Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region 5 February 2010 Environmental Assessment Red Clover Poco Restoration Project,, Plumas County, California

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employee. 2

3 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Purpose and Need... 5 Project Description and Location... 5 Structure of the... 5 Contents of Chapter 1: Purpose and Need... 6 Public Involvement and Scoping Issues Laws, Regulations, or Planning Documents Influencing the Scope of this Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Description & Discussion of the Alternatives Alternatives Considered in Detail Comparison of Alternatives Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Chapter 3: Environmental Effects of the Alternatives Effects Relative to Significant Issues Consequences Relative to Significance Elements of NEPA Chapter 4: Agencies and Persons Consulted References Appendix A: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Appendix B: Standard Mitigations and Best Management Practices Noxious weed prevention mitigation measures Sensitive Plant Protection Measure: Aquatic Life Protection Measures: Sensitive Wildlife Standard Protection Measures: Cultural Resource: Standard Resource Protection Measures Watershed Mitigation Measures & Best Management Practices (BMP s) (see Cumulative Watershed Assessment in project file): Standard Soil Protection Measures for Pond and Plug Projects: List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of actions between the alternatives Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives in meeting Purpose and Need Table 3. Corresponding precipitation data for years presented in Figure Table 4. Comparison of alternatives in addressing issues Table 5. Comparison of alternatives in affecting other resources Table 6. Design features/mitigations for the two action alternatives Table 7. Proposed Action monitoring parameters Table 8. Alternative 3 monitoring parameters List of Figures Figure 1. location map Figure 2. Proposed Action Treatment Plan View

4 Figure 3. Alternative 3 Plan View Figure 4. Turbidity samples along Red Clover Creek in treated and untreated sections of Red Clover Creek (data available at the Plumas Corporation office in Quincy, CA) Figure 5. Temperature, flow and precipitation data from the FR-CRM continuous recording station at Doyle Crossing on Last Chance Creek. The station is located ten miles downstream of the 7.75-mile Upper Last Chance Creek CalFed project, constructed from Figure 6. Flow and precipitation data from two comparable years represents pre-project conditions, and 2008 represents post-project conditions of the 7.75-mile CalFed Upper Last Chance Creek Restoration Project (completed ) was 77% of normal precipitation, 2008 was 68% of normal precipitation (FR-CRM 2009) Figure 7. Discharge from two flow stations, one above, and one below the Big Flat Project (pond & plug technique) on Cottonwood Creek. Notice the lower flood peaks below the project area (FR-CRM 2007) Figure 8. Vegetative productivity data from three treatment transects in the Red Clover McReynolds pond & plug project area, and one control transect downstream of the project on National Forest System lands (FR-CRM 2009)

5 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need Project Description and Location The USDA Forest Service,,, in partnership with the Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group (FRCRM), proposes to conduct channel and meadow restoration activities in the area to improve low flow and peak flow conditions, fishery habitat, meadow productivity, vegetative cover and water quality by restoring the functionality of the system. Detailed descriptions of the Proposed Action and one other action alternatives are in Chapter 2. The Red Clover Poco Restoration Project area is located approximately ten air miles north of Portola, California and is approximately 23 air miles east of Quincy, California (Figure 1). The 198 acre project area is located on National Forest System lands in the Red Clover Creek Hydrologic Unit Code 6 (HUC6) watershed, in the Land and Resource Management Plan (PNF LRMP) Management Area 36 (Dotta). The project area is in Sections 4, 5, 9, and 10 of T24N, R13E and Sections 27, 32, 33, and 34 of T25N, R13E. Structure of the This (EA) has been prepared to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. It is structured to include all of the information required to be included in an EA by the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR (b) and the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) at FSH , This EA includes four chapters and Appendices: Purpose and Need Description & Discussion of the Alternatives Environmental Effects of the Alternatives Agencies and Individuals Consulted References Appendices 5

6 Figure 1. location map. Contents of Chapter 1: Purpose and Need This chapter provides detailed information on the Purpose and Need for the Red Clover Poco Restoration Project and issues that were identified during scoping and public involvement activities. It also includes information on the project schedule, the responsible official and management direction. Background This quote from the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species Report (USDA Forest Service 2008) puts the Purpose and Need for this project in a Sierra Nevada bioregion context: Over the past century, it is clear that the aquatic ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada have had a trend of deteriorating condition; a critical finding from the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem project (SNEP 1996, Moyle 1996) was that aquatic and riparian systems are the most altered and impaired habitats of the Sierra. Stewart (1996) determined that water is the most valuable natural resource originating in the Sierra Nevada Province and accounts for over 60% of the $2.2 billion worth of commodities and services produced annually by Sierra Nevada ecosystems. The historical degradation of aquatic habitats therefore represents a huge loss in productivity and ecosystem services like moisture holding capacity of meadows. 6

