1. Introduction

Home , Alamosa River, Conejos River

Conejos Peak District-Wide Salvage Project Rio Grande National Forest Conejos Peak Ranger District Fisheries Biological Evaluation and Management Indicator Species Report

1. Introduction

This report documents the Biological Evaluation (BE) and Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report for the Conejos Peak District-Wide Salvage (CPDWS) Project. A BE is a review of a specific Forest Service activity to determine how the proposed action may affect proposed or listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. The B.E. process is intended to document the steps necessary to ensure a proposed management action will not likely jeopardize the continued existence or cause adverse modification of habitat for species listed or proposed to be listed as endangered or threatened by the USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service nor contribute to the loss of viability for species listed as sensitive by the USDA-Forest Service Region 2; nor cause any species to move toward federal listing (FSM 2672.41 and R2 Supplement 2600-2015-1). The BE also ensures that recommendations to reduce negative impacts for sensitive wildlife species to be incorporated into the NEPA process, as well as opportunities for enhancement.

The Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report evaluates the potential effects of vegetative management treatments on aquatic MIS within the Project analysis area in relationship to the diversity objectives and Standards & Guidelines in the Rio Grande National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan (Forest Plan). Input required to meet MIS objectives and Forest Plan Management direction is provided where applicable.

Location/Map

The proposed CPDWS Project is located on the Rio Grande National Forest, Conejos Peak Ranger District in Conejos and Rio Grande Counties, Colorado (Figure 1). The project analysis area ranges in elevation from 8,300 feet to 13,000 feet and encompasses approximately 332,000 total acres of National Forest System lands. Legal description for the project area is: T 32 N, R 3-7 E; T 33 N, R 3-7 E; T 34 N, R 3-7 E; T 35 N, R 2-5 E; T 36 N, R 2-5 E; T 37 N, R 3-5 E, New Mexico Prime Meridian.

Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map

Purpose and Need for Action

This analysis tiers to the information available in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the CPDWS Project. Details of the purpose and need for this project can be found in the DEIS but was developed by comparing objectives and desired conditions described in the Forest Plan relating to forest and riparian health, diversity, and function habitat needs for a variety of key wildlife and plant species, along with considering the current conditions and expected future conditions resulting from potential climate changes. Where the Forest Plan direction was silent, outdated, or not applicable, the best available science and local knowledge was used.

In areas where forest conditions have departed from desired conditions, action is needed to respond to the widespread tree mortality caused by the ongoing spruce beetle epidemic. The disparity between existing and desired conditions creates a need to utilize available dead and dying trees in a timely manner to meet multiple-use mandates and provide for the protection of firefighters, users, communities, and private resources. In addition, to meet hazardous fuel treatment management objectives, there is a need to: mechanically treat vegetation in order to modify fuel profiles to reduce fire behavior and intensity to provide better opportunities for firefighters to engage a wildfire; Remove hazard trees within two tree lengths of private boundaries and/or administrative sites; Prune residual trees to lift crown base heights;

Pile and burn or remove activity-generated fuels within timber sale or pre-commercial thinning areas. Mechanically treat vegetation in order to modify fuel profiles to reduce fire behavior and intensity to provide better opportunities for firefighters to engage a wildfire; Remove hazard trees within two tree lengths of private boundaries and/or administrative sites; Prune residual trees to lift crown base heights; and Pile and burn or remove activity-generated fuels within timber sale or pre-commercial thinning areas.

Proposed Action Summary

The Forest Service developed the proposed action (Alternative 2) to meet the purpose and need and move current conditions toward desired conditions in beetle-infested spruce stands. This alternative could implement management activities on up to 18,000 acres on Forest Service lands to meet objectives described in the purpose and need.

Commercial salvage timber harvest would be conducted with ground-based equipment on slopes less than forty percent. All or parts of cut trees could be skidded to designated landings, but slash could be lopped and scattered or piled and burned or removed at landings. Depending on the level of advanced regeneration in the spruce-beetle-impacted stands, tree planting may be required to meet stocking objectives. Landings, skid trails, and old temporary road prisms from previous harvests would be re-used as much as possible to minimize additional disturbance. Some temporary road construction would be necessary. This proposal includes performing hazardous fuel treatment activities on up to 1,000 acres of affected lands adjacent to private property and administrative sites.

The proposed action would be implemented over a ten to fifteen year period. Tree planting would not be implemented until other operations were substantially complete in a treatment area.

Opportunities

As part of the scoping and analysis process, project activities were developed to provide opportunities to meet a variety of integrated resource improvement objectives. Proposed activities may be implemented that could improve stand growth or reduce insect or diseases, reduce fuels or change the fuel profile to meet specific objectives, and, improve habitat for some species of wildlife. Some projects may be funded with Knutson-Vandenberg monies collected from timber sale receipts, if available, though additional funds will be requested from other sources, as appropriate. Some examples of integrated opportunities include: Complete additional road maintenance on several roads to reduce erosion and improve watershed condition (see the Hydrology section, DEIS); Authorize decommissioning of level 1 roads where no longer needed to reduce road densities and improve watershed condition (see the Hydrology and Travel Management sections, DEIS).

