DOCSLIB.ORG

Little Snake River Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Little Snake River Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment LITTLE SNAKE RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2013 Environmental Assessment Little Snake River Restoration Project TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Document Format ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of Action ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Need for Action .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Decision Framework ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Scoping Process .............................................................................................................................. 4 2. Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 5 2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Resource Protection Measures ...................................................................................................... 10 2.3.1 Agriculture ....................................................................................................................... 10 2.3.2 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 10 2.3.3 Water Resources .............................................................................................................. 10 2.3.4 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................... 10 2.3.5 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................... 10 2.3.6 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.3.7 Invasive Plant Species ..................................................................................................... 10 2.3.8 Wildlife Resources .......................................................................................................... 11 2.3.9 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................... 11 2.3.10 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Consideration ........................................... 11 2.4.1 Use Riprap to Stabilize Channel ...................................................................................... 11 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 12 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 13 3.1 Agriculture .................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ............................................................................................... 14 3.1.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 14 3.2 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 15 3.2.1 Class I Inventory .............................................................................................................. 15 3.2.1.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................ 17 3.2.1.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...................................................................... 17 3.3 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................... 18 3.3.1 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................ 18 3.3.1.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................ 21 3.3.1.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...................................................................... 21 3.3.2 River Corridor Function .................................................................................................. 21 3.3.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................ 23 TOC-1 Environmental Assessment Little Snake River Restoration Project 3.3.2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...................................................................... 23 3.4 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................ 24 3.4.1 Adams Ditch Diversion ................................................................................................... 24 3.4.2 Baggs Ditch Diversion..................................................................................................... 25 3.4.3 Ready Ditch Diversion .................................................................................................... 27 3.4.4 Town of Baggs Water Infiltration Gallery....................................................................... 27 3.4.5 State Highway 789 Bridge ............................................................................................... 27 3.4.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................ 28 3.4.5.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...................................................................... 28 3.5 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................................ 29 3.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ............................................................................................... 30 3.5.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 30 3.6 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 30 3.6.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ............................................................................................... 31 3.6.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 31 3.7 Invasive Plant Species .................................................................................................................. 31 3.7.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ............................................................................................... 32 3.7.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 32 3.8 Wildlife Resources ....................................................................................................................... 33 3.8.1 Ungulates ......................................................................................................................... 33 3.8.1.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................ 33 3.8.1.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...................................................................... 33 3.8.2 Avian ............................................................................................................................... 33 3.8.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................ 34 3.8.2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...................................................................... 34 3.8.3 Reptiles and Amphibians ................................................................................................. 35 3.8.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................ 35 3.8.3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...................................................................... 35 3.9 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................. 36 3.9.1 Black-footed Ferret (Endangered) ................................................................................... 36 3.9.1.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................ 36 3.9.1.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...................................................................... 36 3.9.2 Canada Lynx (Threatened) .............................................................................................. 36 3.9.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................ 36 3.9.2.2 Alternative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CRWAS Phase I Yampa River – Statemod Model Brief
