Decision Memo Stock Tank Non-native Aquatic Species Management Coconino National Forest Coconino, Gila, and Yavapai County, Arizona

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Decision Memo Stock Tank Non-native Aquatic Species Management Coconino National Forest Coconino, Gila, and Yavapai County, Arizona Forest Service February 2016 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.

2 Background One of the primary threats to native aquatic species is competition, predation, and indirect impacts from non-native species 1. Non-native fish and other non-native species (such as crawfish) are periodically introduced into stock tanks by forest users in a misguided attempt to establish populations of fish and other species for fishing and recreational use. Unfortunately, these -illegal actions impact threatened and endangered fish, their habitats, and other aquatic species on the Forest. Once a population of non-native species is established it is very difficult to eradicate and often first requires National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) clearance before steps can be taken to address these threats. As a result, non-native species populations established at stock tanks have the increased potential overtime to disperse downstream and establish throughout a watershed resulting in greater impacts before they can be eradicated from stock tanks. Once non-native species begin to populate rivers and streams that provide habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, and costly to remove them. The purpose of this project is to enable the removal of non-native species in stock tanks that could directly impact threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or their habitat and prevent the potential dispersal and establishment of aquatic non-native species (i.e., fish or crayfish) downstream into rivers, streams, and spring systems during storm events. There is a need to authorize treatments of non-native aquatic species in stock tanks to prevent their dispersal and establishment to downstream habitats with Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive aquatic species. This would allow for application of approved piscicides or mechanical removal/suppression of nonnative, non-native aquatic species in stock tanks where threatened, endangered, and sensitive species occur downstream in the same 6 th code watershed. This project would allow for piscicide treatments in stock tanks throughout the Coconino National Forest. Treatments are most likely to occur in 6 th code watersheds where important Endangered and Threatened aquatic species have been identified (Verde River and Little Colorado River watersheds) including, but not limited to Upper Oak Creek, West Fork Oak Creek, Upper West Clear Creek, Middle West Clear Creek, Lower West Clear Creek, Upper Wet Beaver Creek, Lower Wet Beaver, Spring Creek, Red Tank Draw, Walker Creek, Mud Tanks Draw, Sycamore Canyon, Upper Fossil Creek, Lower Fossil 1 The wording non-native species is used in this decision to indicate invasive species and non-native game species, which directly or indirectly may affect sensitive and listed native aquatic species through predation, competition, disease transmission or other means.

3 Creek, East Clear Creek Clear Creek, East Clear Creek Blue Ridge Reservoir, Miller Canyon, Bear Canyon, Barbershop Canyon, and Leonard Canyon. Decision This decision approves the use of piscicides and neutralizing agents (e.g., potassium permanganate) in stock tanks throughout the Coconino National Forest to eradicate non-native aquatic species in stock tanks to prevent potential impacts to Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive aquatic species and their habitat. The Arizona Game and Fish Department, in conjunction with the Coconino National Forest and Fish and Wildlife Service can use existing authorities to apply mechanical means to remove/suppress non-native aquatic species in stock tanks to further prevent potential impacts to Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive aquatic species and their habitat. Any use of piscicides and associated neutralizing agent (if applicable) will include (1) following requirements of Arizona Revised Statues (A.R.S.) Title Use of Aquatic Poisons 2 (for rotenone and antimycin treatments only) (2) application using rotenone or antimycin (or any registered piscicide) is planned, approved, and implemented per the Arizona Game and Fish Department s Piscicide Treatment Planning and Procedures Manual, (2) the approval of a pesticide use proposal (PUP, form FS ) by the forest, (3) application of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and/or state-approved piscicides by a certified applicator under the guidance of product labels, and (4) Pre-implementation surveys for leopard frogs or other candidate, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. If threatened, endangered, or candidate species are identified as present in a stock tank to be treated, additional Section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service will occur prior to treatment and if determined beneficial by the Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the Forest Service, salvage of any individuals will occur prior to treatment to avoid direct impacts. Where possible, coordination of potential piscicide treatments would be incorporated into Annual Operating Instruction discussions with grazing permittees. However, this may not always be possible, such as if a non-native species population is found near a stream with special status species just before or during monsoon season. In these situations, grazing permittees would be informed of potential treatments at least 30 days prior to treatments, if possible. In acute situations where it is not possible to provide a 30 day notice, the grazing permittee will be notified 10 days prior to beginning treatment as required in A.R.S. Title (Use of Aquatic Poisons) for 2 Or more recent state rules, requirements or regulations

