Environmental Assessment Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Reintroduction Great Basin National Park Baker, Nevada
Table of Contents
3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
3.2 Alternative 2 - Reintroduction of Bonneville Cutthroat trout into 18 miles of historic but vacant stream habitat within GRBA and 3 miles of stream habitat on adjacent public lands administered by the Humboldt National Forest and the Bureau of Land Management, while continuing to manage all other streams within the historic range for nonnative salmonid recreational fisheries
3.3 Alternative 3 - Reintroduction of Bonneville Cutthroat trout into Strawberry Creek.
3.4 Alternative 4 - Reintroduction of Bonneville Cutthroat trout into all 30 miles of historic but vacant stream habitat within GRBA.
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
4.2 Alternative 2 - Reintroduction of Bonneville Cutthroat trout into 18 miles of historic but vacant stream habitat within GRBA and 3 miles of stream habitat on adjacent public lands administered by the Humboldt National Forest and the Bureau of Land Management, while continuing to manage all other streams within the historic range for nonnative salmonid recreational fisheries
4.3 Alternative 3 - Reintroduction of Bonneville Cutthroat trout into Strawberry Creek.
4.4 Alternative 4 - Reintroduction of Bonneville Cutthroat trout into all 30 miles of historic but vacant stream habitat.
5.0 List of Preparers & Persons / Agencies to Receive Draft EA
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
This Environmental Assessment (EA) describes and discloses the environmental effects of a proposal to prepare and implement a multi-year program for the reintroduction of Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT) (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) into historic range east-side drainages of Great Basin National Park (GRBA). The preferred management alternative will be scheduled for implementation in fiscal year 1999. The preferred alternative will be consistent with the overall management direction provided by the GRBA General Management Plan and National Park Service (NPS) -77 Natural Resources Management Guidelines.
GRBA proposes to complete and implement a Fisheries Management Plan for east-side drainages of the park. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and accompanying GRBA General Management Plan (GMP), approved in 1993, made the decision to reintroduce BCT into selected park streams. This document is tiered to the final GMP EIS and focuses on the selection of stream for a reintroduction effort. The management plan emphasis will focus on the reintroduction of native BCT, as well as to continue to allow recreational fishing of nonnative salmonids. BCT are considered a native species to the east-side drainages of GRBA. Hybridization and competition with nonnative salmonids and man induced habitat changes has led to the extirpation of BCT from park waters.
GRBA is located in east central White Pine County, Nevada near the Utah border. The park encompasses 77,100 acres of the southern Snake Range. The park was established in 1986 and incorporates two areas formerly managed by the federal government: a 76,460-acre portion of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (HNF) and the NPS’s 640-acre Lehman Caves National Monument. Wheeler Peak, at 13,063-feet the center piece of GRBA, overlooks two expansive basins –Spring Valley to the west and Snake Valley to the east– but GRBA includes only 80 acres of the basin environment as an administrative site. The park is surrounded by HNF and, in some places, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and private lands.
BCT are endemic to the Bonneville Basin and was once a native species in the streams on the east side of the Snake Range. It has experienced major declines caused by natural and man-related changes. Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) developed an interagency BCT management plan in 1987, in cooperation with the US Forest Service (FS) and BLM, for management and restoration activities in the Snake Valley-Spring Valley sub-basins (Haskins 1987). Following the plan’s Implementation Schedule, reintroduction efforts have begun, and have been relatively successful, on the HNF in the northern Snake Range. One stream slated for restoration work in the State plan is located within GRBA and the State’s implementation schedule has been revised to begin work in 2000. Before any State action can occur, GRBA must complete a Fisheries Management Plan, according to NPS mandates and regulations.
In 1979, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was petitioned to review the status of the BCT. The FWS announced a status review of the BCT and requested comments in 1980 (45 FR 19857, March 26, 1980). In 1982, the FWS classified the BCT as a category 2 candidate species (47 FR 58454, December 30, 1982) and in 1985 re-classified the BCT as a category 1 candidate species (50 FR 37958, September 18, 1985). The FWS published a warranted but precluded finding for BCT because of higher priority actions in 1988 (53 FR 25511, July 7, 1988). In 1989, the American Fisheries Society classified BCT as endangered. In 1991, BCT was included as a category 2 candidate species in an Animal Notice of Review (56 FR 58804, November 21, 1991), and the FWS re-classified the BCT as a category 2 candidate species in 1994 (59 FR 58982, November 15, 1994). The FWS amended their candidate policy and removed categories 1 and 2 candidates in 1996 (61 FR 7457, February 28, 1996). As a result of this action, BCT lost its candidate status and became a species of concern. Species of concern have no status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). With the loss of candidate status the BCT also lost its 1988 warranted but precluded finding. The FWS received a new petition to list the BCT as a threatened species in 1998. The FWS found that the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing this species as threatened under the ESA may be warranted, and they initiated a status review (63 FR 67640, December 8,1998). A determination by the FWS is anticipated in November of 1999. In 1997, an interagency conservation agreement and strategy was implemented in Utah. GRBA, HNF, Nevada Division of Wildlife, and the FWS are currently developing an interagency conservation agreement and strategy for the management and conservation of the BCT in Nevada. In addition, a range wide conservation agreement and strategy is being developed to coordinate conservation activities throughout the range of the BCT.
Habitat alterations and the widespread stocking of nonnative salmonids (brook, brown, and rainbow trout) are believed to be the causes that led to the complete extirpation of BCT from historic habitats. Loss of connectivity to sub-basins, nonnative introductions, habitat fragmentation, and decreases in BCT throughout the Basin continue to threaten its recovery and may even preclude its future survival. Based on the estimate that historically 90 percent of these stream miles contained BCT, now 96 percent of the BCT populations have been extirpated (USDA Forest Service 1996).
In GRBA, the BCT is considered a sensitive or special status species warranting special management due to the following facts:
Bonneville cutthroat trout reintroduction is addressed in the GRBA GMP and accompanying EIS. It states that:
"The Park Service, in cooperation with the Nevada Department of Wildlife, would reestablish Bonneville cutthroat trout into selected streams on the east side of the park. Streams would be selected on the basis of habitat suitability and the relative difficulty of removing existing nonnative fish species. Any competing nonnative fish species present in the streams selected for reintroduction would have to be eliminated to assure survival of the reintroduced trout and to protect the genetic integrity of the population. Special fishing regulations might be necessary to protect Bonneville cutthroat during and after their reestablishment. These regulations would be developed in cooperation with the Nevada Department of Wildlife. In addition, the impacts of grazing activities in the watershed would be carefully monitored to ensure that the fish would not be jeopardized.
The Park Service would not permit stocking of nonnative fish species in the waters of the park. However, existing fish species remaining from past stocking activities would not be eliminated, except in streams selected for the reintroduction of Bonneville cutthroat trout."
This environmental assessment is tiered to the GRBA GMP and EIS which made the decision to reintroduce BCT to historic but vacant stream habitats in the park and eliminate nonnative salmonids from these selected waters. This document addresses and discloses the environmental consequences of selection of streams for reintroduction and stream renovation treatments.
NPS-77 Natural Resources Management Guidelines defines a native species as those animal species that occur, have occurred, or may occur in a park as a result of natural processes. Species that have moved into park environments directly or indirectly as a result of human activities are not considered native, except in cases where human activities accelerated native animal movements that would have occurred without human influence. NPS-77 Natural Resources Management Guidelines concerning the management of native species state:
National Park Service will strive to restore native species to parks wherever all the following criteria can be met: Adequate habitat to support the species [at a viable population level] either exists or can reasonably be restored ..... The species does not ... pose a serious threat to [humans] .... The restored population most nearly approximates the extirpated subspecies or race .... The species disappeared ... as a direct or indirect result of human-induced change .... (4:10)
The [restoration] of native ... animals will be accomplished using organisms taken from populations as closely related genetically and ecologically as possible to the park populations. (4:10)
The brook, brown, and rainbow trout stocked in park waters prior to park designation are considered nonnative species. The presence of these species has helped result in the extirpation of BCT from their historic range within the park. In addition, these species have had unknown but a potentially adverse impact on other native aquatic life forms, such as amphibians and fresh water mollusks.
