East Fork Illinois River Restoration

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture East Fork Illinois River Restoration Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Responsible Official: Matthew Paciorek District Ranger Wild Rivers Ranger District Redwood Highway Cave Junction, OR (541) For More Information Contact: Steve Burns Wild Rivers Ranger District Redwood Hwy. Cave Junction, OR (541) Forest Service Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Wild Rivers Ranger District September 2015

2 Cover Photo: East Fork Illinois River near the confluence with Dunn Creek 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.

3 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Location of the Project Area 1 Background 1 Support for the Project 1 Current Conditions 2 Purpose and Need for Action 3 Decision 3 Details of the Selected Alternative (Proposed Action) 3 Placement of large wood structures 3 Construction of side channel habitat 4 Planting of riparian vegetation in disturbed areas 5 Mitigation Measures and Project Design Criteria 5 Rationale for Decision 5 Response to Purpose and Need 5 Response to Issues 6 Public Involvement and Consultation 6 Scoping and Comment 6 Tribal Consultation 6 State Historic Preservation Office 7 Endangered Species Act 7 Consistency Findings 7 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 8 Context 8 Intensity 8 Pre-Decisional Administrative Review 11 References 14 Attachment A Implementation Plan 15 Actions in the Selected Alternative 15 Mitigation Measures and Project Design Criteria 15 Revegetation Plan 20 i

4 List of Tables Table A1. Example of species that may be included in revegetation Table A2. General revegetation guidelines List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map for East Fork Illinois River restoration 2 Figure 2. Location of project area and proposed action 4 Figure A1: Example of POC planting locations within the riparian zone. 22 ii

5 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact East Fork Illinois River Introduction USDA Forest Service Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Wild Rivers Ranger District Del Norte County T. 18 N, R. 5 E, Sec. 1, 2, 4, 12 and T. 19 N, R. 5 E, Sec , Humboldt Meridian In August of 2015, an interdisciplinary team at the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Wild Rivers Ranger District completed the Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. The environmental assessment was made available for review and public comment for 30 days beginning August 10, This draft decision notice describes my decision to proceed with the, and provides background information about the project, which alternative I selected, and the rationale supporting my decision. This document also includes a finding of no significant impact which means no further environmental analysis is necessary in order to proceed with this project. The Environmental Assessment and supporting resource specialist reports are incorporated by reference in this document. The environmental assessment, specialist reports, and this draft decision are all available for download from the project website at This project and its analysis were designed according to and tier to the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (USFS 1989). Location of the Project Area The project area is located within the Upper East Fork and Dunn Creek sub-watersheds, approximately 11 miles south of Cave Junction, Oregon on the Wild Rivers Ranger District in Del Norte County California. Within the East Fork Illinois River watershed there are three sub-watersheds: Dunn Creek, Upper East Fork, and Lower East Fork. The Upper East Fork sub-watershed is identified as a key watershed in the Northwest Forest Plan, and the Dunn Creek sub-watershed is a priority watershed on the Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest. Background Support for the Project The East Fork Illinois River is a major fish-producing tributary to the Illinois River in southwestern Oregon and one of the most important tributaries in the Illinois River subbasin for threatened coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The East Fork Illinois River is a stronghold for coho salmon, and the project area is considered to have moderate intrinsic habitat potential throughout most of the reach. In addition, the East Fork Illinois River produces large numbers of winter steelhead (O. mykiss); it also supports Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), and other native fishes. For these reasons, the highest possible quality of fisheries habitat is needed. Habitat is currently of poorer quality than desired, as a result of past management. 1

