biological assessment and evaluation...

S a w t o o t h N a t i o n a l F o r e s t

FISHERIES TECHNICAL REPORT AND BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

OF THE EFFECTS OF

THE ROCK CREEK

FUELS AND VEGETATION PROJECT ON SENSITIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

Minidoka Ranger District Sawtooth National Forest

Prepared by: Date: September 23, 2015 Brenda Mitchell Forest Fisheries Biologist

Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF REPORT ................................................................ 1

II. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ..................................................................... 2

III. Alternative Actions and Project Design Features ............................................................. 3

IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 6

V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES - EFFECTS ON SENSITIVE SPECIES ...... 12

VI. Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................... 14

VII. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS AND RATIONALES .................................... 15

VIII. LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................ 15

Appendix 3. FLRMP Direction............................................................................................ 17

1 Rock Creek Fuels and Vegetation – Aquatic Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation

I. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF REPORT This Biological Evaluation is being prepared to address the effects of hand and mechanical treatments, followed by prescribed fire to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire in Rock Creek and Upper Goose Creek on Minidoka Ranger District, Sawtooth National Forest. This document discusses effects of this proposal on 2 federally listed aquatic species, as well, as 2 fish species on the Regional Forester's sensitive species list. The proposed project area is located on the Cassia Division of the Minidoka Ranger District in the Sawtooth National Forest. The project area analysis area encompasses the project boundary which includes 7,959 acres and is divided between Twin Falls County (4,084 acres) and Cassia County (3,875 acres). The project area is split between the Fourth Fork Rock Creek Subwatershed (HUC unit 170402120601) of the Upper Rock Creek Watershed and the Upper Goose Creek Subwatershed (HUC 170402110104) of the Upper Goose Creek Watershed, specifically including portions of (T14S, R18-19E) & (T15S, R18-19E) (Figure 1). The geographic scope of the proposed action includes Management Area 11 – Rock Creek (4,629 acres), Management Area 13 – Trapper Creek/Goose Creek (3,074 acres), and Management Area 14 – Shoshone Creek (256 acres). The analysis area falls within three Management Prescription Categories (MPC); 4.1c Undeveloped Recreation: Maintain Unroaded Character with Allowance for Restoration Activities (22 acres), 4.2 Roaded Recreation Emphasis (7,564 acres), and 6.1 Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes (373 acres). The objectives of this report are to 1) Evaluate potential effects to aquatic species; 2) Identify presence of extraordinary circumstances; and to recommend project mitigation and design to minimize aquatic species impacts.

Figure 1. Rock Creek Fuels and Vegetation Project Vicinity


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provided a list of threatened, endangered and candidate aquatic species that may occur in the proposed project area (Consultation 01EIFW00-2015-SLI-0227, January 26, 2015). These species are listed below in Table 1. Table 1. Listed Status and Critical Habitat Element References for ESA-listed Fish Species Considered in This Consultation.

Species ESU Status; Listing Date Critical Habitat Bliss Rapids snail (Taylorconcha serpenticola) Population: Entire

Threatened; December 14, 1992; 57 FR 59244 59257

No critical habitat rules have been published for the Bliss Rapids snail, Entire.

Snake River Physa snail (Physa natricina) Population: Entire

Endangered; December 14, 1992; 57 FR 59244 59257

No critical habitat rules have been published for the Snake River Physa snail, Entire

Niether of these Federally listed snail species are known to occur on the Sawtooth National Forest, Minidoka Ranger District. The Bliss Rapids snail is known to occur on the mainstem of the Snake River (22 miles), the Malad River (1 mile), Cove Creek (0.4mile), and in 14 springs within proximaty to the Snake River (Federal Register, 74 FR 47536 47545, 2009). The Snake River Physa snail is endemic to Idaho, occurring in a limited reach of the middle Snake River. The “modern” historic range is thought to extend from the Hagerman reach to Grandview. It was also recorded from Minidoka Dam in 1987. Two remaining colonies are believed to exist in the Hagerman and King Hill reaches of the mainstem of the Snake River and 1 colony may persist immediately downstream from Minidoka Dam. Fewer than 50 individuals are thought to have been collected from the Snake River (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). No live individuals have been found in recent years and the current status of populations is unknown (Idaho Fish and Game species profiles). No federally listed threatened or endangered fish species occur on the Minidoka Ranger District of the Sawtooth National Forest. The Cassia Division of the Minidoka Ranger District provides habitat for 2 aquatic species on the Regional Forester's Sensitive species list: Yellowstone cutthroat trout and Northern leatherside chub. Both species occur in the Goose Creek HUC (17040211). Northern leatherside chub is known to occur in Goose Creek, Trapper Creek, and Beaverham Creek but all records are outside of the project area. Northern Leatherside will not be considered in this analysis. Yellowstone cutthroat trout are known to occupy upper Goose Creek within the southern portion of the project.

II. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION The Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) requires that each federal agency shall insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat. The revised Sawtooth Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (FLRMP) outlines management direction for the Sawtooth National Forest in Chapter III, including direction for Forest-wide desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for the management of habitat for threatened, endangered, and proposed species (FLRMP III 8-15). Standard TEST01 states, “The Forest shall consult with the NMFS and Fish and Wildlife Service as


needed, and appropriate, to comply with consultation requirements under the Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevens Act.” The Forest Service Manual directs the Forest Service to avoid all adverse impacts on threatened and endangered species and their habitats except when it is possible to compensate through alternatives identified in a biological opinion rendered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FSM 2670.31). Aspects of the FLRMP applicable to aquatic resources are described in Appendix 3. Forest Service Manual 2670.32 directs the Forest to avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern, and therefore listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester. If impacts cannot be avoided then the Forest must analyze the significance of the potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole. Impacts may be allowed but the decision must not result in a trend toward federal listing.

III. Alternative Actions and Project Design Features Three alternatives including all project design features were considered as described in the project record. They are summarized below and in Table 2. Alternative 1: No action alternative: The project would not be authorized or implemented. Alternative 2: The Proposed Action includes approximately 238 acres of mechanical treatments, a 1,241 acre prescribed fire treatment block targeting 496 acres of forested vegetation communities, 1,424 acres of hand treatment in conifer and aspen communities and 346 acres of timber stand improvements that would be applied to meet the purpose and need described above. (See Figure 2 below for different treatments within the project area). Alternative 3: Limited Mechanical and No Commercial Timber Sale Treatment Alternative: This alternative would exclude mechanical treatment (with the exception of a 100 foot buffer around structures), increase the acres of hand treatment, and use hand treatment around the perimeter of timber stands instead of commercial thinning (Figure 3). Table 2. Project Alternatives Description

Treatment Type (Acres) Alternative Mechanical Hand Prescribed Fire Timber Stand Improvements

1 0 0 0 0 2 238 acres

Remove ladder fuels; masticate all material less than 6” DBH 14 acres Shaded fuel break.

1,424 acres Combination of aspen and conifer treatments

1,241 acre block targeting 496 forested acres Pile burning of areas with hand treatment

346 total acres 55 acres post and pole sales 279 acres of pre commercial thinning 12 acres patch cut harvest 0.3 miles temporary road construction

3 20 acres within 100’ of structures No shaded fuel break

1,642 acres

Same as Alt 2 0 acres No temporary road


Figure 2 - Treatments Proposed Under Alternative 2


Figure 3 - Treatments Proposed Under Alternative 3


IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Rock Creek Fuels and Vegetation Project boundary covers 7,959 acres of National Forest System land. The project is located in the Rock Creek Recreational Complex on the Cassia Division of the Minidoka Ranger District in the Sawtooth National Forest. It encompasses the Fourth Fork Rock Creek Subwatershed of the Upper Rock Creek Watershed and the Upper Goose Creek Subwatershed of the Upper Goose Creek Watershed. The project is in both Twin Falls and Cassia Counties. The main Rock Creek corridor consists of: Organizational Camps, Summer Homes, Ski Area, Developed and dispersed Campgrounds, A Forest Service Guard Station, Communication Sites, and Diamond Field Jack’s Campground and Snow Play Area. These places comprise the “Rock Creek Recreation Complex” are included in the Forest Plan as WUI areas and defined in the Twin Falls County Wildland Fire Mitigation Plan as rural areas that are high risk. These values can be negatively affected by severe wildfire that has the potential to burns through this area.

Elevation in the analysis area ranges from approximately 8,000 feet above sea level on Monument Peak to approximately 5,900 feet along the Forth Fork Rock Creek as it leaves the north western boundary of the project area. Steep, rocky slopes occur within the watershed/project boundary on either side of Forth Fork Rock Creek which flows down the center of the analysis area. The Goose Creek watershed has moderately steep slopes. Precipitation for this area averages 32 inches: 70 percent of this occurs as snow. Streamflows are characteristic of a snowmelt runoff pattern, with peaks typically in May. However, most of these headwater streams have small drainage areas and are susceptible to peak flows from localized, intense thunderstorms that can occur at other times of year (typically thunderstorms in July and August). Geology of the Goose Creek Mountains, particularly in the project area, is dominated by volcanic rocks types, including rhyolite flows and tuffs (ISU, 2002). Exposed rock outcroppings are common and bedrock is typically shallow. This results in frequent expressions of groundwater, numerous springs/seeps, and several perennial streams in the analysis area. Main perennial streams in the project area include Third Fork Rock Creek, Fourth Fork Rock Creek and Goose Creek. Several perennial tributaries of each of those streams exist, including Little Fork, Mountain View Creek, Thompson Creek (Rock Creek), and Bear Hollow and FS Spring Creek (Goose Creek). Seeps and springs located within the analysis area are numerous and total 76 identified sites. There are 12 springs located within the treatment units. In many cases, the springs are the headwater source of 1st order streams. The spring sites are generally located in the upper third of the drainage, below ridgelines that collect snow, with dense riparian vegetation. Figure 4 includes major aquatic features in the analysis area.


