DECISION MEMO. NORTH FORK of NORTH CREEK FISH BARRIER PROJECT

Transcription

1 DECISION MEMO NORTH FORK of NORTH CREEK FISH BARRIER PROJECT USDA Forest Service Fishlake National Forest, Beaver Ranger District Beaver County, Utah I. DECISION I have decided to allow the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) to build one new loose rock fish barrier in order to create two stable, well-functioning, 5-foot high fish passage barriers on the North Fork of North Creek. One barrier already exists, but completion of a second barrier will greatly increase the security of the remnant Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT) population in North Fork of North Creek. The barrier site is located about 0.4 mile above the Fishlake forest boundary on the lower end of North Fork of North Creek. The barrier will be located in the E ½ of the NE ¼ of Section 29, T28S, R6W (see Maps 1 and 2 and Figure 2). Barrier construction will comply with laws, regulations, and permitting requirements of the State Engineer for stream channel alteration. The purpose and need of the proposed fish barrier is to protect North Fork of North Creek from invasion by non-native trout species in order to protect BCT. UDWR has found that two fish barriers provide better security for native trout populations. The barrier would support the objectives of 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 projects under this CA/CS have been instrumental in preventing the need for listing of BCT as a threatened species. Implementation of this project will also help the FNF meet fisheries improvement targets. The stream channel itself dictates suitable fish barrier locations and designs. The barrier site is located where the stream channel and floodplain is confined, which minimizes the size of the structure and the amount of water temporarily impounded behind the barrier. Within 1-2 years, silting of the pond will create a natural stream channel up to the structure. The stream barrier locations have been selected to minimize changes in stream gradient, hydraulic function, and water pooling. The hydrological effects are similar to a small beaver pond, which naturally occur in this watershed. The barrier will be built using large rock and boulders that are trucked in. A front end loader will then move the rock from the road to the barrier site. The barrier will span approximately 25 feet across the flowing channel and be similar to natural channel features, with a 5-foot drop on the downstream side. The barrier will be made from loose rock hauled to the site, placed and packed to 1

2 make a strong structure similar to Figure 1. Some natural material salvaged from the barrier site will be utilized for fill behind the wing walls and the upstream side of the barrier. A concrete plunge pad will be poured within the wing walls below the barrier drop. The removal of a small amount of native riparian vegetation will be necessary for barrier construction and access, but smaller riparian shrubs or young trees will be replanted around the structure, and all disturbed sites will be reseeded with a district approved seed mix. The fish barrier is designed to operate under the natural fluctuations of stream flow without routine maintenance. Barrier designs pose little, if any, threat to the natural stream system or its associated riparian area. Consequently, if a barrier failed, no damage would result to the stream environment. Maintenance work typically is handwork, such as replacing rip rap adjacent to the structure, or minor trackhoe work to reposition larger rocks or rip rap that have shifted. The stream itself is screened from view by the topography and vegetation so the new barrier will generally be unnoticeable. The barrier will be constructed in the late summer or fall of Map 1: General Project Area North Fork of North Creek drainage, Beaver County. Approved barrier site is marked by the top-most red B. 2

3 Map 2: Detail map of the proposed barrier locations on North Fork of North Creek. Approved barrier site is marked by the top-most red B. 3

4 Figure 1: Typical loose rock fish barrier design. 4

5 II. BACKGROUND The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), in cooperation with the Fishlake National Forest (NF), has been working for several years to establish and enhance populations of native Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (BCT) in streams throughout south central and southwestern Utah. Fish migration barriers are necessary and have been proven successful in preventing the reinvasion of native trout streams by nonnative trout from downstream waters. III. PURPOSE AND NEED Desired Condition The proposed project area, near the Fishlake forest boundary on lower North Fork of North Creek, has two functional barriers that prevent the passage of non-native fish upstream while maintaining the natural flows of the creek. BCT are able to reestablish upstream of the barriers throughout North Fork of North Creek without competition from or crossbreeding with non-native fish species. BCT provide a native cutthroat trout sport fishery in North Fork of North Creek. Existing Condition Currently the BCT population in North Fork of North Creek is low in numbers and slowly rebuilding from the effects of the Twitchell Canyon fire and from a treatment to remove hybridized (rainbow x cutthroat) trout in the lower and middle stream reaches. Non-native trout have successfully invaded lower North Fork of North Creek in the past in periods when the existing barrier function was compromised by floods and wear from extreme environmental conditions. With only one barrier, there is a risk that the rebuilding BCT population could be invaded by non-native trout again. Reinvasion would require additional work to remove the non-native fish that would likely impact the native cutthroat trout sport fishery in North Fork of North Creek. 5

