Small Project Proposal

Transcription

1 Combined Scoping and Notice and Comment Document Small Project Proposal USDA Forest Service Fishlake National Forest Beaver Ranger District Sevier County, Utah The purpose of this document is to inform you of a new individual small project we are proposing to implement on the Beaver Ranger District. The environmental effects of the proposed projects are being analyzed by Forest resource specialists (including water, wildlife, cultural resources, visuals, and fisheries) individually and cumulatively in relation to one another. We welcome your comments, concerns, and suggestions regarding this proposal. The Beaver Ranger District has made a preliminary assessment that this proposal falls within categories of actions listed in 36 CFR Part 220 (and Forest Service NEPA Handbook ) that can be excluded from documentation in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, and that no extraordinary circumstances exist that would preclude use of the categories. The following information provides a description of the project. Additional information on this project is available from the Beaver Ranger District. Middle Clear Creek Fish Barrier The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has proposed construction of a fish barrier on the Beaver Ranger District, Fishlake National Forest (FNF) to aid in the restoration of native Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT). One fish barrier is proposed for construction on the middle mainstem of Clear Creek just below the confluence with Pole Creek. The purpose and need of the proposed fish barrier is to protect currently barren and planned treatment streams from invasion by non-native trout species to protect reintroduced BCT. The barrier would allow implementation of restoration projects under the interagency Bonneville cutthroat trout Conservation Agreement and Strategy (CA/CS), of which both the UDWR and Forest Service are signatories. Past, current, and planned future restoration projects under this CA/CS were instrumental in preventing the need for listing of BCT as a threatened species. BCT currently occupy about 11% of their historic habitat in the UDWR southern region. Implementation of this project will also help the FNF meet fisheries improvement targets. The stream channel itself dictates suitable fish barrier locations and designs. Constructed fish barriers have a five foot vertical drop on the downstream side. They temporarily pond a small amount of water for a short distance upstream of the structure. These ponds usually silt in within 1-2 years, creating a natural stream channel up to the structure. Hydrologically the effects are similar to a small beaver pond, which naturally occur in this watershed. A small area is disturbed during construction, but rapidly regrows with vegetation. Fish barriers have some type of geotextile liner within the structure to help seal it, and a concrete plunge pad below, but generally blend into the environment once vegetation becomes reestablished, looking like a small waterfall. Figure 6 shows a typical concrete block fish barrier design. Restoration of BCT to Fish Creek was included in the 2007 Native Trout Restoration and Enhancement Projects in Southwest Utah EA and approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and UDWR Wildlife

2 Board. The general location of the potential barrier sites were included in the scoping and EA for that project, but since the specific design and exact location of the barrier had not yet been determined, a Forest Service decision for the barrier was not completed at that time. The design and location of a suitable barrier to protect all of Fish Creek has since been determined to be a single concrete block fish barrier constructed just downstream of the confluence with Pole Creek. The proposed site is the only potential site located in the Fish Creek confluence / middle Clear Creek area that does not have conflicts with other resources. Figure 1 shows a map of the general location of the proposed middle Clear Creek fish barrier. Figure 2 shows a detailed topographic map of the specific proposed location, while Figure 3 shows the same view on an aerial photograph. Figure 4 shows the streamside view of the proposed barrier site. This barrier site is located about 1,400 feet downstream of the Pole Creek confluence with Clear Creek. The area between Pole Creek and the proposed barrier site has been modified by road repairs conducted after flooding off of the Twitchell Canyon fire. The proposed barrier site is adjacent to disturbed areas along the highway. The stream itself is screened from view by the topography and vegetation. After construction the barrier would generally be unnoticeable from the highway (see Figure 5). The barrier would be built using pre-manufactured concrete blocks trucked in. The barrier would be about 20 feet across (flowing channel), similar to the natural channel, with a 5 foot drop on the downstream side. The barrier would be made with double rows of blocks and buried deadmen to resist the effects of floods. Some natural material salvaged from the barrier site would be utilized for fill behind the wing walls and upstream side of the barrier. About cubic yards of natural rock (2-3 dump truck loads) would also be required for rip rap and armoring. Some rock would be salvaged from the site during excavation and construction, some would be taken from existing rock stockpiles left over from cross-vanes constructed on Clear Creek after the Twitchell Canyon fire, and some would be taken from local sites approved by the district. The later would involve only carefully picking up and removal of boulders by a trackhoe or loader with no other ground disturbance. Some of these rocks may be rock-fall from road cuts that would otherwise have to be moved or disposed of. A concrete plunge pad would be poured within the wing walls below the barrier drop. A few river birch clumps directly adjacent to the barrier site would need to be taken out for the work to be completed. Smaller riparian shrubs would be replanted around the structure, and all disturbed sites would be reseeded with a district approved seed mix. The barrier would be constructed in a suitable low flow time, preferably late summer Whenever the middle Clear Creek barrier is no longer needed it would be removed and the site rehabilitated. A modular concrete block design is needed to construct a functional barrier given site characteristics, but will facilitate easy deconstruction of the barrier and rehabilitation of the site if or when it is no longer needed. Figure 7 shows a concrete block barrier removal site immediately after recontouring prior to any vegetative regrowth. No changes in existing land management activities are proposed or required for this fish barrier project. There are no threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant species that occur in the project area. The proposed barrier site has been field checked by an archeologist. Based on this field review, the site does not contain archeological resources that would be impacted. A second site had also been considered as a potential barrier site, but was dropped from consideration due to potential effects to archeological resources.