Figure 4 - Treatment Units, Analysis Area and Aquatic Features


Stream and Riparian Summary The project includes several perennial and intermittent channels within six hydrologic units but the majority is within the Headwaters of Rock Creek subwatershed (HUC unit 170402120601) and the Winecup Creek to Goose Creek watershed (HUC 170402110104). Both of these watersheds are tributary to the Snake River. Perennial channels within the project area include the Forth Fork Rock Creek, Mountain View Creek, Thompson Creek, the upper reach of Third Fork Rock Creek, Goose Creek, Bear Hollow Creek and FS Spring Creek. Several named and unnamed springs occur within the project area. SUBWATERSHED AREA (ACRES) Hydrologic Unit Hydrologic

Unit Code Total Treatment

Units % HUC in Treatment Units

Headwaters Rock Creek 170402120601 22832 2309 10% Winecup Creek – Goose Creek

170402110104 11654 1282 11%

Total 34486 3591 Subwatersheds Excluded From Further Analysis Fifth Fork Rock Creek 170402120602 12446 142 1.1 Pole Camp Creek – Shoshone Creek

170402130501 14114 22 0.2

Cottonwood Creek 170402130503 17433 21 0.1 Big Creek 170402130505 16456 28 0.2

There are approximately 12 miles of perennial streams and 12 miles of intermittent streams within the project unit boundaries. Most of the streams within the project unit boundaries are 1st and 2nd order stream. Forth Fork Rock Creek is a third order perennial stream. Goose Creek is a second order perennial stream. Each of the perennial streams is fish bearing and includes a variety of aquatic species. Watershed Stream Name Perennial stream

miles Intermittent Stream miles

Rock Creek 4th Fork Rock Creek 3.7 Unnamed tributaries 0.8 4.2 Thompson Creek 0.9 0.5 Unnamed tributary 0.1 1.0 Mountain View Creek 0.8 Unnamed tributaries 0.3 3rd Fork Rock Creek 0.4 Little East Fork 0.7 0.3 Goose Creek Goose Creek 2.2 Unnamed tributaries 0.6 3.0 FS Spring 0.6 Bear Hollow Creek 1.2 Total 12.3 12.3


Water Quality The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality has responsibility for water quality issues in the state. The 2012 Integrated Report is the most recent determination of water quality conditions for the state of Idaho (IDEQ, 2014). No stream reaches within the project area have been identified as 303d impaired. One assessment unit within the analysis area is identified as “not supporting” designated beneficial uses. All other assessment units are supporting beneficial uses. Relevant assessment units, stream segments, beneficial uses, pollutants, and TMDL status are summarized in Table 3. All assessment units and streams in the Rock Creek drainage, as well as the 3rd order segment of Goose Creek, are fully supporting designated beneficial uses and no water quality issues have been identified. The Goose Creek assessment unit that includes all 1st and 2nd order segments has “water temperature” identified as the cause of the listing.

Table 3. Summary of Water Quality Status

Stream Segment Assessment Unit

Beneficial Uses

Cause(s) 305(d) or TMDL status Support Status

Goose Creek – source to Idaho border: includes all 1st and 2nd order streams

ID17040211SK008_02 CW, SS Water Temperature

Category 4A: TMDL completed and approved by EPA

Not Supporting

PCR N/A

Supporting

Goose Creek – source to Idaho border: includes all 3rd order segments

ID17040211SK008_03 CW, PCR, SS N/A

Category 2: Fully supporting beneficial uses Fully Supporting

Rock Creek – source to Fifth Fork Rock Creek: includes all 1st and 2nd order streams

ID17040212SK018_02 CW, PCR, SS

N/A


Rock Creek – source to Fifth Fork Rock Creek: includes all 3rd order segments

ID17040212SK018_03 CW, PCR, SS

N/A


CW – Cold Water Aquatic life; SS – Salmonid Spawning; PCR – Primary Contact Recreation

