teton to snake fuels reduction project fisheries...

Teton to Snake Fuel Reduction Project

Fisheries Resource Report

Prepared by: David Fogle

North Zone Fish Biologist

Bridger-Teton National Forest

May 24, 2012

4/2/2012

01/29/2014

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Teton to Snake Fuels Management

1

Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

Issues to be addressed .............................................................................................................. 1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 1 Management Framework (Forest Plan Standards, applicable laws, regulations, policies, etc.) .. 3

Desired Condition .................................................................................................................... 4 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................ 4

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................................... 5 Methodology and Scientific Accuracy .................................................................................... 5 Alternative 1 – No Action ....................................................................................................... 6 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 7 Alternative 3- Reduced Potential Impacts to Special Areas and Wildlife Habitat .................. 9

Effects Summary ......................................................................................................................... 9 Degree to Which the Alternatives Address the Issues ............................................................. 9 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ... 10

References ................................................................................................................................. 13 Preparer ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Other Contributors ......................................................................................................................... 14

List of Tables Table 1. Game and non-game fishes in the analysis area streams by, native or non-native status,

and abundance in streams with a potential use of greater than 99 angler days per acre/mile per year. (Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2004) ........................................................ 3

Table 2. Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the key issues ............................ 10 Table 3. Summary comparison of resource effects ....................................................................... 10


1

Introduction The purpose of this project is to accomplish resource goals and objectives and to move the landscape toward the Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) as established in the 1990 Forest Plan and subsequent 2004 fire management amendment. Management direction relevant to this proposed action is as follows:

• Within the Palisades Wilderness Study Area, fire management emphasizes preservation of wilderness values and allows natural processes of ecological change to operate freely. The number, size, and intensity of fires approximate the known natural fire regime, also thought of as the historic fire regime.

• Provide an appropriate fire protection and use program that is economically efficient, responsive to land management objectives, and provides for public safety and protection of property values.

• Manage aspen to promote age class diversity and perpetuate the type. Prevent the loss of aspen stands due to old age, conifer encroachment, and possible overgrazing. For aspen management, priority is placed on perpetuating aspen stands being invaded by conifers. In addition to the Forest Plan, the Bridger-Teton National Forest’s Fire Management Plan, highlights one of the benefits of aspen management, stating, “Aspen stands often provide excellent fuel breaks that slow fire spread, and can be used to help contain fires.”

• Firefighter and public safety is the highest priority during all fire management activities.

Issues to be addressed The intent of this report is to determine and disclose any impacts of the project on fish and habitat from sediment delivery into area streams from the action alternative.

Existing Conditions Analysis area for this report includes streams in the Snake River Basin below Jackson Lake Dam (6th HUC) in the sub-basins of Spring Creek, Fish Creek, Mosquito Creek, and Fall Creek (5th HUC). The analysis area covers 176 square miles (113,404 acres) of private, public (FS and BLM) and state land in order to utilize the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WG&FD) Sub-basin Management Plan. The proposed project covers 79,682 acres within the 4, 5th HUC subbasins.

Forest Service personnel systematically sampled 92.5 kilometers (92550 meters) on 20 individual streams on Forest System land within the project area in 2002. Streams were sampled for fish distribution and overall habitat condition by habitat reach from the Forest boundary upstream to the headwaters or until a fish barrier was encountered. Habitat conditions were determined by habitat type (riffle, pool, glide, etc.) average pool/riffle ratio, bank stability, riparian vegetation type, confinement, woody debris, substrate, and percent fines. All of the conditions were ocular estimates. Fish species and distribution were determined using a single pass electro-fishing method.

Fisheries

2

Figure 1. Snake River Basin (below Jackson Lake Dam) fifth and sixth order hydrologic unit codes (HUC)

Trail creek, Black Canyon creek, Coburn creek, Fall creek, North Fork Fall creek, Mosquito creek, North Fork of Phillips Canyon creek, Phillips Canyon creek, South Fork of Fall creek, and Taylor creek, had 80% or better stream bank stability with 10% or less fines in the substrate. Pritchard creek, Coburn creek, Georges Canyon creek, Moose Gulch creek, Butler creek, and Cottonwood creek had 60 – 80 % stream bank stability with 20% to 30% fines in the substrate. Coles Canyon creek, Bohnetts Canyon creek, Jensen Canyon creek, Middle Fork of Phillips Canyon creek were dry or no fish were collected. Major influences on fish distribution and habitat conditions in project area streams were noted as roads and trails crossing or parallel to water, de-