7 On the local watershed level, various projects within the Red Clover Creek HUC6 watershed have been constructed in the past. Civilian Conservation Corps in the early 1930 s constructed numerous structures to slow accelerated gully erosion within meadows. Some of this work was successful in raising the base level of the channel, slowing or halting gully erosion in localized areas. However, it was unsuccessful at restoring meadow function, and accelerated gully erosion within the meadow still occurs. From 1960 to the present, other structures have been constructed and maintained. Some of these structures have been successful, and others have failed. In 2005, the Forest Service under the direction of the Acting Forest Supervisor met with the Project/Program Manager from the Feather River Coordinated Resource Management (FR-CRM) group to start discussions and development of the. It was recognized through numerous surveys and a watershed analysis (Beckwourth RD 2006) that streams and meadows within the watershed were in immediate need of improvement. Historic records indicate by the early 1900 s, the channel had already eroded below its natural grade, resulting in a lower water table that diminished riparian habitat and productivity, as dry land species invaded the meadow. Subsequently, the flood of 1955 further degraded the system, which had already been impacted by years of railroad logging, over-grazing, and willow and beaver eradication efforts. Purpose: Restore the ecosystem function of the channel floodplain system in order to: Improve water quality (temperature and sediment) Improve flow conditions (decrease flood peaks and increase base flow) Enhance riparian and aquatic habitats Improve meadow productivity The following measures would address whether or not the Project Purpose and Need are met. They are described in more detail in Chapter Channel/floodplain reconnection Reduced channel cross-sectional area, so that flows overbank at a 1.5 to two-year frequency interval o The time frame for changes in the cross-sectional area is immediate, i.e. during construction. 2. Water quality 10% decrease in event-generated turbidity and total suspended sediment through the project area o The time frame for measurable differences in turbidity and sediment would be during the first flow-generating storm event. 5% decrease in maximum daily water temperature at the continuous-recording station at Notson Bridge, and downstream of the project area Increase the ratio of pollution-intolerant macroinvertebrate taxa to pollution-tolerant taxa o The expected time frame for water temperature and macroinvertebrate changes is two 7

8 3. Flow conditions to five years, depending on precipitation. Attenuated flood peaks and increased low flows at the continuous-recording station at Notson Bridge Increase groundwater levels in existing wells o The expected time frames for flow conditions are: flood peak reduction would be measurable at the first flood; increased base flow should be measurable after the aquifer has filled, perhaps two to five years, depending on precipitation; groundwater levels would measurably increase in the first spring after construction. 4. Enhance riparian and aquatic habitats, measured by occupation of native riparian-dependent species and habitat quality: 20% increase in post-project avian counts (versus pre-project counts) Increase in post-project catch-per-unit-effort hook and line trout fishing (versus preproject conditions) No invasion of new undesirable non-native species o The expected time frame for avian count increases is one to three years, and three to five years for trout fishing. Invasion of non-native undesirable species (such as bullfrogs) is an unlikely, but existing threat to the project area, currently and into the future; however there are no known bullfrog populations in the Red Clover watershed. Improvement in coldwater fish habitat parameters such as pooltail fines, bank stability, and stream shade, as measured by Stream Condition Inventory protocols No loss in fish passage through the project area. o The expected time frame for habitat improvements is within one year after construction. The project is designed to accommodate fish passage, and passage is never expected to be impaired, unless there is no water. 5. Improve meadow productivity Decrease in dry plant species (i.e. sagebrush), and increase in moist plant species (i.e. grasses and sedges), as measured along vegetation transects Visible increase in vegetative cover, depicted qualitatively through photo-point monitoring o The time frame for vegetative changes is one year after construction. Need for Action The channel floodplain system in the project area evolved over thousands of years, as a result of flow frequencies, the sediment supply from the watershed, and soil and vegetation characteristics. A synergism of human activities resulted in the formation of the existing gullied stream channel that is disconnected from its naturally evolved floodplain. The primary activities most likely to have affected gully development were railroad logging and historic over-grazing. Then the flood event of 1955 overwhelmed an already compromised ecosystem. It is thought that earnest gully 8

