toponas creek barrier and reclamation...
TRANSCRIPT
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]
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
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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.
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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).
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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.
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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.
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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.
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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.
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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.
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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.
Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative
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.
Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action
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
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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 Effects of the Proposed Action
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
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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.
Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative
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.
Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action
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.
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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.
Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action
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.
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
16
Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative
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.
Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action
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.
Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action
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.
Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative
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.
Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action
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
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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.
Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action
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
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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.
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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.
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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
Toponas Creek Fish Barrier and Reclamation Project Environmental Assessment
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).