KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST MIS Project Level Assessment Part II of II Effects of Project on MIS Habitats

Transcription

1 KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST MIS Project Level Assessment Part II of II Effects of Project on MIS Habitats PROJECT NAME: High Bar Placer Mine Phase II RANGER DISTRICT: Salmon River Ranger District Prepared by: /s/sam Cuenca Date: 3/9/2011 / updated 8/5/11_ Sam Cuenca, Wildlife Biologist Prepared by: /s/maija Meneks Date: 4/14/2011 / updated 8/5/11 Maija Meneks, Fisheries Biologist I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate landscape and project-level impacts to habitat conditions associated with the six Species Associations and related Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in the Klamath National Forest (KNF) Land and Resource Management Plan [LRMP] on pages 4-30 to 4-33 (US Forest Service 1995; updated July 29, 2010) which was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CFR 219). Project Location Information For a map of the proposed project area and a detailed description of the location, refer to the High Bar Placer Mine Phase II Environmental Assessment. Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project-Level Effects on MIS The Monitoring Requirements in Chapter 5 of the LRMP do not require population monitoring or surveys on any MIS except for steelhead trout and rainbow trout (River/Stream Species Association). For MIS listed on LRMP, page 4-30 to 4-33, project-level MIS effects analyses are informed by project- and landscape-scale habitat analyses alone (LRMP, standard and guideline (S&G) 8-21, page 4-30). Project-level effects on MIS are analyzed and disclosed as part of environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. This involves examining the impacts of the proposed project alternatives on MIS habitat by discussing how direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will change the quantity and/or quality of habitat in the landscape and project area. The LRMP requirements for MIS analyzed for the High Bar Project are summarized in Part I of the MIS Report. Adequately analyzing project effects to MIS involves the following steps: Identifying which MIS have habitat that would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project alternatives (River/Stream Species Association, LRMP S&G 8-34, page 4-34). This information is documented in Part I of the MIS Report. Identifying the LRMP forest-level monitoring requirements for this subset of forest MIS (LRMP Chapter 5, Table 5-1). This information is documented in Part I of the MIS Report. High Bar Phase II MIS Assessment - Page 1 of 9

2 Analyzing landscape- and project-level effects on habitats for which the MIS was selected to indicate in the LRMP. Relating project-level impacts on MIS habitat to habitat and population trends for fish MIS, per the LRMP. The Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report Parts I and II document application of the above steps to select and analyze MIS for the High Bar Project. Direction Regarding Monitoring of MIS Population and Habitat Trends at the Forest Scale Forest scale monitoring requirements for the KNF MIS are found in Table 5-1 ( Monitoring Plan by Resource ) of the LRMP. Habitat Status and Trend The requirement to evaluate landscape- and project-level impacts to habitat conditions associated with the Species Associations and related MIS is identified in the LRMP on page 4-30 (S&G 8-21). Habitat monitoring requirements are summarized in Part I of the MIS Report. Habitats are the vegetation types (for example, mixed conifer forest) and/or ecosystem components (for example, river and ponds) and special habitat elements (for example, snags) as identified in the LRMP. Habitat status is the current amount of habitat on the KNF. Habitat trend is the direction of change in the amount of habitat between the time the LRMP was approved and the present. The methodology for assessing habitat status and trend is 1. Use the GIS vegetation layers to describe the location of habitat for non-fish MIS within a project area. 2. Determine the distribution of fish MIS species using the KNF GIS layer for fish distribution, 3. Consider the reason the MIS habitat was selected as an Indicator, and determine the potential effects to that habitat for which an MIS was selected. 4. Identify the indicated habitat using habitat relationships data or models in the LRMP Appendix I. 5. Detailed information on the habitat relationships for MIS on the KNF and on the CWHR System is found in Part I of the MIS Report. 6. MIS habitat trend is monitored using ecological and vegetation data for the KNF and stream surveys. These data include spatial ecological and vegetation layers created from remotesensing imagery obtained at various points in time, which are verified using photo-imagery, on-the-ground measurements, and tracking of events that change vegetation and stream conditions (for example, vegetation management, floods, and wildland fires). Population Status and Trend Population status is the current condition of the steelhead trout and rainbow trout. Population trend is the direction of change in that population measure over time. Population monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the stream scale rather than the project scale because site specific monitoring or surveying of a proposed project or activity area is not required (36 CFR (f) and the actual treatment areas of an action may not contain streams, but may affect streams through sediment delivery or flow changes. LRMP Monitoring Requirements for MIS Selected for Project-Level Analysis High Bar Phase II MIS Assessment - Page 2 of 9