3

watering from irrigation diversions, and livestock grazing. A lack of fish passage downstream from the forest boundary on private property was noted on several streams. Damaged culverts at Rock Creek (FSR 3100) and Forest Service Road (FSR) 30980 at Mill creek have been identified in the Road and Trail Stream Crossing Inventory (USDA Forest Service 2006) as a fish barrier. Non-motorized trails associated with the outfitter camp on Mosquito creek (USDA Forest Service 2002) contribute to sediment into the stream at crossings. Livestock grazing on Prichard creek, lower reaches of Fall creek, Georges Canyon creek and Butler creek contribute to streambank trampling, streambank instability and increased sediment (USDA Forest Service 2002).

The Jackson Region of the WG&FD Sub-basin Management Plan draws on population data from area lakes, streams and creel surveys to assist in managing the fisheries. Information from the management plan was used to determine on a sub-basin (Spring Creek, Fish Creek, Mosquito Creek, and Fall Creek) scale for the presence and abundance of native and non-native fish in the analysis area.

The distribution of the finespotted Snake River cutthroat trout in the project area overlaps the Yellowstone subspecies. Biochemical-genetic studies indicate very little difference between the two cutthroat trout (Behnke RJ 1992). For administrative purposes the Yellowstone River cutthroat trout and finespotted Snake River cutthroat trout are considered a single entity.

Table 1. Game and non-game fishes in the analysis area streams by, native or non-native status, and abundance in streams with a potential use of greater than 99 angler days per acre/mile per year. (Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2004)

Species name Native (Y/N) Abundance

Snake River Cutthroat trout Y Abundant Mountain whitefish Y Abundant Brook trout N Common to abundant Mountain sucker Y Abundant Utah sucker Y Abundant Mottled sculpin Y Abundant Paiute sculpin Y Abundant Redside shiner Y Abundant

WG&FD Basin Management Plan and Forest Service stream summary data indicate that native fish are well distributed throughout the project area.

Management Framework (Forest Plan Standards, applicable laws, regulations, policies, etc.) The Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF) is participating in a rangewide Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with state, federal, tribal and private organizations to conserve Snake River cutthroat trout. The goal of this MOU is to assure the long-term viability of Snake River cutthroat trout throughout their historic range. In the project area Snake River cutthroat trout are a major component of the fisheries. Forest Service and WG&FD goals are to maintain genetic integrity of the species and maintain current populations.

Fisheries

4

Desired Condition Direction from the Forest Plan is to provide adequate habitat for dependent fish and wildlife populations (USDA Forest Service 1990. pg 123). Sensitive Species Management Standard regarding fisheries management is to keep Intermountain Region designated Sensitive Species from becoming threatened under the Endangered Species Act by maintaining viable cutthroat trout populations identified in the Conservation Strategy for Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (Range-Wide Yellowstone River cutthroat trout Conservation Team. 2008) and act cooperatively with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in the management of fishery resources (USDA Forest Service 1990. pg 126).

The immediate foreseeable and long-term desired condition for fisheries in the project area is the conservation of the wild trout fishery and the integrity of the indigenous Snake River cutthroat trout while providing sport fishing opportunities (Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2004).

Regulatory Framework

Forest Plan The Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan provides standards and guidelines for Fisheries and Wildlife. The following excerpt is particularly pertinent to the proposed action:

• Sensitive Species management Standard for quantifiable objectives to identify and improve the status of Sensitive species and eliminate the need for listing (pg 126).

• Fish Habitat Management Guideline for fish habitat providing a fishery at or near its potential (pg 126).

• Streambank Stability Guideline directs that stream banks should provide 90% natural bank stability for streams that support a fishery (pg 126).

• Fish Passage Standard provides that streams with a fisheries resource, culverts installation would be designed to facilitate fish passage (pg 126).

• Log Skidding Standard directs that logs would not be skidded across live streams (pg 132).

• Logging in Riparian Area Standard log landings and decking are not allowed in riparian areas directional falling away from streams, remove slash from riparian areas except for habitat improvement, and maintain a mature forest appearance within 100’ of live streams (pg 133).