Fisheries Fish species present in upper Rock Creek include hatchery rainbow trout and wild rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brown trout (Salmo trutta), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), bridgelip sucker (Catostomus columbianus), redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus), and speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) (IDFG, personal communication, 2015 and IDEQ, BURP data). Fish species present in Goose Creek include mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi), Yellowstone cutthroat


trout (Onchorynchus clarkia bouvierii), redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and longnose dace (Rhinichthys osculus) (IDEQ, BURP data). Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) identified 2 threatened, endangered and candidate aquatic species that may occur in the proposed project area: Bliss Rapids snail (Taylorconcha serpenticola) and the Snake River Physa snail (Physa natricina). Niether of these Federally listed snail species are known to occur on the Sawtooth National Forest, Minidoka Ranger District. No federally listed threatened or endangered fish species occur on the Minidoka Ranger District of the Sawtooth National Forest. The Cassia Division of the Minidoka Ranger District provides habitat for 2 aquatic species on the Regional Forester's Sensitive species list: Yellowstone cutthroat trout and Northern leatherside chub. Both species occur in the Goose Creek HUC (17040211). Northern leatherside chub is known to occur in Goose Creek, Trapper Creek, and Beaverham Creek but all records are outside of the project area. Northern Leatherside will not be considered in this analysis. Yellowstone cutthroat trout are known to occupy upper Goose Creek within the southern portion of the project. Yellowstone Cutthroat The Goose Creek drainage supports Yellowstone cutthroat trout (figure 5), which is classified as a Forest Service Region 4 sensitive species and Sawtooth National Forest Management Indicator Species. Management Indicator Species are of primary concern because changes in the abundance of these species could be an indication of the effects of management activities. Life History – The Yellowstone cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri is a member of the Salmonidae, the family of trout, salmon, grayling, and whitefish. The Yellowstone cutthroat trout (YCT) is visually distinguished from other trout species by its two prominent red slashes on the lower jaw, and from other cutthroat trout subspecies by its medium-large, black spots that tend to be concentrated posteriorly and its drab brownish, yellowish, or silvery coloration, with brighter colors generally absent even in mature fish (Behnke 1992; Baxter and Stone 1995). YCT historically occurred in the Snake River drainage from the headwaters down to Shoshone Falls, and in the Yellowstone drainage from the headwaters down to and including the Tongue River Basin within Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada and Utah (Behnke 1992). Information on current status indicates that populations have declined from historic levels largely due to the influences of introduced non-native fish species and historic habitat degradation (Range-Wide YCT Conservation Team, 2008). Yellowstone cutthroat trout inhabit relatively clear, cold streams, rivers, and lakes. Optimal temperatures have been reported to be from 4 to 15 oC (Gresswell 1995). Yellowstone cutthroat trout typically spawn between March and July after flows have declined from their seasonal peak and when water temperatures reach about 50°F. Cutthroat select sites with suitable substrate (gravel less than 85 mm in diameter), water depth (9-30 cm), and water velocity (16-60 cm/s) (Gresswell and Varley 1988; Byorth 1990; Thurow and King 1994). Water temperature determines the time to hatching and emergence of fry. The eggs will hatch in about 25 days in


water averaging 52°F; later in colder water. Several days after hatching from the egg, when about one inch long, the fry emerge from the gravel and disperse into the stream. Juvenile fish require three or more years to mature. Spawning fish tend to be from 200 to over 600 mm long (Thurow et al. 1988). Fish may live as long as 11 years (Gresswell 1995). Species Legal Status – Numerous federal and state resource-management agencies and non-governmental organizations have designated the Yellowstone cutthroat trout as a “species of special concern.” A petition for listing as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was submitted in 1998. Although listing was unwarranted in 2001, a court-ordered status review was initiated in 2005 and published in February 2006. Despite acknowledged declines in the distribution and abundance of Yellowstone cutthroat trout from historical levels (42 percent of its historical range is currently occupied; 28 percent by core, genetically unaltered, populations), the presence of many populations, especially in headwater streams, precluded listing under the ESA. Yellowstone cutthroat trout are a Region 4 Forest Service sensitive species. Species Status in Project Area – The Goose Creek YCT population is considered a “conservation population” as defined by the Range-Wide YCT Conservation Team, 2008 in “Conservation Strategy for Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout. 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. A conservation population is at least 90% Yellowstone cutthroat trout (<10% introgression from other salmonid species or subspecies). A “core population” is a conservation population that is genetically pure (contains only YCT genes based on genetic testing protocols). A “sport fish population” is a wild or hatchery-sustained cutthroat trout population that is managed primarily for the benefit of recreational fisheries. MIS sampling in 2014 indicated that Yellowstone cutthroat trout were observed in project area( Vuono, 2014). Table 4 from this report shows YCT were observed during the 2014 season at the upper most site on Goose Creek which equated to a density of 2.14 fish/100m2. An IDFG e-fishing survey conducted during the 2006 field season at the Goose Creek upper site observed an YCT density of 37.97 fish/100m2. Habitat information within the watersheds is limited to two PIBO sites in which they observed very stable banks throughout the reaches (100 & 87.5%) as well as a very low amount of percent fines (15.3 and 14.96). In 2006, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) surveyed the fish population in upper Goose, Little Goose, Little Piney, and Thoroughbred creeks and reported average salmonid densities of 0.23, 0.00, 0.33, 0.21 fish/m, respectively. Although no genetic testing has been completed on fish collected in the IDEQ surveys, DNA testing completed by Idaho Fish and Game indicated on cutthroat collected on Goose Creek in Nevada were pure Yellowstone cutthroat trout (IDFG, 2013). Spot temperature measurements taken during the 2014 surveys within the watersheds ranged from 12-14°C. Temperature data gathered by the Forest Service Region 4 PIBO (PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion) group in 2001 & 2006 observed a Maximum Weekly Maximum Temperature (MWMT) of 25.51 and 21.16°C. The PIBO temperatures are much higher than what was observed during the spot temperatures which is likely due to where the thermographs were placed-much lower in the drainage (below project area). These stream temperatures suggest that habitat lower in the drainage may be less than ideal temperatures for