3 MIS Monitoring Requirements MIS are animal species identified in the KNF LRMP, which was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CFR 219). Guidance regarding MIS set forth in the KNF LRMP directs Forest Service resource managers to: (1) at the landscape and project scale, analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitats of each MIS listed in LRMP Standards and Guidelines 8-21 through 8-34; and (2) to conduct implementation monitoring to determine population trends and relationship to habitat changes for steelhead trout and rainbow trout. How MIS Monitoring Requirements are Being Met Population trend data for steelhead trout is collected and consolidated by the KNF in cooperation with State, tribal, and Federal agency partners such as the California Department of Fish and Game, Karuk Tribe, US Geological Survey, and US Fish and Wildlife Service and other conservation partners such Universities and watershed restoration councils. Fish presence data for steelhead trout and rainbow trout are collected using a number of direct and indirect methods, such as stream surveys and fishing results (creel census). The KNF s MIS monitoring program for species typically hunted, fished, or trapped (such as steelhead and rainbow trout) was designed to be implemented in cooperation with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), consistent with direction in the 1982 Planning Rule to monitor forest-level MIS population trends in cooperation with state fish and wildlife agencies to the extent practicable (36 CFR (a)(6)). To be biologically meaningful for wide-ranging MIS, presence data are collected and tracked not only at the forest scale, but also at larger scales, such as range-wide, state, province (northern California), or important species management unit (for example, Klamath River Basin). In 2006, available data on steelhead and rainbow trout were analyzed to determine the population trends of these species. II. FOREST PLAN SPECIES ASSOCIATIONS AND MIS SELECTED FOR THE PROJECT Project Level Assessment Checklist A review was conducted using the Project Level Assessment Checklist to determine: 1) if the project is within the range of any MIS, 2) if habitat for which the species is an indicator is present within the proposed project area, and 3) if there are potential direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on habitat components. Species associations and MIS associated with habitats that may be affected by the project will be analyzed below. The following species associations and MIS were selected for analysis for the High Bar Placer Mine Phase II Project due to the presence of suitable habitat that may be impacted by the project: River/Stream Species Association Rainbow trout Steelhead Tailed frog Cascades frog American dipper Northern water shrew Long-tailed vole High Bar Phase II MIS Assessment - Page 3 of 9

4 The following associations and species were not selected for further analysis due to absence of habitat or because the project will not directly or indirectly affect the habitat (refer to Part I, the checklist, for rationale): Hardwood Species Associations Acorn woodpecker Western gray squirrel Marsh/Lake/Pond Species Association Northern red-legged frog Western pond turtle Snag Species Association Red-breasted sapsucker Hairy woodpecker White-headed woodpecker Vaux s swift Downy woodpecker Pileated woodpecker Black-backed woodpecker Grassland/Shrub-Steppe Species Association Pronghorn Montane vole Loggerhead shrike Swainson s hawk Sage thrasher Burrowing owl Mature Ponderosa Pine Species Association Flammulated owl White-headed woodpecker Pinyon jay III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND PROJECT AREA The High Bar Placer Mine Phase II Project is located in the McNeal Creek drainage south of the community of Fork of Salmon. It consists of ground disturbance activities in support of mineral extraction operations, inclusive excavating trenches and settling ponds, and processing ore at an onsite mill with wash plant/sluicing. Water will be attained via diversion from McNeal Creek. For the action alternatives, a water line (3-inch PVC pipe for Alternative 1 and 1-inch PVC pipe for Alternative 3) will divert water from McNeal Creek to support mill operations. The water line will be placed at the 10N04 road crossing of the creek, ~600 feet upcanyon from the mill, with the following project design features: Water will be pumped/diverted from McNeal Creek only when the stream flow is 4.5 cubicfeet-per-second (cfs) or greater, as measured at the Road 10N04 bridge. Pump/diversion rate limited to 200 gallons-per-minute (gpm). Pump/diversion rate will last no more than 30 minutes per day. Pump/diversion will occur between midnight and 8:00 AM. For a complete description of the proposed actions, refer to the High Bar Placer Mine Phase II High Bar Phase II MIS Assessment - Page 4 of 9

