Step 3 was to evaluate traffic level, level of brush present, and then identifying the cause for

roads that were at-risk or impaired.

We then scanned and uploaded a copy of an SWRCI form and also uploaded photos and a

photo log form that contained the photo numbers and comments for each road. All of this

data was uploaded on to the computer where we created a folder containing the

information for each road. For the photo logs we entered in the name of the watershed, the

digital number of each photo, and a description of each photo along with any additional

comments. The photos we took showed the beginning and end of each road as well as signs

of erosion from gullies, ruts, rills, stream crossings, campsites, berms, overgrown sections

and other relevant features. Examples of some of the photos and photo log can be seen on

Appendix C.

D u r a n | 8

Project Outcomes

At the end of the project we both inspected and surveyed a total of about 90 roads. Our

advisor Luke, gave us an excel workbook which contained a list of unauthorized roads. The

workbook had information that included: the name of the road, length, action to verify,

management recommendation to either keep or eliminate, whether maintenance was

needed and the type of treatment, and a section for additional comments. In this workbook

we gave management recommendations of either keeping or eliminating the roads we

surveyed. We also needed to enter whether maintenance was needed as well as additional

comments.

Most of the roads that we identified as at-risk or impaired were due to the result of no

maintenance of structures or road prism, or inadequate drainage features. For the most

part, we recommended that the majority of the roads be eliminated. The reason being is

that a lot of these roads were overgrown and were showing signs of re-vegetation. There

were many that had a low level of use. Also, some of them did not really lead anywhere.

With the data we collected we found that some of the roads were mapped as roads when in

fact they were actually trails. Some were too steep to be roads or had no features of a road.

Other roads had become smaller because they were becoming overgrown in some sections.

There were also roads that were not present anymore because they had become

completely overgrown and re-vegetated.

Throughout the course of this project I gained a lot of insight with regards to road

surveying and inventorying through using SWRCI. I learned that there are many roads in

the forest system and it can become difficult when it comes to re-evaluating and

D u r a n | 9

maintaining many of these roads. The project area we covered is just a small section of the

many watersheds and roads out in the forest. The Forest Service has a limited amount of

funds and depending on how resources are divided up, it can become difficult to maintain

these roads. I also learned that it’s good to obliterate some roads in order to restore

sections of the forest back to its natural habitat.

D u r a n | 10

Conclusion

This project was definitely something new and very interesting for me. I have gained a

broader understanding of watershed management and road maintenance within the Forest

Service agency. Prior to this internship I knew very little about the U.S. Forest Service. I did

not know anything about watershed management. The SWRCI road condition surveys were

new to me. Being a business major student, I was not familiar with hydrology jargon.

Nevertheless, Carol and Luke did a great job teaching and explaining to us everything we

needed to know in order to successfully complete this project. I would have never thought

there were so many roads going through the forest. Some of the new things I learned

include the classification system of the roads, conducting road assessments through the use

of SWRCI, and learning how to use and enter data into a GPS/GIS system. I also learned that

there is a business aspect within the agency. They have a budget and they have to know

how to balance it and divide it up amongst the different departments. As a result, with a

limited amount of resources and funds it can become challenging to manage and maintain

many of the roads. All in all, the purpose in evaluating these roads was to ultimately

provide information so that decisions could be made as to which roads should be kept

maintained and which roads should be eliminated. In the end we were able to make

recommendations based on the data we found.

D u r a n | 11

Works Cited

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf

D u r a n | 12

Appendices

Appendix A Project Map

D u r a n | 13

Appendix B SWRCI Form

D u r a n | 14

D u r a n | 15

Appendix C Photo Log