YCT within the watershed and may in certain years create a thermal barrier to fluvial or adfluvial life histories of YCT. Habitat information within the watersheds is limited to two PIBO sites in which they observed very stable banks throughout the reaches (100 & 87.5%) as well as a very low amount of percent fines (15.3 and 14.96). Table 4–Yellowstone cutthroat trout densities and population estimates in Goose Creek

V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES - EFFECTS ON SENSITIVE SPECIES Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Yellowstone cutthroat trout (YCT), a R4 sensitive species, have been found within the project analysis area. The occupied habitat within the project area is thought to be from elevation 6880 down to just below FS Spring Creek on upper Goose Creek (approximately 2.0 mIles). Goose Creek is a moderate gradient (2-3%), cobble and coarse gravel channel that is moderately confine by a narrow valley bottom (B2, B3 channel type). Beaver activity creates numerous ponds throughout the upper reaches providing excellent fish habitat. Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed fuels treatment activities proposed in Alternative 2 are mechanical, broadcast prescribed burning, hand thinning, pile burning, clearing for a shaded fuel break and timber stand improvements (post and pole timber sales, pre-commercial thinning, and patch cuts) for the entire project area. All of these same type of treatments would occur in the Goose Creek watershed for Alternative 2 except for broadcast prescribed burning. Alternative 3 similar treatments as Alternative 2 shaded fuel breaks and mechical treatments would be limited to within 100’ of structures. For the Goose Creek watershed under Alternative 3, only hand treatments, pile burning and limited mechical treatments would occur. For both alternatives, the only activity that come in contact with the Goose Creek RCA is hand thinning. Piles will not be placed or burned within the RCA’s so no direct impacts are anticipated. Another potential mechanism for direct injury or mortality to YCT would be transmission of toxic substances (gasoline, oil, grease, etc) into streams from fuel spills or leaky or dirty equipment. With stated project design features to conduct equipment staging (fuel storage, and refueling) outside RCAs, assure that all equipment are free of leaks and avoide lubricant and fuel spills in all project areas, such contaminants should have essentially no potential to enter project area streams. Indirect impacts could potentially occur as a result of increased sediment in the channel. The highest potential for sediment would occur as a result of road, landings, skid trails and pile

Transect ID

Number of Passes

Transect Length

(m)

Species Number Caught

Total Length (mm)

Density (fish/100m2)

Pop Estimates

Mean Range Goose Creek

Upper 3 85 Yellowstone Cutthroat 2 144 142-146 2.14 2


burning. Both project alternatives have project design criteria related to riparian conservation areas (i.e., no mechanical harvest activities or ignition with RCA’s, temporary roads will be obliderated and rehabilitated). Both alternatives would retain substantial upland canopy and ground cover. Landings, skid trails and new temporary roads are all located in upland areas and would be rehabilitated following project completion. Therefore, sediment would have little potential for movement and entry into stream channels (see hydrology specialist report). Determinations Alternative 1 Under the “no action” alternative, the risk of an eventual wildfire, and the likely extreme sediment delivery that typically occurs in the first years following the fire, is much higher than under the action alternatives. The Hydrology Specialist Report model estimates and actual post fire runoff from other fires on the Minidoka District, indicate that post fire runoff and sediment delivery are very likely. The hydrology analysis estimates hillslope sediment delivery for pre fire conditions and for the action alternatives are zero. Estimates for the first year following a wildfire range from 12.8-108.8 tons/mi2/yr. The sediment estimate for wildfire would exceed water quality thresholds for streams and reduce fish habitat. The No Action Alternative could have negative impacts on Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Alternative 2 Prescribed fire is identified as a treatment across 1,241 acre of the project area (Figure 2) and to burn piles created from thinning activities (both mechanical and hand). Only pile burning will occur in the upper Goose Creek watershed. No direct ignition will occur in RCA’s as per project design features so pile burning will not occur RCA’s. Impacts to YCT due to sediment resulting from the effects of pile burning are expected to be minimal. Hand treatments would occur in the Goose Creek watershed and would be done by individuals using a chainsaw. Mechanical treatments would occur in areas identified as pre-commercial thinning, shaded fuel break, and post and pole treatments. Landings, skid trails and new temporary roads are all located in upland areas. Temporary roads will be obliderated and rehabilitated. Therefore, sediment would have little potential for movement and entry into stream channels. Following completion of the project, landings, skid trails and temporary access routes would be obliterated and rehabilitated to break compaction and promote revegetation. Woody debris (logs, branches) will be placed over these areas to encourage native vegetation recovery and to discourage off road vehicle use Alternative 2 is not likely to adversely affect Yellowstone cutthroat trout habitat or contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Alternative 3- Impacts of pile burning in Alternative 3 are identical to Alternative 2. Slash from thinning activities would be piled and burned within the Goose Creek watershed. Alternative 3 would have no shaded fuel break, no post and pole, and no patch cuts. The hand