4 applications of rotenone or antimycin 3. Piscicide treatments would be coordinated and implemented by the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Fish and Wildlife Service. Where piscicides are chosen not to be used, mechanical means of non-native species eradication or suppression may be used, depending on assessment of effectiveness. This may include anything from direct mechanical removal/suppression of non-natives to pumping and drying of the stock tank. When removing the water and stock tank drying is used, the following precautions will be used: (1) All water pumped out of the stock tank is pumped into an area lined with erosion control materials (e.g. filter socks) to prevent erosion, (2) Water is not emptied directly into surrounding perennial streams, (3) Cleaning sediments at the bottom of the tank may be allowed in a case-bycase basis depending on the non-native species being eradicated and the need for this activity to effectively eradicate the species, (4) All equipment must be disinfected pre- and post-treatment per the most recent Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) protocols, unless sites are hydrologically connected to one another, then disinfecting between sites is not required. Disinfect equipment with a bleach, quaternary ammonia, or sodium hypochlorite 3 solution to minimize the spread of pathogens between aquatic environments. Cleaning equipment in the immediate vicinity of a pond or wetland should be avoided (e.g., clean in an area at least 100 feet from aquatic features). Care should be taken so that all traces of the disinfectant are removed (rinsed off equipment) before entering the next aquatic habitat. Where dewatering is identified as part of the treatment strategy, a series of mitigations would be used to ensure livestock access to water sources is not affected. The grazing permittee and coordinating agencies would be informed of potential dewatering locations at least 60 days prior to treatment. Where possible, treatments would be timed with pasture rest/rotations so that they occur in stock tanks that are no longer needed for the grazing season. If this is not feasible and/or prior coordination cannot be done 60 days prior to treatments, temporary supplemental water sources would be provided (if needed) to ensure livestock have access to water until the tank is rewatered. If water in tanks is not restored naturally such as in a drought, efforts would be made to rewater the tank or the temporary supplemental water would be maintained until rewatering the tank is successful. One or the other must occur to ensure that livestock, which are rotating pasture use according to Annual Operating Instructions, are not left without water that would have been available if the dewatering had not occurred. The Arizona Game and Fish Department and/or the 3 Or more recent state rules, requirements or regulations

5 Forest Service or Fish and Wildlife Service would provide the equipment necessary to establish temporary supplemental water sources (water storage tanks, pipelines, water troughs, etc.) and they will provide the necessary maintenance to insure reliable operation of the equipment during periods of livestock use. Additionally, the Arizona Game and Fish Department and/or the Forest Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service will be responsible for providing sufficient quantities of water to the temporary supplemental water sources during periods of livestock use. Cleaning of stock tanks may be another element that occurs in conjunction with dewatering to remove sediment from the bottom of stock tanks, which decreases their water holding capacity. In these situations, the Forest will work closely with permittees to ensure both timing and cleaning methods do not negatively impact livestock grazing operations. Many stock tanks used in association with livestock grazing on the National Forest have water rights or water right claims associated with them. Proposed treatments would be coordinated and mitigated to insure that the status of any water rights, or water right claims are not affected. Disposal of aquatic species killed from piscicide treatments falls under the jurisdiction of Arizona Game and Fish Department (which has authority over fish and wildlife within the State of Arizona). The Coconino National Forest understands that disposal of these killed aquatic species may be of interest to one or more tribal groups. The Forest will work with any interested tribal groups in addition to Arizona Game and Fish Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service to dispose of any aquatic species killed by stock tank treatments via any method deemed appropriate by all parties. This decision does not restrict the ability of Arizona Game and Fish Department and/or Fish and Wildlife Service to work with tribes to dispose of removed aquatic species in a manner that is determined most appropriate. On-site disposal (e.g. burying nearby, scattering in the surrounding area, leaving in the water, etc.) is authorized as long as any activities that cause disturbance (e.g. digging) in the area has first been cleared for potential archeological and biological impacts. There will be no ground disturbance outside of previously disturbed stock tank bowls unless there are first additional cultural resource and wildlife clearances completed to avoid and mitigate any potential impacts. National Environmental Policy Act Compliance