6 Figure 1. Vicinity map for East Fork Illinois River restoration The condition and restoration needs of the East Fork Illinois River watershed have been thoroughly analyzed in numerous watershed analyses, plans, and assessment reports, including the East Fork Illinois River Watershed Analysis (USFS and BLM 2000), the Water Quality Restoration Plan for the Lower East Fork Illinois River (BLM and ODEQ 2006), the Watershed Health Factors Assessment (OWEB 2006), the Source Water Assessment Report for the City of Cave Junction (ODEQ 2003), the East Fork Illinois River Watershed Restoration Action Plan (WRAP) (USFS 2014), and, most recently, in the Final SONCC recovery plan (NOAA 2014). Current Conditions Stream channels, especially in the lower reaches of these streams, have been altered by past mining, roads and timber harvest. These activities have resulted in increased stream temperatures and increased sediment, thus negatively impacting coho salmon habitat. The project area has been detrimentally affected by past hydraulic and placer mining activities, vegetation disturbance, and other activities. Stream survey data indicates that many of the streams within the project area have a lack of spawning and juvenile rearing habitat for anadromous fish. Additional disturbance results include increased channel width and lack of channel depth, loss of pool habitat, loss of side channel habitat, and loss of main channel structure and diversity. Riparian habitat has also been altered by a decrease in conifers in the lower reaches of the project area. The lack of adequate riparian vegetation results in less stream shading (thus higher summer water temperature), unstable stream banks, and fewer nutrients being added to the stream. Stream temperatures within the East Fork Illinois River are high and exceed Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) standards. The East Fork Illinois River was listed for stream temperature on the ODEQ (d) list. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was adopted in 2010, and the 2

7 resulting Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is being implemented. High stream temperatures throughout the watershed are derived from multiple sources, including loss of stream shade and a wide, shallow channel. The WQMP specifies that protection and enhancement of riparian zones and stabilizing stream banks as actions necessary to improve temperature within the Rogue River basin, which includes the East Fork Illinois River (ODEQ 2008). Purpose and Need for Action As described on page 2 of the EA, the purpose of the project is to increase the amount and quality of habitat for coho salmon, thus contributing to the recovery of a federally listed species. The primary objectives are to create conditions which will reduce stream temperature, provide juvenile rearing areas for salmon, and increase habitat complexity. The need for the project results from a current lack of high quality habitat for salmon spawning and rearing in the East Fork Illinois River. These restoration actions will also benefit Chinook salmon, steelhead, resident fish populations, and other aquatic life. Decision After careful review of the Environmental Assessment and input received, I have decided to select the proposed action alternative with no modifications. Selecting the proposed action will meet the purpose and need by: 1) adding large wood structures in the stream channel and floodplain to increase habitat complexity; 2) constructing a side channel to serve as fish rearing habitat; and 3) planting riparian vegetation to provide shade and a productive substrate for prey species. My decision meets all Forest standards and guidelines, and all federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations. My selection is consistent with the Siskiyou Forest Plan (USFS 1989). Details of the Selected Alternative (Proposed Action) The selected alternative consists of the following activities along the East Fork Illinois River, Dunn Creek, North Fork Dunn Creek, Poker Creek, and Bybee Gulch (figure 2). Activities involve: 1) placing large wood structures within and adjacent to about seven miles of stream, 2) construction of an approximately 1500-foot side channel, and 3) re-establishment of native plants in adjacent riparian areas. A portion of Dunn Creek flows through private land owned by the Sun Star Country Club. No actions will occur on private land, unless an agreement with the private land owners is reached. Placement of large wood structures Where access is available along streams, large tree boles would be placed using excavators and other heavy equipment. Helicopter placement may also be used in areas that cannot be accessed by groundbased equipment. This placement includes complex multiple log structures within the stream channels. For structures built using ground-based equipment, key pieces would be buried into the banks and existing near-bank large riparian trees would be used to buttress the instream wood and create stability. Depending on site conditions, boulders may also be used to anchor the logs in place and tree tips may be buried from 4 to 6 feet. Helicopter placement would involve hauling in trees and wedging them between existing vegetation on the banks to create stability. The logs would not be buried. Large wood structures would: 1) provide grade control, 2) enhance fish habitat, 3) reintroduce and stabilize large wood for fisheries and stream channel stability, and 4) provide energy dissipation. Wood would be obtained from 3

8 nearby Forest Service lands, which have already been analyzed for timber harvest, or from private sources. Figure 2. Location of project area and proposed action Construction of side channel habitat A side channel of approximately 1,500-feet would be constructed adjacent to Dunn Creek in T19N R5E Section 34. The channel would adhere to the pattern, dimension, and profile appropriate for this stream and valley type. This would include building a small (about 6-foot wide), meandering stream channel designed to flow during high-flow events, which generally occur from December through March. Stream 4