treatments of Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 are not likely to adversely affect Yellowstone cutthroat trout habitat or contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

VI. Cumulative Effects The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) defines cumulative effects as all past, present, and foreseeable future actions within the analysis area. The Analysis Area is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action” (50 CFR 402-02). The effects of vegetation treatments are expected to be long-term (> 15 years). The timeframe effects of implementation actions are expected to be limited to the short-term (3-10 years). The scope of analysis of cumulative effects will be focused on these time frames. The primary federal activities that have impacted sensitive fish species and their habitats on the Minidoka District of the Sawtooth Forest include construction and use of system and non-system roads, past and present livestock grazing, pesticide and herbicide application, recreation and non-recreation special use permitted activities, developed recreation, water diversion structures, irrigation (inadvertent), current and past timber harvest, current and past mining activity, personal use firewood cutting, and dispersed recreation (including skiing and snowmobiling). Past management activities and disturbances have contributed to the establishment and distribution of noxious and non-native invasive plant species in the analysis area. Reasonably foreseeable actions include the above listed uses including recreation at or near similar use levels, continued livestock grazing at or near current levels, wildfire suppression, travel management actions including rehabilitation of non-system routes and normal yearly maintenance of roads. Forest Service infrastructure and facilities are expected to be maintained through time. The addition of new recreational facilities such as parking lots, replacement of ski lifts and slight expansion of current facilities will likely occur to a slight degree as the demand for recreational use of the Rock Creek area is expected to remain high. Inventory and control of noxious weeds is expected to occur at or near current levels with hand treatment and herbicide application. State and private activities that occur on the Minidoka District of the Sawtooth National Forest are: 1) activities associated with the Idaho Department of Transportation including operation of material sources for road construction and maintenance, highway maintenance in the right-of-way consisting of clearing of vegetation in the right-of-way, drainage cleaning and installation, herbicide application, sanding, and snowplowing; 2) operation of organization camps on state and private lands, 3) livestock grazing operations on state and private lands; 4) private land fuels reduction projects; 5) diversions and the associated irrigation on state and private lands; 6) operation, maintenance including vegetation management along utility rights-of-way. Dispersed Camping and the Rock Creek Recreation Complex – Dispersed camping is widespread in the Rock Creek Recreation Complex impacting riparian areas and the channel


within the project area. Minimal dispersed camping occurs along upper Goose Creek because the main access roads (FR 515 and 632) are not located along the channel. Road Maintenance – Road 515 occurs adjacent to Rock Creek is paved and regularly maintained by the County. FR 500, 541 and 538 in the Goose Creek watershed are maintained annually. Grazing – Sheep grazing occurs in the project area but does not result unacceptable impacts to Yellowstone cutthroat trout habitat on Goose Creek. Noxious Weed Tratment – Noxious weed control actions generally includes the individual plant application of chemical herbicides, hand pulling or grubbing, or the occasional use of vehicle sprayers for large and accessible infestations. Standard best management practices are followed for chemical use, including those required by the various agencies that regulate the certification and application of weed control agents, including the Idaho state certification and Licensing program, EPA product label requirements, and Idaho DEQ.

VII. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS AND RATIONALES Based on the assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, implementation of either alternative, this project “is not likely to adversely affect Yellowstone cutthroat trout habitat or contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” for Yellowstone cutthroat trout.

VIII. LITERATURE CITED Baxter, G.T., and M.D. Stone. 1995. Fishes of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department,

Cheyenne. 290pp. Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6,

Bethesda, MD. Byorth, P.A. 1990. An evaluation of Yellowstone cutthroat trout production in three tributaries of the

Yellowstone River, Montana. Master’s thesis. Montana State University. Bozeman, MT. Federal Register 74 FR 47536 47545. 2009. Federal Register Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Remove the Bliss Rapids Snail (Taylorconcha serpenticola).

Gresswell, R.E. 1995. Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Pages 36-54 in M. Young, editor. Conservation

assessment for inland cutthroat trout. General Technical Report RM-GTR-256, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.


