Toponas Creek Barrier and Reclamation...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Toponas Creek Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment

Yampa Ranger District

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland

Routt County, Colorado

July 2017

Responsible Official: Basia Trout, District Ranger

For further information contact: Rick Henderson, Fisheries Biologist, at (970) 870-2219 or [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

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) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through

the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 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 http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html 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) 632-9992. 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. 20250-9410;

(2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

(3) Email: [email protected]

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Disclaimer: The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data it has available. GIS data and product

accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales,

based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, have represented features not in

accurate geographic locations, etc. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty, including

warranty of merchantability and fitness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or

their appropriateness for any user’s purposes. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify,

or replace this geospatial information based on new inventories, new or revised information, and if necessary, in

conjunction with other Federal, State, or local public agencies, or the public in general, as required by policy or

regulation. For more information, contact the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin

National Grasslands Supervisor’s Office at 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, WY 82070, 307-745-2300.

Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PURPOSE

AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................................................................. 2

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 2 1.3 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ....................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................. 5

2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................. 5 2.2.2 CONNECTED ACTION ............................................................................................................. 7 2.2.3 PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................ 8

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE NO ACTION

ALTERNATIVE AND PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................. 10

3.1 AMPHIBIANS, FISHERIES, AND AQUATICS .................................................................... 10 3.2 BOTANY ....................................................................................................................................... 12 3.3 HERITAGE ................................................................................................................................... 13 3.4 HYDROLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 13 3.5 SOILS ............................................................................................................................................. 15 3.6 WILDLIFE .................................................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER 4: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, CONSULTATION, AND PREPARERS

........................................................................................................................................... 17

4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................................... 17 4.2 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES AND TRIBES CONSULTED ................. 18 4.3 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................................... 18

LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. 19

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................................................... 20

CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................ 20 INTENSITY ......................................................................................................................................... 20


2

CHAPTER 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Yampa Ranger District proposes to remove hybrid fish in Toponas Creek to protect a

population of native Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT). The proposed action

involves building a fish barrier made of concrete blocks that would be placed in the

creek, 300 feet inside of the Routt National Forest (Forest) boundary, preventing

downstream fish from migrating upstream past the structure. A connected action, not

under Forest Service authority, involves Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) removing

hybrid trout from 1.2 miles of Toponas Creek and Deadman Gulch, by chemical

reclamation through the use of a piscicide.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) describes and compares the environmental

consequences of implementing the proposed action alternative, versus the no action

alternative that would leave natural processes to continue uninterrupted in the project

area. Based upon the purpose and need, and effects analysis, of this EA, the responsible

official will decide:

Should the proposed action be authorized as is, modified, or not at all?

Should an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared?

This EA is tiered to the Forest Plan (FP) and does not repeat information the FP contains.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources,

may be found in the project record.

1.2 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

Toponas Creek is located in the headwaters of Rock Creek, a tributary to the Colorado

River. The project area is in Routt County, Colorado, approximately five miles east of the

town of Toponas within Township 1 North, Range 83 West, Sections 5 and 6, and would

be accessed from Colorado Highway 134 (Figure 1). The proposed barrier would be 300

feet upstream of the Forest boundary, but the implementation of the proposed connected

action would extend downstream onto private land. The portion of the project that would

be on Forest Service land would be in Management Areas 4.2 (Scenery) and 5.12

(General Forest and Rangelands – Range Vegetation Emphasis) of the Forest Plan and

would be outside of any wilderness area or Colorado roadless area.


3

Figure 1. Site map for the Toponas Creek fish barrier and reclamation area. The “reclamation

reach” (shown in blue) is the segment of the creek in which non-native fish would be removed. The

primary detoxification site is located at the proposed barrier with a backup detoxification site located

further downstream, to be used if needed (see also, pp. 7-8, description of the Connected Action).

1.3 BACKGROUND

The fish of concern that occupy Toponas Creek and Deadman Gulch within the project

area are of the greenback lineage of the CRCT. The population is known as the Deadman

Gulch conservation population1. The small Deadman Gulch conservation population

occupies 3.5 miles of stream upstream of the Forest boundary with an estimated 500

individuals one year of age and older.

The CRCT is designated as a Region 2 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species by the

Forest Service and as a species of special concern by CPW. The greenback lineage has

been federally listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act since 1978.

CRCT occupy fourteen percent of their historic range with twenty-three distinct

conservation populations located on the Forest. Factors such as habitat loss and the

introduction of non-native fishes and diseases have contributed to this species’ population

and distribution reduction. Both rainbow trout (hybridization with CRCT) and whirling

disease (increased mortality in young fish) pose an immediate threat to the survival of the

Deadman Gulch conservation population.

Population monitoring in 2014 found that a diversion structure near the Forest boundary

that was acting as a barrier was no longer effective at preventing non-native fish from

1 “A conservation population is a naturally reproducing and recruiting population of native cutthroat trout

that is managed to preserve the historical genome and/or unique genetic, ecological, and/or behavioral

characteristics,” (CRCT Coordination Team 2006: 7).


4

migrating up the creek. In addition, hybridization was occurring between genetically pure

CRCT and CRCT hybridized with rainbow trout (hereafter referred to as “hybrid fish”) in

the downstream 0.5 miles of the population distribution. Further sampling in 2015 and

2016 determined that whirling disease was present in the downstream 1.0 miles of the

population distribution.