5 Environmental Assessment. Habitats for MIS that occur within the project area on Forest Service land (as defined by the LRMP, CWHR, and the GIS database) include: hardwoods (oak) (4%), early seral vegetation (28%), mid seral forest (24%), mature mixed-conifer (1%), mature dense mixed conifer (39%), mature Ponderosa pine (1%), 3.7 acres (1%) of wetland ponds, and streams (3.8 miles intermittent and 3.03 miles perennial). IV. MIS ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT Information on species natural history, including general habitat requirements, is found in the Species Natural History Summary for MIS found in the project file. Rationale for designation of MIS is found in the EIS for the Forest Plan (1995) and on the LRMP MIS Selection Summary in the project file. RIVER/STREAM SPECIES ASSOCIATION Rainbow trout, steelhead, tailed frog, Cascades frog, and American dipper were selected as indicators for water quality, in-stream woody debris, substrate, flows, and channel conditions within rivers and streams. Northern water shrew and long-tailed vole were selected as indicators of riparian vegetation along rivers and streams. General: Project activities occur within the McNeal/Glasgow 7 th field HUC. Total channel area within the 7 th field scale includes ~3.8 miles of perennial stream and ~3.03 miles of intermittent stream. In the 7 th field HUC, only the South Fork Salmon River and McNeal Creek are considered suitable for fish occupation; and it is in these waterways fish are currently present. The South Fork Salmon River 5 th field analysis area provides habitat for coho, Chinook, steelhead, and resident rainbow trout. However, neither coho nor Chinook can access McNeal Creek, and therefore this drainage is outside SONCC coho designated Critical Habitat and Chinook Essential Fish Habitat. MIS effects that will be discussed by species and included are: fish (rainbow trout, steelhead trout), frogs (tailed, Cascades), American dipper, Northern water shrew, and long-tailed vole. Fish (Rainbow Trout/Steelhead Trout) Refer to the High Bar Phase II Fisheries Specialist Report for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to these species. The information contained below is a brief summarization of the more thorough aquatic analysis discussed in the Fisheries Specialist Report. Environmental Baseline Steelhead habitat on McNeal Creek is found in the lower 0.2 miles (to a natural barrier); and resident rainbow trout have been observed from the mouth to 1.5 miles upstream. In the lower 0.2 miles of McNeal Creek, surveys in 1979 and 2002 identified fish with potential to be steelhead juveniles (USFS 1979, 2002). Therefore, because of these surveys, the inability to tell apart intermingled juvenile steelhead and resident rainbow trout, and the accessibility of McNeal Creek to adult steelhead, it is assumed this species is present. As a thermal refugia, McNeal Creek outflow with South Fork Salmon River is likely restricted to small resident fishes, coho and steelhead juveniles, or as transient use by migrating spring Chinook or summer steelhead (suitable holding pools are present both above and below the rapid). High Bar Phase II MIS Assessment - Page 5 of 9