Gresswell, R.E. and J.D. Varley. 1988. Effects of a century of human influence on the cutthroat trout of Yellowstone Lake. Pages 45-52 in R.E. Gresswell, editor. Status and management of interior stocks of cutthroat trout. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 4, Bethesda, MD.

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, 2014. Idaho’s 2012 Integrated Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2015. Snake River Physa. IDFG Species Profiles.

fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/cwcs/pdf/Snake River Physa.pdf Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Management Plan for Conservation of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 2013. Memorandum To:Gary Johnson, Fishery Biologist, Nevada Department of Wildlife; From:Matthew Campbell, Eagle Fish Genetics Lab, Idaho Department of Fish and Game; Subject: Genetic results on 23 samples of Yellowstone cutthroat trout from Goose Creek, NV. March 16, 2013. Idaho State University GeoSciences Department, 2002. Digital Atlas of Idaho. http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/counties/geomaps/geomap.htm Range-Wide YCT Conservation Team. 2008. Conservation strategy for Yellowstone cutthroat

trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri) in the States of Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena.

Thurow, R.F. and J.G. King. 1994. Attributes of Yellowstone cutthroat trout redds in a tributary

of the Snake River, Idaho. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:37-50. Thurow, R.F., C.E. Corsi, and V.K. Moore. 1988. Status, ecology, and management of

Yellowstone cutthroat trout in Upper Snake River Drainage, Idaho. Pages 25-36 in R.E. Gresswell, editor. Status and management of interior stocks of cutthroat trout. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 4, Bethesda, MD.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2012. Draft Sawtooth National Forest Mid- level Existing Vegetation Classification and Mapping. Ogden, UT: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. USDA Forest Service, PIBO Monitoring Program. Effectiveness Monitoring Data for 2001 and 2006.

On file with the PIBO Monitoring Program Logan, UT.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery Plan. Snake River Basin Office, Ecological Services, Boise, Idaho. 92 pp. Vuono, S. 2014. 2013 & 2014 Sawtooth National Forest Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Aquatic Management Indicator Species Monitoring Report. Sawtooth National Forest.

http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/counties/geomaps/geomap.htm


Appendix 3. FLRMP Direction ACS Priority and WARS Subwatersheds For Rock Creek Fuels and Vegetation Project

Subbasin Name

Subwatershed Name ACS Priority Designation

WARS Designation

MPC

Goose Winecup to Goose Creek Yes - Restoration

High, Active 3.2

Upper Snake-Rock

Headwaters Rock Creek (Third Fork Rock Creek)

No Low, Passive 4.1c

Upper Snake-Rock

Headwaters Rock Creek (Forth Fork Rock Creek)

No Low, Active 4.2

Sawtooth Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Applicable Standards and Guidelines

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species

TEST01 The Forest shall consult with the NMFS and Fish and Wildlife Service as needed, and appropriate, to comply with consultation requirements under the Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevens Act.

TEST03 Design and implement projects to meet the terms of Forest Service approved portions of recovery plans. If a recovery plan does not yet exist, use the best information available (for example, BAs, BOs, letters of concurrence, Forest Service-approved portions of Conservation Strategies) until a recovery plan is written and approved.

TEST06 Management actions shall be designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects to listed species and their habitats. For listed fish species, use Appendix B for determining compliance with this standard.

TEGU01 Discretionary actions should avoid take of listed species, and actions where the Forest’s discretion is limited should minimize adverse effects that could lead to a take.

TEGU02 For proposed actions that may affect potential habitat of TEPC species, identify potential habitat and determine species presence within or near the project area. Document the rationale for not identifying potential habitat and determining species presence for TEPC species in the project record.

TEGU03 Management actions in occupied Proposed or Candidate species habitat should be modified or relocated if the effects of the actions would contribute to a trend toward ESA listing for these species.

Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources

SWOB02 During fine-scale analysis, identify opportunities using fuels management activities to reduce the risk of post-wildfire watershed runoff in sub-watersheds with potential threats to life and property.

SWOB18 Reduce road-related effects on soil productivity, water quality, and aquatic/riparian species and their habitats.

SWST01

Management actions shall be designed in a manner that maintains or restores water quality to fully support beneficial uses and native and desired non-native fish species and their habitat, except as allowed under SWRA Standard 4 below. Use the MATRIX located in Appendix B to assist in determining compliance with this standard.


SWST04

Management actions will neither degrade nor retard attainment of properly functioning soil, water, riparian, and aquatic desired conditions, except:

a) Where outweighed by demonstrable short- or long-term benefits to watershed resource conditions; or

b) Where the Forest Service has limited authority (e.g., access roads, hydropower, etc.). In these cases, the Forest Service shall work with permittee(s) to minimize the degradation of watershed resource conditions.

Use the MATRIX located in Appendix B to assist in determining compliance with this standard.

SWST07 Within legal authorities, ensure that new proposed management activities within watersheds containing 303(d) listed water bodies improve or maintain overall progress toward beneficial use attainment for pollutants that led to the listing.