In order to prevent hybridization and whirling disease from moving further upstream, a

fish barrier was constructed in 2016, in Deadman Gulch, at a location 1.2 miles upstream

of the Forest boundary. The fish population downstream of this barrier is comprised of

both genetically pure CRCT and hybrid fish.

1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

There is a need to protect the existing Deadman Gulch conservation population of CRCT

that is currently being threatened by hybridization with non-native trout. This would

require blocking the upstream expansion of non-native trout and removing those which

are currently above the barrier site.

Taking no action would allow hybridization to continue with the eventual result being the

complete loss of the genetically pure CRCT Deadman Gulch conservation population.

This purpose and need is consistent with the following directives:

Manage activities to avoid disturbance to sensitive species (Forest Plan p. 1-14).

Habitat for sensitive species may be enhanced where opportunities exist, but the

focus will be on protection and maintenance of sensitive species (Management

Area 4.2; Forest Plan p. 2-44).

The interagency Conservation Agreement for CRCT provides direction to “secure

and if necessary enhance all known and suspected genetically pure CRCT

populations. These efforts might include, but are not limited to…Restricting

introduction of non-native fish species…[and] constructing in-channel barriers…”

(CRCT Coordination Team 2006).

The interagency Conservation Agreement for CRCT stresses the importance of a

collaborative and cooperative partnership among resource agencies and

conservation groups when designing and implementing restoration activities.

Project planning, funding, and implementation would be conducted cooperatively

between CPW, the Forest Service, and interested partners.


5

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide

management of the project area. There would not be any action to limit interbreeding of

CRCT with hybrid fish. The result would be:

The native trout community in Toponas Creek would be lost and the population

would only consist of hybrid fish.

Recovery efforts outlined in the Conservation Agreement for CRCT would not

occur in Toponas Creek.

Some current and future opportunities for partnerships on Toponas Creek, with

private, non-profit, State, and/or other Federal agencies, would be lost.

2.2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The proposed action is driven by the potential loss of the existing Deadman Gulch CRCT

conservation population due to 1) interbreeding with hybrid fish and 2) whirling disease

The proposed action would consist of three key elements:

1. Construct a fish barrier with concrete blocks 300 feet inside the Forest Service

boundary to prevent the upstream movement of fish during all levels of stream

flow. Constructing the barrier would stop the future invasion of hybrid fish

moving upstream into the Deadman Gulch CRCT conservation population, and

allow for the removal of hybrid fish that currently exist between the two barriers.

The result would be a genetically pure population between the two barriers.

2. Re-grade sixty feet of streambed and streambank (on Forest Service land) to

adjust for necessary changes in streambed elevation. Total area of disturbed

ground amounts to .15 acres.

3. Monitor whether downstream fish move upstream of the barrier. In addition, a

chemical reclamation by CPW (a connected action) would follow the construction

of the barrier.

Barrier Construction

Toponas Creek would be re-routed during construction using flexible hoses.

Electrofishing would be used to remove fish from the de-watered section of channel.

Construction of the fish barrier would involve excavating approximately fifteen cubic

yards of streambed and streambank material for the placement of the fish barrier and

geomembrane liner. The excavated material would be utilized to re-grade the downstream

streambed, fill around the blocks on the streambanks, and fill in the pool created

upstream of the structure.

Barrier construction would be scheduled between August 1st and mid-October to ensure

seasonal low stream flow, to minimize fish and wildlife impacts during rearing season,

and to occur prior to big game rifle hunting seasons. Construction duration would be

approximately five days.


6

The project area would be accessed from Colorado Highway 134. Heavy equipment

would move construction materials 200 feet from the highway to the staging area. All

disturbed ground along this access route would be scarified, if needed, and seeded after

construction was be completed. No temporary or permanent roads would be constructed.

Consideration was given to alternate locations along Toponas Creek for the fish barrier,

however, the proposed barrier location is the downstream-most location where the valley

width and geomorphic characteristics are best suited for constructing a barrier. In

addition, the channel gradient is steep enough to accommodate the four foot vertical drop

necessary to block fish passage while still allowing natural bedload movement. Other

sites further downstream were not selected because they would have needed more

concrete blocks, greater ground disturbance, and have had a greater risk of failure.

Barrier Dimensions

The stream channel is eight feet wide where the proposed barrier would be constructed.

The barrier would create a four foot vertical drop in channel bed elevation between the

upstream and downstream of the barrier. The barrier would consist of a drop structure

with wing-walls keyed into the stream banks, a splash apron, and side-walls (Figure 2).

The splash apron would prevent a deep pool from developing and its slope would ensure

shallow depths and high flow velocities immediately downstream of the barrier. These

characteristics are designed to impede fish attempts to leap over the structure. Sidewalls

along the splash apron would protect the channel banks from erosion at high flows.