2. Alternatives

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered in order to meet the purpose and need for the CPDWS Project analysis. It includes a brief description of each alternative considered and information relative to aquatics and fisheries. Full details can be found in the DEIS. The Forest Service developed three alternatives, including the no action and proposed action, in response to issues raised both internally and by the public. Collectively, these alternatives represent a reasonable

range of alternatives given the site-specific situation, purpose and need, and issues identified for this project (Table 1) compares the three alternatives by their effects to resources. All proposed management activities for each alternative would follow standards and guidelines/best management practices, project design criteria, incorporate the use of a project pre-implementation checklist process, silviculture-prescribed fire guidelines, and monitoring elements. Adaptive management triggers (see Appendix D, DEIS) would be used to minimize adverse effects and protect resources (see silviculture guidelines appendix E, DEIS)

Alternative 1 - No Action

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the study of the no action alternative and directs that this alternative be used as a basis for comparing the effects of the proposed action and other alternatives.

The No Action alternative assumes no implementation of this proposed action or the other action alternatives would take place in the project area. This alternative represents no attempt to actively respond to the issues, the purpose and need for action, or concerns identified during public scoping. There would be no effort to modify existing conditions, unless authorized by other decisions. Other management or currently permitted uses such as livestock grazing, firewood cutting near open roads, and dispersed and developed recreation would continue. This alternative serves as an environmental baseline for the evaluation of the action alternatives.

Under the No Action alternative, natural processes would continue across all proposed treatment areas, except where influenced by firewood gathering and other resource management decisions. No salvage of dead or dying trees would occur beyond those areas open to permitted firewood cutting. Potential influences on stream attributes from vegetation management, such as increased sedimentation from timber harvest or log hauling, would not occur. Existing baseline conditions and trends are likely to continue.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Under this alternative, salvage of dead and dying spruce from suitable areas across the district would occur. Hazardous fuel treatments would also be utilized to modify forest fuels adjacent to private property and administrative sites that are within areas affected by spruce beetle mortality. Salvage harvest activities would occur on up to 17,000 acres on lands determined appropriate for timber salvage (Figure 2 and 3, Table 1). Hazardous fuels treatment activities would occur on up to 1,000 acres of treatment area.

Table 1. Summary of proposed activities under Action Alternatives. Activity Alternative 2 – Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Limited Action Area salvaged 17,000 acres 8,420

Non-system road templates re-opened, followed by 35 miles 33.5 miles decommissioning

New temporary road construction, followed by 32 miles 22.7 miles decommissioning

Planting of native conifer species Approximately To be determined 860 acres

Fuel break thinning, hazard tree removal, pruning, and pile 1,000 acres 1,000 acres burning

Figure 2. Proposed salvage and fuels treatment areas for the north portion of the project area, Alternative 2.

Figure 3. Proposed salvage and fuels treatment areas for the south portion of the project area, Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 – Vegetation Management – Limited Action

Under this alternative, salvage of dead and dying spruce from some suitable areas across the district would still occur, as well as hazardous fuel treatment activities. Salvage harvest activities, however, would be focused on areas outside of field-verified, high-quality lynx habitat through implementation of specific project design criteria and lynx habitat protection elements. Additional explanation and lynx priority area descriptions can be found in Appendix F of the DEIS. Salvage harvest activities would occur on up to 8,420 acres, on lands determined as appropriate for timber salvage (Figure 4, Table 1). Hazardous fuel treatment activities would occur on up to 1,000 acres of treatment area on lands determined appropriate for fuels management.

Figure 4. Proposed treatment activity areas, Alternative 3.

Adaptive Implementation, Project Design Criteria and Monitoring

In order to maintain flexibility, incorporate better field verified information as it is obtained, and to adjust to changes in agency policy, land management plan revisions, business rules, or directions over the life of

this analysis, the approach of adaptive implementation will be incorporated and used. The goal of adaptive management and implementation is to promote effective decisions for any management activities that are implemented and to continually monitor, learn, and adapt during and after implementation of site- specific projects.

Elements of this adaptive strategy will include the iterative and integrated use of: Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, project design criteria, the pre-implementation checklists (Appendix C, DEIS), key resource monitoring requirements and the silviculture guidelines (Appendix E, DEIS). In addition, other project design criteria have been included to reduce potential adverse effects. The project design criteria included below in Table 2 (aquatic and fisheries only) have been found to be effective in reducing potential adverse impacts, including those related to aquatic and fisheries concerns.

Prior to individual project implementation, a pre-implementation checklist process will also be completed by resource specialists. The pre-implementation checklist process may result in additional project specific design criteria or monitoring being applied to a project, if recommended by a specialist, reviewed by the implementation interdisciplinary team, and approved by the responsible official, in consultation with other resource specialists. The resource-specific pre-implementation checklists in Appendix C (DEIS) are considered draft and may be updated through the life of the project as part of the adaptive implementation and iterative learning process.

Monitoring includes implementation monitoring and evaluation to ensure that standards and guidelines and/or best management practices are being incorporated properly during project implementation, as well as effectiveness monitoring and evaluation to determine whether project objectives are being met and if project design criteria and other processes are effective. Effectiveness monitoring and evaluation provides an opportunity for continued learning and adaptation to better results. Initial monitoring measures identified for this project are outlined in this chapter, Section 2.5.