9 development began with that event, and has now subsequently become the dominant feature on the landscape. The East Branch North Fork Feather River Erosion Inventory Report lists Red Clover Creek as the third highest sediment-producing subwatershed with a total yield of 127,400 tons of sediment per year (USDA-Soil Conservation Service, 1989). The Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District s Feather River Watershed Management Strategy lists Red Clover subwatershed as a priority area for restoration due to this high export of sediment. On February 27, 2009 turbidity sampling showed an increase from 10.2 NTU s (nephelometer turbidity units) at the top of the project area to NTU s near the bottom of the project area. Red Clover Creek was once locally known as an excellent trout fishery. However, electroshock fish sampling efforts in the project area at Chase Bridge in 2003 and 2005 yielded only one trout in Another effort in 2008 yielded four brown trout fingerlings (FR-CRM 2010). Trout require cold water temperatures (a maximum no greater than 68F is optimal). The average daily maximum water temperatures from June through August at the top of the project area in 2005 was 78.3ºF, and 71.7ºF at Chase Bridge in 2008 (FR-CRM 2009). This lead to the conclusion that water temperature is a defining factor for the trout fishery in Red Clover Creek. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board has identified the North Fork Feather River as both sediment and temperature impaired. Over 90% of the alluvial channel meadows in the East Branch North Fork Feather River watershed are entrenched, and no longer connected to their naturally evolved floodplain. This loss of floodplain function can be translated into increased flood peaks, and decreased summer base flows. Without the benefit of access to the floodplain, flood waters move through upper watershed meadows at an accelerated rate, thereby increasing flood peaks. Lack of floodplain access also precludes the infiltration of overland flows into groundwater that would be released later in the season as base flow. Vegetative change also accompanies channel entrenchment, resulting in the encroachment of sagebrush and loss of more productive species, such as willows, grasses and sedges. Willows and grass/sedge communities provide both food and cover for wildlife, as well as range forage for cattle grazing. Desired Condition The desired condition is a channel that is connected to its naturally evolved floodplain, so that flows can access the floodplain at a frequency of approximately every 1.5 to two years. Calculated flow frequency and measured cross-sections indicate a functional channel crosssectional area of approximately 50 square feet in the project area, where the average slope is 0.2%. Once bankfull flows (i.e. 1.5 to two-year frequency interval) are exceeded, the desired condition is for flows to spill over the channel banks onto the floodplain. The floodplain width should allow for enough of a reduction in velocity so that sediments carried in the overbank flows are deposited onto the floodplain, resulting in storm event turbidity and sediment decreasing through the project area. Storm event flows should show a lag time, and a reduction between flows coming into the project area and out-going flows. This reduction would be due to the floodplain functioning as a sponge that soaks up excess flows during events. Following the sponge analogy, these stored flows would then be naturally released later in the year, thus 9

10 contributing to base flow. (This effect, and the temperature benefit of groundwater contribution to late season flow in restored channel/floodplain systems has been shown through research by Steve Loheide of Stanford University at the Big Flat project in 2006.) Streambank and floodplain vegetation should be structurally vigorous, with a wet to moist species composition that can withstand flowing water, enhance infiltration, and provide cover to riparian dependent species. The channel itself should contain enough variability of habitat to be able to sustain a healthy trout population. Water temperatures should not exceed 68ºF. Public Involvement and Scoping Issues Notice of the Proposed Action (PA) first appeared in the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) issued April 2006 and has been updated in the SOPA each quarter since. The started the NEPA scoping process with publication of the legal notice of the Proposed Action in the Portola Reporter on June 6, A total of 33 Public Scoping packets describing the Proposed Action were sent to various individuals, organizations, government agencies and tribes. The scoping period ended on July 7, 2007, although public comments are accepted during any phase of the project. There has also been on-going coordination with the project area grazing permittee. The purpose of scoping is to notify the public about the Purpose and Need for the Red Clover Poco Restoration Project and to describe the Proposed Action. Two public comments were received. Scoping Issue Development An interdisciplinary team (IDT) of resource specialists assigned to the Red Clover Poco Restoration Project reviewed all of the public comments received as a result of the scoping process. Internal issues from staff were also considered. Scoping comments that presented a point of disagreement, debate or dispute about the PA based upon effects were identified by the IDT as an issue. Key topics were identified that covered the major themes in the comments and then were split into either major or minor issues. Major issues became the basis for developing and analyzing an additional alternative to the PA. Minor issues were addressed as mitigations or as alternatives considered, but not analyzed. Comments identified as concerns were evaluated to determine those that could be addressed through further explanation of the PA or could be addressed through the effects analysis in Chapter 3. If the information were deemed necessary for the deciding officer to make a decision, that information was provided in this environmental document. In Chapter 2, each alternative is described, and then followed by the reason(s) for considering it in detail or eliminating it from further consideration. Based on internal and external issues, two additional action alternatives were considered, one of which was developed and analyzed along with the PA and No Action alternative. The significant external and internal issues identified during scoping were: Risk of failure of pond and plug technique when the new channel is incorporated within the area of gully obliteration. 10

