DECISION MEMO SUGAR CREEK STORM TREATMENT/ FORD REHAB U.S. FOREST SERVICE PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST KRASSEL RANGER DISTRICT VALLEY COUNTY, IDAHO

Transcription

1 = DECISION MEMO SUGAR CREEK STORM TREATMENT/ FORD REHAB U.S. FOREST SERVICE PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST KRASSEL RANGER DISTRICT VALLEY COUNTY, IDAHO BACKGROUND The purpose of this project is to protect fish habitat from sedimentation originating from Forest Service Road and eliminate the direct vehicle impacts to ESA listed fish and their spawning redds at the Sugar Creek ford crossing. Sugar Creek is considered critical habitat for Endangered Species Act-listed Bull Trout, Steelhead trout and Chinook salmon and has been identified in the Forest Plan as a high priority area for restoration. Forest Service Road is located directly adjacent to Sugar Creek and includes a ford crossing. Sugar Creek has been inventoried using the Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package (GRAIP) designed to predict road sediment production and the amount delivered directly to the stream. FS Road is delivering 12 tons of sediment per year to Sugar Creek detrimentally effecting ESA (Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout) habitat (NPT-WD 2015). Monitoring of storm damage risk reduction road restoration treatments similar to those proposed in this project have shown to be effective at reducing sediment delivery by approximately 50% (Nelson et al. 2012). Restoration of the ford crossing and deterring motorized traffic on FS Road and at the ford crossing will further reduce sediment inputs and reduce direct impacts to Chinook salmon and bull trout spawning redds. The road is currently classified as a Level 2 closed road that allows for administrative and permitted use and this project would not change that classification. Traffic counter data collected from May 16th through July 16 1 h,2015 showed vehicle use at 49 vehicles a week or 7 a day with a daily maximum of 42 vehicles on July 4th. Implementation of this project would occur in the summer of 2016 when stream flow levels are at or near base flows and prior to the August 15 1 h instream work limitation. The project is located approximately seven air miles east of the community of Yellow Pine, Idaho in Valley County, within the Sugar Creek watershed, a tributary to the East Fork South Fork Salmon River at Township 19N, Range 9E, Section 34, 35, 36; Township 19N, Range loe, section 31; and Township 18N, Ranger loe, Section 1. See Locator Map. Page 1 of 9

2 -:::-= a LOCATOR U30A Foreet 5efvice, P~)'lltm Niltio~ Farell,MAP: SUGAR CREEK STmM TREATMENT/ FORD REHAB PROJECT M.nagement.was: 2 Legend - fs_ro.mfc._51883 H H Payette NF 1Boundary - - Road Highway - Slate of Idaho Lands. D USDA FOREST SERVICE D I.JSDI BUREAU OF LAND MANAG!Private Llnd Loallur Map._, De,at,ewtal map i Pa<Jl!l'.ie ~ Fae:;:t,.,. - N Miles w-..:.. c...,...,,_,> Page 2 of 9

3 -::-:::-::: DECISION I have decided to implement storm damage risk reduction (SDRR) road restoration treatments on approximately 4.5 miles of FS Road and restore the road ford crossing at Sugar Creek. Road restoration treatments and closure could include the following actions: Construction and maintenance of road drainage features (drivable water-bars and drainage dips) Clean and maintain ditches Clean and maintain culvert inlets and outlets where needed Removal of road cut bank slough material to accommodate equipment access (small excavator) Restore native vegetation on road cutbanks and fill slopes Disturbance would be restricted to the road prism, which includes the road surface, cut and fill slopes Borrow needed for bank reconstruction would use road material Road closure using boulders, earthen material or gate Road signage to inform public of road closures Implementation of Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures (see appendix A) Restoration of the ford crossing at Sugar Creek would reestablish the natural channel geometry by reducing the over-widened channel by reconstructing the eroded stream banks. Bank reconstruction would result in a narrower and slightly deeper channel which would be accomplished using natural materials on site. Dead or down trees and clusters of riparian vegetation (alder and willow) with root masses attached would be collected within the riparian conservation area and transplanted along the channel to rebuild the banks. The volume of riparian vegetation, root mass and soil that would be backfilled to re-construct channel banks would total approximately 8 cu/yds. Ground disturbance would be restricted to the road prism, including a 50 foot buffer from road center to gather vegetation clusters in the vicinity of Sugar Creek ford. Borrow needed for bank reconstruction would use road material found at the ford crossing. The road approaches to the ford would be scarified, planted and/or seeded with native vegetation and logs would be added to increase floodplain roughness. Additional barriers to prohibit motorized crossing of the rehabilitated ford may be constructed just outside the floodplain of Sugar Creek. This action is categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA). The applicable category of actions is identified in agency procedures as 36 CFR 220.6(e)(18): Restoring wetlands, streams, riparian areas or other water bodies by removing, replacing, or modifying water control structures such as, but not limited to, dams, levees, dikes, ditches, culverts, pipes, drainage tiles, valves, gates, andfencing, to allow waters to flow into natural channels and floodplains and restore natural flow regimes to the extent practicable where valid existing rights or special use authorizations are not unilaterally altered or canceled. This category of action(s) is applicable because the work proposed is to restore the streambank at the ford and to address water drainage of the road surface. Access to the private land at Cinnabar from the north access road is unchanged by this project and no special use authorizations for road access on Sugar Creek road have been requested in many years. Page 3 of 9

