DECISION MEMO NORTH FORK INSTREAM RESTORATION U.S

Transcription

1 DECISION MEMO NORTH FORK INSTREAM RESTORATION U.S. FOREST SERVICE GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST COWLITZ VALLEY RANGER DISTRICT LEWIS AND SKAMANIA COUNTIES, WASHINGTON DECISION AND ACTION TO BE IMPLEMENTED I have decided to restore instream and riparian habitat in locations around harvest units described in the North Fork Thin Environmental Assessment (Forest Service, 2012) by implementing a variety of standard restoration practices to promote healthy growing conditions by reducing tree density, and placing woody material into waterways to improve habitat and stream function. Large wood, boulders and other structures (e.g., engineered log jams and porous boulder weirs) will be incorporated into streams where channel structure is lacking. Equipment such as excavators, dump trucks, front-end loaders and similar equipment may be used to implement such projects. These activities will help to restore channel function and process. Large wood and boulders will be placed in areas where they would naturally occur to simulate disturbance events such as log jams, wind-throw and tree breakage. Large wood may be whole conifer and hardwood trees, logs, and root wads. Partial burial of large wood and boulders may occur for stability, and grade control structures and minimal stream re-routing may be required. Structures will maintain natural free flow and only partially span stream channels, or be positioned along stream banks. Log structures will be patterned after natural log features to restore channel complexity, reconnect floodplain and side channel habitat and diffuse downstream flood peaks. Primary design criteria are to slow channel lateral migration reduce width depth ratio, scour pools and retain spawning gravels. Approximately 157 acres of dense riparian forests will be treated selectively thinned from below to approximately 50 % canopy closure and create down wood averaging around inches diameter-at-breast-height. The treatment will cut approximately 25 trees per acre while creating small openings (15 ft. radius) around selected dominant leave trees; this will provide enough downed wood to obtain approximately 3-5% ground coverage and promote the large tree development of approximately six trees per acre. The remaining surplus cut trees will be used as large wood in stream improvement. Downed wood to be retained on site will consist primarily of Douglas fir and may be salvaged with root wads attached (i.e., tipped trees). Trees will be cut using chainsaws, hand tools, or ground based machinery. Areas where aquatic features will be treated include the channel bottom, flood prone area and lower bank slope ranging up to 180 feet from water s edge. There are approximately 100 sites Page 1 of 10

2 where wood structures may be placed totaling less than 6 acres of disturbance. Please see Appendix A for additional resource-specific project design criteria that will be implemented with the project. Table 1. Riparian Reserve Forest Improvement Areas Unit # Stand ID Sale Name HUC 10 Acres Wobbly North Fork Cispus River Wobbly Wobbly Bishop Jackpot Thin Jackpot Thin Jackpot Thin Valley Cispus River Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Valley Blue Valley Blue Thin Blue Thin Peak Thin 1.0 Table 2. Instream Restoration Project Areas Stream Name Beginning River Mile Ending River Mile Total River Miles* Cispus River North Fork Cispus River East Canyon Creek *All values rounded to the nearest 0.5 mile. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE DECISION Several federally listed fish species inhabit the alluvial valley bottoms which provide high inherent habitat potential promoting the Cispus River corridor as a key watershed (UDSA USDI 1994). This includes Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Lower Columbia River coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Lower Columbia River steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), all of which have been listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, along with Proposed or Designated Critical Habitat for each species. Many streams in the area are lacking naturally occurring channel structures due to past stream Page 2 of 10

3 cleaning (i.e., removal of large wood) and timber harvest, and wood supplies are low due to anthropogenic disruptions (USDA 2004). Limited structural diversity (e.g. deep pools, log complexes, gravel substrate) and accelerated channel lateral movement restrict spawning and rearing potential for the threatened fish in the project area. Project work will occur in stream channels and adjacent floodplains to increase channel stability, pool formation, spawning gravel deposition, channel complexity, hiding and holding habitat, and floodplain function. Instream placement of large wood will help to restore channel function and process. Instream and riparian area treatments will restore channel diversity, adjust geometry, increase channel stability and promote fish habitat features. Structural enhancement will be designed to reduce channel width to depth, increase channel complexity, stabilize bars (e.g., add surface roughness) and promote stream shade through long term retention of bars and their vegetation. Another component of the project will strategically engineered log jams to stabilize lower banks and protect forest roads where bank erosion threatens to wash out roads. Engineered log jams are preferred over other hard structural enhancements (e.g. rock rip rap) because it maintains the natural character and provides valuable fish habitat for TES species. Riparian stands will be treated to promote structural development and diversity by noncommercial harvest of surplus small trees and reducing competition around select large leave trees. Non-commercial thinning within riparian reserves will help manage density to promote stand development and species diversity. Down wood will promote habitat complexity and provide a source of large wood for instream restoration projects along nearby waterways. This project is being proposed to make progress toward the Forest s goals for management, as described in the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (Forest Plan) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan ( NWFP, USDA and USDI );Forest Plan goals relevant to the project are listed below: Provide special management for fish and wildlife habitat in riparian areas (Wildlife Forest Management Goal #17, Forest Plan p. IV-3); Maintain or enhance habitat for populations of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species (Wildlife Forest Management Goal #18, Forest Plan p. IV-3); Provide, over time, at least the minimum management level of snag and down log habitat (Wildlife Forest Management Goal #20, Forest Plan p. IV-3); Maintain and/or enhance fish habitat. Increase the capability of this habitat over time with improvement projects (Fish Forest Management Goal #23, Forest Plan p. IV-3); Maintain all riparian areas in a condition which enhances riparian dependent resource values (Vegetation Forest Management Goal #30, Forest Plan p. IV-4); Maintain or enhance existing soil productivity and water quality, quantity, and timing of runoff (Forest Management Goal #34, Forest Plan p. 04-4); 1 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl Page 3 of 10