11 Irretrievable commitment of resources because existing channel system is eliminated. Difficulty and expense of plug repair in case of failure. Potential reduction in low flow and fishery degradation. A longer-term, adaptive management approach to stability has less risk. This reach of Red Clover Creek is too difficult to improve. The pond and plug technique can provide habitat for bullfrogs. Project Schedule The Responsible Official expects to make a decision on the by Spring of Implementation could begin in mid-summer Responsible Official The Responsible Official for the project will be the Beckwourth District Ranger. The Responsible Official will decide whether to implement the as stated in the Propose Action or as described in the Alternative 3, or not to implement the project at this time (No Action Alternative). Laws, Regulations, or Planning Documents Influencing the Scope of this This project is proposed according to management direction provided by the 1988 PNF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as amended by the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) 1999 Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD), the 2003 HFQLG Supplemental EIS and ROD and the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Supplemental EIS and ROD (USDA 1988, USDA 1999a, b, USDA 2003, USDA 2004 a, b). The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act, which directs forest management and watershed restoration activities within portions of the, requires that the adopt Riparian Management Direction, commonly referred to as the Scientific Analysis Team s (SAT) Guidelines. The guidelines, summarized in Appendix L of the EIS, describe management objectives for riparian areas and recommend management direction for their enhancement and protection. In addition it discusses the use of watershed assessments to identify and prioritize watershed restoration opportunities within given watersheds. The riparian discussion is relatively similar to the riparian area management guidelines that have been prepared for land management activities on the Forest under the Land and Resource Management Plan: Riparian and aquatic ecosystems on the Beckwourth District will be managed to achieve the following specific riparian objectives as presented in the SAT Guidelines: 1. Maintain or restore water quality to a degree that provides for stable and productive riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Water quality parameters that apply to these ecosystems include timing and character of temperature, sediment, and nutrients. 11

12 2. Maintain or restore the stream channel integrity, channel processes, and sediment regime under which the riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, and character of sediment input and transport. 3. Maintain or restore instream flows to support desired riparian and aquatic habitats, the stability and effective function of stream channels, and the ability to route flood discharges. 4. Maintain or restore the natural timing and variability of the water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. 5. Maintain or restore the diversity and productive of native and desired non-native plant communities in the riparian zone. 6. Maintain or restore riparian vegetation to provide an amount and distribution of large woody debris characteristic of natural aquatic and riparian ecosystems. 7. Maintain or restore habitat to support populations of well-distributed native and desired non-native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of riparian plant communities. 8. Maintain or restore riparian vegetation to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation within the riparian and aquatic zones. 9. Maintain or restore riparian vegetation to help achieve rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration characteristics of those under which the desired communities developed. 10. Maintain and restore riparian and aquatic habitats necessary to foster the unique genetic fish stocks that evolved within that specific geo-climatic ecoregion. 12

13 Chapter 2: Description & Discussion of the Alternatives This chapter describes Alternative 1- the Proposed Action; Alternative 2- the No Action Alternative; Alternative 3 (Inset Action Alternative); and other alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. Chapter 2 is organized as follows: Contents of Chapter 2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action Description Alternative 2 - No Action Alternative Description Alternative 3 - Inset Alternative Description Comparison of Alternatives Other Affected Resources Project Specific Design Features/Mitigations Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Chapter 2 follows the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA which requires the Forest Service to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives. This process was done with resource specialists in an interdisciplinary team (IDT) setting. The IDT discussed the potential benefits and costs of the action alternatives and Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study. The alternatives were developed from internal and external issues that were derived from the scoping process and were designed to meet the Purpose and Need (see Chapter 1). Alternatives Considered in Detail Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) The Proposed Action would implement provisions of the HFQLG Act, SNFPA and the 1988 Plumas LRMP. The Proposed Action was designed to meet the Purposes and Need discussed in Chapter 1. The pond and plug technique, as described below for the Proposed Action, was chosen for Red Clover Creek because it meets the project objectives by restoring the functionality of the system, and has been proven to perform well, while requiring minimal long-term maintenance. The project analysis area encompasses approximately 198 acres of the PNF managed by the (Figure 2). Modifications to the Proposed Action On June 6, 2007, the Proposed Action was mailed to the public for comment. Since that time, the following changes have been made to the Proposed Action, as described below: 13

14 The Proposed Action had stated that 0.5 miles of Primary Forest Route 177 (Genesee- Beckwourth Road, and County Road 111) would be re-located. Road re-location is no longer part of the Proposed Action. Portions of the existing road in the floodplain would be graveled (0.8 miles). The Proposed Action stated that 27 headcuts would be treated with rock and soil in the Poco Meadow. Only 11 headcuts would be treated, and they would be treated with logs obtained from approximately diameter trees on the slopes surrounding the channel. The Proposed Action mentioned that the Chase Allotment included seven exclosure units totaling 706 acres. Those actually are riparian pastures units, not exclosures, although some of them can be periodically excluded from grazing depending on resource needs and the annual operating plan. Four of these units will be reduced to two units by eliminating two crossfences. The text and table volume of material to be moved did not correlate in the public scoping letter. The Proposed Action would excavate approximately 235,000 cubic yards of material. The Proposed Action stated that the remnant channel was on the north side of the meadow, but the remnant channel can be found on both the north and south sides of the channel at various locations in the project area. The following two minor additions have also been made to the Proposed Action: The Proposed Action would include installing boulders in the floodplain in two locations where non-system access routes go from County Road 111 down to the creek. Boulders would physically deter vehicular traffic in the floodplain. The Proposed Action would include the construction of an accessible wildlife viewing area near the top of the project, on a low bluff adjacent to County Road 111, on public land. Proposed Action Description Approximately 235,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated in the creation of 35 ponds (51.4 acres of pond) and moved short distances in order to build 34 gully plugs (12.5 acres of plug). Flows would be re-directed from the gully into an existing remnant channel. The pond and plug treatment ends at a natural constriction in the valley where there is bedrock substrate. A fish passable rock grade control structure would be constructed at this location. Eleven headcuts along the northern section of Poco Meadow would be stabilized with log drop structures. Six existing headcut structures along the southern part of Poco Meadow would undergo maintenance. 14