NPS-77 Natural Resources Management Guidelines concerning the management of exotic fish states:
"Exotic fish pose a particular problem because their effects and their spread cannot be readily observed. Exotic fish may deplete or extirpate native invertebrates or fish by competition and/or predation and can affect the genetic integrity of native fish through interbreeding. The introduction of fish to fish-free waters can be devastating to natural aquatic ecosystems. Originally fish-free aquatic ecosystems can be so altered by fish introductions that they cannot recover once fish are removed. Complete and permanent removal of all fish in a water body is very difficult except in closed systems such as small lakes where toxins may be used, repeatedly if necessary, to kill the last survivors. Rotenone, antimycin, and other general pesticides can offer a potential control measure, under certain circumstances."
Based on the issues identified and related NPS management criteria, the selected alternative will meet the following objectives:
1. Implement GRBA’s enabling legislation and General Management Plan.
3. Improve and/or maintain native species populations.
The EIS and accompanying GRBA GMP, approved in 1993, made the decision to reintroduce BCT into selected park streams. This document is tiered to the final GMP EIS and focuses on the selection of stream for a reintroduction effort. The Superintendent of GRBA is the responsible official for deciding what type and level of fisheries management should take place in the park. Specifically, the Superintendent will decide if the park works to reintroduce BCT and if so, into how many drainages. The NPS Pacific West Regional Director has signature authority and the decision is stated and explained in the Decision Notice accompanying this EA. This EA is concerned only with the impacts associated with the proposed action. Other Federal, state, and local jurisdictions have assisted in the analysis of environmental consequences and development of alternatives to the proposed action.
Scoping is an early and open process to solicit public and internal concerns relating to a proposed action. Issues are generated from scoping comments that drive the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and determine the range of actions, alternatives and impacts to be addressed. Federal Register Notice Vol. 49, No. 99 (516 DM-2-4), dated 12, 1984, and NPS-12 NEPA guidelines require scoping of Federal actions.
The following is the list of the major issues developed from the information gathered through the scoping process and were used to drive the NEPA analysis.
1. EFFECTS ON NATIVE WILDLIFE
Effects of stream renovation treatments on terrestrial and aquatic wildlife (mammals, birds, mollusks, amphibians, fish, and macroinvertebrates).
2. EFFECTS ON RECREATIONAL FISHING
Effects of stream renovation treatment on recreational fishing.
3. EFFECTS ON THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES
Effects of stream renovation on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and their habitats.
4. EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY AND USES
Effects of stream renovation treatments on water quality and uses (e.g. visitors, downstream water-users, livestock,).
5. ABILITY TO ESTABLISH VIABLE BCT POPULATIONS
Implementation of the action as proposed will allow establishment and maintenance of viable BCT in GRBA.
1.9 ISSUES DROPPED FROM ANALYSIS
Other issues were raised during the scoping, but will not be addressed in this EA. These issues are described below, followed by an explanation of why they were not addressed further.
If BCT were listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and a critical habitat designation applied to the GRBA habitats, GRBA would be required to conduct section 7 consultation with the FWS. Stricter land use regulations would be required. GRBA can do everything within its authority to reintroduce BCT into historic waters but has no decision-making authority over the listing of a species under the ESA. By reintroducing BCT into some of the streams, the park will contribute significantly to the recovery of this species.
There is some debate as to the historic occurrence of BCT in GRBA. After considering the following information, which is somewhat anecdotal, we believe that it is logical to assume that BCT were native to the east-side streams of GRBA.
BCT were native to the glacio-pluvial Lake Bonneville basin (La Rivers 1962). A bay of Lake Bonneville extended southward into Snake Valley to the latitude of GRBA. While the lake was at this maximum level, streams on the eastern side of the southern Snake Range drained directly into the lake. It is assumed that BCT populations would have migrated throughout suitable habitat within the entire water system, including these creeks. It is also assumed that as the Snake Valley arm dried up in the basin, the BCT escaped upward into the mountain streams, forming isolated disjunct populations. A remnant population of BCT in the northern Snake Range proves that this was the case in at least one creek and it is logical to assume that fish would have been present in other streams that had been confluent with the Snake Valley arm.
First Euro-American entry into Snake Valley occurred in 1855 when Mormon expeditions explored Snake Valley for a few weeks. They were travelling light, completing a quick reconnaissance of the area, so it is unlikely that they brought any fish with them. A second Mormon expedition returned to Snake Valley in 1858 and members remained for a few months before returning to southern Utah (Unrau 1990). Documentation of the expedition is sketchy and incomplete, but descriptions of preparations and travel out from settlements say nothing about bringing fish from Utah.
The earliest written reference on the presence of trout is from Lieutenant George Wheeler, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in 1869. In his report, he described the streams of eastern Nevada and the southern Snake Range as follows "A large number of the creeks are formed from the melting of the snows, which, among the higher ranges, feed a continuous stream for all seasons of the year. Others have their source in mountain springs of pure and limpid water…It is very rare that one finds fish in any of these mountain streams. A few small trout were found to the eastward of the Snake Range." (Wheeler 1875:54). The first Euro-American settlers made permanent homes in Snake Valley starting in 1868-1869. An autobiographical sketch of one of these early settlers recounts abundant numbers of trout in Lehman Creek in the late 1870’s (Mellenbruch 1943).
Considering these references, we deduce that thousands of years ago, BCT migrated into streams on the east side of the southern Snake Range from the Snake Valley arm of Lake Bonneville. Earliest records of expeditions to this area do not contain any reference to stocking or moving of fish and due to the nature of these expeditions, it is prudent to assume that these early explorers did not bring any fish with them. Thus when Lieutenant Wheeler led his expedition to this area and found fish in the streams in 1869, they were most likely Bonneville cutthroat trout.
In addition to the historic references cited above, recent planning documents have included assumptions that BCT are native to the east side of the southern Snake Range. In NDOW project proposals and in its BCT Management Plan (Haskins 1987), the state assumes that east-side drainages are historic but vacant BCT habitat. GRBA’s General Management Plan and accompanying Environmental Impact Statement states: "The Bonneville Cutthroat trout is the only native trout in the streams of the park; it once inhabited all of the major streams on the park’s eastern side. Because these streams have been disturbed by human actions, pure strains of Bonneville Cutthroat trout no longer exist in the park’s historic range."
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter describes the affected environment within the proposed action area. This chapter deals with the conditions found in the east-side park streams based on existing management, resource conditions, and our resource data in relation to those issues found significant in our scoping. The information was gathered from Frantz (1953); Frissell and Liss (1993); Greene and Mann (1997); Haskins (1987, 1988, and 1990); and Pfaff (1990-1996). Much of the stream characteristic information comes from Frantz (1953), which he collected in fall 1952.
2.1 Wildlife Resources - Issues 1 and 3
Currently, no information is available concerning amphibians in GRBA. The worldwide decline of amphibian health and population numbers is of international concern. A literature review (Pfaff 1996) developed a list of amphibians potentially occurring in GRBA. Some of the suspected species are themselves former candidate species for listing under the ESA.