Figure 2. Looking upstream at the barrier

The barrier would be 12 feet wide x 12 feet long, with a twenty-four foot long wing-wall

on one side. The wing-wall and side walls would be twenty-four inches higher than the

pour over to contain flood flows. The side walls would extend eight feet downstream of

the structure. The splash apron downstream of the drop structure would be eight feet wide

and drop four inches in elevation along its eight foot length. The drop structure and side

walls would be constructed using approximately forty-two pre-fabricated concrete blocks


7

with dimensions of 2 feet x 2 feet x 4 feet. The splash pad would consist of four pre-

formed concrete pads that are 4 feet x 4 feet x 6 inches thick (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Overhead view of the barrier showing the location of the stream, direction of flow, concrete

blocks, and concrete splash pad for the proposed action.

Downstream Channel Re-Grading

Channel re-grading would occur on thirty feet of streambed downstream of the barrier to

allow for a twelve inch drop in the streambed elevation immediately downstream of the

barrier. A geomembrane liner would extend from the barrier upstream ten feet and at a

depth of eighteen inches below the current streambed elevation. Similarly, a liner would

extend from the barrier downstream ten feet, underneath the splash pad.

Monitoring

The structural integrity of the barrier would be assessed one year after construction to

determine if maintenance is needed. The effectiveness of the barrier at eliminating

upstream movement of trout would occur annually for three years following construction.

The effectiveness of the chemical treatment at removing fish (see Connected Action,

below) would occur immediately after and one year after the treatment, using

electrofishing.

2.2.2 CONNECTED ACTION

The proposed action would also remove hybrid fish from 1.2 miles of Toponas Creek and

Deadman Gulch, between the barrier constructed in 2016 at mile 1.2, in Deadman Gulch,

and the proposed barrier. CPW has the authority to manage the fish and wildlife

resources of the State, and would ultimately approve and oversee activities associated

with the removal of hybrid fish.

Rotenone, a piscicide chemical, would be applied by CPW to the stream at multiple

locations within the project area on Forest Service land, using drip stations and backpack

sprayers. Potassium permanganate (a compound often used in water treatment plants to


8

purify water) would be used to detoxify the piscicide at the downstream barrier. A

backup detoxification station would be located approximately one mile further

downstream on private land, to be used if the first detoxification station were to fail

(Figure 1, p. 3). The private landowners potentially affected by these actions have been

notified and informed of the project. No concerns were expressed and permission was

granted.

The treatment would occur during a one week period between July and October. A

second treatment could occur the following year if the first treatment was not completely

successful.

The ground disturbing activity associated with the chemical reclamation would include

notching (by hand) up to twenty mostly abandoned beaver dams, prior to the treatment.

This would be necessary to simplify the stream into a single channel which facilitates

mixing of the chemical to all waters.

2.2.3 PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA

Project design criteria are a required part of this proposed action, in order to reduce or

prevent undesirable effects resulting from the project.

BOTANY, FISH, AND WILDLIFE

Contact the biologists or botanist if specific impacts to threatened, endangered,

proposed, Region 2 Sensitive Species, or Forest Species of Local Concern and/or

their habitats are identified prior to or during project implementation.

Management (e.g., timing restrictions or boundary adjustments) may be adjusted

as necessary to reduce those impacts. The species most likely to occur in the

project area include goshawks, raptors, pygmy shrews, northern leopard frog,

boreal toad, and rare plants.

BOTANY AND RANGE

Use local genetic plant materials (seeds, cutting, rooted stock) for revegetation.

Plan ahead to make sure appropriate materials are available in time for

implementation.

Treat invasive plant sites within 100 feet of ground disturbing activities well in

advance of ground disturbing activity occurring.

All seed used for revegetation should be tested for “All States Noxious Weeds”

and free of annual brome species.

Off-road/construction equipment shall not be moved onto National Forest lands

without having first taken all measures necessary to make sure each piece of

equipment is free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could

contain or hold seeds of invasive species.

HERITAGE

Previously undiscovered sites encountered during the course of project activities

would be avoided until they can be evaluated by an archaeologist. If affected

properties are discovered after project activities are completed, the Forest would

document any damage and consult with State Historic Preservation Office and

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.


9

HYDROLOGY

Avoid soil-disturbing actions during periods of heavy rain or wet soils. Apply

travel restrictions to protect soil and water.

Concentrated use sites, including material staging areas, would need to occur in

the Watershed Impact Zone in order to effectively implement the project.

Concentrated use site locations would be identified by a hydrologist and fisheries

biologist prior to project implementation to ensure that these sites are outside of

wetlands, and would not have long-term impacts on riparian areas and within the

Watershed Impact Zone (see Hydrology report in project record for further

information).

Excavation within the stream channel, and the storage and fill of excavated

material, cannot occur outside the project area and should be conducted in a

manner that minimizes the area disturbed.

Project specific design criteria as specified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

of Engineers would be followed to maintain long-term wetland ecological

function.

Remove all temporary stream crossings (including all fill material in the active

channel), restore the channel geometry, and revegetate.

Vehicle service and fuel areas would be specified by a hydrologist and fisheries

biologist, and would require a spill containment structure to prevent leakage of

petroleum and other hazardous materials into the water.

Install contour berms and trenches around vehicle service and refueling areas,

chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps to fully contain spills. Use liners

as needed to prevent seepage to ground water. Prepare Spill Prevention Control

and Countermeasure Plan per the requirements of 40 CFR 112.

LANDS

Coordinate with the Colorado Department of Transportation for project awareness

during the chemical treatment. This may be needed when workers are walking on

the road.