15 Surface with gravel 0.8 miles of primary Forest Route 177, also known as County Road 111, also known as the Genesee-Beckwourth Road. The Proposed Action would include installing boulders in the floodplain in two locations where non-system access routes go from County Road 111 down to the creek. Boulders would physically deter vehicular traffic in the floodplain. The Proposed Action would include the construction of an accessible wildlife viewing area near the top of the project, on a low bluff adjacent to County Road 111, on public land. The area would consist of a wide spot in the road with an interpretive sign. The Pond and Plug Technique The main treatment technique proposed is called pond and plug. This technique consists of obliterating the gully by replacing it with a series of ponds and earthen plugs. Stream flow that currently flows within the gully is re-directed into a channel that currently exists at the elevation of the meadow. This project would result in a defined, continuous channel throughout the length of the project. The design is based on functional fluvial geomorphic processes, and has been successfully implemented in several locations on the. One recent example is in the Last Chance HUC6 watershed where approximately eight miles of degraded channel was restored to floodplain elevation using this method. The ponds, which are excavated within the gully, serve two functions. The primary function of the ponds is to provide cost-effective fill material for the gully plugs. The amount of material removed from the ponds is dictated by the volume needed for the plugs (importing material would be cost-prohibitive). An ancillary benefit of the ponds is wildlife habitat enhancement. Constructed ponds have irregular shapes, depths, and (when feasible) islands or other wildlife components, such as perches. To the extent possible, ponds are constructed to look like a natural part of the landscape. The plug elevations and widths are also designed to reduce the risk of headcutting and surface erosion during major overland flows. To minimize the footprint of project activities, all heavy equipment stays within the confines of the work area, and material transport generally does not exceed 300 feet. Grade Control Structure The downstream end of the project is located at a natural constriction in the valley. This constriction will preclude the potential for flows to end run around the structure and headcut into the project area. The purpose of the grade control is to step the restored channel floodplain reach back down to the degraded elevation. Grade control structures are necessarily massive in order to withstand high flow events through a valley constriction with a relatively steep slope. The Red Clover Poco grade control structure would be a 8,000 cubic yard, 350 foot long riffle-pool channel, with a 3.5% slope. Material would consist of 3-foot minus pit-run material from Crocker Pit, existing earthen material at the site, and some material from a 50x60 shoulder of Bonta formation, also located at the grade control site. The low slope and pools in the structure enable fish passage, as well as controlling energy through the structure. Plants that would be covered by the structure are removed and incorporated into the structure, also increasing the integrity of the structure as they mature. 15

16 Figure 2. Proposed Action Treatment Plan View. 16

17 Revegetation Vegetation that would be buried or continually submersed as a result of the Proposed Action would be removed and re-planted at key points on the plugs, pond sides, or along the remnant channel where additional vegetation is needed. Topsoil from the excavated areas would be removed, stockpiled, and later spread over the constructed plugs. Plugs would be planted with locally collected native forbs and grass seed then mulched with certified weed-free rice straw. Pond margins would be planted with native sedge plugs, native willow cuttings, and native riparian grasses. Revegetation efforts would focus primarily in areas that need vegetative armoring or where implementation of the project has resulted in bare surfaces. Revegetation would occur during construction, with follow-up efforts in the following fall and spring. It is expected that adequate re-vegetation response would take two to three years. Noxious Weed Management Botanical project analysis includes a noxious weed risk assessment. Canada thistle occurs in the project area. The potential for the proposed action to spread the weed is moderate. The following practices would be employed to exterminate Canada thistle and any other noxious weeds from the project area (and prevent spread to other areas): All equipment would be washed at the contractor s yard to remove noxious weed seeds prior to being moved into the work area. All equipment would be washed in a staging area to remove noxious weed seeds prior to moving out of the project area. Crocker Pit was surveyed for noxious weeds in 2009 and has no weeds of concern. Additional resurvey of the Crocker Pit would occur prior to project implementation in 2010 and a noxious weed plan will be developed if needed at that time. The project area would be re-surveyed for noxious weeds early in the year, prior to construction. Populations would be flagged, and flowering tops removed. Flower tops would be properly disposed of in black plastic trash bags. Follow-up monitoring will take place to remove additional flowering tops. During construction, heavy equipment would remove the plants and surrounding soil, to a six foot extent beyond visible stems, and bury the plants at least eight feet deep in a plug so that there is no chance for sprouting. The project area would be surveyed each year for noxious weed invasion for three years after project completion. Any occurrence of Canada thistle will be covered with black plastic until it dies, and then the area will be re-seeded with locally collected native seed. Any other noxious species encountered that can be removed by hand will be removed. Aquatic Life Management Prior to construction, water would be diverted from the gully into a remnant channel to protect water quality and downstream aquatic life. Fish would be removed from the work area, just after water diversion, using a backpack electro-shocker. The fish would be transported to the nearest area with adequate habitat. 17