The following summarizes those amphibians suspected to occur in GRBA:
In 1998, the NPS, HNF, USGS, The Nature Conservancy, and the BLM entered into an MOU with the FWS to manage for the conservation and recovery of Great Basin spring snails. Spring snails are gilled, which makes them dependent upon dissolved oxygen, and thus, vulnerable to adverse impacts from chemical renovation treatments. These species are endemic to individual springs and watersheds in the Great Basin (Hershler 1998). The 1998 MOU represents an effort to preclude the need to list Great Basin spring snails as a threatened species under the ESA. The MOU states that the NPS will manage lands for the conservation of spring snails and their associated habitats and develop protocols and methodologies for their restoration and conservation. Other mollusk species could be negatively impacted from chemical stream renovation treatments and unfortunately, very little information is available about mollusks in GRBA. Dr. William Pratt of the University of Nevada Museum of Natural History has conducted limited springsnail work in GRBA and supplied the following list of true aquatic snails that could be impacted: 1) Helisoma newberryi, 2) Vorticifex effusus, 3) Plannorbella spp., 4) Gyraulus spp., 5) Stanicola spp., 6) Physella spp., and, 7) Physella virgata (Pratt, personal comm. 1998).
Over 85 species of mammals and approximately 13 species of reptiles are found in the park and approximately 230 species of birds have been identified in the park and vicinity. Wildlife depend on the nearest stream for their survival in the desert environment of GRBA. Fifty-one percent of t breeding bird species in the southwestern U.S. are completely dependent on riparian ecosystems as breeding habitat (Smith et al. 1994).
Bald eagles (federally listed threatened) migrate through the park area in spring and fall. Goshawks (state-protected) and peregrine falcons (a federally-listed endangered species) have been seen in the park and it is likely they nest here, although there are no current records of such activity. Ferruginous hawks (state-protected) and Swainson’s hawks (state protected) are thought to be likely to occur in the park, but there are no observation records for the former and the latter. Spotted bats (state-protected) are thought to occur in the park.
2.2 Fisheries Resources. (Issue 2 and 5)
The east side of GRBA contains over 30 miles of streams that are suitable to support populations of salmonids. These streams are considered to be within the historic range of the BCT. Baker Creek, Strawberry Creek, Snake Creek and Lehman Creek contain healthy self-reproducing populations of nonnative brook, brown, and rainbow trout. These systems receive moderate fishing pressure during the spring, summer and fall seasons. Mill Creek contains fishable trout populations, but due to its remote nature receives little to no fishing pressure. Big Wash contains healthy self-reproducing populations of nonnative brook, brown, and rainbow trout from the park boundary downstream onto private and HNF lands. GRBA general management plan prohibits the stocking of nonnative game fish into park waters. The GRBA General Management Plan states that "The Park Service would not permit stocking of nonnative fish species in the waters of the park. However, existing fish species remaining from past stocking activities would not be eliminated, except in streams selected for the reintroduction of Bonneville cutthroat trout."
a. Baker Creek System
Baker Creek is the largest watershed system in the park, consisting of Baker Creek, North and South Forks of Baker Creek, and Pole Canyon and Timber Creeks. Baker Creek runs for 6.66 miles within the park. A survey in 1952 found 5.94 miles of confirmed fish habitat. Research in 1990 indicated 3.24 miles of confirmed fish habitat, with 5.95 miles of potential habitat. Timber Creek does not appear to have enough water to support fish on an annual basis, however it may supply habitat during years or seasons of high precipitation. Although Pole Canyon Creek is also low volume, numerous small brook trout have been observed in recent years as far up as 1.5 miles from its confluence with Baker Creek. Pole Canyon Creek appears to have a larger volume of water than Timber Creek and may be suitable habitat for fish, although it does not appear to be capable of supporting fish in the winter. Baker, South Fork Baker, Timber and Pole Creeks together have 9.78 miles of confirmed fish habitat. No estimate of potential fish habitat is available. Baker and South Fork Baker combined have 5.46 miles of confirmed and 8.57 miles of potential fish habitat, according to Haskins (1990). Over the years, cutthroat, rainbow, brook, and brown trout were repeatedly planted. South Fork Baker Creek was stocked with cutthroat trout in 1951, and rainbow trout in 1952. Baker Creek continues onto HNF lands for approximately 1.25 miles and then onto BLM and private lands where it is diverted for irrigation and domestic water uses in Baker, Nevada.
A stream survey in 1952 found cutthroat (subspecies not specified) and rainbow trout. In 1990, rainbow, brown, brook and a hybrid cutthroat trout were encountered at middle and lower elevations. No fish were encountered in the upper elevations. It was claimed that 44 large "native" cutthroat were caught in one day in Baker Creek by George Baker and another party. The year was not reported except that it was "many years ago" (previous to 1952).
b. Lehman Creek System
Lehman Creek originates at about 10,150 feet in elevation. The stream runs through a meadow then plunges downward over a long gradient fall. At the foot of the gradient, a short south tributary empties into Lehman Creek. The stream continues through a narrow canyon, obtaining additional flow from numerous seepage areas and short spring tributaries. Lehman Creek crosses the park boundary at 6,560 feet, flows across private land for about 2 miles, and at 5,960 feet enters BLM land and a man-made ditch where the water is diverted for irrigation of private lands. The creek does not cross HNF lands. Lehman Creek runs for 6.49 miles within the park. A survey in 1952 found 6.38 miles of confirmed fish habitat. Research in 1990 indicated 4.74 miles of confirmed fish habitat, with 6.49 miles of potential habitat. No data is available for the length of fish habitat in the 0.43-mile long upper tributary. Three developed park campgrounds are located in the riparian corridor of Lehman Creek. Rainbow, steelhead, and black spotted (Lahontan cutthroat) trout were first planted in 1924. Brook trout were first stocked in 1925. Over the years numerous stocking episodes occurred with the stocking of rainbow trout the most common. No records have been found to indicate the stocking history of brown trout.
"Native cutthroat trout" were reported in 1938 and were later tested and found to be identical to pure BCT found in Pine Creek (Dodge and Cain 1970). A stream survey in 1952 found rainbow trout at all elevations. One each of brown and cutthroat trout were found below the confluence of Lehman and Baker Creeks. A survey completed in 1990 found brook trout at all elevations, and rainbow and brown trout at lower and middles elevations. No fish were encountered above 9,080 feet. The researchers concluded that the steep gradient and debris barriers impede upstream movement, although suitable fish habitat exists.
c. Mill Creek
Mill Creek has often been overlooked as a fishery and there is little data pertaining to this stream. It is a relatively low discharge stream, with no significant roads or trails adjacent to the stream. A survey in 1952 found 1.0 mile of confirmed fish habitat. Most of the stream is associated with a narrow riparian zone. Mill Creek originates at 9,200 feet and runs for approximately 1.8 miles within the park, descending steeply through dense forest. A small tributary at 8,200 feet feeds it. At 7,560 feet, it crosses the park boundary onto HNF. After 0.6 miles At 7,220 feet it enters onto private lands and collects in a pool that is fed by a small tributary from the north. From there it descends 120 feet into another pool, then continues downward and back onto lands administered by the HNF. In all Mill Creek crosses 1.3 miles of HNF and 0.7 miles of private lands before entering BLM land. At 6,610 feet, Mill Creek becomes intermittent and crosses from HNF to BLM land and enters alluvial fan outwash. A 1994 survey of Mill Creek found fish expressing cutthroat characteristics, fish that appeared to be influenced by rainbow and those which were clearly rainbow trout. Surveys conducted in 1999 found extremely strong cutthroat characteristics. A genetics has been initiated. While there is no record of any plants being made, it is highly probable that rainbow trout were introduced to the creek from the ranch pond below.
d. Snake Creek System
The Snake Creek System is composed of North, Middle, and South Forks of Snake Creek. The total length of Snake Creek within GRBA, including all forks, is 10.16 miles with 8.16 above ground and 5.35 miles of confirmed fish habitat. No data is available for total length of estimated suitable fish habitat. Snake Creek is deliniated as the boundary between GRBA and HNF for approximately 5 miles and then crosses HNF land for another mile. It then enters state lands used for the NDOW Snake Creek Fish Rearing facility. It then continues on approximately 6 miles across BLM lands to Garrison, Utah. An artificial diversion diverts the entire stream flow into and through a buried pipe from 7,610 feet to 6,760 feet, a distance of almost three miles in GRBA. During periods of low flow the pipeline contains all of the Snake Creek flow, forming a barrier to fish migration. During periods of high flow the long vertical drop at the overflow structure at the inlet to the pipeline provides a barrier to upstream movement of fish.