SOILS

Re-contour soil surfaces disturbed by equipment. Accomplish this by pulling

backhoe teeth through the surface to the depth disturbed or by other means to

loosen compacted soil and promote recovery of disturbed surfaces.


10

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE and PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Analysis of environmental consequences was conducted for resources which could have

cause/effect relationships with the proposed action. Following are summaries of such

environmental effects. Full effects analyses are in the project record.

3.1 AMPHIBIANS, FISHERIES, AND AQUATICS

Species assessments in this analysis were prepared from existing Forest Plan data,

Colorado Parks and Wildlife records, and Forest Service project area field surveys from

2014 to 2016. Because species cannot exist without their supporting habitats, both have

been evaluated.

Toponas Creek and Deadman Gulch are tributaries to Rock Creek and eventually the

Colorado River. They occur in a moderately wide valley, moderate stream gradients, and

willow/sedge dominated riparian areas. Portions of the analysis area are interspersed with

seasonal and perennial wetlands associated with beaver ponds. These riparian and

wetland corridors provide habitat for amphibians.

There is amphibian habitat within the analysis area associated with riparian areas along

streams and beaver ponds. In 2015 and 2016, two days were spent conducting amphibian

surveys. Western chorus frog were the only amphibian species observed. Habitat also

exists for the tiger salamander, northern leopard frog, and boreal toad. The northern

leopard frog and boreal toad are Region 2 Sensitive Species.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative

Without construction of a fish barrier, hybrid trout would continue moving upstream,

breeding with native trout, and eventually eliminating genetically pure fish. Thus, this

alternative would be considered a negative, direct and indirect effect to CRCT by

maintaining suitable conditions for the expansion of hybrid trout. Amphibians and their

habitat would not be affected.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would have short-term adverse impacts associated with the

dewatering of approximately 150 feet of channel during construction, and increased

sediment input immediately following construction. Overall, the project would have a

positive, direct and indirect effect to native trout by stopping further invasion by hybrid

trout and facilitating the reclamation project conducted by CPW. These actions would

eliminate a current threat to this conservation population and meet direction outlined in

the Conservation Agreement for CRCT.

The chemical reclamation could impact amphibians because rotenone is toxic to

organisms with gills. Therefore, any tadpoles present during the chemical treatment

would be killed. Adults exposed to treated water for long periods of time could be

negatively impacted, however studies show that they are aware of the chemical and move

out of the water. Impacts to amphibians should be minimal because only western chorus

frog have been observed within the analysis area and all life-stages would be primarily

terrestrial during the planned time of the treatment. However, other species could be


11

present: Northern leopard frog occur nearby, and a boreal toad breeding site is five miles

to the northeast. In addition, individuals could be crushed by heavy equipment during

construction of the fish barrier. A design criteria specifically states that if individuals are

observed prior to implementation, actions would be taken to reduce adverse impacts.

Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action

Past and present management activities within the watershed include timber harvest

(16.5% of the watershed), road construction, livestock grazing, and recreation. These

activities have resulted in slight increases in sediment and some habitat degradation.

Colorado Highway 134 parallels 1.0 miles of Toponas Creek. The highway would remain

a chronic impact by narrowing the floodplain and providing direct inputs of sediment into

the stream. Two stream crossings are partial barriers and likely restrict fish movement

during high flows when water velocities exceed swimming speed. Past restoration actions

in the watershed include road decommissioning and the 2016 fish barrier in Deadman

Gulch. However, the most relevant cumulative action regarding protection of CRCT has

been the upstream movement of non-native fish.

During project implementation there would be adverse impacts as explained under direct

and indirect effects, above. In combination with the cumulative actions outlined in the

previous paragraph there would be a short-term adverse impact due to increased

sedimentation, but the cumulative adverse effects would be outweighed by the immediate

beneficial effects of removing and stopping upstream movement of non-native fish. Into

the future, as adverse effects from project implementation, and other past cumulative

actions, continue to dissipate, there will be a meaningful beneficial effect to the

conservation population.

Biological Determinations of the Proposed Action under the Endangered Species

Act

The Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail chub, humpback chub and razorback sucker are

endangered species and inhabit the Colorado River downstream of the project area. The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) believes that one of the major causes for the

decline of these species is the effect of impoundments and water depletions. The

determination under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is no effect to these species from

the proposed action (no consultation is required). The rationale for this determination is

that the endangered fish or its habitat is not present on the Routt National Forest, and no

water depletions are associated with this project.

Due to unsettled taxonomy (questioning of sub-species designations due to recent genetic

results) surrounding greenback cutthroat trout, the FWS has advised Federal agencies to

conduct ESA section 7 consultation for actions that may affect CRCT genetically

identified as ‘green’ lineage cutthroat trout (including the Deadman Gulch CRCT

population. The proposed action may result in short-term impacts to green lineage

cutthroat trout due to small increases in sediment delivered to the channel. Impacts would

be mitigated through project design criteria so that risks are minimal, and discountable.

Impacts from the loss of connectivity of the stream (due to the proposed barrier) would

occur but are negligible compared to impacts that would be observed if hybrid fish are

allowed to occupy the entire population.


12

A Biological Assessment and request for consultation letter were sent to the FWS in July

of 2017. An ESA determination of may affect, but not likely to adversely affect for green

lineage cutthroat trout is likely.