18 Grazing Management The proposed project area is located entirely within the Chase grazing allotment (12,206 acres). Because of the scale of ground disturbance associated with this project, and the importance of vegetation in determining project success, grazing management is integral with project design, both post-project, as well as long-term. Long term grazing management was addressed in the 2003 Chase Allotment Environmental Assessment. Numbers within the allotment have been reduced from annual grazing (one year cattle, and the next year sheep), to just cattle, alternating spring one year, and fall the next. As specified in the Chase Allotment EA, there are seven riparian pasture units (collectively referred to as the Chase Enclosure; approximately 706 acres), that are fenced off within the Chase allotment. A large portion of Red Clover Creek and to a smaller extent Poco Creek falls within the Chase Enclosure. Grazing management includes two to three years of rest after project construction to allow vegetation to recover. The Project Interdisciplinary team would decide when grazing can be resumed in the project area. Once grazing is resumed, the project area would continue to be monitored with Annual Operating Instructions adjusted each year to maintain channel and floodplain stability. Proposed Action Project Monitoring This project is expected to benefit multiple resources by restoring the ecological function of the floodplain meadow system. The purpose of the monitoring would be to determine whether or not the project was successful in meeting the Purpose and Need, and to provide data for subsequent adaptive management actions that may be necessary. Project monitoring would continue postconstruction for three years, unless stated otherwise in the table below. The monitoring plan for the Proposed Action can be found in Appendix A of this EA. Alternative 2 (No Action) Under the No Action Alternative no improvement or restoration of Red Clover or Poco Creek or associated meadows would occur. The channel and meadows would be left in their current condition. Opportunities to improve flow conditions, water quality, and habitats would not be considered at this time. On-going activities such as routine road maintenance, recreation and grazing would continue to occur. Existing grazing management monitoring would continue, which includes annual indicators of use on meadow vegetation, shrubs and streambanks, as well as one long term trend plot in the project area. The long term trend plot tracks range condition, and provides an ecological classification for vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Long term trend plots are monitored once every five years. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline against which to compare the various impacts of the action alternatives. Since riparian and meadow ecosystems are not static, the project area would still continue to change as a result of naturally occurring dynamic forces such as droughts and floods. The current existing condition of eroding banks, poor fish habitat, and 18

19 poor water quality (temperature and sediment) would not be addressed under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 3 (Inset) Developing Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed in response to significant issues identified through internal and external scoping. It is called the Inset Action Alternative because the treatments remain within the channel that is inset within the gully. The identified issues are: Risk of failure of pond and plug technique when the new channel is incorporated within the area of gully obliteration. Irretrievable commitment of resources because the existing gullied channel system is eliminated. Difficulty and expense of potentially necessary repair. Potential reduction in low flow and fishery degradation. This reach of Red Clover Creek is too difficult to improve. Pond and plug can provide habitat for bullfrogs. This alternative responds to these issues by maintaining the existing mainstem Red Clover entrenched channel configuration, and confining the treatments to the gully. The objective of this alternative is to stabilize Red Clover Creek within its existing entrenchment, using a variety of techniques: bank sloping with and without boulder vanes, incremental riffle elevation (i.e. small check dams), and rock/vegetation headcut treatments (See Figure 3). This alternative also includes leaving many banks in their current condition, to stabilize more slowly through time, as vegetation moves in. These banks would not only allow a comparison of treated versus untreated areas, but would also provide fine sediments for on-going bank development within the entrenchment. This alternative does not make any changes to the Proposed Action regarding headcut treatments in Poco Meadow. Summary of Actions The primary difference between the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 is that Alternative 3 treats the degraded channel, whereas the Proposed Action eliminates the degraded channel. Additionally, Alternative 3 would be less expensive to implement. The other intent of Alternative 3 is its longer term approach to restoration, with benefits that are expected to take longer to accrue, and the expectation that there may be a need to re-enter the channel over time to do additional work. Approximately 3,242 feet of raw vertical bank would be laid back to a 2:1 slope in 16 locations. Seventy-seven boulder vanes would be installed in 13 of these locations. Approximately 14,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated in bank sloping and used to 19