6 For this Project, the area of effect is considered to be from the 10N04 bridge to McNeal Creek s confluence with South Fork Salmon River, a distance of ~0.65 miles. Effects within the South Fork Salmon River is limited to (1) [Alternatives 1 and 3] the mouth of McNeal Creek a documented cold-water refugia or (2) [Alternative 4] in the vicinity of drafting operations. McNeal Creek includes several private diversions to Forks of Salmon residences; and while exact diversion amount is unknown, it is probably between 1.5 and 2 cfs. Average August discharge in McNeal Creek presumed baseflow condition is estimated to be 0.94 cfs at the 10N04 bridge. Flow at the mouth appears to be similar to that at the bridge. Effects of the Project Alternative 2 (No Action Alternative) Under the No Action alternative, the Project will not occur, and thus there will be neither ground disturbance nor water diversion/drafting. Water quality parameters (such as stream temperatures, nutrients, turbidity, etc.) and substrate (e.g., sediment fines within gravels, pools, etc.) will therefore be unaltered from current conditions. Alternative 1 (Preferred) and 3 (Diversion Alternative) Direct Lack of instream, ground disturbance activities, and restrictions on water pumping/diversion activities in McNeal Creek, including rate and timing, ensure there will be no direct effects to resident rainbow trout. Indirect Indirect effects are expected to occur only while the diversion/drafting is active, with habitat returning to normal parameters once the activity has ceased. Water diversion will occur at the 10N04 bridge, potentially resulting in effects to downstream fish resources. Impacts will be similar for both Alternative 1 and 3, with the latter exhibiting a lower magnitude of effect compared to the former. Changes in flows could cause short-term effects to pool quality in regards to juvenile steelhead habitat. Pumping/diversion is limited to 30 minute intervals to minimize effects. Additionally, no long-term effects will occur because when diversion stops, stream flow will return to prior conditions. The further from the diversion point, the less likely for interruptions of flow to occur due to spring input and vadose/phreatic flows. Between the Road 10N04 bridge and the mouth, inclusive the anadromous reach, this input will be sufficient to maintain actively flowing water, taking into account the residential diversion. With the diversion threshold of 4.5 cfs, a 10% of flow maximum diversion rate would equate to about 200 gpm, which, in turn means that the time required to divert 5,000 gallons per day is 25 to 30 minutes (for Alternative 1). By limiting diversion rates and timing prior to 8:00 AM, when the South Fork Salmon River would be coolest following nighttime temperatures, and minimizing the time the diversion would be active, any effect to the thermal refugia was determined to be insignificant as per discussion with Don Flickinger, NOAA Fisheries on June 7, Resident rainbow trout immediately downstream of the diversion point are at greatest risk to direct effects related to decreased instream flows. The further from the diversion point, the less the risk. However, regarding flows and subsequent habitat impact, the magnitude becomes greater within McNeal Creek as the point of diversion is approached. Effects are expected to be greatest directly below the proposed diversion. With the diversion threshold restriction (4.5 cfs) and limitations in duration and timing, these will minimize potential effect to insignificance. High Bar Phase II MIS Assessment - Page 6 of 9

7 For both steelhead and resident rainbow trout, changes in flow due to the diversion may affect habitat elements of pools (frequency and quality) and the thermal refugia at the mouth of McNeal Creek. However, because the diversion threshold of 4.5 cfs is well above the estimated baseflow of 0.94 cfs (USFS 2010), effects, if any, to pools, and steelhead therein, will be insignificant. McNeal Creek contributes insufficient discharge to South Fork Salmon River for habitat effects to pools from flow alteration to be measurable. The diversion from McNeal Creek is restricted to between midnight and 8:00 AM to avoid diurnal changes in water temperature which might affect the coolwater refugia present at the creek s confluence with South Fork Salmon River. Upland ground disturbance will not affect the stream because activities are outside the RR and there is no direct hydrologic connectivity to convey fine sediment. Potential flow effects, as measured by CWE analysis (ERA model), show very minor increases in the 7 th field and 5 th field scale; and at all scales, threshold of concern remains below a value of 1.0, indicating little potential for modified flow effects. Cumulative Effects - For a complete analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects refer to the Fisheries Specialist Report. Within McNeal Creek, there are no future foreseeable actions that may exacerbate the effects of water diversion during Project operations. There is ongoing water diversion from McNeal Creek by private residences. To avoid adverse cumulative effects related to the current water diversions from McNeal Creek, water withdrawal from McNeal Creek for the proposed Project has been restricted to periods when flow is above 4.5 cfs. There will be no short- or longterm cumulative effects to habitat or populations. Frogs (Tailed frog, Cascades frog) Environmental Baseline Tailed frogs are expected to occur in the 3.8 miles of intermittent and 3.03 miles of perennial streams within the project area. No surveys to verify the presence or abundance of both frog species have been conducted within the project area. Both frog species are expected to occur in suitable habitat within the project area. Effects of the Proposed Project Alternative 2 (No Action Alternative) Under the No Action alternative, the Project will not occur, and thus there will be neither ground disturbance nor water diversion/drafting. Water quality parameters (such as stream temperatures, nutrients, turbidity, etc.) and substrate (e.g., sediment fines within gravels, pools, etc.) will therefore be unaltered from current conditions. Alternatives 1 (Preferred) and 3 (Diversion Alternatives) Cascade frog and tailed frog habitat would be expected to occur in perennial and intermittent streams within the project area. Overall, habitat quality for tailed or Cascade frogs will not decline or be reduced in volume. There will be no long-term cumulative effects to habitat or populations. High Bar Phase II MIS Assessment - Page 7 of 9