Table 2. Project design criteria for aquatic and fisheries resources by alternative. Protection Measure Alt 2 Alt 3 TES Surveys for TES species will occur prior to design of a project, as required by Forest x x Plan management direction. Results of surveys will be incorporated into the project design and/or implementation per applicable Forest Plan Standards and Project Design Criteria. All temporary roads will be decommissioned post-treatment x x Aquatic Resources No harvest equipment or skid trails will be allowed within the aquatic management x x zone (AMZ - 100 horizontal feet from the top of each stream bank) of all intermittent or perennial stream channels. Skid trail crossings within the AMZ of all streams (including ephemeral) will be minimized and must be approved in advance by the Forest Service. Within the AMZ of ephemeral stream channels, harvest equipment can operate to remove trees. However, no skid trails are allowed in the AMZ and mechanical ground disturbance in or immediately adjacent to channels (within 25 feet) must be avoided.

A no cut buffer of 100 feet will be maintained from each channels edge of perennial x x and intermittent streams. Within the AMZ of ephemeral channels, trees within the defined channel/swale area may not be harvested.

Protection Measure Alt 2 Alt 3 No heavy equipment will be operated within an approximate 50 foot buffer around x x field-verified wetlands; if trees are designated for harvest in these areas, they will be winched out with one end free from the ground.

Riparian management zones (RMZ’s) will be developed along streams containing x x core, conservation, and recreational populations of cutthroat trout. Within RMZ’s, no salvage harvest will occur with 2 site tree heights of the stream bank.

Soil Resources Forest Plan Standards for soil productivity (15% detrimental soil impact to activity x x area), will be achieved through careful design of skid trails, operating during dry seasons or frozen soil conditions, and use of existing landings and skid trails where practical.

Units with existing detrimental soil disturbance >15% will be treated as necessary to x x ensure post-treatment forest plan compliance, as determined by a soils or watershed specialist. Treatments would include subsoiling/ripping of skid trails, landings, and temporary road and seeding or covering with slash.

If whole tree yarding is used, limbs and/or tops shall be returned to the unit if 15% or x x more of the unit has exposed mineral soil; this material shall be distributed in areas primarily comprised of bare mineral soils. Coarse woody debris will be retained per Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Landing and skid trail locations will be agreed to by the Forest Service in advance of x x construction; spacing will be approximately 100 feet apart, allowing for topographic variation and skid trail convergence. Place landings and skid trails away from areas of dense horizontal cover (i.e. >35%) where feasible.

Logs will be skidded with the leading end free of the ground to reduce ground x x disturbance. Skid trails will be water-barred at least every 100 feet on gradients greater than 20 percent, otherwise where needed depending on slope and ground conditions as per BMPs. Slash will be placed on main skid trails as needed to control erosion.

Avoid ground skidding on sustained slopes steeper than 40%. x x

Existing vegetation on cut and fill slopes would be retained as much as possible to x x limit sediment movement away from road.

The design criteria described above, and others as noted in this analysis, will also be coordinated with the Forest Fisheries Biologist as applicable to the assumptions and effects described in this analysis.

Monitoring Plan for Alternatives 2 and 3

Monitoring is gathering information, observing processes, and examining the results of management activities to provide a basis for evaluation. Monitoring is done at both the project and Forest Plan level. This includes implementation monitoring and evaluation to ensure that Standards and Guidelines are being incorporated during the project activities, as well as effectiveness monitoring and evaluation to determine whether project objectives are being met and if Project Design Criteria (PDC) are effective. Below are the monitoring measures that were recommended for incorporation into this project related to aquatic resources. Ensuring that sufficient monitoring is completed to meet objectives would be the responsibility of the District Ranger in cooperation with appropriate Forest staff.

Wildlife

Objective: Evaluate whether Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project-specific wildlife design criteria are being implemented to examine if a need exists to modify specific wildlife design criteria for future projects. Method: Perform site inspections during and/or following the vegetative management activities to determine compliance with project design criteria. Items important to monitor include: Riparian area buffers

Soil Resources

Objective: Ensure project design criteria are being properly implemented and Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met in regards to soils. Method: Soil moisture conditions will be monitored during harvest activities by Forest Service personnel. Action: Ensure that timber harvesting operations are being suspended when soil conditions are too wet to operate and would result in resource damage. Method: Use accepted soil monitoring techniques to assess overall cumulative soil impacts after harvest is completed. Action: Conduct traverses, spot soil sampling, or other soil management handbook methods to assess soil productivity and amount of mitigation needed on a subgroup of units that are currently above 12 percent detrimental soil disturbance within one year of harvest. Complete any rehabilitation measures needed within five years of harvest.

Watershed Resources

Objective: Ensure project design criteria are being properly implemented and that Forest Plan standards and guidelines or best management practices are being met in regards to stream health and levels of disturbance are acceptable. Method: Conduct addition site inspections in watersheds of concern prior to project implementation and track and monitor levels of disturbance as needed to ensure watershed health. Action: Focus additional monitoring of disturbance levels and of stream channels on watersheds and sub-watershed that may exceed levels of concern. Method: Inspect road segments near and at stream crossings after reconstruction or maintenance operations have been completed. Inspections will occur prior to, during, and following vegetation management activities. Action: Work with the timber sale administration team to ensure contract provisions are being implemented. Implement additional mitigation if necessary to minimize sediment or other negative impacts to streams.

3. Analysis of Effects on Aquatic Species

Aquatic Habitat Overview

Major perennial streams within the area include the Conejos River, Alamosa River, and the Rio de Los Pinos. Many other smaller streams are within the analysis area and have varying fishery value depending on flows and elevation. There are numerous other small intermittent/ephemeral channels within the analysis area that do not sustain adequate flows to support a viable fishery but may have support other riparian habitat values.