SWST08

Fish passage shall be provided at all proposed and reconstructed stream crossings of existing and potential fish-bearing streams unless protection of pure-strain native fish enclaves from competition, genetic contamination, or predation by exotic fishes is determined to be an overriding management concern.

SWST10

Trees or snags that are felled within RCAs must be left unless determined not to be necessary for achieving soil, water, riparian, and aquatic desired conditions. Felled trees or snags left in RCAs shall be left intact unless resource protection (e.g., the risk of insect infestation is unacceptable) or public safety requires bucking them into smaller pieces.

SWST11

Do not authorize storage of fuels and other toxicants or refueling within RCAs unless there are no other alternatives. Storage of fuels and other toxicants or refueling sites within RCAs shall be approved by the responsible official and have an approved spill containment plan commensurate with the amount of fuel.

SWST12

Site-specific analysis or field verification of broad-scale landslide-prone models shall be conducted in representative areas that are identified as landslide prone during site/project-scale analysis involving proposed management actions that may alter soil-hydrologic processes. Based on the analysis findings, design management actions to avoid the potential for triggering landslides. Refer to the Implementation Guide for Management on Landslide and Landslide Prone Areas, located in Appendix B to help determine compliance with this standard.

SWGU02 When doing fine-scale assessments, the MATRIX in Appendix B should be used to assist in establishing reference and current conditions. Based on a comparison of current and desired conditions, identify management opportunities for watershed and aquatic restoration.

SWGU05 After completion of ground-disturbing activities in a watershed, the minimum ground cover should be sufficient to prevent erosion from exceeding the range of soil erosion rates that are characteristic of the local soil type, landform, climate, and vegetation of the area, or the soil-loss tolerance.

SWGU07 Projects in watersheds with 303(d) listed water bodies should be supported by the appropriate scale and level of analysis sufficient to permit an understanding of the implications of the project within the larger watershed context.

SWGU08 Proposed actions analyzed under NEPA should adhere to the State Nonpoint Source Management Plan to best achieve consistency with both Sections 313 and 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

SWGU11 Transport hazardous materials on the Forest in accordance with 49 CFR 171 in order to reduce the risk of spills of toxic materials and fuels during transport through RCAs.

SWGU12

During site/project-scale analyses, habitat should be determined for sensitive aquatic species within or near the project area. Surveys to determine presence should be conducted for those species with suitable habitat. Document the rationale for not conducting surveys for other species in the project record.

Fire Management

FMGU06 Direct ignition of prescribed fire in RCA’s should not be used unless site/project scale effects analysis demonstrates that it would not degrade or retard attainment of soil, water, riparian, and aquatic desired conditions.

FROB04 During fine-scale analyses, identify opportunities to reduce road-related degrading effects to help achieve other resource objectives.

FRGU05 Where practical alternatives exist, roads in RCAs that are degrading riparian-dependent resources should be evaluated for obliteration or relocation.

FRGU06 New roads and landings should be located out of RCAs wherever possible. When new roads or landings must be located in RCAs, they should be developed such that degrading effects to RCAs are mitigated.


Timberland Resources

TRST07

No fuelwood harvest is allowed within 300 feet of perennial streams and 150 feet of intermittent streams unless management actions are designed in a manner that will not degrade riparian and related aquatic resources. Fuel wood harvest allowed within 300 feet of perennial sterams and 150 feet of intermittent streams will be described in the annual fuelwood map and instructions.

TRST04 Lands within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs), determined after field review, will be identified as not suited for timber production. Wood products harvested within RCAs will not contribute to the Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ).

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs):

The need to delineate RCAs is identified in Appendix B of the revised Sawtooth National Forest plan. The level of field review and analysis spent delineating RCAs should be commensurate with the project’s effects, baseline conditions, management direction, and issues associated with the project/area of interest. RCAs can be delineated using several methods, the default being a 300-foot (slope distance) buffer on each side of perennial streams; 150 feet for intermittent streams. Site-specific RCAs have not been delineated on the ground in the project area, but because the focus of the proposed action is mining and associated activities, an appropriate buffer would be two site-potential tree heights (for perennial streams) or one site-potential tree height (for intermittent streams) from the outer edge of the floodplain of the respective stream. Dominant trees in the project area are persistent lodgepole pine with a site potential height of 70 feet, so RCA width on perennial streams and intermittent streams would be 140 feet and 70 feet, respectively from the outer edge of the floodplain.


Figure 5. Goose/Big Cottonwood/Dry creeks GMU. Streams that are currently thought to contain or lack YCT are labeled. Dots indicate survey sites from the Native Salmonid Assessment project and depict what species were present at the site in proportion to their abundance. Any brown trout captured were not included in these plots. (Idaho Fish & Game, 2007)

biological assessment and evaluation...

Documents