Biological Determinations for Region 2 Sensitive Species

Two Region 2 sensitive aquatic species—the boreal toad and northern leopard frog—are

thought to occur within the project area. Therefore the determination, under the proposed

action, would be may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of

viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the boreal toad

and northern leopard frog. The no action alternative would have no impact to Region 2

sensitive aquatic species.

Biological Determinations for Aquatic Management Indicator Species

Brook trout and CRCT are Routt National Forest aquatic management indicator species.

The no action alternative would result in no change to trends in brook trout populations

forest-wide. Impacts to CRCT from implementation of the proposed action could affect

individuals in the short-term, would benefit the population in the long-term, and are not

anticipated to affect population trends within the planning area or forest-wide. There

would be no impact to brook trout because they are not present in the project area.

3.2 BOTANY

The botany field reconnaissance efforts included a pre-field review and a field survey.

The pre-field review considered threatened, endangered or sensitive species, Region 2

sensitive species, and species of local concern and established a target list of these

species that may occur or be affected by the project activities, based on potential habitat

in the project area. The field survey was conducted on July 14, 2016 on Forest Service

land and focused on target species identified in the pre-field review.

No federally listed or candidate threatened or endangered plant species, Region 2

sensitive plant species, or species of local concern were found or expected in the project

area.

The project has the potential to accelerate the spread of non-native, invasive species

currently in the project area. The spread of non-native, invasive species would degrade

riparian habitat. The risk of spread would be reduced by the implementation of project

design criteria.


Populations of non-native fish are not known to affect plant communities such as those in

the project area. But natural processes, such as succession of plant communities, would

continue to affect plants and their habitats, and populations of non-native and invasive

plant species in the project area would continue to spread.


The proposed action would involve excavation and redistribution of soil and streambed

materials in and adjacent to areas with non-native, invasive species, and project timing

(September) would coincide with the seed set for populations in the project area. Soil

disturbance, and especially redistribution, can accelerate population expansion and


13

increase population density of these undesirable species by spreading and planting the

seeds. Additionally, notching beaver dams would result in rapid draining of existing

ponds. Due to the above, newly exposed soil could be invaded by non-native species that

could ultimately degrade the riparian habitat.


Cumulative actions would not contribute to trends in populations or habitats of rare

plants, as they are not present. Potential adverse effects from spread of non-native plants

would be meaningfully reduced by treating the project area well in advance of project

implementation.

3.3 HERITAGE

In 2016, a cultural resource survey of 13.3 acres within the Area of Potential Effect was

completed for the project. No cultural resources were identified. A Limited Results report

was completed and submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office. No concurrence is

required for limited results reports, which are sent for informational purposes only. It is

determined that obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

have been met for this project. Therefore, no effect to cultural resources has been

determined and the project may proceed.

3.4 HYDROLOGY

Toponas Creek is in the headwaters of Rock Creek, a tributary of the Colorado River.

The restoration reach is at high elevation above 8,500 feet. The watershed hydrology is

characterized by low flows throughout the fall and winter, with snowmelt runoff peak

flows in May and June. The stream channel is moderately steep with riffle- and step-pool

morphology, and riparian vegetation is mixed willow and alder with adjacent aspen

community.

A hydrologic analysis was performed in the context of the Toponas Creek watershed that

would contain the project and the smaller drainage area that would contribute directly to

the proposed fish barrier site. The short-term analysis period was three years and was

based on the expectation that disturbed herbaceous ground cover, which affects

hydrology, would fully recover within three years of project implementation. The long-

term analysis period was ten years because it would be expected that woody vegetation

disturbed by project implementation, and which also affects hydrology, would fully

recover in this time.

The potential direct and indirect effects to water quality of project alternatives were

analyzed using the following indicators:

Risk of increased stream turbidity

Risk of adverse wetland and riparian area impacts

Risk of adverse stream chemical loading

Risk of adverse channel change

In addition, successful implementation of the proposed action and restoration would

depend on the following connected actions relevant to water quality:

Hand notching of up to twenty beaver dams


14

Use of the chemical rotenone over a two day period; a second treatment may

occur the following year

Use of potassium permanganate to neutralize rotenone

Effects of the connected actions were considered in the analysis of the proposed action.


If the no action alternative were selected there would be no disturbance of the floodplain,

vegetation, or channel banks or bed, and no use of chemicals for reclamation. Therefore,

the no action alternative would produce no adverse effects to water quality, wetlands, or

channel change in Waters of the United States over either the short- or long-term

timeframes.


Risk of Increased Stream Turbidity

The proposed action would be expected to increase stream turbidity within and

downstream of the restoration reach. Where the floodplain, vegetation, wetlands, and the

channel would be disturbed, fine sediment would be more likely to be mobilized to the

stream during precipitation and runoff events. Excavation that would occur in moist soils

in and immediately adjacent to the channel would increase turbidity. While stream flow

would be piped to bypass the barrier site during construction, turbidity would temporarily

increase when flows were first returned to the channel. Overall, the magnitude of

expected disturbance is modest and short in duration.

Revegetation of disturbed sites would reduce increases in stream turbidity. In the short-

term, any disturbed herbaceous vegetation would be expected to fully recover, and

seeding and willow plantings would facilitate revegetation of disturbed soils.