Access into and through the analysis area is via the primary Level 3 roads that are considered suitable for passenger cars and Level 2 roads more suitable for high-clearance vehicles. Both road levels are comprised of native surface material although Level 3 roads also often contain gravel. There are approximately 365 miles of system roads within the analysis area. Road systems in the analysis area often follow stream channels and are a primary concern for sedimentation delivery to stream systems. The road density for each watershed varies from 0.4 miles/square mile in the Elk Creek watershed to 2.5 miles/square mile in the Bighorn Creek and Fox Creek watersheds.

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species

The proposed activities associated with the CPDWS Project require a Biological Evaluation to determine potential effects on endangered, threatened, proposed, and sensitive species (FSM 2672.42). There are no federally listed or proposed fish species present in the analysis area so no Biological Assessment or Section 7 consultation is needed.

Survey/Occurrence Information

Species information is based on the Update to the 1996 Revised Forest Plan Biological Evaluation in Support of the MIS Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2003a), RGCT Species Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2003b; USFWS 2014); USFS Technical Conservation Assessments and other information for Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis), Rio Grande Sucker (Catostomus plebeius), and Rio Grande Chub (Gila pandora) (Bestgen, et al. 2003; Fausch, et al. 2006; Reese et al. 2005; Reese and Miller 2005; Zuckerman and Langlois 1990); Conservation Agreement for Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (RGCT Conservation Team 2013a); Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Conservation Strategy (RGCT Conservation Team 2013b); Colorado Division of Wildlife Fisheries Inventories; Range-wide Status of Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (Alves, et al. 2007); Inland Cutthroat Trout Viewer/Editor database (2017) (http://icp.wygisc.org/) and internal records, documents, and field surveys.

Three USFS Region 2 sensitive fish species occur on the Rio Grande National Forest. The status of these species in relationship to the CPDWS Project is displayed below in Table 2.

Table 2. Region 2 Sensitive Fish Species and Relationship to the CPDWS Project. Suitable Species habitat documented Sensitive Fish within the within the Basic Habitat Description Species analysis analysis area? area? Rio Grande Cutthroat Yes Yes Streams, rivers and lakes. Most frequently Trout found in headwater streams. Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis

Rio Grande Chub No No Flowing pools of headwaters, creeks and small Gila pandora rivers, often near inflow of riffles and in association with cover such as undercut banks and plant debris. Rio Grande Sucker Yes Yes Pools, runs and riffles of small to moderately Catostomus plebeius large streams; usually over gravel and/or cobble.

Existing information indicates that two R2 sensitive fish species – the Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout and Rio Grande Sucker – occur within the analysis area and may be influenced by activities associated with the action alternatives. These species will be analyzed in detail in the biological evaluation.

The Rio Grande Chub is not present and the analysis area is outside the estimated historical range for this species. Therefore, there will be No Impact on Rio Grande Chub or its habitat and no further evaluation is warranted.

Self-sustaining non-native trout populations are also found in the perennial streams throughout the analysis area. When not in conflict with native fish objectives, these populations are of high-value to local communities from a recreational fishery standpoint.

Species Analysis: Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (RGCT)

Natural History/General Habitat Requirements All trout require four specific types of habitat during the various stages of their life history: spawning habitat, rearing habitat, adult habitat, and over-wintering habitat. Self-sustaining cutthroat trout populations require refuge from low temperatures and high flow during winter; warm summer temperatures to promote spawning, incubation, emergence, and growth prior to the onset of winter; clean gravel to construct spawning redds; and enough adult summer habitat to support a sufficient number of mature individuals to sustain a population.

Over-winter habitat consists of deep water with low current velocity and protective cover with areas of undercut banks and overhanging vegetation. Deep pools with large boulders, woody debris, and/or root masses provide ideal habitat. Beaver ponds provide excellent over-winter habitat.

Spawning habitat consists of cold, well-oxygenated, gravel-bottomed streams. Ideal gravel sizes range from ¼ to 2 inches in diameter. Spawning habitat is typically found at the lower ends of pools. Colorado trout species normally do not spawn in lakes.

Rearing habitat is typically shallow water with slower velocities. Cover in the form of aquatic vegetation, woody debris, and interstitial spaces between rocks are critical habitat requirements for fry survival. Such habitat occurs along stream margins, spring seeps, side channels, and small tributaries.

Adult riverine trout habitat consists of clear, cold water; silt free gravel/rocky substrate; an approximate 1:1 ratio pool-riffle area with areas of slow, deep water; well vegetated stream banks; abundant instream cover; and relatively stable stream flows, temperature regimes, and stream banks.

Local Survey/Occurrence Information Core and Conservation populations of RGCT are typically restricted to smaller 6th and 7th-level streams and occupy approximately 154 miles in 30 streams and 14 surface acres in 3 lakes on the Rio Grande National Forest (Alves et al. 2007). Core populations are >99% genetically pure and represent the historic

genome of the native trout. Conservation populations are self-sustaining RGCT populations that are >90% genetically pure and are managed at the same conservative level as core populations. Several recreational RGCT populations also occur within the CPDWS but are not part of conservation planning for the species and are not discussed in detail further.

There are seven Core RGCT populations and one Conservation RGCT population within the CPDWS Project area. Core Conservation populations of RGCT are found in Jim Creek, Torsido Creek, Lake Fork Conejos River, Rio de Los Pinos, Wolf Creek, Cascade Creek, and Osier Creek. One Conservation population of RGCT is found in Rhodes Gulch.