9 habitat would be constructed appropriate to this system and include pools, riffles, runs, and glides. Sediment used to construct the side channel (fines, gravels, and cobbles) would be sorted on site from material that is removed during construction. If the correct size of material cannot be sorted on site, a small amount of material would be obtained from nearby Forest Service or commercial gravel pits. The channel would be constructed using an excavator and dozer. Trees that are removed for access to the site will be used as woody material in the stream channel or as slash over disturbed areas. Planting of riparian vegetation in disturbed areas Riparian areas that are disturbed during construction or that have poor riparian vegetation due to past impacts would be revegetated with a mix of native deciduous and conifer species, following the revegetation plan (see Attachment A). Species would be consistent with the vegetation expected to be found at the site. Disease-resistant Port Orford cedar may be included in the mix of native conifers planted. Revegetation would entail planting in cobble on old mine tailings, stream terraces, floodplains, and upland soils. Planting would be accomplished manually and/or mechanically. Trees, plants, and other raw materials for the project would be obtained from lands managed by the Forest Service or from commercial sources. Revegetation activities are intended to accelerate the development of stream shading and stream-side habitats, minimize short-term erosion potential, and facilitate the long-term reestablishment of upland forest habitat and site productivity. Mitigation Measures and Project Design Criteria Mitigation measures and standard operating procedures designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects (or implement positive effects) are identified by resource topic area in Attachment A. Standards and guidelines and mitigation measures identified in the Siskiyou Forest Plan, as amended, are incorporated by reference as required mitigation measures. In addition, all contracts or other methods for implementation of actions would comply with all requirements and standards for protection of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Project design criteria would be implemented through project design and implementation, contract specifications, contract administration, and monitoring activities performed by Forest Service officers. Note that some measures would be enacted only if circumstances warrant (e.g., if a nesting pair of spotted owls were discovered within 0.25 miles of an activity area, or a previously unknown heritage site were discovered). Rationale for Decision I have decided to select the proposed action alternative in the Environmental Assessment because this alternative best fulfills the purpose and need for restoring high quality habitat for salmon spawning and rearing in the East Fork Illinois River by creating conditions which will reduce stream temperature, provide juvenile rearing areas for salmon, and increase habitat complexity. Response to Purpose and Need The selected alternative is expected to improve aquatic habitat, especially for coho salmon by: 1. Construction of large instream wood structures will help retain spawning gravels, increase channel complexity, protect streambanks, create a more natural sediment regime, and regulate bed load movement and water flow. 5

10 2. Construction of an overflow side channel adjacent to Dunn Creek will provide juvenile salmon rearing habitat, which is currently lacking in the area. 3. Riparian planting will contribute to streambank stability, deposition of sediment on the floodplain, decreased water velocity during high flows, improved stream shading, increases in insect prey, and future recruitment of woody debris. In the long term, these habitat improvements are expected to contribute to cooler water temperatures and increased instream habitat complexity, providing better habitat quality for all aquatic species. Response to Issues In choosing the selected alternative, I considered the following key issues (EA page 3). Increased sedimentation within stream channels: My selected alternative includes required mitigation measures and project design criteria (EA page 7 and Attachment A) that will minimize the temporary increase in sediment resulting from the construction of large wood structures and the side channel. Pulses of turbidity generated by construction are expected to abate within six to twelve hours and are not expected to impair aquatic habitats or freshwater rearing and migration (EA pages 15, 17). Spread of invasive plants: Required project mitigation measures in my selected alternative will reduce the potential for the introduction or spread of invasive plants through required washing of any off-road equipment; avoiding existing infestations, revegetation of disturbed areas with weed-free sources, and monitoring and control of invasive plants for three years following implementation (EA pages 9-10). Public Involvement and Consultation Scoping and Comment The project was listed in the USDA Forest Service Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in June Letters were sent on October 1, 2014 to 219 addresses representing local, state, and other federal government entities, various public interest group representatives, and all landowners on the East Fork Illinois River downstream of the project to the town of Cave Junction, OR. A public scoping notice was published in the Grants Pass Daily Courier on October 10, 2014, notifying readers of the scoping period and where they could obtain more information. A total of four responses were received. The EA was released for a 30-day comment period on August 13, Interested parties were invited to submit comments electronically, by U.S. mail, by phone, or in person. Transmittal letters were sent to pertinent local state, and federal agencies and to anyone who submitted comments during the scoping period, and a legal notice appeared in the Grants Pass Daily Courier advising that the EA was available electronically on the project website and as a hard copy by request or at the Grants Pass Interagency Office and the Wild Rivers Ranger Station. I did not receive any comments. Tribal Consultation Separate government-to-government consultation was initiated with the Coquille Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Klamath Tribes, the Quartz Valley 6