    CRWAS Phase I Yampa River – StateMod Model Brief 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 2 2. Model Components..................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Inflow Hydrology.................................................................................................................4 2.1.1 Data Sources and Filling Techniques.........................................................................6 2.2 Physical Systems.................................................................................................................. 8 2.2.1 Data Sources and Filling Techniques.........................................................................9 2.3 Water Demands...................................................................................................................10 2.3.1 Data Sources and Filling Techniques...................................................................... 10 2.4 Legal and Administrative Conditions................................................................................ 11 2.4.1 Data Sources and Filling Techniques.......................................................................12 3. Model Calibration......................................................................................................................13 3.1 First Step Calibration..........................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring of the Little Snake River and Tributaries
    MONITORING OF THE LITTLE SNAKE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES YEAR 5 – FINAL REPORT Daryl B. Simons Building at the Engineering Research Center Department of Civil Engineering Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Monitoring of the Little Snake River and Tributaries Year 5 – Final Report Submitted to: Mr. Steve Bushong Porzak, Browning, and Bushong LLP 929 Pearl Street, Suite 300 Boulder, CO 80302 By: Dr. Brian P. Bledsoe Mr. John E. Meyer December 2005 Daryl B. Simons Building at the Engineering Research Center Department of Civil Engineering Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................................... 1 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF 2004-2005 MONITORING RESULTS .......................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF 2005 MONITORING ACTIVITIES............................................................... 3 Channel Stability Monitoring .......................................................................................... 5 2005 Flow Conditions............................................................................................. 6 Horizontal and Vertical Adjustments.....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 146/Wednesday, July 30
    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Notices 44809 the three public meetings to be held in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Upper populations. The Service proposes to August 2003. Public meetings are Colorado River Endangered Fish enter into a cooperative agreement to scheduled Monday, August 11, 2003, in Recovery Program (Program) was implement the plan. This Federal action Baggs, Wyoming; Tuesday, August 12, established in 1988 by a cooperative requires that the Service fulfill the 2003, in Steamboat Springs, Colorado; agreement among the governors of requirements of the NEPA, for which an and Wednesday, August 13, 2003, in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, Environmental Assessment has been Craig, Colorado. All meetings are Secretary of the Department of the prepared. scheduled from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Interior, and Administrator of the Dated: March 27, 2003. Western Area Power Administration for ADDRESSES: Public meetings will be Elliott N. Sutta, the purpose of recovering four held at the Little Snake River Valley endangered fish species endemic to the Acting Regional Director, Denver, Colorado. Library, 105 2nd Street, Baggs, Colorado River Basin—the humpback [FR Doc. 03–17696 Filed 7–29–03; 8:45 am] Wyoming; Centennial Hall, 124 10th chub (Gila cypha), bonytail (Gila BILLING CODE 4310–55–P Street, Steamboat Springs, Colorado; elegans), Colorado pikeminnow and Shadow Mountain Clubhouse, 1055 (Ptychocheilus lucius), and razorback County Road 7, Craig, Colorado. sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). In August DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Copies of the draft Environmental 2002, the Service completed recovery Fish and Wildlife Service Assessment and Management Plan are goals for these species, which identify available online at http:// five threat factors that led to their Issuance of Permits www.r6.fws.gov/crrip/yampa.htm or at decline.
    [Show full text]
  • Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. Little Snake River Watershed Investigation, Level I Study Client/ Mr. Ron Vore Project Manag
    Little Snake River Watershed Investigation, Level I Study Client/ Mr. Ron Vore Project Manager: Jay Schug Reference: Wyoming Water Development Commission 6920 Yellowtail Road Cheyenne, WY 82002 (307) 777-7626 The Little Snake River watershed is tributary to the Yampa River and is located in the Colorado River basin. The watershed spans state lines with the Colorado / Wyoming State line effectively dividing the watershed in half. The project study area includes the Vermillion Creek watershed, which lies west of the Little Snake River watershed and is also directly tributary to the Green River in Colorado. The total area encompassed by these watersheds is approximately 5,052 square miles. The study area is relatively isolated from metropolitan areas and its three towns (Baggs, Dixon, and Savery) have a combined population of less than 1,000 people. The primary land uses have historically been agricultural in nature with livestock grazing being the dominant livelihood. However, with the “boom” in energy development, man’s impact upon the region has increased with the construction of numerous oil and gas wells along with their supporting infrastructure (road, pipelines, etc.). In support of local efforts to identify potential conflicts and solutions to water related issues, Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. was contracted by the Wyoming Water Development Commission to conduct an in- depth evaluation of the watershed and its water resources. The purpose of the study was to identify water supply needs and to develop a watershed management plan that identifies problem areas within the watershed and to provide practical economic solutions with an emphasis placed on the evaluation of potential storage opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
    Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Maybell Canal Water Conservation Project Upper Colorado Region U.S. Department of the Interior November 2019 WCAO-GJO-EA-19-04 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and manage the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other information about those resources; and honor its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. WCAO-GJO-EA-19-04 Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... 2 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ...................................................................................... 3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact ................................................................................ 3 Context ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A FISHERIES SURVEY,Removw the LITTLE SNAKE RIVER
    ii- 7 DO Õ1 ■A FISHERIES SURVEY,REmovw of 0 THE LITTLE SNAKE RIVER k0 J 7 -- ,,1 --m•Nani■ o"tvt,tiji REPORT bar 6 Wyoming Game and Fish Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FISHERIES HISTORY -r 4 METHODS AND MATERIALS 5 FINDINGS - - - - - - - 6 LITTLE SNAKE RIVER - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 MUDDY CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MCKINNEY CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EAGLE CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 STONEY CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 GROVE CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 MUDDY CREEK (TRIBUTARY TO MCKINNEY CREEK) 9 LITTLEFIELD CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 EAST FORK MUDDY CREEK - - - - - - - - - - 10 BIG SAVERY CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 BIG GULCH CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 LITTLE SANDSTONE CREEK - - - - - - - - - - 13 BIG SANDSTONE CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - 13 DEEP CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 MILL CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 DOUGLAS CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 LITTLE SAVERY CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - 16 TINY CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , FULTON CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 NORTH FORK SAVERY CREEK - - - - - - - - - 18 EVANOFF CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19 FISH CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 DEEP GULCH CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 SOUTH FORK OF SAVERY CREEK - - - - - - - - 20 Jim CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 MEXICAN CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 DIRTYMAN CREEK - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Sediment Data from the Yampa River and Upper Green River Basins, Colorado and Utah, 1993-2002
    Summary of Sediment Data from the Yampa River and Upper Green River Basins, Colorado and Utah, 1993–2002 By John G. Elliott and Steven P. Anders Prepared in cooperation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5242 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Elliott, John G., and Anders, Steven P., 2005, Summary of sediment data from the Yampa River and upper Green River Basins, Colorado and Utah, 1993–2002: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5242, 35 p. iii Contents Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Purpose and Scope ……………………………………………………………………… 3 Previous Investigations ………………………………………………………………… 3 Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………… 4 Study Area
    [Show full text]
  • Green River Channel Monitoring Field Data Collection Yampa and Little Snake Rivers
    Green River Channel Monitoring Field Data Collection Yampa and Little Snake Rivers Report, Cross Section Plots, Photos Green River Channel Monitoring Field Data Collection Yampa and Little Snake Rivers Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin Project # 72 BC Final Report Prepared for: US Fish and Wildlife Service Denver, Colorado Prepared by: FLO Engineering, Inc. Breckenridge, Colorado February, 1998 Revised, August, 1998 Executive Summary In 1983 a series of 21 cross sections were surveyed in the Yampa River Canyon in Dinosaur National Monument in conjunction with a sediment transport study and hydrographic data collection program at Mather’s Hole (river mile 18.5) funded by the National Park Service Field Support Laboratory in Fort Collins, Colorado. Most of these cross sections were located in the lower 20 miles of the canyon. Although these cross sections were never permanently monumented, they were described in detail in original field notes and documented with photographs. An additional six cross sections were surveyed in the Deerlodge Park reach of the Yampa River in the fall of 1983. All of these cross sections were resurveyed in August, 1997 as part of the Channel Monitoring Program of the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The purpose of this project was to determine the magnitude of channel morphology changes over the past 14 years and to permanently monument the cross section endpoints before the original data base was lost. The data collection crew chief in 1983 was still available to perform this work and FLO Engineering was contracted to conducted the surveys.
    [Show full text]
  • Wyoming's Depletion Accounting for 2011-2015, Little Snake River Basin
    State Engineer’s Office MARK GORDON GOVERNOR HERSCHLER BUILDING, 2 WEST CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82002 STATE ENGINEER 12 September, 2019 TO: Don Anderson, Instream Flow Coordinator Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, USFWS FROM: Steve Wolff, Administrator, Interstate Streams Division Charlie Ferrantelli, River Basin Coordinator, Interstate Streams Division RE: Wyoming’s Depletion Accounting for 2011 - 2015, Little Snake River Basin; Yampa River PBO As you know, the Yampa River Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO; USFWS 2005) requires Wyoming to report to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Program) every 5-years the average annual volume of depletions (consumptive use1; CU) from the Little Snake River Basin within Wyoming. When annual depletions reach 66,000 acre-feet, the Service may reinitiate consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. This memo serves to provide the Program with Wyoming’s most recent depletion values. Appendix D of the PBO describes certain accounting protocols to be used to provide depletions estimates. However, a different methodology is used in this report that Wyoming considers to be more accurate. The methodology tiers off of a project initiated by Wyoming in 2011 to provide annual depletion values for the entire Colorado River Basin (Green and Little Snake Basins) in Wyoming. The project was initiated to meet our responsibilities outlined under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 and is outlined in the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office’s Consumptive Use Determination Plan (2008), and our subsequent annual consumptive use reports (2011 – 2017). Total depletions in the Little Snake basin of Wyoming are estimated as the sum of consumptive uses, including irrigated agriculture, livestock, municipal, domestic supply, transmountain diversions (exports), and man-made reservoir/wetland evaporation (Table 1).