Jim Creek is a small stream that flows from its headwaters near Willow Mountain at 11,120 feet into La Jara Reservoir. In the mid 1970’s Jim Creek was identified as a candidate for RGCT recovery and fish were transplanted following non-native fish removal and barrier construction. By 1980, the gabion barrier had failed and non-native Brook Trout had invaded the stream. Attempts to repair the barrier have failed and it is currently not functioning. The RGCT population in Jim Creek continues to persist despite an established Brook Trout population. Primary management impacts and concerns for the Jim Creek population are livestock grazing, followed by recreation, roads, and angling. This Core population is considered at risk and declining due to the presence of non-native Brook Trout and a failed barrier.

Similar to Jim Creek, Torsido Creek flows from its headwaters near Willow Mountain into La Jara Reservoir. In 1976, Torsido Creek was identified as a recovery site for RGCT. A gabion barrier was constructed, non-native removal was completed, and fish were transplanted. By 1979, the barrier needed repair and was enhanced in 1980 but soon failed again in 1981. Brook Trout have since been the dominant species in this system ever since, along with a small persistent population of RGCT. The most recent survey in 2014 documented the persistence of both species. Primary management impacts and concerns for the Torsido Creek population are livestock grazing, followed by recreation, roads, and angling. This Core population is considered at risk and declining due to the presence of non-native Brook Trout and a failed barrier.

Lake Fork Conejos River is a medium sized tributary to the Conejos River with its confluence 1.5 miles downstream of Platoro Reservoir. The stream forms near timberline on the north slope of Conejos Peak and flows north for 6.2 miles. In 1977, a restoration project was completed that included stocking of RGCT from West Indian Creek, a tributary of Sangre de Cristo Creek on the east side of the San Luis Valley. The population flourished until 1986 when Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), Brown Trout (Salmo trutta), and White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii) had invaded above a rockslide barrier at Rock Lake. In 1996, a boulder barrier was installed above Rock Lake. A second restoration effort was completed in 2004 to remove non-native fish and subsequent stocking of RGCT and monitoring indicates a robust population with current estimates (2016) of 505 individuals (409-601 95% CI) in the 3.0 miles of habitat above the current barrier. Timber harvest has been identified as a potential concern for this population but others also include livestock grazing, recreation, mining and angling. This Core population is breeding and recruiting effectively and is considered secure and stable.

Approximately 0.6 miles of the headwaters of the Rio de Los Pinos contains a Core population of RGCT. This section is between two natural waterfall barriers and was assumed fishless prior to 1984 when 200 RGCT were transplanted here from West Indian Creek, similar to the Lake Fork Conejos River population. Surveys since 1984, including the most recent in 2005 have documented a self-sustaining population with estimates of up to 202 individuals (188-216 95% CI), including multiple age classes. Impacts and concerns include livestock grazing, recreation, roads, and angling. Habitat is limited due to the short stream length, high elevation, and low water temperatures. This Core population is considered secure and stable, however it is at risk due to its limited habitat.

Wolf Creek is a small, first order tributary to the Rio Chama located in southwestern Conejos County near the New Mexico border. Wolf Creek originates near the Continental Divide (11,260 ft) with 6.1 miles occurring in Colorado. The stream is characterized by moderate gradient, few beaver ponds and average fishery value. Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout were first reported from Wolf Creek in 1980, with subsequent genetic evaluation determining that the population was pure (> 99%) RGCT. A culvert barrier at the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad crossing historically isolated this extremely small (0.4 miles) population, but 2005 surveys documented the intrusion of non-native Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) above the barrier. In 2010, the culvert was rehabilitated to add additional height, a concrete splash pad and walls for support. Recent surveys in 2010 documented only RGCT with a population estimate of individuals but the presence of Brown Trout is still considered likely. Timber harvest has been identified as a potential concern for this population but others also include livestock grazing, recreation and angling. Due to the likely presence of non-natives and the limited habitat, The Core population in Wolf Creek is considered at risk and declining.

Osier Creek is a small tributary located in Conejos County, 18 miles southwest of Antonito. The creek originates in the Pinorealosa Mountains and flows to the to the Rio de Los Pinos. There is a railroad crossing culvert that functions as a fish migration barrier protecting 3.7 miles (6 km) of habitat for this Core population. Genetic and meristic evaluations have consistently identified this population as 99% pure and typical of RGCT. The most recent survey in 2016 estimated the population at 308 individuals (303-313 95% CI), a slight increase over surveys conducted in 2010 and 2015. Potential impacts and concerns include livestock grazing, recreation, roads, and angling. The Core population in Osier Creek is considered secure and expanding.

Nearby to Osier Creek and similar in habitat is Cascade Creek. This population is also considered a Core population and is protected by a natural waterfall near the confluence with the Rio de Los Pinos. A total of 3.0 miles of habitat occurs upstream of this waterfall barrier. Genetic and meristic evaluations have identified this population as 99% pure and typical of RGCT. The most recent survey in 2016 estimated the population at 557 individuals (531-583 95% CI), a decrease from the 2000 survey but within the historical range. Potential impacts and concerns include livestock grazing, recreation, and angling, with some streambank degradation observed during the 2016 surveys. This Core population is also considered secure and expanding.