Monitoring for Fisheries in the Land and Resource Management Plan is validation and effectiveness monitoring of ecological management indicator species that includes cutthroat trout and rainbow trout.

Management Area Management areas include the Palisades Wilderness Study Area and Management Area (MA) 41 (Jackson Hole South). The Desired Future Condition objective for fisheries is maintain habitat for viable populations of management indicator species and meet state objectives for fish populations, harvest levels, success rates, and recreation days.


5

Federal

Clean Water Act Geographical Information System data available from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality website for year 2010 indicates that there are no 303(d) listed streams within or immediately downstream from the project area (http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/index.asp ).

Endangered Species Act In accordance with the Endangered Species Act, its implementation regulations, and FSM 2671.4, the Bridger-Teton National Forest is required to request written concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concerning its actions that potentially effect threatened, endangered, and proposed species. Endangered, threatened, experimental, proposed, and candidate species are managed under the authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act and the National Forest Management Act (PL 94-588). Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act directs Federal departments and agencies to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed and proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitats (16 U.S.C. 1536). There are no known or suspected Threatened or Endangered fish species in the project area (USDA Forest Service 2010).

Federal Permits, Licenses, or Other Entitlements When preparing an EIS, list all federal permits, licenses, and other entitlements which must be obtained in implementing the proposed action or alternatives. When preparing a DEIS and there is uncertainty whether a permit, license or other authorization for a proposed project will be necessary, specifically acknowledge that uncertainty in your report so it can be stated in the DEIS (40 CFR 1502.25 (b)).

Other Required Disclosures NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with …other environmental review laws and executive orders.”

National Forest Management Act The National Forest Management Act provides for balanced consideration of all resources. It requires the Forest Service to plan for a diversity of plant and animal communities. Under its regulations, the Forest Service is to manage for viable populations of native and desired non-native species, and to maintain and improve habitat of management indicator species.

Environmental Consequences

Methodology and Scientific Accuracy Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Jackson Region Sub-Basin Management Plan was used to for background information and characterize large scale (6th HUC) fish distribution (Table 1). The Sub-Basin Management Plan also provides management objectives, limiting factors and management opportunities (WG&FD 2004) that are useful for effects analysis. Wyoming Game and Fish Department sub-basin Management Plans are re-evaluated at 10 year intervals. BTNF

http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/index.asp

Fisheries

6

fish habitat and distribution inventory were used to determine existing conditions of fish habitat and population composition on individual streams.

Information Sources Fisheries analysis for this project was done at the 5th Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) to utilize the WG&FD Sub-Basin Management Plan (Fig 1). BTNF fish distribution and habitat surveys were conducted on individual streams using protocols from the Northern/Intermountain Regions Fish and Fish Habitat Standard Inventory Procedures handbook (Overton 1997). Forest Service crews have surveyed all of the streams in the project area for fish distribution and overall habitat condition. Habitat conditions were determined by habitat type (riffle, pool, glide, etc.) average pool/riffle ratio, bank stability, riparian vegetation type, confinement, woody debris, substrate, and percent fines. Habitat conditions were ocular estimates (USDA Forest Service 2002 Stream Description Summary). Fish species and distribution were determined using a single pass electro-fishing method using Yellowstone cutthroat and Snake River cutthroat trout presence-absence survey method (Novak 2003). Details on individual streams are discussed in Section B, Existing Conditions.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information Recent survey data has not been completed for all species and survey data were not always available from past years. Presence and absence were often determined from the experience and knowledge of State and Federal Fish Biologists familiar with project area.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis Effects analysis for this project considers direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Spatially, for these effects the context is the same—the boundaries of the 6th level watersheds where any treatments, roads or other project-associated activities would occur. The area of analysis for potential direct and indirect effects and the area of analysis for cumulative effects are displayed in Figure 1. This level of analysis was selected as it provides a good scale for determining potential effects. If a larger scale was used, the amount of area tends to overwhelming and when smaller scales are used the amount of area is too limited in scope.

Two levels of temporal context used in the effects analysis are short-term effects, defined as less than 10 years, and long-term effects, defined as greater than 10 years. These periods are based on professional judgment

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects of Taking No Action Under the No Action alternative, no treatments would occur in the project area as proposed. The current Forest Plan would continue to guide management activities across the project area. Of note is that although the Forest Plan allows for wildfires to burn and play their natural role in the ecosystem, direction also requires protection of utilities and property; if the No Action alternative is selected, managers will continue to suppress wildfires in this project area due to the site conditions and values at risk within and near the project area.