Snake Creek was stocked between 1925 and 1986 with black spotted (Lahontan cutthroat), rainbow, and brook trout. Existing records indicate the stocking of black spotted trout, brook trout and rainbow trout. No records have been located to show when brown trout were planted. Yellowstone cutthroat trout were stocked in the North Fork in 1951, and brook trout in 1953 and 1957. Yellowstone cutthroat trout were planted in the South Fork in 1951, cutthroat trout in 1952, and brook trout in 1953 and 1957.
Stream surveys in 1952 found rainbow, brown, and brook trout at the middle and upper elevations of Snake Creek. In 1960, rainbow and brook trout, as well as sculpin were found at the middle elevations. In 1984, brook and rainbow trout were recovered from the upper elevations, and brown and rainbow trout from the middle elevations. In 1990, brook trout were encountered at the middle and upper elevations, and rainbow trout were found below the pipeline diversion. In the North Fork, fish were noted in 1984, but no electroshocking or identification was done. In 1954, four rainbow trout were recovered from the South Fork.
e. South Fork of Big Wash
The South Fork of Big Wash has a total length of approximately 4.25 miles within GRBA and in 1952 had an average stream width of 4 feet 9 inches and a stream depth of 3.1 inches. The South Fork of Big Wash has approximately 2.5 miles of outstanding fish habitat and 0.5 mile of marginal fish habitat. Big Wash forms at the confluence of the south and North forks of Big Wash and is 9.5 miles in length with 7.5 miles in Nevada and 2.0 miles in Utah. Big Wash crosses only about a mile of HNF lands. Most of Big Wash is located on private lands through HNF. It continues across BLM lands to Pruess Lake in Utah. The South Fork could be naturally fishless, although reports confirm that fish were in Big Wash in the 1950’s. In 1952 a local rancher living next to Big Wash claimed that there had never been any fish in the South Fork, although Big Wash had fish. A flood down the South Fork of Big Wash occurred in 1952 and the same rancher reported that his irrigated field were littered with cutthroat trout. This flood could have extirpated all fish within this system. Due to the extremely remote and rugged nature of this system, little aquatic analysis has been conducted. Further research into its possible fishless nature has been initiated and will be the determining factor to any BCT reintroduction efforts.
f. Strawberry Creek System
Strawberry Creek originates at an elevation of approximately 9,600 feet. At 8,440 feet, it passes by the mouth of Windy Canyon, receiving water from an intermittent tributary, and enters the less steep foothill region. At 7,940 feet, it receives substantial flow from perennial Blue Canyon Creek. Strawberry Creek crosses the park boundary at 6,800 feet, then runs across HNF for about 0.25 mile. The stream enters BLM land at 6,720 feet where it exits Strawberry Creek Canyon and begins to traverse the bajada. It runs through a series of active beaver ponds at this point and in most years it becomes intermittent. Strawberry Creek runs for approximately 3.9 miles within the park. A survey in 1952 found 3.5 miles of confirmed fish habitat. No data are available for the length of fish habitat in the 1.4-mile Blue Canyon Creek. The lower 0.5-mile or more of Blue Canyon Creek could be year-round fish habitat. Surveys need to be completed to access the contribution of this stream to BCT reintroduction efforts. Including tributaries, there are approximately 5 miles of perennially flowing water in the Strawberry Creek system within the park.
Some stocking took place between 1953 and 1971, however data are incomplete. A stream survey in 1952 recovered cutthroat trout (subspecies not identified) at the upper elevations, brook trout at the middle elevations, and rainbow trout at the lower and middle elevations. Brook and rainbow trout were recovered on BLM land, at a station located somewhere between 6,000 and 6,720 feet in 1984. An electroshocking survey was conducted in 1989 and rainbow and brook trout were found at lower elevations. Cutthroat, rainbow, and apparent hybrids were found just below the second road crossing at 7,920 feet in elevation. The last fish were found approximately 0.25 miles above the third road crossing at the 8,400-foot elevation. This population of BCT is considered hybridized because of the concurrent presence of rainbow trout and hybrids.
2.3 Water Quality and Uses. (Issue 4)
a. Baker Creek System
A USGS gauging station was operated on Baker Creek, near the narrows, from 1947 to 1997. Between 1947 and 1993, the maximum discharge was measured at 90.5 cfs in June 1952; the minimum was 0.28 cfs in January 1993; and mean monthly discharges range from 1.53 to 37.10 cfs. Baker Creek water quality is considered excellent. Sampling resulted in an average spring/early summer pH of 7.28, electrical conductivity of 30.3 µS/cm @ 25ºC, and temperature of 7ºC, with a range from 3 to 11ºC. The average fall pH was 7.32, average electrical conductivity was 35.6 µS/cm @ 25ºC, and average temperature was 3ºC, with a range from 2 to 5ºC. No water quality data have been collected from S. Fork Baker, Timber Creek or Pole Creek.
Down stream diversion for agricultural purposes are the main domestic water uses. Baker Creek campground is located adjacent to Baker Creek. The campground does not receive any of the potable water offered from the stream. Backcountry hikers could use water directly from the stream for consumption, cooking and bathing.
b. Lehman Creek System
Lehman Creek water quality is considered excellent. In fall 1952, the average width of the creek was 78 inches, average depth was 4.9 inches, and approximate discharge was 5.7 cfs. A USGS gauging station was operated along Lehman Creek shortly above the current park boundary from 1947 to 1997. Between 1947 and 1993, maximum discharge was measured at 32.5 cfs in June 1952; minimum was 0.82 cfs in January 1954; and mean monthly discharges ranged from 1.21 to 16.40 cfs. Water quality sampling resulted in an average spring/early summer pH of 7.45, electrical conductivity of 34.5 µS/cm @ 25ºC, and temperature of 8ºC, with a range from 5 to 13ºC. The average fall pH was 7.42, average electrical conductivity was 39.5 µS/cm @ 25ºC, and average temperature was 4ºC, with a range from 1 to 7ºC.
Human consumption by residents of Park View Estates and down stream diversion for agricultural purposes are the main domestic water uses. Three developed park campgrounds are located in the riparian corridor of Lehman Creek. The campgrounds do not receive any of the potable water offered from the stream. Backcountry hikers could use water directly from the stream for consumption, cooking and bathing.
c. Mill Creek
Mill Creek water quality is considered excellent. Water quality sampling resulted in an average spring/early summer pH of 7.53, electrical conductivity of 58.5 µS/cm @ 25ºC, and temperature of 12ºC, with a range from 8 to 14ºC. The average fall pH was 7.49, average electrical conductivity was 60.7 µS/cm @ 25ºC, and average temperature was 3ºC, with a range from 1 to 3ºC.