Rhodes Gulch is a tributary to Rough Canyon, which is a tributary to the Alamosa River upstream of Terrace Reservoir. A small Conservation population of RGCT occupies 2.2 miles (3.6 km) of habitat above a natural barrier on this system. The most recent surveys in 2006 estimated a total population size of 289 individuals (267-311 95% CI), which was an increase from the 2001 survey of 59 and included multiple age classes with evidence of reproduction. This population was originally a transplant from the Lake Fork Conejos River population. Timber harvest has been identified as a potential concern for this population but others also include livestock grazing, recreation and angling. This Conservation population is considered secure and expanding.

Some fish populations within the analysis area appear to be affected by alterations in habitat conditions resulting in changes in population numbers, density, and biomass. Populations in Lake Fork Conejos River, Wolf Creek, and Rhodes Gulch may have been impacted by timber management. Roads, permitted livestock, and other large ungulate use (i.e. elk, moose, and deer) have impacted some sections of the riparian areas leading to increased stream sedimentation from runoff and bank degradation in all populations. Concerns for Jim Creek, Torsido Creek, and Wolf Creek continue because of the presence of non-native trout and/or failed barriers, while overall stream condition in these streams appear to be good with only isolated areas of concern and habitat does not appear to be a limiting factor for their continued existence.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action Riparian and/or wetland soils that support aquatic habitats occur on approximately 14% of the CPDWS Project area. Many of these areas in particular have a history of grazing and road-related impacts to aquatic habitats (see Watershed Section, DEIS). However, current baseline information suggests that most perennial streams and riparian areas within the project area are considered to be in fair to good condition, with an upward improving trend noted in most areas. Still, current impacts are evident with grazing and sediment-related road issues a primary concern. Under the No Action alternative, an improving trend in aquatic habitat is likely to continue assuming that grazing management improvements and road drainage projects continue to be implemented and are successful. However, issues involving aquatic habitats remain in some areas and have the potential to prolong impacts to existing RGCT reproduction and population recruitment. Baseline conditions for RGCT in the analysis area also involve the presence of nonnative trout that had been stocked historically. Brook Trout and/or Brown Trout currently can be found co-existing with Core RGCT populations in Jim, Torsido, and Wolf creeks. These nonnatives can pose a threat to RGCT existence due to competition for space and food. Fish stockings and angling can also increase the risk of introduction of various fish diseases (whirling disease, bacterial kidney disease, etc.) and invasive species (e.g., zebra mussels). The action alternatives associated with the CPDWS Project do not have applicability to interactions between RGCT and non-native species, and other focused fisheries related projects will be required to address this issue in the future.

Some riparian zones within the analysis area do receive uses such as hiking, camping, fishing and motorized vehicle use. Usually, these uses have minor influences on riparian zones and stream health. However, concentrated use areas involving these activities do contribute to impacts to riparian vegetation, soil compaction, and stream bank degradation in some areas. Native surface roads along the streams and within the riparian corridors are a primary influence on aquatic habitats in the CPDWS Project area. These concerns vary by watershed, with the percent of key RGCT watersheds with activity proposed varying from 0% (Headwaters of La Jara Creek watershed – Jim Creek and Torsido Creek) to 39% (Lake Fork Conejos River watershed). Existing culverts and stream crossings also contribute to aquatic habitat issues within the analysis area, and can be estimated by existing road density. Existing road density by watershed varies from a low of 0.7 miles/square mile in the Headwater La Jara Creek watershed (Jim Creek and Torsido Creek) to 1.7 miles/square mile in the Lake Fork of Conejos River watershed, the latter of which is of primary concern for both RGCT and RGS. The No Action alternative would not contribute to these issues through additional disturbance associated with timber harvest and log haul.

Under the No Action alternative, vegetation management activities involving salvage and fuels treatments would not occur at this time. Thus, vegetative baseline conditions and trajectories as described in the DEIS would continue. From a spatial and temporal point of view, this alternative may have both positive and negative influences on aquatic habitats for fisheries. For example, the amount and distribution of standing dead and dying trees in various forest cover types may have the potential to influence physical attributes involving water flow and timing, thus increasing stressors on the fisheries resource during times of drought and late season flows. However, the potential effects associated with the loss of live tree basal area may be somewhat offset by increased growth in forest understory vegetation and riparian vegetation. Also, dead and dying trees along the riparian corridor will provide a source for large wood contributions to the stream and floodplain which is important for many aquatic species including trout and macroinvertebrates. Very high stand-level mortality rates may also lead to increased runoff and higher flows which can increase streambank instability and rates of soil erosion if streambanks are not in good

condition. Increased sediment loading in the streams could lead to loss of spawning and overwintering pool habitat which could be detrimental to trout and aquatic insects which are important as a food source (Samman and Logan 2000). Thus, streambank stability as related to on-going activities and background sediment transport from native surface roads is important to aquatic habitat resiliency in response to forest health changes from insect and disease outbreaks and/or management responses.

Baseline conditions associated with existing forest vegetation concerns noted in DEIS also have implications for increased fuel loads that may be considered uncharacteristic for lower to mid-elevation fire regimes. Thus, although downed wood contributions to streams and floodplains can be beneficial to aquatic habitat values for fisheries, high tree densities and fuel loads can contribute to wildfires. Wildfires are a natural disturbance in the watersheds and their behavior and intensity can have a detrimental effect on stream conditions and fish populations. Floods following fires can contribute large amounts of ash and debris into stream channels resulting in fish kills and changes in stream channel geomorphology. Current baseline conditions suggest that a large portion of the analysis area may contribute to a moderate to high risk for wildfire and debris flows (see Appendix A: RGCT Wildfire Risk Assessment). Under the No Action alternative, fuel load trends associated with these risks may be expected to continue until a wildfire eventually does occur on a landscape scale.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 proposes various management treatments on approximately 18% of the analysis area. Treatments include salvage harvest in spruce-beetle mortality and fuel treatments adjacent to private property and administrative sites. Proposed harvest activities associated with Alternative 2 will include activities on up to 17,000 acres with 98.5% rating as moderate or high erosion potential and include the re-opening of 35 miles of non-system roads and 32 miles of new temporary road construction.