4 Figure 1. Vicinity Map, North Fork Instream Restoration Figure 2. Vicinity Map with Imagery, North Fork Instream Restoration Page 4 of 10

5 RATIONALE FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION UNDER THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) Based on the analysis I have reviewed in the project file and the rationale described below, I have determined that there are no extraordinary circumstances from implementing the action as proposed. Because there are no extraordinary circumstances, the action would not have significant effects. The Chief of the Forest Service has determined, based on a history of implementing similar activities, that this type of action normally does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and therefore, may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment. A proposed action may be categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment only if there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action and if: a) The proposed action is within one of the categories established by the Secretary at 7 CFR part 1b.3, or b) The proposed action is within a category listed in 36 CFR (d) and (e). The mere presence of one or more of the resource conditions considered does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion. It is the existence of a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions, and if such a relationship exists, the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist. I have determined that this action is within the following category: 36 CFR (e) (7), Modification or maintenance of stream or lake aquatic habitat improvement structures using native materials or normal practices. I have reviewed the resource reports and other documents in the project record. I have considered the following resource conditions in my determination of the presence of extraordinary circumstances and whether the extraordinary circumstances that are related to the proposed action warrant further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement: Federally-listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species. Forest Service biologists considered the potential impacts of the project on proposed or federally-listed species or critical habitat and Forest Service Sensitive species. There is habitat present for the northern spotted owl. However, impacts to the owl would be minimized with application of the nesting season timing restrictions required as part of the proposal. Impacts to other listed terrestrial species are expected to be negligible. The instream large wood activity areas are in mainstem streams and side channels directly Page 5 of 10

6 contributing to ESA listed fish/critical habitat. Required design criteria will limit direct effects to listed fish species or their critical habitat. Timing restrictions limiting instream work timing/duration and specifying low flow work conditions will help minimize negative impact to fish, particularly the vulnerable early life history including spawning and rearing. In the short term, disturbance to fish such as avoidance behavior or temporary displacement from feeding stations may result. In the long term, restored habitat should provide improved hiding, holding and spawning conditions for ESA listed fish. Designs to emulate natural properly functioning conditions should help address limiting factors to salmon recovery. Improved channel stability should prevent lateral migration and chronic bank erosion with a positive net effect of higher quality spawning gravel and improved egg to smolt survival (Wieman, 2017). Floodplains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds. No wetlands or municipal watersheds are present within the project area. Floodplains are present in locations in and around the project area. Project activities are specifically designed to benefit stream habitat and structure. Project design criteria will minimize short term projects of increased sedimentation, and project goals will promote a functional floodplain. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas None present. Inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas. None present. Research natural areas. None present. American Indian and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites The project area was previously surveyed for the North Fork Thin Environmental Assessment less than ten years ago. The current undertaking was reviewed by the District Archaeologist and is excluded from a case-by-case review under the 1997 Programmatic Agreement between the Forest Service, ACHP, and Washington SHPO and in accordance with Appendix B. No impacts to religious or cultural sites are expected. The Inadvertent Discovery Plan for Archaeological Resources and Human Remains, Gifford Pinchot National Forest has been added to the project record in the case religious or cultural resources are uncovered during project implementation. Archaeological or historic properties The current undertaking was reviewed by the District Archaeologist and is excluded from a caseby-case review under the 1997 Programmatic Agreement between the Forest Service, ACHP, and Washington SHPO and in accordance with Appendix B. No impacts to archaeological or historic properties are expected. The Inadvertent Discovery Plan for Archaeological Resources and Human Remains, Gifford Pinchot National Forest has been added to the project record in the case archaeological resources are uncovered during project implementation. Page 6 of 10