Cattle and human consumption by one private resident outside of the park boundary are the main domestic water uses. Mill Creek becomes intermittent below the private inholding on HNF lands
d. Snake Creek System
Snake Creek water quality is only considered fair to good due to road impacts, abandoned mines and diversions. Water quality sampling resulted in an average spring/early summer pH of 7.81, electrical conductivity of 86.2 µS/cm @ 25ºC, and temperature of 7ºC, with a range from 4 to 11ºC. The average fall pH was 7.77, average electrical conductivity was 94.1 µS/cm @ 25ºC, and average temperature was 3ºC, with a range from 2 to 5ºC.
Human consumption by campers, fish rearing and down stream diversion for agricultural purposes are the main domestic water uses. Numerous partially developed campsites and one primitive campground are located in the riparian corridor of Snake Creek. The campsites and campground do not offer potable water and this leaves the stream and numerous springs as the only source of water. Backcountry hikers could use water directly from the stream for consumption, cooking and bathing. Two man-made structures are having potentially significant impacts on the water quality of Snake Creek. One is the dirt road that hems in the stream along several reaches and is especially problematic along about 4 miles of stream. The other structure is the water diversion: at the point of diversion, a dramatic change in streambank vegetation occurs. The creek enters Millard County; Utah at 5,352 feet and the entire flow is diverted for private irrigation systems just west of Garrison, Utah. A Nevada State fish rearing station is located several miles below the park boundary and utilizes water from Snake Creek.
e. South Fork of Big Wash
The South Fork of Big Wash runs for approximately 4.25 miles within the park (including intermittent sections). Water quality sampling resulted in an average spring/early summer pH of 8.12, electrical conductivity of 359.7 µS/cm @ 25ºC, and temperature of 8ºC, with no variation. The average fall pH was 8.23, average electrical conductivity was 329.5 µS/cm @ 25ºC, and average temperature was 6ºC, with a range from 4 to 7ºC.
Little to no domestic use of the waters of the South Fork Big Wash are made. No agricultural diversions exist. The watershed has been closed to domestic livestock grazing for six years. Backcountry hikers could use water directly from the stream for consumption, cooking and bathing. Big Wash consists of private lands and water is diverted for irrigation purposes. Horse grazing and tourist recreation is the dominant use along private lands on Big Wash. Due to improper grazing and agricultural practices in the past, water quality is not good in Big Wash due to excessive erosion. Landowners on Big Wash are currently pursuing stream and BCT restoration with Trout Unlimited and the USFWS.
f. Strawberry Creek System
Strawberry Creek water quality is considered good due to sedimentation resulting from park roads. Water quality sampling resulted in an average spring/early summer pH of 7.62, electrical conductivity of 72.6 µS/cm @ 25ºC, and temperature of 6ºC, with a range from 3 to 9ºC. The average fall pH was 7.73, average electrical conductivity was 109.2 µS/cm @ 25ºC, and average temperature was 4ºC, with a range from 2 to 6ºC.
Human consumption by campers, and down stream diversion for agricultural purposes are the main domestic water uses. Numerous partially developed campsites are located in the riparian corridor. The campsite sites do have potable water offered and leaves the stream and numerous springs as the only source of water. Backcountry hikers could use water directly from the stream for consumption, cooking and bathing. The Strawberry Creek has generated excessive sedimentation into the riparian area and in places has hemmed in the stream, acting as an unstable streambank.
ALTERNATIVES
Under this alternative BCT reintroduction would be deferred to a later date. Existing nonnative fisheries management would continue. No streams would be renovated for the removal of nonnatives and brook, rainbow, and brown trout would remain in the waterways. BCT would not be reintroduced into any of their native habitat in the park.
Under this alternative, 18 miles of proposed stream renovation and BCT reintroduction would occur. Enough separate populations would be established so that natural or man caused events (fire, flood and drought) would not lead to loss of all reintroduced populations within the park. Streams to be considered for restoration efforts include: 1) Strawberry Creek; 2) Mill Creek; 3) Snake Creek; 4) South Fork of Big Wash; 5) Upper Lehman Creek; and 6) South Fork Baker Creek. Six separate populations would be established. Potential metapopulations would be established in Snake Creek. It is estimated that it would take approximately 6 to 10 years to implement fully (Table 1). Release of BCT is totally dependent on effectiveness monitoring of the stream renovation treatments and availability of BCT stock.
Hard plants of adult fish and instream incubator stock from genetically pure Snake Range stock would be used. The goal of this alternative is to reestablish viable populations of BCT within a portion of the historic range in GRBA.
This alternative would eradicate nonnative salmonids through the use of Piscicides and would require a comparative analysis to assess the effects to target and nontarget aquatic resources of rotenone and antimycin A by using both chemicals in different streams. Rotenone will be used in Strawberry Creek and antimycin A in Mill Creek. The alternative would repeat pretreatment surveys and assess effects. Adaptive management would then be used to refine renovation techniques. All treatments would include potassium permanganate drip stations to detoxify the Piscicides below treatment areas on streams with domestic water uses (Mill, Snake, Lehman and S. Fk. Baker).
Treatments will affect HNF lands on Strawberry and Mill Creeks but are not expected to be different than what will occur on GRBA. The other stream segments identified for treatment would occur entirely within GRBA.
Nonnative salmonids affected by stream renovation treatments would be collected, as best possible, and buried off site.
To inform visitors, signs would be placed at clearly visible sites at the park boundary along those streams treated. Signs will describe the project, warn of water consumption and specify where potable water is available in the park. A copy of the sign will be placed in a clearly visible site in the park visitor center. Interpretative staff will be well informed so as to answer any questions that arise. Mill Creek renovation treatments will be negotiated with the private landowners to be timed during periods of residence vacancy or agreements to supply them with potable water will be made.
Fish barriers might need to be constructed on at least three streams proposed for reintroduction. These sites are Strawberry Creek well below the park boundary, Mill Creek at the park boundary and the South Fork Baker Creek above the confluence with Baker Creek. Barrier design will be tailored to the conditions at the site, use natural materials and have minimal visual effects. The water diversion on Snake Creek may provide an adequate existing barrier but will be examined for the need of any modifications.
Methods used to transport BCT hard plants and instream incubator stock would be totally dependent on access and remoteness of the site. Truck transfer would be the preferred method for reintroducing larger older fish. Sites with road access would utilize a truck mounted aerator tank. Remote sights with trails would require use of backpack tanks to move BCT. Fingerlings would be placed in small four to five gallon plastic tanks that fit a pack frame, oxygenated and possibly iced-down. Helicopters, if they can be arranged, could be a more effective method. Helicopter would be used to transfer materials needed for the establishment of instream incubators along the South Fork of Big Wash. No helicopter landings would be authorized within the park backcountry. All equipment and supplies would be sling loaded to prescribed sites.
Adverse effects to aquatic resources from domestic livestock grazing, park roads and developments would be assessed and mitigated. In addition, recreational fishing along most of Lehman and Baker Creek would continue.
Action items include:
Table 1. Tentative Ten Year Timeline*:
|
Strawberry Creek |
Mill Creek |
S. Fork Big Wash |
Snake Creek |
Lehman Creek |
S. Fork Baker Creek |
|
|
1999 |
PS
|
PS |
PS
|
|||
|
2000 |
CT PT MMB |
PS
|
PS
|
PS |
||
|
2001 |
BCT PT |
CT PT |
BCT
|
PS CT MMB |
PS |
|
|
2002 |
BCT
|
BCT
|
|
CT PT |
PS CT |
|
|
2003 |
PR |
PR |
PR |
BCT PT |
CT PT |
PS |
|
2004 |
PR |
BCT
|
PT |
CT PT MMB |
||
|
2005 |
PR |
PR |
PR |
BCT PR |
CT PT |
|
|
2006 |
PR |
BCT PR |
PT |
|||
|
2007 |
PR |
BCT
|
||||
|
2008 |
PR |
PR |
BCT PR |
|||
|
2009 |
PR |
PR |
PS = pre-treatment survey
CT = chemical renovation treatment
PT = post-treatment monitoring
BCT = BCT reintroduction
PR = post-reintroduction monitoring
MMB = Manmade Barrier constructed
* Schedule is tentative and is subject to change based upon effectiveness monitoring and cooperation with NDOW.