Project design does not allow mechanical treatments to take place on slopes steeper than 40%, and most proposed harvest activities are outside of the Aquatic Management Zone (AMZ) of most of the fish bearing streams and should therefore have minimal direct effect on the fishery resources, or potential RGCT habitat, within the analysis area. However, the potential for indirect effects from sedimentation that may influence aquatic habitats and fish-bearing streams is considered moderate under this alternative. This is due to the increase in activities in some watersheds, especially those with RGCT including Lake Fork Conejos River, which is estimated to have up to % of the watershed planned for salvage. In addition, disturbance will increase due to previously closed roads that will be opened to access the harvest areas, landings, log haul, burn areas, and other activities associated with Alternative 2. Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines and project design criteria associated with Alternative 2 (and all action alternatives) are intended and expected to minimize potential influences. However, the amount of activity proposed under Alternative 2 suggest a higher risk of negative influence which in turn will require increased sale administration, monitoring, and quick mitigation response in various weather conditions over several years of activity.

A primary means of meeting riparian and aquatic habitat objectives in Alternative 2 and all action alternatives involves the protections expected to be provided by buffers associated with the AMZ. For example, no commercial timber harvest or skid trails will occur within 100 feet of perennial and intermittent streams within the AMZ unless certain exceptions such as designated stream crossings apply.

Approximately 1,000 acres of fuels reduction is associated with Alternative 2. The fuel reduction treatments being proposed in WUI’s are outside of AMZ areas and should have minimal if any effect on aquatic habitats or fisheries resources. The intent of these treatments is to reduce the potential for high- intensity wildfires near private or administrative sites, which typically would not impact watershed and aquatic habitats.

Road work is included in all action alternatives and some surface disturbances would occur during pre- haul road maintenance, during old road reconstruction, and construction and/or relocation of new roads. Potential impacts associated with increased road use are a primary concern associated with the action alternatives. Negative impacts are expected to be controlled and minimized by implementing PDC’s and Forest Plan standards; however, risks associated with sedimentation issues could be moderate to high depending on site-specific conditions and will need to be closely monitored. Any stream crossings needed for access will be coordinated with the forest hydrologist and/or fish biologist to minimize impacts to the stream/riparian areas and designed to provide aquatic species passage.

There are opportunities to meet a variety of integrated resource improvement objectives with the CPDWS Project, including completing additional road maintenance to reduce erosion and improve watershed condition and authorizing the decommissioning of some level 1 roads where no longer needed to improve watershed condition. Some projects may be funded with Knutson-Vandenberg monies collected from timber sale receipts, if available, though additional funds will be requested from other sources as appropriate. All potential impacts associated with Alternative 2 are intended to be minimized to the extent that any negative influences on aquatic habitats and fisheries are non-measureable or short-term.

Some RGCT and RGS populations within the analysis area are outside proposed timber salvage areas, but both species occur within the Lake Fork Conejos River watershed. Table 3 displays the level of treatment activities associated with Alternative 2 within key fisheries watersheds.

Table 3. Alternative 2 Treatment Activities in Key Fisheries Watersheds

Total Salvage Percentage of Watershed Watershed Fuels Treatment Harvest Watershed (key stream) Acreage in (acres) (acres) Treated Analysis Area French Creek – Alamosa River 18,302 2,106 160 12.4% (Rhodes Gulch) Headwaters La Jara Creek (Jim and 9,6645 0 0 0% Torsido creeks) Lake Fork (Lake 6,222 2,400 27 39.0% Fork Conejos River) Headwaters Rio de Los Pinos (Rio de 16,356 1,189 31 7.5% Los Pinos) Toltec Creek – Rio de Los Pins (Cascade 18,055 929 46 5.4% and Osier creeks) Wolf Creek (Wolf 4,824 176 74 5.1% Creek

The percentage of watershed acres treated in Alternative 2 is larger than Alternative 3 and may therefore require more administration and monitoring to ensure potential influences on streams and aquatic habitats are minimized as intended. Given the amount of area and activity proposed, at least moderate short-term risks might be associated with Alternative 2. However, effects are expected to be acceptable if Forest Plan standards and guidelines, project design criteria, and Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook practices are fully implemented and complied with, with response taken to mitigate unanticipated impacts

or needs such as summer storm events or soil freeze/thaw conditions. Alternative 2 provides an opportunity to salvage timber while reducing existing road impacts, improving stream/riparian habitat, and sustaining and/or improve habitat for fish populations. Therefore, although some short-term risks may be highest a long-term risks are minimized with Alternative 2. Focused administration and monitoring is warranted in RGCT and RGS streams, particularly in Lake Fork Conejos River.