6 This action is categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment according to information at 36 CFR 220.6(e)(6) and Forest Service Handbook , Chapter 30, Category 32.2 Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction. The categorical exclusion is appropriate in this situation because the use of piscicides in stock tanks would be specifically for the purpose of improving habitat for native aquatic species by reducing the risk of habitat degradation from non-native species. Furthermore, while the category plainly prohibits the use of herbicides, this project uses piscicides, which are more specifically designed to affect fish (and possibly similar aquatic species) and have been well studied to be found to present very limited risks given appropriate use. There are welldefined operational procedures and controls to manage piscicide application and use, limiting potential effects. This decision would result in no extraordinary circumstances potentially having effects which may significantly affect the environment. There were no significant issues identified during scoping that would possibly result in significant effects or a need to develop alternatives. The environmental analysis determined that there are no extraordinary circumstances related to this project based on the following: Federally listed threatened and endangered species or designated critical habitat: This project was designed to limit the potential impacts of non-native species to threatened and endangered species. The large majority of treatments that occur under this decision will have no direct adverse effects to threatened and endangered species. It is possible that piscicide treatments occur in stock tanks that include federally listed threatened and endangered species, but only in the situation where the piscicide treatment is needed to improve the long-term survival and/or growth of the threatened and or endangered species (and others) that occur in this stock tank. Likewise, use of piscicides may occur in stock tanks in designated critical habitat, but the removal should be result in beneficial or neutral effects to the primary constituent elements of the critical habitat. Thus, implementation of this project may result in short-term adverse effects to one or more organism listed as threatened or endangered or to designated critical habitat; however, this effect would not be significant because it would result in long-term benefits or habitat improvements to the population as a whole. Pre-implementation surveys for leopard frogs or other candidate, threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive species will occur to minimize the potential of impacts to threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species. If threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive species are identified as present in a stock tank to be treated, additional biological consultation will occur prior to treatment and if determined beneficial, salvage of any individuals will occur prior to treatment to avoid direct impacts. If consultation results

7 in a jeopardy determination, this decision will not be valid for treatments that result in jeopardizing the existence of a listed species. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds: The project is designed to be implemented in stock tanks. Some of these stock tanks may be located in areas classified as wetlands or flood plains. While these areas may be present within the project area, the very short temporal nature of the treatments would not result in effects to flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watershed, which would rise to the level of significance. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or National Recreation Areas: The project is not located in any congressionally designated areas such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or National Recreation Areas. Inventoried roadless areas: The project is not located within an inventoried roadless area. Research Natural Areas: There are no Research Natural Areas in this project area. American Indian areas of traditional cultural importance, archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas: Given the very low likelihood of affecting historic properties, removal of non-native species in stock tanks is considered exempt from further consultation as per the Region 3 Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities between the Forest Service and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, dated December 23, Any activities that may be included in removal of nonnative aquatic species from stock tanks that could result in ground disturbance (e.g. burying of killed non-native species) will constitute a separate undertaking per National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). As a result, archaeological inventory and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will be completed prior to any potential grounddisturbing activities. Public Involvement This project was identified on the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on the Coconino National Forest quarterly SOPA and website on January 1, Scoping efforts also included the mailing of approximately 30 letters and 16 s with information on the project and solicitation for public feedback. Three comments were received, all of which were from grazing permittees. The comments expressed concerns with the potential impacts of piscicides on the health of livestock grazing in the area, the need for coordination with grazing permittees prior to the application of piscicides, and the need for supplemental water supplies if treatments efforts include activities such as draining of stock tanks. These comments were addressed by modifying the proposed action to include requirements for coordination and placement of supplemental water supplies, if treatments involved the drainage of water from stock tanks. Concerns regarding the impacts of piscicide use on livestock and human health were addressed by re-sending out scientific information on the risks of piscicide use to non-aquatic species. A follow-up letter was mailed on September 18, 2014 to