4 ,,,.-=: a I find that there are no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS. I took into account resource conditions identified in agency procedures that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances might exist: Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species - For fisheries, road maintenance is addressed in the Biological Assessment for ongoing and new actions, dated May 8, 2007 with a determination of not likely to adversely affect listed species (see USFWS BO 2009-F-0064 and NMFS concurrence 2008/06614); ford rehabilitation covered by Restoration Activities at Stream Crossings BA, Nov 5th, 2011 (see NMFS and USFWS OIEIFW F-0015). For wildlife, road maintenance covered by Ongoing Action BA 2008 and Ford rehabilitation covered by Idaho Stream Crossing Restoration consultation. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds - The project is located in wetlands and floodplains but there is no effect if project design features and mitigation measures are implemented. Congressionally designated areas such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas - The project is not located in a wilderness, wilderness study area, or national recreation area. Inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas - The project is not located in an inventoried roadless area or potential wilderness area. Research natural areas - The project is not located in or near a Research Natural Area. American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites - Consultations were conducted with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and Nez Perce Tribe. No specific concerns regarding American Indian religious or cultural sites were identified. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas - No effect as there are no historic properties in the project area, concurred by the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office on April 8, The current status of FS Road (Sugar Creek road) as a classified Level 2 closed road that allows for administrative and permitted use will not change under this decision. During public scoping, several comments were received that opposed the status of the road as closed to public access (see response to comments matrix in the project record). The road was closed to public in the 1990s with the publication of the 2000 backroads map and the 2008 forest-plan Travel Plan EIS and 2010 Big Creek Yellow Pine Travel Plan did not change the road to open. While there are some members of the public that dislike the status of the road as closed to motorized public access, this project only restores the stream channel at the road ford and installs a barrier or gates to physically deter public motorized access. Therefore, the status of the road, while controversial, is not an extraordinary circumstance as the road status is not under decision with this project. Page 4 of 9

5 -::-=: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This action was originally listed as a proposal on the April 2016 Payette National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions and updated periodically during the analysis. Individual scoping packages were also forwarded to the Nez Perce Tribe's Watershed Division in McCall Idaho and Midas Gold as interested and affected parties April 1, A public scoping notice was sent to 229 subscribers via GovDelivery on April 1, 2016 and comments were solicited in the Comment Analysis and Application System. Six comments were received, most disputing the status of the road as a closed road. Comments received and Forest Service response to those comments is found in the project record. This project was also presented at a regularly scheduled monthly meeting of the Big Creek - Yellow Pine Collaborative on March 31, Many s and phone calls were received outside of the public scoping period in protest to the road status as. closed to motorized public access, but those comments are outside the scope of this project. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS This decision is consistent with the 2003 Payette National Forest Land Management Plan. The project was designed in conformance with the management direction, goals, objectives, and standards of the Forest Plan. This project is within the Big Creek/Stibnite Forest Plan Management Area 13 and Forest Plan MPC Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial & Hydrologic Resources. The Sugar Creek, Upper East Fork of the South Fork Salmon River, Upper Marble Creek, Upper Big Creek, and Smith Creek subwatersheds are identified as important to the recovery of listed fish species, and as high-priority areas for restoration. Sugar Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout, and westslope cutthroat trout. MPC/Resource Area MPC3.2 Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources Direction Road Standard Goal Number Management Direction Description a) Road construction or reconstruction may only occur where needed: b) To provide access related to reserved or outstanding rights, or c) To respond to statute or treaty, or d) To support aquatic, terrestrial, and watershed restoration activities, or To address immediate response situations where, if action is not taken, unacceptable impacts to hydrologic, aquatic, riparian or terrestrial resources, or health and safety, would result. Maintain or restore habitat for threatened species in the Sugar Creek and Upper East Fork South Fork Watershed, and to maintain habitat for listed fish species in the Upper Big Creek, Upper Monumental Creek, Smith Creek, and Upper Marble Creek subwatersheds. Page 5 of 9