Stream habitat in the project area is generally in good condition with impacts from roads and trails being the major contributing factor in sediment delivery with livestock grazing contributing to stream bank instability on Coburn creek, Georges Canyon creek, Moose Gulch creek, Butler


7

creek, and Cottonwood creek (Forest Service 2002). Alternative 1 will not change stream conditions or alter fish populations.

In the event of a wildfire the effect on fish varies on the severity and extent of the fire. Wildfires can have unpredictable outcomes that change the temperature regime and physical attributes of streams that can impact fish and fish habitat (J.D. Dunham and others 2007). Impacts to watershed on Mosquito Creek from the Green Knoll fire were extensive but have not physically changed the stream because the riparian vegetation remained relatively intact. BTNF crews surveyed streams in 2002 following the Green Knoll wildfire in 2001. BTNF surveys indicate the fire had little or no impact to stream habitat and is also supported by WG&FD data for fish populations (WG&FD 2004). The No Action Alternative would likely be similar to past fire events resulting in minor impacts to fish populations and riparian areas with short-term (>5 year) increases in sediment delivery as vegetation recovers.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effect of all past wildfires, timber harvest, and Prescribed Fire Management combination with present bridge replacement and proposed future Highway projects and fuel reduction projects will not contribute to direct or indirect effects to fish or fish habitat in the project area. Road maintenance has a indirect effect of creating sediment delivery to Mosquito creek and Fall creek where forest system roads encroach on the stream (USDA Forest Service 2002). An ineffective culvert on Forest Service Road (FSR) 30980 at Mill creek has been identified in the Road and Trail Stream Crossing Inventory (USDA Forest Service 2006) as a fish barrier. Non-motorized trails associated with the outfitter camp on Mosquito creek (USDA Forest Service 2002) contribute to sediment into the stream at crossings. Livestock grazing on Prichard creek, lower reaches of Fall creek, Georges Canyon creek and Butler creek contribute to streambank trampling, streambank instability and increased sediment (USDA Forest Service 2002).

The combination of past, present, and future activities in the project area will not cause a decline in fish populations or habitat because of overall condition of area streams and connectivity between streams and the Snake River reduces the risk of losing fish population in a single watershed.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action This alternative is designed improve firefighter and public safety, reduce the threat of wildland fire to residential areas and power line corridors, and allow Forest Managers to transition from suppressing all fires to a more natural fire regime.

The objectives of this alternative are (1) reduce fire behavior in the project area ( threat to adjacent homes), and (2) allow for a full range of wildfire suppression responses in the future, including allowing fire to play its natural role across the landscape , particularly in the Wilderness Study Area. In addition, enhancing aspen forests will help accomplish these objectives, and removing hazardous snags in limited area will promote firefighter safety during future responses.

Protection is provided for streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses and deposits of sediment, where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat.

Fisheries

8

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures The project has been designed with features that are intended to minimize or avoid potential adverse effects while meeting project objectives. A complete list of the design features can be found in Appendix B of the Environmental Assessment document. This analysis is based on the implementation of all design features. Design features that address fisheries are located in Table 16 Summary of project design features in the Hydrology Report.

The implementation of best management practices is required through regional Forest Service direction and the MOU with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. The following Best management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented with the selection of this action alternative.

• BMP 11.01 Determination of Cumulative Effects

• BMP 11.04 Floodplain Analysis and Evaluation

• BMP 11.05 Wetlands Analysis and Evaluation

• BMP 11.07 Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Contingency Planning

• BMP 14.03 Use of Sale Area Maps for Designing Soil and Water Protection Needs

• BMP 14.06 Riparian Area Designation

• BMP 14.10 Log Landing Erosion Prevention and control

• BMP 14.03 Erosion Prevention and Control Measures During Timber Sale Operation

• BMP 14.12 Erosion Prevention and Control Measures During Timber Sale Operation

• BMP 14.15 Erosion Control on Skid Trails

• BMP 15.01 General Guidelines for Transportation Planning

• BMP 15.02 General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads and Trails

• BMP 15.03 Road and Trail Erosion Control Plan

• BMP 15.04 Timing of Construction Activities

• BMP 15.09 Timely Erosion control Measures on Incomplete Road and Stream Crossings

