Hermosa Creek and East Fork Hermosa Creek Fish Barriers Project

Transcription

1 Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact Hermosa Creek and East Fork Hermosa Creek Fish Barriers Project USDA Forest Service Columbine Ranger District, San Juan National Forest La Plata County, Colorado T36N, R10W, Sections 24 and 25, N.M.P.M. The Environmental Assessment (EA) associated with this Decision Notice d_ocuments three. alternatives that were analyzed for resource and social impacts associated w1th the construction of two fish barriers in the Hermosa Park area. The EA can be obtained at the Columbine Ranger District Office (contact information at the bottom of this document). Background/Purpose and Need The Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) is one of two salmonid (trout) subspecies native to western Colorado. Populations of cutthroat have declined over the past 100 years to where they now occupy less than 5% of the area once occupied. The introduction of non-native trout species is the primary cause of the decline of endemic cutthroats. Efforts have been underway for a number of years to reverse the declines in CRCT populations and reclaim pieces of its historic habitat so that the range of occupied cutthroat habitat is increased. In 2001, the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation Agreement and Strategy was established for the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to work collaboratively and cooperatively to implement conservation measures to maintain and increase Colorado River cutthroat trout. Prior CRCT re-establishment efforts in the Hermosa watershed have occurred with thereintroduction of cutthroat into the East Fork above Sig Creek falls in A second reintroduction was accomplished in the main stem of Hermosa Creek above a fish barrier at Hotel Draw in September 2012 just a few weeks prior to this decision. This decision implements the next phase in the recovery efforts. The purpose for this action is to aid in the conservation and recovery CRCT within southwestern Colorado by establishing and protecting a genetically pure metapopulation in the Hermosa Creek 1

2 Hern10sa and East Fork Hermosa Fish Barriers DN and East Fork Hermosa Creek watersheds. This action supports the need to manage this sensitive species to attempt to prevent the trend towards federal listing of the species as specified in the Forest Plan. Decision Based upon my review of all alternatives, I have decided to implement Alternative 3, as described in detail in the associated EA on pages The approved action includes constructing two barriers to upstream fish migration. The confluence barrier will be accessed using a portion of the Hermosa Creek Trail (Trail #514 ). Heavy equipment will travel along the trail, which will require spot-improvements to widen the route enough to allow equipment to travel to the barrier site. This alternative may include the removal of several spruce trees located adjacent to the trail. Short-term closure of the trail may be necessary for public safety. The East Fork Hermosa barrier site will be accessed by traveling along the stream course from the trailhead area. Temporary closure of dispersed campsites north of the road crossing of the East Fork stream will occur for public safety reasons during construction. Temporary project support activities will include construction zones at both barrier locations, storage areas for rock and equipment, and use of motorized access routes to reach the sites. Track hoe-type equipment will be used in the stream channels to build the barriers. Beaver dams will be removed from above the barrier sites to facilitate removal of non-native fish. The following Design Criteria are included as part of my decision: Flaggers and/or signs will be onsite during the use of the Hermosa Creek Trail to prevent conflicts between Forest users and contractors, and to address potential safety issues. Signs will be posted at the Lower Hermosa Trailhead prior to the start of construction and during the construction. The use of the trail by heavy equipment will be limited to weekdays between 8 am and 5 pm and will be scheduled, when possible, to avoid any permitted events that require use of the trail. Trail closures will be limited to a maximum of Yz day in duration. The temporary construction zone next to the Hermosa Trail will be rehabilitated in a manner that will prevent motorized vehicle access. Improvements to the trail will only occur where necessary to allow appropriate width and clearance for heavy equipment, and any water bars that need to be removed will be replaced upon completion of the project. Signs and advanced warning will be placed at the upper Hermosa dispersed campsites north of the East Fork road crossing informing the public that the campsites will be closed during construction. Alder plants or cuttings will be planted, following construction, at heavy equipment access points to Hermosa Creek and East Fork Hermosa Creek and along the banks at the barrier sites, where alder is severely damaged or destroyed. Noxious weeds will be treated for three years following implementation. 2

3 Hermosa and East Fork Hermosa Fish Barriers DN Rehabilitation of both barrier sites and access routes will occur after the project is completed using standard Best Management Practices (BMP) for soil erosion and riparian protection (such as water bars, silt fence, straw wattles or bales, soil ripping, grass seeding with weed-free, native species, etc). BMP's are included as standard requirements in contract language. Final rehabilitation may be delayed until CRCT reintroduction has occurred, which could take as long as 5 years. Any damage to the trail head parking will be repaired and graveled. Structure design, color of materials, location and orientation of the barriers will be chosen to meet the adopted visual quality objectives for the area. Rationale I did not choose Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, because it would not meet the purpose and need for the project. Without further recovery efforts for the CRCT, the status of the species would be in higher jeopardy. There was no opposition to the project expressed, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a cooperating partner in this project. I chose Alternative 3 over Alternative 2 because of lower long-term environmental impacts. I wanted to avoid using the wagon road route as access for equipment because I did not want to create a new visual scar across a large mountain meadow or park. My reluctance to use an access route on the west side of the creek is also because the area is partially within an upper-tier Colorado roadless area. While the activity would be allowed under the Colorado Roadless Rule, there is no need to create that impact when there is a reasonable alternative using an alreadyexisting trail corridor. I am willing to accept the short-term inconvenience to recreationists from using the Hermosa Trail as the access route in exchange for preserving the upper tier roadless characteristics and an intact high mountain meadow. Alternative 3 requires less total length of access routes, uses existing disturbance, and significantly reduces cross-country travel to access the confluence site. Alternative 3 avoids the need to improve or reconstruct the wagon road route where it is sometimes inundated by high water flows. An upgraded road across the newly acquired Hermosa Park parcel is undesirable in that it would invite more use of a road that we do not intend to open to the public. It would be an ongoing maintenance and enforcement problem. The expansion of occupied CRCT habitat removes some of the pressure to preserve any and all habitat. For example, there are some small occupied creeks in the Hermosa drainage that we have identified as "full suppression" for wildfire because ofthe presence ofcrct. With a much larger occupied habitat, there will be more opportunities for managing wildfire in the backcountry, allowing fire to play its natural role and reducing firefighter exposure. Climate change is another factor that I considered when making this decision. A larger occupied range over a greater elevation range should provide more resilience for maintaining a viable population of CRCT. 3