20 build floodplain benches into which the boulder vanes would be keyed. Gravel bars opposite of the banks would also be lowered to floodplain elevation, with that material also used for floodplain bench material. Bank slopes would be vegetated with a combination of dryland species on the upper half of each slope and willow and sedges on the lower half. Plant materials would be obtained on-site. Plants that are large enough to be moved with heavy equipment would be transplanted. Willow cuttings, and seeds from sedge, rabbitbrush, and lupin would be collected on site, and rooted in a greenhouse for planting in the fall. Grass seeds such as Poa secunda, etc. would also be locally collected and spread on the slopes. Each boulder vane would consist of 20 cubic yards of 3-4 boulders. Vanes would require 1,660 cubic yards of boulders, most likely from Crocker Pit. Slightly (12-18 inches) raised riffles would be constructed at existing riffles in nine locations. Each riffle would use approximately 75 cubic yards of 3-foot minus pit material. Headcuts would be treated in three locations on finger gullies along the mainstem of Red Clover Creek, each using approximately 20 cubic yards of 2 minus pit material. This alternative also includes the following actions that are described in the Proposed Action: 11 headcut treatment on the northern section of Poco Meadow, maintenance of six headcut treatment structures on the southern portion of Poco Meadow, rest from grazing following construction, noxious weed management, aquatic life management, and monitoring. Monitoring under this alternative, however, would be slightly changed as described below. 20

21 Alternative 3 Plan View Scale 1:17,500 Figure 3. Alternative 3 Plan View. Alternative 3 Monitoring As in the Proposed Action, the purpose of the monitoring would be to determine whether or not the project was successful in meeting the Purpose and Need, and to provide data for subsequent adaptive management actions that may be necessary. However, because the project objectives would be met with a longer term approach, the objectives of the monitoring are slightly different under this alternative than the Proposed Action; i.e. is the project area trending toward function of the channel floodplain system. And, if not, how can management be adapted to trend toward stability. Possible solutions such as additional structures, or planting, or alternative grazing management, etc. would be considered, and would require full NEPA analysis prior to implementation. The monitoring plan for Alternative 3 can be found in Appendix A of this document. 21

22 Comparison of Alternatives The following table summarizes the different actions in each of the alternatives. Explanatory text follows the table. Table 1. Comparison of actions between the alternatives. Treatment Proposed Action No Action Alternative 3 Amount of native material to move Amount of rock Number of trees Treated length of Red Clover gully Grade control Acreage to revegetate Headcut treatments 235,000 cubic yards in pond excavation to build plugs - 8,000 cu yds mixture of three-foot minus pit run, native, and Bonta formation materials for grade control structure; cu yds 2 minus pit run for Poco headcut maintenance diameter pines for Poco headcut treatments 0 cu yds 14,000 cu yds in bank angling to build floodplain benches 0 cu yds - 1,540 cu yds four foot boulders; yards of 3 minus pit run for riffles; - 60 yds 2 minus pit run for finger gullies; yds 2 minus pit run for Poco headcut maintenance none diameter pines for Poco headcut treatments 15,000 feet none 3,242 feet bank stabilization plus 180 of raised riffles One structure to be built at valley constriction Throughout project area on existing bedrock at bottom of gully Throughout project area on existing bedrock at bottom of gully 12.5 acres of plug acres of laid-back banks 11 new treatments in Poco Meadow, 6 maintenance treatments No headcut treatments County Road Surface 0.8 miles with gravel 0 0 Rest from Grazing 2-3 years No change from existing grazing management Noxious Weed Management Aquatic Life Management Burial during construction; post-project weed removal by hand or black plastic for 3 yrs Relocation from work area No weed removal No need to move aquatic life 11 new treatments in Poco Meadow, 6 maintenance treatments, 3 new treatments along Red Clover mainstem, 2-3 years Flag and avoid during construction; Postproject weed removal by hand or black plastic for 3 yrs Relocation from work area Cost $1.17 MM No cost Estimate $270,000 for this treatment Restoration Time scale Shorter Not applicable Longer A primary difference between the two alternatives is the maintenance of a lowered floodplain elevation within the confines of the gully in Alternative 3, versus a restoration of the full valley- 22