11 Indian Reservation, the Elk Valley Rancheria, the Smith River Rancheria, the Cow Creek Bank of the Umpqua Tribe of Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz. Letters were sent June 11, No specific concerns regarding project impacts on resources of tribal interest were identified. State Historic Preservation Office No historic properties that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places are present within the project area (EA page 50), therefore I have determined that the project will have no effect to historic properties, and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office was not required or completed. Endangered Species Act Consultation under section 7 of the ESA was completed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for federally listed species and designated critical habitat which may be affected by the project. This project fits under the categories described in the Re-initiation of the Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Programmatic Conference and Biological Opinion, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Aquatic Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon and Washington (2013 ARBO) for categories #2 Large Wood, Boulder, and Gravel Placement, #5 Off- and Side-Channel Habitat Restoration, and #13 Non-native Invasive Plant Control. Therefore, no additional consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service is required, provided the project design criteria (EA pages 6-11) are followed. Consistency Findings Based on the information and evidence contained in the August 2015 environmental assessment and as further documented within this decision notice, I find that my decision to implement the selected alternative is consistent with the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended, and other laws, regulations and agreements applicable to the management of National Forest System lands and resources. My decision does not retard or prevent attainment of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). I find my decision to be compliant with the 1994 ROD for the Northwest Forest Plan regarding ACS consistency because the EA and its appendices clearly documents a description and analysis of the current condition for the affected fifth-field watershed, a description and analysis of current hydrological conditions, and how the project will move conditions toward the desired conditions. The ACS contains four components: riparian reserves, key watersheds, watershed analysis and watershed restoration. The Northwest Forest Plan requires a determination of consistency with ACS with specific reference to the nine ACS objectives. Appendix B of the EA explains the consistency with the elements and components of the objectives. Therefore, as an overall conclusion associated with my decision, I find that none of the impacts associated with my decision, either directly, indirectly, individually or cumulatively, will prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, nor the nine ACS objectives, at the stand, watershed or landscape scales. Because my decision applies the Survey and Manage species list in the 2001 ROD, the selected alternative meets the provisions of the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines, as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement. 7

12 My decision is also consistent with the 2004 Record of Decision and Land and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Management of Port Orford Cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest and the 2005 Record of Decision for the Pacific Northwest Region, Invasive Plant Program because the project meets the objectives associated with these decisions and will employ project design criteria, mitigation measures, and best management practices, as required by these amendments. This action has been analyzed and designed under other laws, regulations and agreements applicable to the management of National Forest System lands and resources, including: 16 USC 1604 (g)(3), 36 CFR , 36 CFR (b). I find this decision to be consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 CFR , July 1, 1986, the Multiple-use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and the National Forest Management Act of I also find this project is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act 1973 as amended, The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 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 context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR ). Sufficient information is available to make a reasoned choice among alternatives based on analysis information in the environmental assessment and past actions of similar context and intensity in this area. Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following: Context This project is limited in scope and is designed to minimize adverse environmental effects. The decision made here applies only to the project analysis area on the Wild Rivers Ranger District. The project planning area is limited to a portion of the Upper East Fork and Dunn Creek subwatersheds (figure 2), and the activities are limited in duration. The resources affected by the proposal are described in the EA. Effects are local in nature and not likely to significantly affect regional or national resources. Based on these factors, I believe the effects of this project will be localized, and will not contribute to significant environmental effects within or beyond the project area. The discussion that follows of the significance criteria applies to the selected alternative and is within the context of local importance in the area associated with the East Fork Illinois watershed and the resources contained therein. Intensity The following discussion is organized around the ten significance criteria described in the NEPA regulations (40 CFR ). The discussion below shows how the action affects the human environment. According to the CEQ, the human environment shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of the people with that environment. 1. The analysis considered both beneficial and adverse effects. Adverse and beneficial impacts have been assessed and found to be not significant. The analysis considered not only the direct and indirect effects of the project but also their contribution to cumulative effects. Adverse effects from the selected alternative will be minimized or eliminated through application of project design criteria and mitigation measures (EA pages 6-11). I find that all potential effects were fully described in their respective resource sections. My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. 8