8 communicate these proposed action modifications and share scientific information about piscicides and impacts to non-aquatic species. No responses to this letter were received. In addition to scoping efforts, thirteen letters were sent to tribes to request tribal consultation on the proposal. No comments were received from tribes in regards to this project. No official responses were received, however, two tribal members from different tribes expressed concern regarding the project. Their primary concern was with the disposal of fish or other aquatic species that were killed from the piscicide treatments. Several attempts were made to meet with the Hopi and Zuni tribes to discuss this issue, however, these meetings were cancelled by the tribes and did not occur. To address this issue, language has been added to the decision to clarify that the Coconino National Forest will work with interested tribes, Arizona Game and Fish and Fish and Wildlife Service to dispose of any killed aquatic species in ways acceptable to tribal interests to the extent possible. Findings Required by Other Laws This decision is consistent with the Coconino National Forest Management Plan as required by the National Forest Management Act. The project was designed in conformance with forest plan desired conditions, standards and guidelines. The Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 1987, as amended (Forest Plan) includes numerous instances of direction to protect threatened, endangered, and sensitive habitat from impact and to prevent and address impacts from non-native species: Page 23 Improve habitat for listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of plants and animals and other species as they become threatened or endangered. Work toward recovery and delisting threatened and endangered species. This decision will allow removal of non-native species which directly or indirectly impact listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of plants and animals. Removing key threats to these species will enable their recovery over time. Page 23 - Prevent any new noxious or invasive weed species from becoming established, contain or control the spread of known weed species, and eradicate species that are the most invasive and pose the greatest threat to the biological diversity and watershed condition. This decision directly authorizes the removal of non-native (including invasive) species to prevent them from becoming established and spreading in areas where they can be a threat to biological diversity. Page 64- Habitat management for Federally listed species will take precedence over unlisted species. Habitat management for endangered species will take precedence over threatened species. Habitat management for sensitive species will take precedence over non-sensitive species. Follow approved recovery plans. This decision prioritizes habitat management of listed, native species over non-listed, non-native species by allowing the removal of non-native species which may decrease the number of listed, native species. This decision is in conformance with all known recovery plans for listed aquatic species on the Forest.

9 Page Cooperate with the AGFD to prevent and/or remove unapproved introduced species. This decision recognizes the need to cooperate with Arizona Game and Fish Department and Fish and Wildlife Service on any piscicide application to remove introduced species. Page 66- Improve T&E and sensitive species habitat. Improvement projects give priority to recovery of T&E species. Conform to approved recovery plans. This decision is designed specifically to improve threatened, endangered, and sensitive species habitat to facilitate improved recovery by removing potential threats. Page 68-1 Reconstruct range structural improvements to appropriate construction standards or better according to FSM 2244, and FSH Maintain range structural improvements in operable condition according to FSM 2244, FSH , and FSM This decision can include activities such as maintenance (cleaning) of range structural improvements (stock tanks). Any maintenance activities performed will be in accordance with FSM 2244, FSH , and FSM The planning and decision-making process for this project was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, policies and plans, including the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Implementation Date Implementation of this proposal may take place immediately upon my issuance of this decision. Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities This decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR (f): Decisions for actions that have been categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS pursuant to FSH , Chapter 30 " Contact Person For additional information concerning this decision, contact Mike Dechter, NEPA Coordinator, 1824 S. Thompson St., Flagstaff, Arizona 86001, LAURA JO WEST Coconino National Forest Supervisor Date