• BMP 15.14 Diversion of Flow around Construction Sites

• BMP 18.03 Protection of Soil and Water from Prescribed Burning Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects Prescribed fire is proposed adjacent to the North Fork, Middle Fork, and main Phillips creek, Trail creek, Mosquito creek, Cottonwood creek, Taylor creek, Butler creek, South Fork of Fall creek, Coburn creek and Prichard creek. Non-commercial Thinning (NCT) is proposed on the lower reaches of Phillips creek, Cottonwood creek, Taylor creek and South Fork of Fall creek. Machine Cut/Machine Pile and Burn (MC/MPB) is not proposed adjacent to fish bareing streams and will not contribute to stream sediment.

Target vegetation is upland lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, Douglas fir, and sagebrush and would not extend into riparian areas or target riparian vegetation. Project design mitigates indirect effect from soil disturbance caused by wheels or tracks churning up soil that could possibly migrate into streams by utilizing stream buffers and minimum distance


9

from streams to reduce or eliminate this effect. Project design for prescribed fire buffers streams and riparian vegetation from direct impacts from burning and provides filtering capacity of riparian vegetation to protect streams from sediment and ash from upland operations.

Alternative 2 as proposed would have positive indirect effect on fish and aquatic habitat by promoting aspen communities that reduce fire severity and promotes beaver activity that can enhance riparian and aquatic ecosystems (Olson, R. and Hubert W.A. 1994). The Proposed Action as designed would have no negative long-term effect to fish or fish habitat in the project area. Short term effects to individual fish from sediment entering streams would be reduced and possibly eliminated from the project design features for soil and hydrology are intended to minimize or avoid potential adverse environmental effects while meeting project objectives (Appendix B – Project Design Features).

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of Alternative 2 are similar to Alternative 1 with the exception of road maintenance on Phillips Bench and North Fork of Fall that could reduce sediment into stream by improving drainage.

Alternative 3- Reduced Potential Impacts to Special Areas and Wildlife Habitat The objectives of this alternative are to (1) preserve wilderness characteristics by reducing human manipulation in the Wilderness Study Area and IRAs, and (2) reduce effects to old growth habitat, nesting and foraging habitat for goshawk, and habitat for boreal owls.

Direct and Indirect Effects Stream habitat in the project area is generally in good condition with impacts from roads and trails being the major contributing factor in sediment delivery and stream bank instability (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2004)(Forest Service 2002). This alternative will not alter the impact to streams from roads and may improve water quality downstream through road maintenance that reduces sediment and indirectly improving fish habitat.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 are similar to Alternative 2 with the exception of road maintenance that could reduce sediment into stream by improving drainage. The reduced acres treated in Alternative 3 will have no impacts to fish and fish habitat.

Effects Summary Design features for hydrology and soil (Appendix B – Project Design Features) combined with State Best Management Practices and Forest Plan Standards and Guide Lines for thinning and prescribed fire will be sufficient to eliminate long-term effects and possibly eliminate short-term effects to fish and fish habitat. Fish habitat may be enhanced in the long term in Alternatives 2 and 3 by favoring aspen regeneration that encourages beaver activity that enhances fish habitat (Olson, R. and Hubert W.A. 1994).

Degree to Which the Alternatives Address the Issues Design features and mitigation measures reduce the impacts of the project on fish and habitat from sediment delivery into area streams. The physical amount existing road used for the project,

Fisheries

10

proposed fireline, temporary roads and temporary stream crossings are compared by alternative in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the key issues

Issue Alt 1 – No Action Alt 2 - Proposed Action Alt 3

Miles of Existing Road Proposed for Use within 300 feet of Streams

0 5.8 5.8

Miles of Fire Control Line within 300 feet of Streams

0 1.8 0.9

Miles of Proposed Temporary Road within 300 feet of Streams

0 0.1 0.1

Number of Temporary Road-Related Stream Crossings

0 0 0

Table 3 compares the estimated tons of sediment that could enter streams generated by management activities associated with the proposed project. It is assumed that these amounts represent a maximum value as not all unit acres may be adjacent to a stream and the model does not account for BMP or design feature effectiveness. In addition the model does not take into account that not every unit would be burned or treated within one year. Details of how this information was collected and analyzed are located in the Analysis Assumptions of the Hydrology Report.