13 The EA identified a potential for activity generated sediment, spread of invasive plants, effects to northern spotted owls and other wildlife, and effects to recreationists during implementation. These adverse effects will be minimized or avoided by application of the specified mitigation measures that are incorporated into my decision (see Attachment A), as analyzed in the EA. No one responded when the EA was released for a 30-day comment period, and the only issue raised during the initial project scoping was that of activity-generated sediment. I conclude that all issues have been addressed, and other government agencies and the public have little concern remaining concern about adverse effects from this project. 2. There are no significant effects on public health and safety. I find that there will be no significant effects to public health and safety. I believe all public health and safety issues are addressed by this decision. Implementation will include partial closure of the project area the during helicopter operations. Advance notice (via website, press releases, and postings) will be provided, along with signing at appropriate locations, alternative route recommendations, and notification of user groups (EA page 11). 3. There are no unique characteristics of the geographical area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas that will be significantly affected by the selected action. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area within the East Fork Illinois River area. A cultural resource inventory found no eligible cultural resources that would be affected by the project (EA page 50). If cultural resources are encountered during implementation, earth-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find must be suspended and the forest archaeologist or archaeological technician notified to evaluate the discovery and recommend the subsequent course of action (EA page 11). Project design criteria and mitigation measures have been identified in ecologically critical areas to protect habitat characteristics and connectivity for sensitive species (EA page 8). The activities in the selected alternative will reduce historic impacts of human development and restore more natural hydrologic processes to the area. I find that the result of these activities is consistent with the unique characteristics of the area. 4. The effects of this action on the human environment are not highly controversial. There will be no significant effects on the quality of the human environment. Consideration was given to effects of the project on vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, recreation, and scenic values. Recreational uses of the Forest in the vicinity of project implementation may be temporarily disrupted, but established recreation opportunities and qualities will remain intact (EA page 51). This decision will not have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effect on minority and low-income populations (EA page 52). 5. The environmental analysis revealed no effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The Forest Service has considerable local experience implementing similar projects on the Forest. The effects analysis documented in the EA shows effects are not highly uncertain and do not involve unique or unknown risk. The selected alternative is similar to many past stream restoration projects on the Forest and on adjacent lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management; its predicted effects are not uncertain, unique, or unknown. 9

14 The stream restoration techniques applied in the selected alternative are well-known, and project design criteria are specified by the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the 2013 Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion. Best management practices are based on regional specifications that have been is use for many years. The selected alternative was developed using design criteria based on the results of past actions and professional and technical insight and experience, public input, field surveys and reconnaissance, and incorporation of pertinent research. PDCs and mitigation measures incorporated into this decision and used during implementation will avoid or minimize known risks associated with the project and will be employed where unexpected situations arise that could potentially have a detrimental effect on resources (EA pages 6-11). I am confident the selected alternative will have no effects that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks to the human environment. 6. Site specific actions found as part of this decision do not set a precedent for future actions, which may have significant effects, nor does this represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. I find the actions in the Project are similar in nature to actions undertaken on National Forest System lands and do not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, or represent a decision in principle with respect to future actions. The actions in the selected alternative are consistent with the Siskiyou Forest Plan, as amended. Any future decisions will need to be considered in a separate analysis using relevant scientific and site-specific information available at that time. 7. These actions are not related to other actions that, when combined, will have significant impacts. I find the effects of the selected alternative combined with the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions will not have any significant cumulative effects. Cumulative impacts are addressed by resource in the effects analysis of the EA. My review of the EA and supporting documents finds the cumulative effects analyses have adequately considered the time and space of effects to each respective resource and all impacts will be contained within each applicable analysis area. No significant adverse environmental impacts are likely to occur due to this decision. 8. There are no adverse effects on significant scientific, cultural or historical resources. I find the action will have no effects on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic places since no known cultural properties were found in the cultural resource inventory (EA page 50). If cultural resources are encountered during the course of this project, earth-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find must be suspended, in accordance with federal regulations, and the forest archaeologist or archaeological technician notified to evaluate the discovery and recommend the subsequent course of action (EA page 11). An opportunity for consultation was offered to eight local tribes (EA page 55); no issues were raised. 9. This action will not adversely affect any threatened or endangered species or critical habitat for the management of these species. I have considered the degree to which the action will adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (EA pages 23-28). Section 7 ESA consultation was conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the northern spotted owl and with the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding coho salmon. 10