The first four years of the project will include the following:
Year 1 - Pretreatment surveying along Strawberry Creek, Mill Creek, and South Fork of Big Wash. Database development. Development and publication of an informative BCT brochure. Potential chemical renovation treatment of Strawberry Creek for the removal of nonnative salmonids.
Year 2 - Pretreatment surveying along Mill and Snake Creeks and potentially South Fork of Big Wash. Post-treatment monitoring along Strawberry Creek. Construct a manmade barrier on Strawberry Creek. If nonnative salmonids are found, re-treat the system. If nonnatives are not found after careful and complete surveys in the spring and fall, introduce adult BCT through hard plants into Strawberry. Database update. Chemical renovation of Mill Creek for the removal of nonnative salmonids. Introduction of BCT into South Fork of Big Wash using streamside incubators.
Year 3 – Pretreatment surveying along South Fork Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks. Post-treatment monitoring along Strawberry and Mill Creeks. If nonnatives are not found after careful and complete surveys in the spring and fall, introduce adult BCT through hard plants into Mill Creek (and Strawberry, if not done in Year 2). Post-reintroduction monitoring of Strawberry and South Fork of Big Wash Creeks. Database update. Modify the water diversion on Snake Creek to ensure an adequate fish barrier. Chemical renovation of upper Snake Creek for the removal of nonnative salmonids.
Year 4 - Pretreatment surveying along South Fork Baker Creek. Post-reintroduction
monitoring and streamside incubator maintenance and restocking on South
Fork of Big Wash Creek. Post-treatment monitoring on Strawberry, Mill, and
Snake Creeks. Post-reintroduction monitoring on Mill Creek. Adaptive management
will be used to minimize effects to other streams. Post-treatment monitoring
on Snake Creek. If nonnatives are not found after careful and complete surveys
in the spring and fall, introduce adult BCT through hard plants into Snake
Creek. Database update. Planning and treatment of Lehman for the removal
of nonnative salmonids based upon adaptive management analyses.
Under this alternative, approximately 6 miles of proposed stream renovation and BCT reintroduction would occur in perennially flowing water in the Strawberry Creek system. One separate population would be established with the historic BCT range in the park. It is estimated that it would take approximately 2 to 3 years to fully implement. Release of BCT is totally dependent on effectiveness monitoring of the stream renovation treatments.
Approximately 0.25 miles of Strawberry Creek on HNF lands would be affected but effects would not be different than that occurring on GRBA.
Hard plants of adult fish from genetically pure Snake Range stock would be used. The goal of this alternative is to establish viable populations of BCT in conjunction with implementation of the NDOW BCT plan. BCT from Pine and Ridge Creeks would be used.
Eradicate nonnative salmonids through the use of piscicides. Rotenone would be used. Treatment would be timed to minimize and/or mitigate effects to other susceptible aquatic life.
Nonnative salmonids affected by stream renovation treatments would be collected, as best possible, and buried off site.
To inform visitors, signs will be placed at clearly visible sites at the park boundary along Strawberry Creek. Signs will describe the project, warn of water consumption and specify where potable water is available in the park. A copy of the sign will be placed in a clearly visible site in the park visitor center. Interpretative staff will be well informed so as to answer any questions that arise. Truck transfer would be used to transport BCT hard.
Action items include:
Under this alternative, 30+ miles of proposed stream renovation and BCT reintroduction would occur. Enough separate populations would be established so that natural or man caused events (fire, flood and drought) does not lead to loss of all reintroduced populations within the park. The streams to be considered for restoration efforts include: 1) Strawberry Creek; 2) Mill Creek; 3) Snake Creek; 4) South Fork of Big Wash; 5) Lehman Creek; and 6) Baker Creek. Six separate populations would be established. Large potential metapopulation would be established in Lehman Creek, Baker Creek, and Snake Creek. It is estimated that it would take approximately 12 to 15 years to fully implement (Table 2). Release of BCT is totally dependent of effectiveness monitoring of the stream renovation treatments.
Portions of Strawberry Creek, Mill Creek and Baker Creek crossing HNF lands would be affected. These effects would not be different than that occurring in GRBA. The other stream segments identified for treatment would occur entirely within GRBA.
Hard plants of adult fish from genetically pure Snake Range stock would be used. The goal of this alternative is to reestablish viable populations of BCT in all of the historic range in GRBA. As the timeline extends, BCT from reintroduced populations within the park would be used.
Eradicate nonnative salmonids through the use of piscicides. Rotenone and antimycine A would be tested on Strawberry Creek and Mill Creek, respectively. Results indicating which piscicide is most effective and least toxic to other organisms would be used on remaining streams. Treatment would be timed to minimize and/or mitigate effects to other susceptible aquatic life. All treatments will include potassium permanganate drip stations to detoxify the Piscicides below treatment areas on streams with domestic water uses.
Nonnative salmonids affected by stream renovation treatments would be collected, as best possible, and buried off site.
To inform visitors, signs will be placed at clearly visible sites at the park boundary along those streams treated. Signs will describe the project, warn of water consumption and specify where potable water is available in the park. A copy of the sign will be placed in a clearly visible site in the park visitor center. Interpretative staff will be well informed so as to answer any questions that arise. Mill Creek renovation treatments will be negotiated with the private landowners to be timed during periods of residence vacancy or agreements to supply them with potable water will be made.
Fish barriers will need to be constructed on some stream proposed for reintroduction. Barrier design will be tailored to the conditions at the site, use natural materials and have minimal visual effects.
Methods used to transport BCT hard plants will be totally dependent on access and remoteness of the site. Truck transfer will be the preferred method for reintroducing larger older fish. Sites with road access will utilize a truck mounted aerator tank. Remote sights with trails will use backpack tanks to move BCT. Fingerlings will be placed in small four to five gallon plastic tanks that fit a pack frame, oxygenated and possibly iced-down.
Action items include:
Table 2. Tentative Thirteen Year Timeline*:
|
Strawberry Creek |
Mill Creek |
S. Fork Big Wash |
Snake Creek |
Lehman Creek |
Baker Creek |
|||||||
|
1999 |
PS
|
PS |
PS
|
|||||||||
|
2000 |
CT PT MMB |
PS
|
PS BCT |
PS |
||||||||
|
2001 |
BCT PT |
CT PT MMB |
BCT
|
PS CT
|
PS |
|||||||
|
2002 |
BCT
|
BCT PT |
|
CT PT MMB |
PS
|
|||||||
|
2003 |
PR |
PR |
PR |
BCT PT |
PS
|
PS |
||||||
|
2004 |
PR |
BCT
|
CT PT |
CT PT |
||||||||
|
2005 |
PR |
PR |
PR |
CT PT |
CT PT |
|||||||
|
2006 |
PR |
PT |
CT/PT |
|||||||||
|
2007 |
PR |
PR |
BCT |
CT PT |
||||||||
|
2008 |
PR |
BCT PR |
BCT
|
|||||||||
|
2009 |
PR |
BCT PR |
BCT PR |
|||||||||
|
2010 |
BCT |
|||||||||||
|
2011 |
PR |
BCT PR |
||||||||||
|
2012 |
BCT |
|||||||||||
PS = pre-treatment survey
CT = chemical renovation treatment
PT = post-treatment monitoring
BCT = BCT reintroduction
PR = post-reintroduction monitoring
MMB = Manmade Barrier Construction
* Schedule is tentative and is subject to change based upon effectiveness monitoring and cooperation with NDOW.