8 Direct/Indirect Effects Water diversion will occur at the 10N04 bridge, potentially resulting in effects to downstream frog resources. Impacts will be similar for both Alternative 1 and 3, with the latter exhibiting a lower magnitude of effect compared to the former. There may be reduced water flow with Alternatives 1 and 3 but there will be no dewatering of McNeal Creek with either of these alternatives. Tailed and Cascade frogs may be minimally affected. The presence of these species is uncertain. The further from the diversion point, the less likely for interruptions of flow to occur due to spring runoff and saturation condition of flow. Between the 10N04 bridge and the mouth, flows should remain sufficient to maintain habitat for these frog species. Regardless, when the diversion is active, normal discharge flow within the reach of potential habitat is expected to decrease. With the diversion threshold of 4.5 cfs, however, the effects to frog species is minimal. Since there is no expected dewatering, habitat for the tailed and Cascade frog, should not be affected. It is unlikely that frogs will become stranded or temporarily isolated in pools during times of pump use. Habitat use by frogs should not be impacted by these alternatives. For both species of frog, changes in flows could cause short-term effects to pool quality in regards to frog habitat. Pumping/diversion is limited to 30 minute intervals to minimize effects. Additionally, no long-term effects will occur because when diversion stops, stream flow will return to prior conditions. Upland ground disturbance will not affect the stream because activities are outside the RR and there is no direct hydrologic connectivity to convey fine sediment. Potential flow effects, as measured by CWE analysis (ERA model), show very minor increases in the 7 th field and 5 th field scale; and at all scales, threshold of concern remains below a value of 1.0, indicating little potential for modified flow effects. Overall, habitat quality for tailed frog and Cascade frog may be minimally affected under the implementation of Alternatives 1 and 3. Cumulative Effects - For a complete analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects refer to the Fisheries Specialist Report. There will be no short- or long-term cumulative effects to habitat or populations. American Dipper, Long tailed Vole, and Northern Water Shrew Environmental Baseline American dippers, long-tailed vole, and Northern water shrew are expected throughout the project area wherever running water occurs (6.83 miles of perennial and intermittent streams). Few stream surveys have occurred in smaller tributaries (1-2 feet in wetted channel width), so their abundance in this size of stream is not known. Effects of the Proposed Project High Bar Phase II MIS Assessment - Page 8 of 9

9 No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative, the Project will not occur, and thus there will be neither ground disturbance nor water diversion/drafting. Water quality parameters (such as stream temperatures, nutrients, turbidity, etc.) and substrate (e.g., sediment fines within gravels, pools, etc.) will therefore be unaltered from current conditions. There would be no change in the amount or quality of riparian vegetation in the project area. Alternatives 1 (Preferred) and 3 (Diversion Alternatives) Possible areas of very minor (insignificant) impact in the analysis area would be the 3.83 miles of perennial and intermittent streams. Direct/Indirect Effects There is no expected change in riparian vegetative conditions with these alternatives. American dipper, long-tailed vole, and Northern water shrew may be minimally affected. The presence of these species is uncertain. There is an expected decrease in water flow. Water diversion will occur at the 10N04 bridge, potentially resulting in effects to downstream American dipper, long-tailed vole and Northern water shrew habitat. With the diversion threshold of 4.5 cfs, a 10% of flow maximum diversion rate would equate to about 200 gpm. This short-term reduction in flow will not have measurable impact on habitat for these species. Impacts will be similar for both Alternative 1 and 3, with the latter exhibiting a lower magnitude of effect compared to the former. No dewatering of McNeal Creek would occur with either of these alternatives. Upland ground disturbance will not affect the stream because activities are outside the RR and there is no direct hydrologic connectivity to convey fine sediment. Potential flow effects, as measured by CWE analysis (ERA model), show very minor increases in the 7 th field and 5 th field scale; and at all scales, threshold of concern remains below a value of 1.0, indicating little potential for modified flow effects. Overall, habitat quality for the American dipper, long-tailed vole, and Northern water shrew will not decline or be reduced in volume. Cumulative Effects - There will be no short- or long-term cumulative effects to habitat or populations. V. REFERENCES USDA Forest Service (USFS) McNeal Creek stream survey. Unpub. data. US Forest Service Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Yreka, CA (updated on July 29, 2010; page numbers are from the electronic version on the KNF website). USDA Forest Service McNeal Creek stream survey. Unpub. data. US Forest Service Watershed Report, High Bar Phase II Project. High Bar Phase II MIS Assessment - Page 9 of 9