15 Consultation regarding federally listed species follows the Reinitiation of the Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Programmatic Conference and Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Aquatic Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon and Washington (2013 ARBO) for categories #2 Large Wood, Boulder, and Gravel Placement, #5 Off- and Side-Channel Habitat Restoration, and #13 Non-native Invasive Plant Control. Additional project consultation is not required because the project adheres to all ARBO specified design criteria. The 2013 ARBO recognizes that short-term adverse effects may occur from such projects, but that in the long-term, aquatic restoration is necessary for the conservation and recovery of salmon and other aquatic species. No plants listed as threatened or endangered have been found to occur within the East Fork Illinois River Restoration project planning area. Consequently, this project will have no effect to threatened and endangered plant species (EA page 43). 10. This action does not violate or threaten to violate Federal, State, or local laws or other legal requirements imposed for protection of the environment. I find the Project will not violate federal, state, or local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulation were considered in the EA. The action is consistent with the Siskiyou Forest Plan, as amended. Pre-Decisional Administrative Review This draft decision is subject to administrative review (pre-decisional objection) pursuant to 36 CFR 218. An objection must meet all of the requirements described in 36 CFR Who may file an objection (36 CFR 218.5): Only individuals or organizations who submitted specific written comments during any designated opportunity for public participation (scoping or public comment periods) may object. Filing an objection (36 CFR 218.8): An objection must meet all of the requirements described in 36 CFR 218.8, which include being in writing and being filed with the reviewing officer. See minimum requirements below. Objection issues (36 CFR 218.8(c)): Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project or activity and attributed to the objector, unless the issue is based on new information that arose after the opportunities for comment. The burden is on the objector to demonstrate compliance with this requirement for objection issues. Minimum requirements (36 CFR 218.8(d)): At a minimum, an objection must include the following: (1) Objector s name and address as defined in 218.2, with a telephone number, if available; (2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the objection); (3) When multiple names are listed on an objection, identification of the lead objector as defined in Verification of the identity of the lead objector must be provided upon request or the reviewing officer will designate a lead objector as provided in 218.5(d); 11

16 (4) The name of the proposed project, the name and title of the responsible official, and the name(s) of the national forest(s) and/or ranger district(s) on which the proposed project will be implemented; (5) A description of those aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, including specific issues related to the proposed project; if applicable, how the objector believes the environmental analysis or draft decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy; suggested remedies that would resolve the objection; supporting reasons for the reviewing officer to consider; (6) A statement that demonstrates the connection between prior specific written comments on the particular proposed project or activity and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the designated opportunity(ies) for comment (see paragraph (c) of this section). Timely filing (36 CFR 218.9): Evidence of and responsibility for timely filing is described in Objections must be postmarked or received by the Reviewing Officer, Forest Supervisor, within 45 days from the date of publication of notice of the objection in the Grants Pass Daily Courier, the newspaper of record for the Wild Rivers Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The publication date is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Those wishing to file an objection should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. Mail: Objections may be mailed to the Reviewing Officer at the address below. Objections delivered by mail must be postmarked no later than the last day of the objection filing period and received before the close of the fifth business day after the period ends. Forest Supervisor (Reviewing Officer) Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Service Attn: Forest Planner 3040 Biddle Road Medford, OR Objections may be filed electronically at: FS-objections-pnw-rogueriver-siskiyou@fs.fed.us Please put OBJECTION and the project name in the subject line. Electronic objections must be submitted as part of an actual message, or as an attachment in Microsoft Word (.doc), rich text format (.rtf), or portable document format (.pdf) only. For electronically mailed objections, the sender should receive an automated electronic acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender does not receive an automated acknowledgement of receipt of the objection, it is the sender s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means. Hand-delivery: Objections may be hand delivered to the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, Oregon, between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday except legal holidays. Fax: Objections may be faxed to the Forest Supervisor, Attn: Forest Planner at (541) Please verify receipt. 218 Draft (Decision Notice has not been signed) Matthew M. Paciorek, District Ranger Wild Rivers Ranger District Date 12

17 Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Service For further information regarding this decision, you may contact: Steve Burns, Fisheries Biologist 2164 N.E. Spalding Avenue Grants Pass, OR (541)