3 No other issues have been identified with the proposal. The decision to construct the fish barrier would be made pursuant 36 CFR 220.6(e)(7) Modification or maintenance of stream or lake aquatic habitat improvement structures using native materials or normal practices. This notice is provided to give the public an opportunity to provide comments on the project. Comments are welcome and will be used to help identify additional issues, develop alternatives and/or mitigation measures, and analyze effects of the proposed action. Please be as specific as possible in expressing your comments so they can be effectively addressed. Additional information, including maps of the project may be obtained from our website Hard copy documents on the project are available for review at the 575 S Main Street, P.O. Box E, Beaver, Utah Requests for additional information regarding this action can be obtained from: Amy Barker, District Ranger, Phone: (435) Fax: (435) ; comments-intermtn-fishlake-beaver@fs.fed.us In light of a recent court ruling (Sequoia ForestKeeper v. Tidwell, 11-cv LJO-DLB (E.D. Cal.)), the Forest Service will provide public notice, comment, and opportunity for administrative appeal for projects and activities documented with a Decision Memo (36 CFR 220.6(e)) until new instructions are issued by the Washington Office, or the Agency issues regulations addressing the Court s ruling. In addition, the Forest Service will prepare Decision Memos and offer notice, comment and appeal opportunities for timber sales and proposed approvals of oil or gas exploration and development activities that rely upon Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of Only those who provide comment or express interest in this proposal during this comment period will be eligible to appeal the decision pursuant to 36 CFR part 215 regulations. How to Comment and Timeframe Written, facsimile, hand-delivered, oral, and electronic comments concerning this action will be accepted for 30 calendar days following the publication of this notice in The Richfield Reaper. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the comment period for this analysis. Those wishing to comment should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. The regulations prohibit extending the length of the comment period. It is the responsibility of persons providing comments to submit them by the close of the comment period. Written comments must be submitted to: Amy Barker, District Ranger, Beaver Ranger District, 575 S Main Street, P.O. Box E, Beaver, Utah 84713; Fax: (435) The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered comments are: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Oral comments must be provided at the Responsible Official s office during normal business hours via telephone Phone: (435) or in person, or at an official agency function (i.e. public meeting) that is designed to elicit public comments. Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an message, pdf, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc or.docx) to comments-intermtn-fishlake-beaver@fs.fed.us. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to a comment, a verification of identity will be required for appeal eligibility. If using an electronic message, a scanned signature is one way to provide verification. Individuals and organizations wishing

4 to be eligible to appeal must meet the information requirements of 36 CFR Figure 1: General overview map showing the location of the proposed middle Clear Creek fish barrier just downstream of the Pole Creek confluence in relation to the Beaver and Fillmore Ranger Districts, I-70, and Clear Creek with its tributaries Mill Creek, Fish Creek, Shingle Creek, and Pole Creek. Figure 2: Detail topographic map of the proposed middle Clear Creek fish barrier location just downstream of the Pole Creek confluence. Proposed site is marked with blue circle labeled BaLoc.

5 Figure 3: Aerial photograph of the location of the proposed middle Clear Creek fish barrier just downstream of the Pole Creek confluence. Proposed site is marked with blue circle labeled BaLoc. This photo was taken before the August 2011 flood and subsequent road repair work near the Pole Creek confluence. Figure 4: Photograph of the proposed middle Clear Creek fish barrier location.

6 Figure 5: The proposed barrier site is adjacent to disturbed areas along the highway. The stream itself is screened from view by the topography and vegetation. After construction the barrier would generally be unnoticeable from the highway. Figure 6: Typical concrete block barrier design immediately after construction. As riparian vegetation grows back, barrier will be screened from view and blend in with the local environment. Note the mature willows transplanted adjacent to the structure that would grow and screen the structure.

7 Figure 7: Same area as Figure 4 (but taken from the opposite bank) showing site immediately after removal of the block fish barrier and recontouring of the site. Photo was taken in the fall with no growing season activity following removal. After a couple of growing seasons the site will appear completely natural.