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Adult and Juvenile Humpback Chub
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Adult and Juvenile Humpback Chub Monitoring for the Yampa River Population, 2003-2004 August 2006 Adult and Juvenile Humpback Chub Monitoring for the Yampa River Population, 2003-2004 Upper Colorado River Basin Recovery Implementation Program Project No. 133 January 2006 Adult and Juvenile Humpback Chub Monitoring for the Yampa River Population, 2003-2004 Final Report Project No. 133 by Sam Finney U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado River Fish Project 1380 South 2350 West Vernal, UT 84078 August 2006 Acknowledgements I wish to thank Mark Fuller, Kevin Christopherson, Ron Brunson, Dave Beers, and a number of seasonal employees of the Colorado River Fish Project and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. I thank Chris Kitcheyan for help in initiating the project and Kevin Bestgen, and Darrel Snyder and the Colorado State University Larval Fish Laboratory staff for help in verifying juvenile chub samples. Larval fish laboratory staff also helped in collecting fish in Whirlpool and Lodore canyons. Tom Czapla, Tim Modde, Kevin Bestgen, Chuck McAda, Lew Coggins, and members of the Biology Committee provided valuable comments. I thank Dolores Manning for administrative support. This study was funded by the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Recovery Program is a joint effort of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, Western Area Power Administration, states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, Upper Basin water users, environmental organizations, and the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the author, the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Persistence of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Populations in Isolated Headwater Streams of Wyoming
    Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:1500–1510, 2010 [Article] Ó Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2010 DOI: 10.1577/T09-133.1 Persistence of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Populations in Isolated Headwater Streams of Wyoming 1 NATHAN COOK,* FRANK J. RAHEL, AND WAYNE A. HUBERT Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Department 3166, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA Abstract.—For populations of cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii, isolation in headwater streams may provide protection from invasion by nonnative species but also may enhance a population’s vulnerability to extirpation. We assessed the risk of extirpation for eight Colorado River cutthroat trout O. clarkii pleuriticus populations isolated above water diversion structures in the North Fork Little Snake River drainage, Wyoming. The populations had been isolated for 25–44 years, occupied headwater streams that ranged from 850 to 6,100 m in length, and had adult populations that were estimated to range from 12 to 506 fish. Adult population sizes were compared with published occurrence models to identify populations that may be at risk of extirpation. One population had experienced an 11% annual rate of decline in abundance over the past 29 years, but there was no evidence of declines among the other populations. There was evidence of recruitment failure for age-1 fish in two of the smaller populations. Abundance estimates and published logistic regression models consistently identified the largest tributary in the drainage as being the most likely to support a Colorado River cutthroat trout population in the future and the smallest tributary as being the least likely to support a population in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Implications for Management of the Yampa River Through Dinosaur National Monument Final Report Submitted to the National Park Service
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science River Flow and Riparian Vegetation Dynamics – Implications for Management of the Yampa River through Dinosaur National Monument Final Report Submitted to the National Park Service Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/WRD/NRR—2018/1619 ON THE COVER Box elder (Acer negundo), River Mile 17, Yampa River, Dinosaur National Monument, May 14, 2015. Photograph: NPS/BILL HANSEN ON THE TITLE PAGE Riparian vegetation and bars cleared by variable flows. Yampa River, Deerlodge Park, Dinosaur National Monument, July 16, 2014. Photograph: M.L. SCOTT River Flow and Riparian Vegetation Dynamics – Implications for Management of the Yampa River through Dinosaur National Monument Final Report Submitted to the National Park Service Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/WRD/NRR—2018/1619 Michael L. Scott and Jonathan M. Friedman U. S. Geological Survey 2150 Centre Avenue, Building C Fort Collins, CO 80526 April 2018 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission.
    [Show full text]