6 Figure 2: The approved North Fork of North Creek rock fish barrier location. IV. REASONS FOR CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Decisions may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment when, 1) there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action that may result in a significant individual or cumulative effect on the human environment, and 2) the proposed action is one of the categories identified by 36 CFR The project falls within category 36 CFR (e) (7), Modification, or maintenance of stream or lake aquatic habitat improvement structures using native materials or normal practices. The categorical exclusion is appropriate in this situation because there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action. Extraordinary circumstances are those instances that could result in significant environmental effect to one or more of the following resource conditions, as described in Forest Service Handbook , Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species. 6

7 The Endangered Species Act requires that federal activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of any species federally listed or proposed as threatened or endangered, or result in adverse modification to such species designated critical habitat. Potential effects of likely barrier locations on federally-listed or proposed species or their critical habitats have been analyzed and documented in a Biological Assessment (BA) and Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for a 2007 southern Utah native trout restoration project (see Section V., Public Involvement), which included effects on Forest Service Sensitive species and State of Utah Sensitive species (see Project Record for EA). For the specific location now proposed by the UDWR, a Forest NEPA Resource Specialist Review was prepared, which analyzed potential impacts to threatened, endangered, proposed, and Forest Service sensitive species, thus meeting the content requirements of a site specific BA and BE. The results of this analysis are described below. The localized nature of the impact, small scale of disturbance, and rapid recovery of the disturbance basically preclude impacts to animal species, which are able to relocate and avoid a short-lived temporary disturbance. Since plants cannot move, there is greater potential risk for plants. The Fishlake N.F. botanist determined that the site contained common plant habitat types, with no risk to listed, proposed, or sensitive plant species. Similar past projects on the Fishlake and Dixie National Forests in southern Utah have not been found to have caused any impacts to listed, proposed, or Forest Service sensitive species. Barrier condition and function are generally checked annually by UDWR or Forest Service biologists, and no listed, proposed, and sensitive plant or animal issues have been documented during these visits. This decision will have No Effect on the following federally-listed or proposed species or their critical habitats: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, California Condor, Utah Prairie Dog and Mexican Spotted Owl. This decision will have No Impact on the following Forest Service Sensitive species: Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Bighorn Sheep, Pygmy Rabbit, Spotted Bat, Townsend s Big-Eared Bat, Bald Eagle, Greater Sage Grouse, Peregrine Falcon, Northern Goshawk, Three-toed Woodpecker, and Flammulated Owl. The decision will have a Beneficial Impact on the following Forest Service Sensitive Species: Bonneville cutthroat trout. 2. Floodplains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds Executive Order provides for avoidance of adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Floodplains are defined by this order as,... the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, including flood prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent (100-year recurrence) or greater chance of flooding in any one year. Executive Order provides for avoidance of adverse impacts associated with destruction or modification of wetlands. Wetlands are defined by this order as,... areas inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. 7

8 The project does not affect a municipal watershed. The project area has not been mapped as floodplains or wetlands but does occur along a stream which supports riparian vegetation and includes areas regularly inundated by bankfull discharge. A small amount of riparian vegetation along the banks for the width of the structure will be disturbed during construction. Immediately following construction, the barrier will temporarily back slack water upstream (a 5 drop would back water about 150 upstream on a 3.5% gradient similar to the project location). Only a minimal amount of riparian vegetation will be flooded. The riparian vegetation located further upstream near the end of the slack water will likely benefit. After 1 or 2 spring runoff events, the area upstream of the barrier will silt in with bedload movement and create a natural looking stream channel up to the structure. Riparian vegetation will rapidly reestablish along the new stream banks above the structure. Similar past projects on the Fishlake and Dixie N.F.s in southern Utah have been determined to have no significant floodplain/wetland-related impacts. Barrier condition and function are generally checked annually by UDWR or Forest Service personnel, and no significant or long-term floodplain or wetland impacts and impacts to their hydrologic function have been documented during these visits. Thus, field review and monitoring of similar projects validates acceptable resource effects from similar activities. A stream alternation permit will be obtained for the barrier construction and any permitting requirements incorporated into the project design. The stream alteration permit will be included in the Project Record. 3. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas. There are no Wildernesses, Wilderness Study Areas, or National Recreation Areas on the Forest. This decision will not affect these areas. 4. Inventoried roadless areas There are no inventoried roadless areas (2000 Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation EIS) in the project area. This decision will not affect inventoried roadless areas. 5. Research natural areas There are no Research Natural Areas in the project area. This decision will not affect Research Natural Areas. 6. American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites. There are no Alaska Native religious or cultural sites on the Forest. This decision does not affect Alaska Native religious or cultural sites. See also below. 7. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of a project on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act also requires federal agencies to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act covers the discovery and 8