Stream turbidity could also increase as a result of the manual notching of up to twenty

beaver dams (considered a connected action) in the restoration reach. This would occur

after the notching and subsequently during the first spring peak flows, as a result of the

changed invert elevation of the beaver dams.

Risk of Adverse Wetland and Riparian Area Impacts

The proposed action would produce some direct impacts on riparian areas resulting from

the expected 0.15 acres of ground disturbance and removal of vegetation from sixty linear

feet of stream bank. However, the magnitude of this disturbance would be modest and

would be rehabilitated with seeding and planting. Thus, impacts are not anticipated

beyond the short-term.

Notching of beaver dams (connected action) to facilitate chemical reclamation may

produce indirect adverse effects to wetlands in the short-term (three years) due to

lowering of the water surface elevations in the impoundments. However, the lowering of

the water surface would be of a similar magnitude as that expected during the natural

evolution of beaver impoundments through processes of construction, maintenance,

damage, abandonment, reoccupation, etc. Additionally, water surface lowering would be

expected to allow for more streamside herbaceous and woody vegetation to become

established in the long-term, assuming renewed beaver activity does not return dams to

pre-project elevations.


15

Risk of Adverse Stream Chemical Loading

Water quality may be adversely effected by the introduction of chemicals to soils and

water bodies. Rotenone would be used for chemical reclamation, applied over a two day

period, with the detoxifying agent potassium permanganate applied at the bottom of the

restoration reach and possibly further downstream to neutralize any potential downstream

impacts. Depending on effectiveness of the initial treatment, a subsequent treatment of

the same magnitude could be done in year two. Effects of rotenone would be expected to

be significantly less than the short-term (three year) time frame.

Petroleum products, such as fuel, associated with machinery working in and around the

stream channel would also have the potential to impact water quality. Depending on how

and where chemicals contact water, effects to surface and groundwater may be short- or

long-term. Project design criteria and best management practices (USDA 2012) would

minimize the likelihood of these impacts occurring.

Significant effects to water quality parameters, such as dissolved oxygen concentrations,

pH, temperature, and conductivity are not expected because project design criteria and

prescribed best management practices would minimize ground disturbance and provide

additional water quality protections.

Risk of Adverse Channel Change

The proposed action would produce direct channel change resulting from excavation and

construction of the barrier structure. Barrier construction may in turn alter bedload

transport due to reduced bed slope and produce indirect channel change manifested in

rise in stream bed due to deposition of sediment immediately downstream of the barrier

structure. However, effects would not extend beyond the project area, and processes such

as bank erosion or down cutting are not anticipated as a result of barrier construction.


The proposed action would not contribute significantly to cumulative effects. While some

floodplain, vegetation, and stream bank and bed disturbance would occur, it would be

minimized, rehabilitated, and would thus not produce turbidity or adverse channel change

beyond the short-term. There are minimal past or reasonable foreseeable future activities

that could contribute additional adverse effects, and therefore total cumulative effects

would be minimal.

3.5 SOILS

The soils in the analysis area are derived from metamorphic and igneous deposits. The

analysis area is dominated by sandy coarse-textured soils with high percentages (by

volume) of rock fragments in the profile. Most soils in the riparian areas are composed of

reworked alluvium, have poor drainage, and are frequently saturated during periods of

spring and summer snowmelt. They are not particularly prone to high levels of

compaction but are more susceptible to degradation when inundated, particularly in

riparian areas with large organic deposits and a high water table.


16


The proliferation of undesirable aquatic species would have little to no effect on the soil

resource and conditions in the project area would remain in their current, mostly natural,

state.


The proposed action would involve excavation and redistribution of soil in riparian

corridors. Soil disturbance associated with project activities and site access would

temporarily lead to a decline in soil productivity. Compaction from heavy equipment

would be present along access routes. Erosion from excavated sites would be expected to

be present, but minimal.


There would be minimal effects from cumulative actions, the area is of nominal extent,

and recovery from project implementation disturbance would be expected within five

years. Therefore, cumulative effects, although adverse, would be negligible.

3.6 WILDLIFE

The analysis area is limited to Forest Service land within the project area and is confined

to 2.2 miles of Toponas Creek and the immediate construction area, which is estimated at

0.15 acre. Vegetation in the analysis area is sagebrush steppe, lodgepole forest, aspen

forest, and spruce/fir forest and is at approximately 8,560 feet in elevation.

Field reconnaissance efforts for wildlife include a pre-field review and a field survey. The

pre-field review considered threatened, endangered or proposed/candidate species and

Region 2 sensitive species, and established a list of these species that may occur or be

affected by the project activities, based on potential habitat in the project area. In

analyzing for impacts to the federally listed threatened Canada lynx, this project was

evaluated by use of decision screens, a process agreed upon by the Southern Rockies

Lynx Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2009).

There are twenty-seven Region 2 sensitive species that are known or suspected to occur

within the Routt National Forest. None of these were found within or near the analysis

area, have potential habitat in or near the analysis area, or would be affected by the

proposed action.


Under the no action alternative, current management would continue. This alternative

would result in no impacts to terrestrial threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, nor

Region 2 sensitive species.


Based upon the minimal size of the proposed project, location on the landscape, type and

duration of project construction, and minimal impacts to habitats associated with

terrestrial Region 2 sensitive species, no impacts to those species are expected.