Table 3. Summary comparison of resource effects

Management Indicator Alt 1 – No Action Alt 2 - Proposed Action Alt 3

Estimated Sediment Delivery (tons) 0.2 3.5 3.5

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Analysis of available fish distribution and population data from the WG&FD and Forest Service sources combined with data collected on the project for Hydrology indicate that the cumulative impact of Alternative 2 and 3 will not move the status of cutthroat trout toward a need for listing under the Endangered Species Act. All Alternatives meet Forest Plan Standards for Sensitive Species management and Fish Passage Standard as it pertains to implementation on Forest System Roads and Trails.

The Alternative meet the Desired Condition for fisheries by providing for the conservation of the wild trout fishery and the integrity of the indigenous Snake River cutthroat trout while providing sport fishing opportunities


11

Possible Conflicts with any Federal, Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls There are no inconsistencies with LRMP Sensitive Species Management and State Species of Concern to maintain viable populations of cutthroat trout with the implementation of Alternatives proposed with the project.

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity Management actions may have temporary increases in sediment that may impact fish habitat but long-term productivity of cutthroat trout will not be reduced as a result of these activities.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects The no-action alternative (Alternative 1) may result in large wildfires that increase the likelihood short term impact of ash and sediment enter streams that killing fish. Long term impacts to habitat from large fire can displace fish populations.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources No permanent losses of fish populations or fish habitat would be expected from any of the Alternatives due to ability of fish to move into the larger Snake River system to escape and re-populate a land disturbance. Temporary habitat losses from Alternatives 2 and 3 could be expected to be less than Alternative 1.

Required Monitoring The action alternatives do not require additional monitoring for fish populations or riparian habitat.


13

References Behnke, RJ. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society

Monograph 6.

J.D. Dunham and others 2007. Influences of Wildfire and Channel Reorganization on Spatial and Temporal Variation in Stream Temperature and the Distribution of Fish and Amphibians. Ecosystems (2007) 10:335-346. DOI: 10.1007/s10021-007-9029-8

Novak n.d.. Yellowstone Cutthroat and Snake River Cutthroat Trout Presence-Absence Survey. Methods Summary. File designation: 2600

Olson, R. and Hubert W.A. 1994. Beaver: Water resource and riparian habitat manager. University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming.

Overton et al. 1997. R1/R4 (Northern/Intermountain Regions) Fish and Fish Habitat Standard Inventory Procedures Handbook. General Technical Report INT-GTR-346.

Range-Wide Yellowstone River cutthroat trout Conservation Team. 2008. Conservation Strategy for Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkia bouvieri in the States of Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. 17pp.

USDA Forest Service 1990. Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Region 4. Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson, Wyoming. 396pp.

USDA Forest Service 2002 Stream Description Summary. Stream Description Summary. File designation: 2600.

USDA Forest Service 2006. Road and Trail Stream Crossing Inventory. USFS 3100, 30010, 30050, 30059, 30120, 30100, 30140, 30160, 30250, 30400, 30410, 30430, 30445, 30500, 30520, 30521, 30530, 30531, 30600, 30700, Misc. Non-UDAFS Crossings. Blackrock and Jackson Districts. File designation: 2600

USDA Forest Service 2010, The Intermountain Region (R4) Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species of known/suspected distribution by National Forest. File designation: 2600

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2004. Jackson Fish Management, Sub-Basin Management Plans. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Jackson, Wyoming.

Fisheries

14

Preparer David Fogle

Education

1974 A.A.S. Forestry, Michigan Technological University

1994 B.S., Fisheries Management, Utah State University

Experience

2001- Present North Zone Fish Biologist, Afton, WY

1994-2001- Fish Biologist, Uinta NF. Heber City, UT

1986-1994- Biological Technician, Uinta NF. Heber City, UT

Other Contributors WG&FD provided data from their Basin Management Plan for analysis of this project.

Introduction Issues to be addressed

Existing Conditions Management Framework (Forest Plan Standards, applicable laws, regulations, policies, etc.) Desired Condition Regulatory Framework

Environmental Consequences Methodology and Scientific AccuracyAlternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 3- Reduced Potential Impacts to Special Areas and Wildlife Habitat

Effects Summary Degree to Which the Alternatives Address the Issues Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

References PreparerOther Contributors

teton to snake fuels reduction project fisheries...

Documents