23 wide floodplain with the Proposed Action. Both alternatives include earth-moving activities, although substantially more earth would be moved in the Proposed Action than Alternative 3. Both alternatives use rock. Both alternatives also include the Poco Meadow headcut treatments, which include removing approximately 45 trees to create log headcut reinforcements. The main difference in rock volume between the alternatives is more rock (3 minus pit run) in the Proposed Action, which would be used at the grade control. Alternative 3 uses rock (three to four-foot boulders) for vane installation, riffle augmentation and mainstem headcut treatments. The Proposed Action necessarily affects the entire reach length, because when the channel base level is raised to the elevation of the meadow, it must be held at that elevation down the valley until there is a natural constriction that precludes the possibility of water moving around the project work and head-cutting back up into the project area. This is the function of the grade control structure, and it must be located at a valley constriction. This approach to treating the entire length is different from Alternative 3, which spot treats the most actively eroding outcurve meanders through the project area. Another way to think of the difference between the two approaches is that the Proposed Action restores the full function of the valley-wide floodplain, where Alternative 3 acts to slow the progression of floodplain development at the degraded gully elevation, so that as the gully widens to accommodate the developing inset floodplain, the sediment production from the retreating banks is metered out over a longer period of time. It is likely that the gully will continue to widen until an adequate floodplain is developed. It is not likely that the gully will significantly deepen, because it has reached bedrock in most locations. The bedrock is essentially the degraded elevation grade control. Another difference between the two alternatives is the proposed road work in the Proposed Action, versus no road work in Alternative 3. County Road 111 would be surfaced with gravel in the Proposed Action. Because the floodplain would not be restored in Alternative 3, there would be no need for road treatment. The road work is a significant contributor to the difference in cost between the two alternatives. There is a greater likelihood of re-entry into the project area with heavy equipment under the Alternative 3 than the Proposed Action. This disturbance would require additional NEPA analysis, incurring additional costs, and may or may not lead to implementation of further work. If it does, there will be additional disturbance to aquatic life, and also will require follow-up control of noxious weeds. The Proposed Action includes treatment of existing noxious weeds via burial. Alternative 3 does not allow for this type of treatment, and is likely to require a significant effort to control weeds, even if they are avoided during construction. It should also be noted that Alternative 3 proposes similar work to that which was accomplished in 1994/5, which was mostly successful in controlling erosion in the treatment areas. Alternative 3 extends that work to other areas. Lastly, another significant difference between the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 is in the timescale. The Proposed Action provides a shorter timeframe in which the project s purpose and need would be achieved. By raising the base level of the channel and restoring the functionality of the wider meadow-elevation floodplain, water quality (temperature and sediment), flow conditions, habitats, and meadow productivity would be improved in two to three years. Some vegetative (sage reverting to grass) and sediment changes would occur in the first year, but flow 23

24 and temperature require enough precipitation to fill the shallow groundwater reservoir, and this may take three years, depending on the weather. The slower evolution of floodplain development at the lower gully elevation under Alternative 3 would also improve water quality by increasing shade and reducing bank erosion, but at a slower rate, since the plants would need to mature. Likewise, vegetative-dependent habitat improvements would also take five to ten years until the plants mature (if they are not removed by high flows). Flow conditions and meadow productivity, even after decades, are not likely to be measurably improved under the Alternative 3. Rest from grazing and aquatic life management are the same in both action alternatives. Comparison of Purpose and Need for the Project As summarized in the following table, the Proposed Action would meet the Purpose and Need, the No Action Alternative would not, and Alternative 3 would partially meet the Purpose and Need at a reduced level, over a longer timeframe. The Proposed Action would restore the hydrology of the entire meadow system, and restore those ecosystem elements that have declined due to the drying effect of the gullied channel on the meadow. Current conditions, which would remain under No Action, would continue to encourage sagebrush encroachment, soil erosion, and a further decline in moist meadow plant communities. Alternative 3 would encourage functional floodplain development over the long term within the confines of the entrenchment, at the existing degraded elevation. It is unlikely that the floodplain would aggrade back up to the existing meadow elevation. Further explanation follows Table 3. Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives in meeting Purpose and Need. Purpose and Need Proposed Action No Action Alternative 3 Restore ecosystem function of the channel floodplain system Reduce sediment yield Improve water temperature Increase summer base flows for priority species and beneficial uses Project activities would raise channel to the elevation of the existing meadow floodplain. Gully walls as source of sediment would be eliminated. Infrequent sedimentation from overland flow would be deposited on the accessible floodplain. Water temperatures in project area likely to decrease due to shading riparian vegetation. Water temperatures downstream of project area likely to decrease due to late seasonal groundwater release. Measurable increase in wet years, and 1-2 years following wet years. In subsequent dry years, Channel would remain in bottom of gully. Gully walls contribute sediment at current rate Wide shallow areas in channel likely to maintain current level of sun exposure to the water. Perhaps a slight decrease in base flow as Poco headcuts advance, thus decreasing the Channel would remain in bottom of gully, and a new floodplain would develop within the gully. Most actively eroding gully walls would be treated with vegetation. No additional access to depositional features. Once it matures, improved vegetation in channel will decrease sun exposure to water. Minor (not measurable) amount of groundwater storage for base flow 24