The proposed action is a pre-screened activity for Canada lynx (therefore, no consultation

is required). The fish barrier construction disturbs considerably less than two acres of


17

lynx habitat though the construction activity could temporarily disturb individual lynx, if

present. Over time, the area would generate shrubs and young trees that could provide

habitat for snowshoe hares and prey to benefit lynx. Therefore, the Proposed Action leads

to an ESA determination of “not likely to adversely affect” for the Canada lynx.


No meaningful contributions to effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

actions were identified. Therefore, cumulative effects are considered to be those resulting

from direct and indirect effects of the project, and are considered negligible.

CHAPTER 4: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, CONSULTATION, AND PREPARERS

4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The project leader met with the downstream landowner in October 2015. The proposal

was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions in January 2017. The project leader

spoke with four nearby landowners in the spring of 2017. The Notice of Proposed Action

appeared in the newspaper of record, the Steamboat Pilot and Today, on April 2, 2017,

beginning a 30-day comment period. Scoping letters were mailed to the Yampa Ranger

District’s list of interested individuals and other agencies. Two comments were received

and are responded to in the following table.

Comment Response

Commenter 1

Removing brook trout and replacing

with cutthroat trout would reduce the

opportunity for anglers to keep fish.

Fish sampling by CPW and the Forest Service within the

project area occurred in 2008 and 2014 to 2016. Cutthroat trout

and cutthroat * rainbow trout hybrid fish are the only trout

species that have been captured. Given this data, the project

would not reduce the opportunity to catch and keep brook trout.

Native species reclamation projects are

impacting angler’s ability to catch brook

trout on the Routt National Forest.

The Routt Forest Plan (1997) estimated that brook trout occupy

439 miles of stream or 72% of the total miles of perennial

streams. Native species reclamation projects since that time

have removed brook trout from 10 miles of stream. Therefore,

brook trout currently occupy an estimated 70% or 429 miles of

stream on the Forest.

Commenter 2

In 1977 Toponas Creek went dry in

many areas. Therefore, are the fish in

Toponas Creek and Deadman Gulch

native fish or the result of subsequent

stocking?

Genetic results from 2015 suggest that fish in this population 1)

do not match fish from known stocking facilities and 2) are

unique from other native cutthroat populations. This suggests

that the current fish population is native to this stream.

Toponas Creek and Deadman Gulch

within the project area are rarely fished

by anglers.

Agreed

The stream is adjacent to Hwy 134

where de-icing chemicals are applied.

Colorado Department of Transportation applies magnesium

chloride and sodium chloride de-icing agents on State Highway


18

Do these chemicals affect fish? 134. Laboratory experiments suggest these chemicals are only

toxic at concentrations higher than what would be expected

along roads. Fish in Toponas Creek are healthy, suggesting that

current de-icing chemicals are having minimal or no effect on

fish.

The cost of the project is greater than the

benefit to the taxpaying public. If the

project is important then why is the

Forest Service the only

agency/organization funding the project?

The Forest Service is legally obligated to conserve CRCT, in

cooperation with partners. The cost of barrier construction is

being shared by the Forest Service, CPW, and Trout Unlimited.

4.2 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES AND TRIBES CONSULTED

The Forest Service contacted and/or consulted with the following Federal, State, and

local agencies and Tribes:

City of Yampa

Colorado Department of Highways

Colorado House of Representatives

Colorado Parks & Wildlife

Colorado State Historic Preservation

Office

Routt County Commissioners

State Senate District 8

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Cheyenne and Arapahoe Tribes

Northern Arapaho Tribe

Southern Ute Tribe

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

4.3 LIST OF PREPARERS

The following Forest Service personnel were involved in the development of this

environmental analysis:

Basia Trout District Ranger

Artemisia Turiya NEPA Coordination and Review

Rick Henderson Project Coordinator; Fisheries

Marti Aitken Botany

Kevin Thompson Fire and Fuels

Angie Krall Heritage

Zackary Mondry Hydrology

Liz Schnackenberg Hydrology

Janet Faller Lands

Doug Myhre Range

John Anarella Recreation, Wilderness, and Visuals

Ryan Adams Soils

Darrell Freeman Wildlife


19

LITERATURE CITED

CRCT Coordination Team. 2006. Conservation agreement for Colorado River cutthroat

trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 10pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region (R-2), Lakewood,

Colorado.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. FSH 2509.25 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook.

Chapter 10—Management Measures and Design Criteria. Amendment Number 2509.25-

2006-2.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (SRLA).

Implementation Guide for the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Record of Decision

for Final Environmental Impact Statement: October 2008. USDA Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Region. Lakewood, Colorado.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality

Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP

Technical Guide. FS-990a.


20

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

The Yampa Ranger District proposes to authorize the Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and

Reclamation Project.

As the responsible official, I am responsible for making a finding regarding potential for

the alternatives discussed in this EA to result in significant effects to the human

environment. I have reviewed and considered the EA and documentation included in the

project record, and I have determined that the project’s proposed action alternative will

not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As a result, no

environmental impact statement will be prepared. My rationale for this finding is as

follows, organized by sub-section of the Council on Environmental Quality’s definition

of ‘significantly’ (40 CFR 1508.27).