7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Scoping for this project included public notification of the proposal and a review of the management direction for the area in the Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan, review of the National Forest Management Act, and consultations with Forest Service and other agency resource specialists. Planning documents are on the web at I sent a letter with a description of the proposal and a request for comments on August 14, 2017 to individuals and groups who have requested to be notified of new project proposals. I received two comment on this proposal. Commenter One questioned the need for additional woody debris in the river, and included some mitigation actions already incorporated into the project (e.g., retain root wads when possible, provide oversight to contractors implementing the project). Commenter Two described other fish issues the commenter had seen with the North Fork River. Overall, both commenters were supportive for the proposal. Both comment letters are located in the project record. Internal scoping was conducted through a variety of discussions at the monthly North Zone Planning Team meeting; FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS I find that this action does not pose a violation of federal, state, or local laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT (FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY) I find this action to be consistent with the Gifford Pinchot Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) (Forest Plan), as amended by the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan). I have reviewed the management activity and find the activity maintain or enhance the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy described in the Northwest Forest Plan. The actions of this project are consistent with forest-side and management area standards. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Species listed under the Endangered Species with individuals and/or habitat potentially present within the project area were considered by a Forest Service Wildlife Biologist and a Forest Service Fisheries Biologist. The project is Not Likely to Adversely Affect the northern spotted owl, and May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect listed fish or their critical habitat. From Wieman, Project analysis concluded affects resulting from the proposed action are in proximity and of sufficient magnitude to cause indirect and short-term negative disturbance of ESA listed fish and Critical Habitat. Ground disturbance in and around streams is likely to generate short term sediment above normal background level. In the long term the project should have a positive effect and restoration activities should restore quality and quantity of habitat for listed species including the following: Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River steelhead trout, and Lower Columbia River coho salmon. (p. 8). Because the potentially adverse impacts are expected to be short-term, and because the overall project would Page 7 of 10

8 improve habitat for listed fish species, the May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect determination does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that would preclude use of a categorical exclusion. SENSITIVE SPECIES (FOREST SERVICE MANUAL 2670) This Manual direction requires analysis of potential impacts to sensitive species, those species for which the Regional Forester has identified population viability concern. Potential effects of this action on sensitive species have been analyzed and documented in a Biological Evaluation. See the above section Rationale for Categorical Exclusion under NEPA and the discussion of i. Federally-listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species. CLEAN WATER ACT This Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of waters. The Forest Service complies with this Act by using Best Management Practices. This decision incorporates Best Management practices to ensure protections of soil and water resources. Washington State requirements shall be complied in accordance with the Clean Water Act for protection of waters in the State (Washington Administrative Code [Chapter and 202) through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices and is in conformance with the Clean Water Act, regulations, and Federal guidance issued thereto (Chapter 2, page 60 Forest Plan (Amendment 11)). FLOODPLAINS (EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988) This Order considers actions to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impacts of flooding on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values of floodplains in carrying out the agency s responsibility..the intent of this Order is the essence of the purpose of and need for this proposal. See the above section Rationale for Categorical Exclusion under NEPA and the discussion of ii. Floodplains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds. NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT, ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION ACT, NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT See the above section Rationale for Categorical Exclusion under NEPA and the discussion of vi. American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites and vii. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas. CLIMATE CHANGE Effect of the proposal on climate change: Greenhouse gases (GHG) in the form of carbon dioxide may be emitted vehicles and equipment used to implement the stream restoration. It is not feasible to quantify the effects of individual activities on global climate change and therefore determining significant effects of the proposal cannot be made at any scale. Effect of climate change on the proposal: Changing climates would not affect the North Fork Instream Restoration project. Page 8 of 10

9 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898) This Order requires consideration of whether projects would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. This decision complies with this Act. Public involvement occurred for this project, the results of which I have considered in making this decision. Public involvement did not identify any adversely impacted local minority or low-income populations. The project is not expected to have any disproportional effects on consumers, civil rights, minority groups, women, or low income people because there would be no permanent change in the availability of the project area for use by these populations. INVASIVE SPECIES (EXECUTIVE ORDER 13112) This order requires the consideration of invasive species in actions taken by Federal agencies. To the extent practicable and lawful, agency actions should prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control. Design criteria developed for this proposal include treatment of invasive species before and after project actions, and actions to prevent the spread of invasive species, such as using weed-free filter material and reseeding using native species. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT This Act requires opportunity for public involvement and consideration and disclosure of potential environmental effects. The entirety of documentation for this decision supports compliance with this Act. IMPLEMENTATION DATE Implementation for this project may occur immediately. CONTACT Further information about this decision can be obtained from Ken Wieman, Fisheries Biologist, during normal office hours (weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the Cowlitz Valley Ranger Station at US-12 in Randle, WA; by phone (360) ; or by kwieman@fs.fed.us. GAR ABBAS District Ranger 9/27/2017 Date Page 9 of 10

10 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 to 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 10 of 10