18 References (BLM and ODEQ) United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Restoration Plan, Lower East Fork Illinois River. Bureau of Land Management, Medford District, Medford, Oregon. (NOAA) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Final SONCC Coho Recovery Plan NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Regional Office, Arcata, California. (ODEQ) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Rogue River Basin TMDL. Department of Environmental Quality Headquarters, Portland, Oregon. (OWEB) Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Watershed Health Factors Assessment. Rogue Basin Coordinating Council, Medford, Oregon. (USFS) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass, Oregon. (USFS) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service East Fork Illinois River Watershed Restoration Action Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, Oregon. (USFS and BLM) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management East Fork Illinois River Watershed Analysis. Bureau of Land Management, Grants Pass Field Office, US Forest Service, Wild Rivers Ranger District, Cave Junction, Oregon. 14

19 Attachment A Implementation Plan Actions in the Selected Alternative Placement of large wood structures Where access is available along streams, large tree boles would be placed using excavators and other heavy equipment. Helicopter placement may also be used in areas that cannot be accessed by groundbased equipment. This placement includes complex multiple log structures within the stream channels. For structures built using ground-based equipment, key pieces would be buried into the banks and existing near-bank large riparian trees would be used to buttress the instream wood and create stability. Depending on site conditions, boulders may also be used to anchor the logs in place and tree tips may be buried from 4 to 6 feet. Helicopter placement would involve hauling in trees and wedging them between existing vegetation on the banks to create stability. The logs would not be buried. Large wood structures would: 1) provide grade control, 2) enhance fish habitat, 3) reintroduce and stabilize large wood for fisheries and stream channel stability, and 4) provide energy dissipation. Wood would be obtained from nearby Forest Service lands, which have already been analyzed for timber harvest, or from private sources. Construction of side channel habitat A side channel of approximately 1,500-feet would be constructed adjacent to Dunn Creek in T19N-R5E- Section 34. The channel would adhere to the pattern, dimension, and profile appropriate for this stream and valley type. This would include building a small (about 6-foot wide), meandering stream channel designed to flow during high-flow events, which generally occur from December through March. Stream habitat would be constructed appropriate to this system and include pools, riffles, runs, and glides. Sediment used to construct the side channel (fines, gravels, and cobbles) would be sorted on site from material that is removed during construction. If the correct size of material cannot be sorted on site, a small amount of material would be obtained from nearby Forest Service or commercial gravel pits. The channel would be constructed using an excavator and dozer. Trees that are removed for access to the site will be used as woody material in the stream channel or as slash over disturbed areas. Planting of riparian vegetation in disturbed areas Riparian areas that are disturbed during construction or that have poor riparian vegetation due to past impacts would be revegetated with a mix of native deciduous and conifer species, following the revegetation plan in appendix A. Species would be consistent with the vegetation expected to be found at the site. Disease-resistant Port Orford cedar may be included in the mix of native conifers planted. Revegetation would entail planting in cobble on old mine tailings, stream terraces, floodplains, and upland soils. Planting would be accomplished manually and/or mechanically. Trees, plants, and other raw materials for the project would be obtained from lands managed by the Forest Service or from commercial sources. Revegetation activities are intended to accelerate the development of stream shading and stream-side habitats, minimize short-term erosion potential, and facilitate the long-term reestablishment of upland forest habitat and site productivity. Mitigation Measures and Project Design Criteria Hydrology and Fisheries Minimize the number and length of access points through riparian areas. Heavy equipment will be cleaned and free of leaks before use within the stream channel. 15