9 protection of historic properties (prehistoric and historic) that are excavated or discovered in federal lands. It affords lawful protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public and Indian lands. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act covers the discovery and protection of Native American human remains and objects that are excavated or discovered in federal lands. It encourages avoidance of archaeological sites that contain burials or portions of sites that contain graves through in situ preservation, but may encompass other actions to preserve these remains and items. The small size of the actual construction disturbance, the fact that portions of the site have already been disturbed, that much of the site is a rocky substrate, and that the stream itself is a zone of cutting and deposition over time all act in concert to eliminate risk of the project to archaeological and historic resources. The Forest archeologist made a site visit and determined there will be no effects to archeological or historical properties. Utah SHPO concurrence, dated July 10, 2017, was obtained for this determination. No tribal concerns were identified for this project. This decision complies with the Acts cited above. V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The proposed project evolved from a long-term project to identify and secure remnant BCT populations on the Fishlake National Forest. Efforts to restore BCT to historic habitat in the Clear Creek and Beaver River drainages was begun with notification of state, federal, and local agencies in 2003 and public scoping in Five written responses were received in response to the scoping letter for that project, which listed several barrier construction projects on the Forest. Two of these letters gave general comments relating to barrier projects. The comments were to ensure the barriers did not unduly restrict water flow, and that barrier construction did not harm migratory birds. Those general comments were carried into the analysis of this project and the response to these concerns is included in this Decision Memo. The UDWR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) prepared an Environmental Analysis (EA) and Biological Assessment for the overall project including North Creek entitled Native Trout Restoration and Enhancement Projects in Southwest Utah which was completed in In this EA, North Fork of North Creek was approved for treatment of portions of the drainage to remove hybridized trout and allow the restoration of a pure BCT throughout the drainage. Concurrently, a state species management process was initiated which included coordination with local County Commissions and subsequent approval by the state Wildlife Board. Removal of hybrid trout from the lower and middle portions of North Fork of North Creek to restore pure BCT to the entire drainage 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 Board. The general location of potential barrier sites were included in the scoping and EA for that project, but since the specific design and exact location of an additional barrier to protect North Fork of North Creek 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 site to provide additional protection to North Fork of North Creek has since been determined to be one new loose rock fish barrier constructed about 0.4 mile upstream of the Forest boundary, above the existing barrier. 9

10 Approval for the barrier improvement project, including the specific location, access, and methods, is a separate process approved by the Beaver Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest, of which this Decision Memo is part of. This North Fork of North Creek barrier project is listed in the current Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the Fishlake NF and has been available for public review on our website The scoping period started February 23 and ran through March 9, 2017, based on the publication of a Public Notice on February 23, 2017 in The Beaver County Journal, requesting input from interested parties. Letters were also distributed to locally interested individuals and groups who have expressed interest in fisheries management on the Forest. No responses regarding this project were received from this scoping process. VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS Forest Plan Consistency (National Forest Management Act) This Act requires the development of long-range land and resource management plans (Forest Plans), and requires all projects and activities be consistent with the Forest Plan. The Fishlake Forest Plan was approved in 1986, and has been amended multiple times. The Forest Plan has been reviewed in consideration of this project. This decision is consistent with the standards and guidelines contained in the Forest Plan. Clean Water Act This goal of this Act is to ensure that the integrity of waters is restored and maintained. Within the project cumulative effects area, there are no waters currently listed on the state of Utah s 303(d) list of impaired waters nor waters that have a total maximum daily load (TMDL). This decision will incorporate any specified measures included in the state Stream Alteration Permit, which will be included in Project Record. The project complies with the Clean Water Act. Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) This Act requires the Forest Service to consider whether projects would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. This decision is will not adversely impact minority or lowincome populations. This decision complies with Executive Order Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) requires that Federal actions are evaluated for effects on migratory birds, and includes provisions that prohibit take of migratory birds. Executive Order (EO) outlines responsibilities of Federal agencies to consider effects on migratory birds in implementing management activities. EO instructs Federal agencies to develop policies to address MBTA issues. This is currently being developed at the national level. Construction of the barrier will occur in late summer or early fall Construction would occur after bird nesting, so no impacts will occur to migratory birds. Only a small amount of riparian trees, small to medium sized riparian shrubs, and upland vegetation will be disturbed at the barrier sites and access routes. Access to the barrier sites generally follows open areas with minimal vegetation, further minimizing impacts to potential vegetation. Based on the time of year, it will not 10

11