The first four years of the project will be identical to alternative 2.
Table 3. Comparison of Effects by Alternative
|
Alt. 1 No Action |
Alternative 2 BCT/Recreational Fisheries Mgmt |
Alternative 3 BCT Strawberry Creek |
Alternative 4 BCT Fisheries Mgmt |
|
|
Issue 1 Native Wildlife |
No Effects |
Minimal potential loss of mollusks, amphibian larva and macroinvertebrates |
Minimal potential loss of mollusks, amphibian larva and macroinvertebrates |
High potential loss of mollusks, amphibian larva and macroinvertebrates |
|
Issue 2 Recreational fishing |
No effects |
Disruption of recreation fishing mitigated by scheduling of treatments. Two most popular stream managed for recreational fishing Catch and release of BCT until populations stabilize |
Disruption of recreation fishing by the treatment of Strawberry Creek. Catch and release of BCT until population stabilizes |
Disruption of recreation fishing by the treatment of all stream systems over time Catch and release of BCT until population stabilizes |
|
Issue 3 T&E&S Species |
No Effects |
No effects to T&E. Effects mitigated to Sensitive or Special Status Species by timing of treatments, collection and release. |
No effects to T&E. Effects mitigated to Sensitive or Special Status Species by timing of treatments. |
No effects to T&E. Effects mitigated to Sensitive or Special Status Species by timing of treatments. |
|
Issue 4 Water Quality/Uses |
No effects |
Minimal effects due to detoxification stations and selection of streams with little potential human consumption. |
Minimal effects due to selection of streams with no human consumption. |
Potential effects due to selection of streams with human consumption. Detoxification stations will minimize threat but not concern. Proposed Park Estates water system would eliminate concerns. |
|
Issue 5 Viable BCT Populations |
No Viable BCT Populations Established |
6 BCT population Established within 18 miles of stream. 1 potential Meta population. |
1 BCT population Established within 6 miles of stream. No potential Meta population. |
6 BCT population Established within 30 miles of stream. 3 potential Meta population. |
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter provides the analytical basis for comparison of alternatives outlined in the prior section. It discusses the anticipated environmental effects associated with implementation of the various alternatives.
EFFECTS ON NATIVE WILDLIFE (Issue 1)
Under this alternative there would no effects to native wildlife as a result of no stream renovation treatments. Nonnative salmonids would continue thrive in park streams and deplete or extirpate native species of mollusks and amphibians. These species evolved with the BCT and their life cycles adapted to avoid predation. It is assumed that these nonnative salmonids have had significant effects of the aquatic ecosystem. Lack of baseline data prevents quantitative measures of impacts.
EFFECTS ON RECREATIONAL FISHING (Issue 2)
This alternative would have no impact on recreational fishing opportunities for nonnative salmonids in the park. The current healthy self-reproducing populations will be maintained in park streams.
EFFECTS ON THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES (Issue 3)
Under this alternative there would no effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species as a result of no stream renovation treatments.
EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY AND USES (Issue 4)
Under this alternative there would no effects to water quality and uses as a result of no stream renovation treatments.
ABILITY TO ESTABLISH VIABLE BCT POPULATIONS (Issue 5)
No viable populations of BCT would be established at this time. This alternative would be inconsistent with the direction in the GRBA General Management Plan. This alternative would not implement NPS-77 Natural Resource Management Guidelines as they relate to native species and nonnative species. This alternative would be inconsistent with GRBA’s enabling legislation. In addition, this alternative is not consistent with the ESA, which requires Federal agencies to do everything within their power to recover species that are listed as threatened or endangered or are trending towards listing.
4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2. Reintroduction of Bonneville Cutthroat trout into 18 miles of historic but vacant stream habitat while continuing to manage all other streams within the historic range for nonnative salmonid recreational fisheries.
EFFECTS ON NATIVE WILDLIFE (Issue 1)
Under this alternative, 18 miles of stream would be renovated with the piscicides Rotenone and antymicin A. Rotenone and antimycin A are non-toxic to non-gill breathing vertebrates such as mammals, birds, reptiles, and adult amphibians in the concentrations used for fish eradication projects. No effects to nonaquatic organisms would occur. Although most fish toxicants are also toxic to aquatic invertebrates, the effect is temporary; usually the populations rapidly rebuild to pretreatment levels (Lennon 1971; Schnick 1974a, 1974b). In 1998, the NPS, HNF, USGS, TNC, and the BLM entered into an MOU with the FWS to manage for the conservation and recovery of Great Basin spring snails. Spring snails are gilled, which makes them dependent upon dissolved oxygen, and thus, vulnerable to adverse impacts from chemical renovation treatments. The loss of some mollusks, amphibians and macroinvertebrates will occur under this alternative. However, springs, seeps and non-fish baring tributaries will act as refugia, allowing repopulating of the system. Pretreatment surveys will allow the scheduling of treatments to minimize this loss by timing when species potentially effected are no longer totally water dependent and/or dormant.
The following mitigation measures will serve to minimize or eliminate any potential impacts to native wildlife:
EFFECTS ON RECREATIONAL FISHING (Issue 2)
Under this alternative effects to recreational fishing will occur as a result of some streams being fishless during the peak visitor season. In order to minimize this effect, the scheduling of treatment spaces the treatment of popular fishing streams over a period of years. The treatment of Strawberry Creek first, followed by several years of less popular fishing stream renovation will allow recovery of a fishable resource before the next popular fishing stream, Snake Creek, is treated. The most accessible and popular fishing portions of Lehman and Baker Creeks are not scheduled for BCT reintroduction and will remain open to nonnative salmonid fishing. Overtime, this alternative will improve recreational fishing potential by allowing the unique opportunity to fish for the BCT. Catch and release regulations would be imposed until BCT population stabilizes.
EFFECTS ON THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES (Issue 3)
Rotenone and antimycin are non-toxic to non-gill breathing vertebrates such as mammals, birds, reptiles, and adult amphibians in the concentrations used for fish eradication projects. While the recommended concentrations of rotenone and antimycin are generally safe for nontarget organisms, there is the potential for scavenging of treated fish by Bald eagles (federally listed threatened), peregrine falcons (a federally listed endangered species), goshawk (state-protected), Ferruginous hawks (state-protected) and Swainson’s hawks (state-protected). GRBA has a commitment under the ESA to assure no adverse impacts to listed species. The loss of macroinvertebrates could lower the quantity of food sources for the insectivorous Spotted bats (state-protected).
The following mitigation measures will minimize and/or eliminate these potential effects:
EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY AND USES (Issue 4)
After the streams leave the park, they cross HNF, BLM and private lands and are used for irrigation and drinking purposes by local residents. In 1981, the EPA concluded, "there is no reason to restrict the use of rotenone in waters intended for irrigation." Over 80,000 visitors come to GRBA annually. Many enjoy recreating along the park’s beautiful streams. Visitors to the park may use the treated streams for drinking, cooking, and bathing. Decomposing fish within the streams has the potential to effect water quality and uses. Several streams have developed or primitive campsites along them. Most of the streams currently sustain cattle grazing operations from approximately June through October. Cattle drink from streams that will be chemically treated. Rotenone and antimycin A are non-toxic to non-gill breathing vertebrates such as humans and domestic livestock in the concentrations used for fish eradication projects. Under this alternative, the major streams, Baker and Lehman Creek, with downstream water uses are not scheduled for large-scale renovation treatments. Treatment areas are between 5 to 6 miles from the park boundary. The potassium permanganate drip stations and natural breakdown and dilution from spring water additions will eliminate any effects down stream. Snake Creek treatments are 8 miles above the NDOW Fish rearing station and 15 miles from the Garrison water diversion. The potassium permanganate drip stations and natural breakdown and dilution from spring water additions will eliminate any effects down stream.