20 Soils Develop and implement an approved spill containment plan that includes having a spill containment kit on-site. Refuel equipment, including chainsaws, and other hand power tools, at least 150 feet from water bodies to prevent direct delivery of contaminants into a water body (or as far as possible from the water body where local site conditions do not allow a 150-foot setback). Construct new side channel segment(s) during dry conditions. All in-channel stream work would occur during the California Department of Fish and Wildlife instream construction timing window (June 15 to November 1), to minimize impacts to salmon. National Core BMP Tech Guide: Follow Best Management Practices for Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems (AqEco-2), when implementing ground-disturbing stream restoration activities. In particular for minimizing short and long-term impacts to the soil resource: Clearly delineate the geographic limits of any areas to be cleared, to minimize unnecessary ground disturbance. Locations where heavy equipment can operate will be clearly defined and limited to the minimum area needed to complete the project. The total area of detrimental soil conditions (compaction, displacement, puddling, and severely burned soil conditions), should not exceed 15% of the total acreage of the activity area, including roads and landings (Siskiyou NF LRMP, 7-2, pg. IV-44). Avoid or minimize unacceptable damage to existing vegetation. Conduct operations during dry periods. Heavy equipment operations outside the footprint of the channel construction (such as in staging areas and access routes) will take place when soils are dry to prevent undue soil compaction and displacement. Dry conditions refer to soil moistures of approximately 25% or less. If heavy equipment operations create ruts greater than 4-6 inches, soil caking and/or smearing, soils are too wet. Stage construction operations as needed to limit the extent of disturbed areas without installed stabilization measures. Promptly install and appropriately maintain erosion control measures, such as silt fence, wattles, and mulch. Promptly rehabilitate or stabilize disturbed areas following construction or maintenance activities. Effective groundcover of 85% or greater needs to be re-established at the end of the project (Siskiyou NF LRMP, 7-4, pg. IV-44-45). Utilize locally generated forest slash materials where available first and supplement as needed with other mulch materials such as wood chips, straw, etc. Stockpile and protect topsoil as much as possible for reuse in site revegetation. Do not use if infested with noxious weeds (see invasive plants mitigation). Minimize bank and riparian area excavation during construction to the extent practicable. Properly compact fills to avoid or minimize erosion. Contour site to disperse runoff, minimize erosion, stabilize slopes, and provide favorable environment for plant growth. Design log structure features and placement to avoid aggravating the three existing and naturally occurring, active shallow landslides that are present on Dunn Creek. 16

21 Wildlife Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Late Successional Reserve: Trees cut within the East IV LSR as roadside or worksite danger trees will either be left on-site in riparian reserves, distributed in the LSR for down woody material, or used for stream habitat improvement in compliance with management direction for riparian reserves. Northern spotted owl: Work activities (such as tree felling, yarding, hauling on roads not generally used by the public, muffled blasting) that produce loud noises above ambient levels, or produce thick smoke that would enter a stand, will not occur within restricted distances of any spotted owl nest site or activity center of known pairs and resident singles or unsurveyed suitable NRF habitat as specified below unless protocol surveys have determined the activity center or NRF habitat to be not occupied, non-nesting, or failed in their nesting attempt. The boundary of the prescribed area may be modified by the Forest Service biologist using topographic features or other site-specific information. The restricted area is calculated as a radius from the assumed nest site (point) or an unsurveyed suitable nesting habitat patch. Restricted Distances March 1 July 15: 65 yards for chainsaws; 60 yards for impact pile driver, jackhammer, or rock drill; 35 yards for heavy equipment. Restricted Distances March 1-September 30: 266 yds for Type I helicopters; 151 yards for Type II helicopters and 111 yds for Type III helicopters. Designated Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl: Trees cut within designated habitat for the northern spotted owl (KLW-4) as roadside or worksite hazards will be left on-site within the designated critical habitat to serve as primary constituent elements of critical habitat. Peregrine Falcon: Helicopter flight paths would avoid the southernmost portions of the affected subwatersheds to the extent possible. Black Salamander, Del Norte Salamander, Foothill Yellow-legged Frog, Northwestern Pond Turtle: Any salamanders, frogs, turtles, or turtle eggs found during culvert work would either be avoided and left unharmed or moved to similar suitable habitat adjacent to but undisturbed by the work site if there is potential for harm. Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper: Disturbance or removal of blue elderberry shrubs would be avoided to the extent possible during channel reconstruction and ground-based large wood placement activities. Migratory Birds: Avoid disturbance of any active bird nests during project activities. To the extent possible, avoid any activities within 100m of active bird nests until young have left the nest. Snag-dependent species: To the extent compatible with safety provisions, retain all snags with tree diameter >=10. Retain on site, all commercial size down-woody material. "Leave-trees" damaged during project operations will be left on site. The intent is to maintain or minimize the loss of existing snag numbers following all treatment activities. All snags felled for safety will remain on site. Sensitive Plants If any threatened or endangered plant species or Forest Service sensitive plant, lichen, or fungi species are found prior to or during implementation there will be an amendment to the Biological Evaluation and all occurrences will be flagged and avoided to prevent any impacts to individuals. District botanist or technicians will survey all proposed project areas that would receive implementation and ground disturbing activities prior to implementation, including, but not limited to, side channel creation and wood placement in stream channels. The project lead will consult and work with the district botanist to inform what, where, and when all project implementation activities will occur. 17