4 Hem10sa and East Fork Hermosa Fish Barriers DN Finally, the CRCT are a highly-prized sport-fish species. They hit lures and flies aggressively and fight hard when hooked. A significantly expanded range for these prized fish should reduce some of the fishing pressure on their current range, and would provide fisherman more opportunities for fishing in solitude in the Columbine Ranger District backcountry. Likely there will be some increase in commercial outfitting opportunities, too, which can help support the local economy by providing jobs. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, I considered two other alternatives in detail: the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2. A comparison of these alternatives can be found in the EA on page 13. Under the No Action Alternative, the barriers would not be built. Under Alternative 2, the access route to the confluence barrier site would be from the west using the old wagon road instead of from the east using the Hermosa Trail. Public Involvement The proposal to build these two fish barriers was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning in April2012. The proposal was provided to affected parties for scoping input during February and March, Written scoping responses were received from 4 sources; two individuals, Trout Unlimited, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. All responses were supportive ofthe project. Using these external comments and comments generated internally from the interdisciplinary team, the Forest Service developed a list of issues to address in the EA. Main issues of concern included (see EA pages 5 and 6): Issue # 1: Impacts to Fisheries, Issue #2: Impacts to the Riparian Area and Floodplain, Issue #3: Impacts to Recreation, Issue #4: Impacts to Wildlife, Issue #5: Impacts to cultural sites. Public comment opportunity continued for a 30-day comment period in August and September, The comment period was announced with a press release, direct mailing to those who had responded during scoping, and a legal notice in the Durango Herald published on August 22, At least two newspaper articles during this time frame also mentioned the project. Four comments were received during the comment period; two from individuals, one from Trout Unlimited, and one from Trails All comments were wholly supportive of the project. Finding of No Significant Impact After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the 4

5 Hermosa and East Fork Hermosa Fish Barriers DN context and intensity of impacts ( 40 CFR ). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I based my finding on the following: 1. My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. 2. There will be no significant effects on public health and safety. The project has incorporated specific Design Criteria intended for protection of trail users (EA pages 10 and 12). 3. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area, because no park lands, prime farmlands, wilderness, or wild and scenic rivers would be impacted by the proposed project. The proposed action would have short-term and temporary impacts on wetlands (EA pages 18-22). Impacts on roadless characteristics are minimized by selection of Alternative 3 (EA page 41-42). 4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial because there is no known scientific controversy over the impacts of the project. Public scoping and comment period did not reveal any controversial effects (EA page 5). 5. We have experience with the types of activities to be implemented. The effects analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risks (EA pages 14-44). 6. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions that may have significant effects on the environment. Future actions will require their own analyses and decisions. 7. Cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects have been considered and evaluated in addition to the impacts of this project. No significant cumulative impacts were identified (EA Chapter 3). 8. The action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, because cultural resource surveys were completed within all areas of potential effect for the proposed project; there were no cultural resources found (EA page 40). The Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted regarding potential impacts for the project and concurred with the conclusion of no significant impacts to cultural resources. 9. The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act. No designated critical habitat for any US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed species occurs within the project area. A finding of "may affect, but not likely to adversely affect" the Canada lynx was made. Consultation with the USFWS was completed for the project and they concurred with the FS conclusions regarding effects to listed species. 10. The action complies with Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Government agencies were consulted and no objections were raised. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations The action is consistent with the San Juan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (see EA page 4). This decision to authorize construction of the two fish barriers is consistent 5

6 Hermosa and East Fork Hermosa Fish Barriers DN with the direction, standards and guidelines for the 9A Management Area, which emphasizes management of all of the component ecosystems of riparian areas. The project would comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. The project is in compliance with Executive Order on Environmental Justice. According to US Census Bureau 2010 data, the populations of La Plata County and Durango, Colorado are not predominantly minority or low-income populations. All practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted in the design of the selected alternative. My conclusion is based on an evaluation of the record that shows a thorough review using the best available science, and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty or risk, if any. The environmental analyses disclosed in the EA identify the effects analysis methodologies, reference scientific sources which informed the analysis, and disclose limitations of the analysis. Implementation Date This project may be implemented after publication of a legal notice in the Durango Herald announcing this decision. Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities This decision is not subject to appeal in accordance with 36 CFR (e)(1) because only supportive comments were received during the comment period. Contact For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Clay Kampf, Project Leader, San Juan National Forest, 15 Burnett Court, Durango, CO 81301; Phone (970) MATT JANOWIAK District Ranger Columbine Ranger District (()/o J /2PI2-1 ; Date 6

7 Hermosa & E.Fork Hermosa Fish Barriers Decision Notice to Durango Mountain Resort and US Hwy. 550 Approx. 9 miles Legend Fish Barrier Locations,,,,, " CRA Non-Upper Tier CRA Upper Tier Access Routes -- Not in Roadless In Roadless, non-upper tier Temp.Construction Zones CJ notincra CJ in CRA non-upper tier ::r:: ('!) trl... "'rj 0 ::r:: 0 "'rj... ::r t:d s. ('!) '"1 tj z...:1