The following mitigation measures are designed to minimize and/or eliminate any potential impacts to water quality and use:
ABILITY TO ESTABLISH VIABLE BCT POPULATIONS (Issue 5)
Factors affecting population persistence (e.g., drought, fire, and flood) mandate monitoring of translocated populations to determine population status and to assess changes in habitat conditions. Droughts can cause varying degrees of reduced stream flow that result in a contraction of available habitat and a reduction in habitat suitability. Flood events can cause channel scouring, habitat alteration, year class failure, and displacement and/or complete loss of BCT from a system. High intensity fire can result in increased water temperature, decreased stream shading, increased soil erosion, increased runoff, and increased peak flow. These natural events are usually not independent of each other. These natural events can result in the localized extinction of species within a system. Under this proposal, 18 miles of stream and 6 separate BCT populations will be established. One potential metapopulation will be established in Snake Creek. These populations will be spread across the east side watershed of GRBA. This will minimize the potential from complete loss of reintroduced BCT to GRBA. These populations will offer a significant contribution to the recovery of any impacted BCT population as a result of Natural and man caused events.
4.3 ALTERNATIVE 3. Reintroduction of Bonneville Cutthroat trout into Strawberry Creek.
EFFECTS ON NATIVE WILDLIFE(Issue 1)
Under this alternative, approximately 6 miles of stream would be renovated with the piscicides Rotenone. Rotenone is non-toxic to non-gill breathing vertebrates such as mammals, birds, reptiles, and adult amphibians in the concentrations used for fish eradication projects. No effects to nonaquatic organisms would occur. Although most fish toxicants are also toxic to aquatic invertebrates, the effect is temporary; usually the populations rapidly rebuild to pretreatment levels (Lennon 1971; Schnick 1974a, 1974b). In 1998, the NPS, HNF, USGS, TNC, and the BLM entered into an MOU with the FWS to manage for the conservation and recovery of Great Basin spring snails. Spring snails are gilled, which makes them dependent upon dissolved oxygen, and thus, vulnerable to adverse impacts from chemical renovation treatments. The loss of some mollusks, amphibians and macroinvertebrates will occur along Strawberry Creek under this alternative and much less than than those under alternative 2 and 4. However, springs, seeps and non-fish baring tributaries will act as refugia, allowing repopulating of the system. Pretreatment surveys will allow the scheduling of treatments to minimize this loss by timing when species potentially effected are no longer totally water dependent and/or dormant.
The following mitigation measures will serve to minimize or eliminate any potential impacts to native wildlife:
EFFECTS ON RECREATIONAL FISHING (Issue 2)
Under this alternative minimal effects to recreational fishing will occur as a result of Strawberry Creek being fishless during the peak visitor season. No attempts are made to minimize this effect. Strawberry Creek is not considered a heavy use recreational fishery in the park. Overtime, this alternative will improve recreational fishing potential by allowing the unique opportunity to fish for the BCT. Catch and release regulations would be imposed until BCT population stabilizes.
EFFECTS ON THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES (Issue 3)
Rotenone would be the sole piscicide used under this alternative and is non-toxic to non-gill breathing vertebrates such as mammals, birds, reptiles, and adult amphibians in the concentrations used for fish eradication projects. While the recommended concentrations of rotenone and antimycin are generally safe for nontarget organisms, there is the potential for scavenging of treated fish by Bald eagles (federally listed threatened), peregrine falcons (a federally listed endangered species), goshawk (state-protected), Ferruginous hawks (state-protected), and Swainson’s hawks (state-protected). GRBA has a commitment under the ESA to assure no adverse impacts to listed species. The loss of macroinvertebrates could lower the quantity of food sources for the insectivorous Spotted bats (state-protected).
The following mitigation measures will minimize and/or eliminate these potential effects:
EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY AND USES (Issue 4)
After Strawberry Creek leaves the park, it crosses through lands administered by the HNF and Ely District of the BLM. It eventually cross onto private lands approximately 3.5 miles below the park and are used for irrigation during the spring season. During late summer and fall, the lower portion of the creek, about 1 mile above the private lands is intermittent and/or dry. Renovation treatments will be scheduled for early fall during low water when there is no potential for pisicides to route to the privates land holding. In 1981, the EPA concluded, "there is no reason to restrict the use of rotenone in waters intended for irrigation." Over 80,000 visitors come to GRBA annually. Many enjoy recreating along the park’s beautiful streams. Visitors to the park may use the treated streams for drinking, cooking, and bathing. Decomposing fish within the streams has the potential to effect water quality and uses. While unsigned and somewhat difficult to find by the visiting public several primitive campsites are along Strawberry Creek. Strawberry Creek sustains cattle grazing operations from approximately June through September. Rotenone and antimycin are non-toxic to non-gill breathing vertebrates such as humans and domestic livestock in the concentrations used for fish eradication projects. plemented. Natural breakdown, dilution from spring water additions and the intermittent nature of lower Strawberry Creek will eliminate any effects down stream. The following mitigation measures are designed to minimize and/or eliminate any potential impacts to water quality and use:
ABILITY TO ESTABLISH VIABLE BCT POPULATIONS (Issue 5)
Under this proposal, approximately 6 miles of stream and 1 separate BCT population will be established. No metapopulations will be established. Over time, one viable population would become established. However, this populations will be would be easy lost due to some natural or human caused catastrophic event. These populations will offer some but little contribution to the recovery of BCT.
4.4 ALTERNATIVE 4. Reintroduction of Bonneville Cutthroat trout into all 30 miles of historic but vacant stream habitat.
EFFECTS ON NATIVE WILDLIFE(Issue 1)
Under this alternative, 30 miles of stream would be renovated with the piscicides Rotenone. Rotenone is non-toxic to non-gill breathing vertebrates such as mammals, birds, reptiles, and adult amphibians in the concentrations used for fish eradication projects. No effects to nonaquatic organisms would occur. Although most fish toxicants are also toxic to aquatic invertebrates, the effect is temporary; usually the populations rapidly rebuild to pretreatment levels (Lennon 1971; Schnick 1974a, 1974b). In 1998, the NPS, HNF, USGS, TNC, and the BLM entered into an MOU with the FWS to manage for the conservation and recovery of Great Basin spring snails. Spring snails are gilled, which makes them dependent upon dissolved oxygen, and thus, vulnerable to adverse impacts from chemical renovation treatments. The loss of some mollusks, amphibians and macroinvertebrates will occur under this alternative and greater than those under alternative 2. However, springs, seeps and non-fish baring tributaries will act as refugia, allowing repopulating of the system. Pretreatment surveys will allow the scheduling of treatments to minimize this loss by timing when species potentially effected are no longer totally water dependent and/or dormant. The pretreatment surveys are not as extensive as under alternative 2 and allow for the extrapolation of data to other watersheds. Due to the endemic nature of some aquatic species, this might not prevent potential impacts as the other alternatives. No collection of aquatic macroinvertebrates would occur and stream system would be allowed to recover naturally.
The following mitigation measures will serve to minimize or eliminate any potential impacts to native wildlife:
EFFECTS ON RECREATIONAL FISHING (Issue 2)
Under this alternatives effects to recreational fishing will occur as a result of some streams being fishless during the peak visitor season. No attempts are made to minimize this effect. The intent is to facilitate the recovery of BCT. The first four years will have similar effects as alternative 2. The treatment of Strawberry Creek first followed by several years of nonpopular f