6 -:::-= Improve water quality by reducing impacts from accelerated sediment and chemical contamination in the Objective 1316 Upper East Fork South Fork drainage, including the Sugar Creek and Upper East Fork South Fork Salmon River subwatersheds. Reduce impacts to riparian areas from recreation sites or uses. Identify recreational campsites, parking areas, or Objective 1317 trails that are contributing unacceptable levels of accelerated sediment, compaction, or vegetation loss. Rehabilitate, relocate, or harden sites where needed to reduce impacts. Restore fish habitat degraded from past mining activities Objective 1318 in the Upper East Fork South Fork Salmon River drainage, including the Sugar Creek and Upper East Fork South Fork Salmon River subwatersheds. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) OPPORTUNITIES This decision is not subject to administrative review, appeal, or objection. The procedures for legal notice (Sec ) and opportunity to comment (Sec ) do not apply to projects and activities which are categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA) pursuant to FSH , Chapter 30, section 31. (Sec ). IMPLEMENTATION DATE Project implementation is anticipated to be completed mid-july to September, with all in-stream work completed prior to August 15 th, 2016 due to protection of spawning fish and redds. CONTACT For additional information concerning this decision, contact: John Dixon, Hydrologist, or Anthony B. Botello Krassel District Ranger Date Page 6 of 9

7 .,-:;;;;; In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed ~o USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by : (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender Page 7 of 9

8 -::-= D APPENDIX A: PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SUGAR CREEK STORM TREATMENT/ FORD REHAB In addition to Forest Plan standards and guidelines designed to mitigate impacts, the following measures would be used. These design features have been incorporated by the Forest Service to reduce or prevent undesirable effects resulting from proposed management activities. Fisheries and Wildlife Mitigations: Implementation would occur at or near base stream flow levels and prior to the August 15 1 h instream work limitation Minimize use of heavy equipment in-stream and crossings with support truck (back and forth one time) The Forest Service will complete a survey for Chinook salmon and bull trout redds and adult spawning fish of both species prior to commencement of work. If redds or spawning adults are observed within 600 ft downstream of the ford, work will be postponed until a solution can be found that avoids take of eggs or adults. Prior to fording with heavy equipment the ford will be block netted and fish will be relocated following the procedures described in the stream crossing BA and BO. The "bays" created by the approaches will be dewatered using an Aquadam coffer dam or more traditional gravel filled bags, and if necessary a sump will be constructed to further dewater the bay of turbid water. If used, the Aquadam will be filled with approximately 400 gallons from Sugar Creek. If gravel filled bags are used, clean gravel will be used or the bags will be double lined to prevent tearing and turbidity. The pump intake will be screened with 3/32" inch or smaller mesh and have the appropriate surface area to meet NMFS velocity requirements. Turbid water will be pumped into area (e.g., dense vegetation or filter bag) that will trap sediment before entering the stream. Dewatering and streambank construction will occur one side at a time. After dewatering the streambank will be reconstructed using Coir logs, natural logs, rock, and fill wrapped jute mat or some other biodegradable fabric. Live willow and alder plugs will be incorporated into the streambank. Dewatered areas will be slowly rewatered and the excavator will drive back across to the opposite side of Sugar Creek. Once on the other side the dewatering and streambank reconstruction will occur. After streambank reconstruction the channel will be slowly rewatered and the fish block nets will be removed. If used as a coffer dam, water in the Aquadam will be released back into Sugar Creek. Potential water sources will be surveyed for Columbia spotted frog egg masses and other amphibians after ice melt and avoid disturbing any water sources with identified egg masses or other species. Page 8 of 9

9 = a Heritage Resources Mitigation: If any cultural materials are encountered during the course of the project, then all ground disturbing activities will cease until a qualified archaeologist is consulted and regional inadvertent discovery protocols are followed. Page 9 of 9