CONTEXT

For the proposed action and no action alternatives, the context of the environmental

effects is based on the environmental analysis in the project’s EA. Disclosure of direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects in this EA and the project record demonstrate analysis of

the proposed action primarily in the context of the project area (EA pp. 2-3, Figure 1) and

the locality (e.g., effects beyond the boundaries of the project area, including downstream

and/or adjacent lands).

INTENSITY

Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on

information from the effects analysis of this EA and information in the project record.

The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific

information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained from field visits and

existing data.

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist

even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

The interdisciplinary team (IDT) analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative

effects of the Proposed Action on biological, physical, and cultural resources in

and around the Toponas Creek Barrier and Reclamation project area (EA, pp. 10-

17). The EA summarizes, based on resource specialist reports, the negative and

positive effects of the proposed action over the short- and long-term. Design

criteria have been agreed upon by the IDT to ensure that impacts will not be

significant (EA, pp. 8-9). Short term and localized negative impacts would occur

to aquatic, botany, hydrology, and soil resources due to ground disturbance during

placement of the fish barrier. These impacts were partially or completely

eliminated through design criteria related to invasive plants and soil compaction

(EA, pp. 8-9). Conversely, there will be an immediate and long term benefit

associated with protecting a native CRCT conservation population. My finding of

no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of this

action.


21

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

I find that there would be no significant risks to public health and safety due to the

actions proposed in this project primarily because the project’s activities do not

involve areas where the public is likely to be affected.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical

or cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic

rivers, or ecologically critical areas.

The project area does not include parklands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic

rivers, wilderness, or Colorado roadless areas. No cultural resources were

identified and there has been a determination of no effect to cultural resources

(EA, p.13). Project design criteria will be implemented to ensure that any cultural

resources found within the affected project area will be protected (EA, p. 8).

Limited, short-term, adverse impacts would occur to wetlands with no long-term

effects (EA, pp. 13-15). Wetland areas would be protected by adhering to National

Core Best Management Practices (USDA 2012), and design criteria protecting

aquatic and hydrologic resources.

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are

likely to be highly controversial.

The Forest Service and CPW have extensive experience in analyzing and

implementing this type of aquatic management project. Because of this, potential

issues associated with this proposed action are understood and there is a low

degree of uncertainty regarding the risks to the human environment. While some

public comments expressed concern that the proposed action would negatively

affect fishing opportunities, not implementing the project poses a greater and

more environmentally meaningful risk to native aquatic resources.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly

uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

The proposed action (EA, pp. 5-8) and effects analyses of the EA (pp. 10-17),

specialist reports, and other information in the project record incorporate accepted

techniques and methods, the best available scientific literature, reliable data, field

review, and the judgement of qualified professional resource specialists. These

analyses did not identify highly uncertain effects or unique or unknown risks

associated with the Proposed Action. Additionally, past projects similar in scope

have demonstrated these actions pose little uncertainty and unknown risks. The

Forest Service will follow design criteria and best management practices to ensure

minimized human or environmental risk (EA, pp. 8-9).

6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with

significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future

consideration.

I find that the project would not establish a precedent for future actions. Aquatic

restoration projects of this scope and nature are commonplace in many areas in

the United States. Potential issues associated with this proposed action are

understood and there is a low degree of uncertainty regarding environmental


22

impacts. The project would use known and common barrier construction and

chemical treatment techniques to protect this native trout population.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but

cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to

anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance

cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into

small component parts.

I find that resource analyses associated with this project, including the EA,

specialist reports, and project record, considered cumulative effects. No resource

impacts were identified which when combined with other past, present, or

reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area would result in adverse

significant effects to the human environment.

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways,

structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of

Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural,

or historical resources.

I have determined no significant impacts would occur that adversely affect

districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in

the National Register of Historic Places or cause loss or destruction of significant

scientific, cultural, or historical resources because a Forest Service cultural

resource survey identified no such resources in the project area. Project design

criteria will be implemented to ensure that any cultural or historical resources

found within the affected project area will be protected (EA, p. 8).

The effects analyses associated with the EA (pp. 10-17) did not identify any

scientific resources which would need protection.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or

threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973.

There were no populations of or habitat for any threatened and endangered plant

species, therefore there was no U.S. Fish and Wildlife consultation for plants and

they were excluded from analysis due to no potential for impact (EA, p. 12).

A determination of “not likely to adversely affect” for the Canada lynx was found

for the proposed action (EA, p. 17).

The only known ESA species in the project area, the green lineage Colorado

River cutthroat trout would benefit from this project and a determination of “may

affect, but not likely to adversely affect” is likely for this species (EA, p. 12).

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or

requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

The Toponas Creek Barrier and Reclamation Project proposed action complies

with all Federal, State, and local laws and requirements imposed for the protection

of the environment. These include the Clean Water Act, the Wetlands and

Floodplains Executive Orders, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic


23

Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Forest

Management Act. This is demonstrated in the applicable Specialists Reports,

which are available in the project record, and supported by the EA. The proposed

action complies with Forest Plan desired conditions, objectives, standards, and

guidelines (EA, pp. 10-17).

Toponas Creek Barrier and Reclamation...

Documents

Transcript of Toponas Creek Barrier and Reclamation...