Alternative 3 – Vegetation Management – Limited Action Alternative 3 proposes various management treatments on approximately 9,353 acres, or approximately 50% of that for Alternative 2. The reduction in treatment area is primarily due to a reduction in the amount of salvage harvest acres within key lynx habitat areas with hazardous fuels treatments remaining the same. Proposed harvest activities associated with Alternative 3 include activities on 8,353 acres with similar erosion potential as Alternative 2. Alternative 3 also reduces the amount of the currently closed NFSR roads and old non-system roads that will need to be reopened for activities, thereby reducing the risk associated with required stream crossings and potential sedimentation issues. In Alternative 3, 31% fewer or 23.0 miles of old temporary road will need to be reopened, compared with 33.5 miles in Alternative 2. In addition, 22.7 miles of new temporary roads will need to be constructed, compared with 32 miles in Alternative 2. Thus, potential disturbances are substantially reduced from those proposed under Alternative 2.

Potential effects from Alternative 3 on aquatic habitats and fisheries values are expected to be less than Alternative 2, and involve much less risk of contributing to some of the negative baseline conditions associated with some aquatic habitats and fisheries resources in the CPDWS Project analysis area. A primary benefit of Alternative 3 is the reduction in salvage within key lynx habitats, which also includes key fisheries watersheds, while still addresses the need to move stand densities and fuel loads towards conditions associated with the historic fire regime in mid to lower elevation forest cover and vegetation types. In regards to management activities, all potential impacts associated with Alternative 3 are subject to the same design criteria and standards and guidelines as discussed for Alternative 2. Thus, potential impacts are expected to be controlled and minimized to the extent that any negative influences on aquatic habitats and fisheries are non-measureable or short-term in nature. However, given the reduced amount of activity area, the risk associated with potential negative influences is lower for Alternative 3.

Table 4 displays the level of treatment activities associated with Alternative 3 within key RGCT watersheds.

Table 4. Alternative 3 Treatment Activities in RGCT Watersheds

Total Salvage Percentage of Watershed Watershed Fuels Treatment Harvest Watershed (key stream) Acreage in (acres) (acres) Treated Analysis Area French Creek – Alamosa River 18,302 1,028 160 6.5% (Rhodes Gulch) Headwaters La Jara Creek (Jim and 9,645 0 0 0% Torsido creeks) Lake Fork (Lake 6,222 851 27 14.1% Fork Conejos River) Headwaters Rio de 16,356 1,057 31 6.7%

Los Pinos (Rio de Los Pinos) Toltec Creek – Rio de Los Pins (Cascade 18,055 183 46 1.3% and Osier creeks) Wolf Creek (Wolf 4,824 110 74 3.8% Creek

The percentage of watershed acres treated is much less than Alternative 2, thus fewer short-term risks to aquatic systems may be associated with alternative 3. However, effects are expected to be similar if Forest Plan standards and guidelines, project design criteria, and Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook practices are fully implemented, provide the intended effectiveness, and successfully complied with. As in Alternative 2, this alternative provides an opportunity to reduce wildfire risk, reduce road impacts, improve stream/riparian habitat, and sustain and/or improve fish populations.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects on aquatic habitats within the planning area are analyzed in the context of potential incremental impacts of the project alternatives when considered in addition to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions on all federal and non-federal lands regardless of whom undertakes the action.

Past Actions Timber harvest activities have occurred in the area for many years. Practices have become ‘lighter’ on the soil resource over the years. Some remnant of those old harvest activities and also recreational activities remains on the land. These activities have created some detrimental soil conditions in locations, especially the older timber harvests. Current PDCs, practices and equipment make it possible that harvest can occur with minimal increases in detrimental soils effects.

Baseline conditions for aquatic habitats in the planning area have been influenced by various natural and human-caused disturbances since settlement in the late 1800’s. Although not extensive, there has been a long history of timber harvest within some portions of the planning area. Timber sales have resulted in some surface disturbance, and necessitated the development of an extensive road system which opened many miles of native surface roads to motor vehicle traffic and recreation. Some existing roads and amounts of roaded areas have altered the hydrologic cycle of the watersheds. There has also been a much longer history of livestock grazing, which is a primary activity affecting riparian areas and aquatic habitats in the planning area. Other activities affecting baseline conditions for aquatic systems include beaver removal, non-native fish introductions, and various recreational pursuits.

On-going present actions Recreation, including camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, and firewood collection are on-going practices which have some effect in the analysis area. Cattle grazing has occurred and will continue to occur as the in the area. Riparian and open areas will see the most use by cattle.

Forest and range management activities can also contribute to the impact and spread of diseases and invasive species by conducting activities within and near stream zones that increase the potential for stream sediment. Sediment creates habitat for many hosts and vectors which can then be spread by direct transfer of spores/species in mud and water that may be on vehicles, equipment, and anglers gear that have crossed or have been used in infected waters.

Through state stocking programs, viable self-sustaining nonnative trout populations occur throughout the perennial streams within the analysis area. These stocking contribute recreational value for human uses but can also impact native trout populations where emphasized. Brook trout currently can be found co- existing with RGCT in Jim, Torsido, and Wolf creeks. These nonnative salmonids pose a threat to RGCT existence due to competition for space and food. Fish stockings and angling can also increase the risk of introduction of various fish diseases (whirling disease, bacterial kidney disease, etc.) and invasive species (e.g., zebra mussels), particularly when combined with the incremental impacts of sedimentation facilitated by other anthropogenic activities.

Although not extensive, some riparian zones within the analysis area do receive recreational use such as hiking, camping, and fishing. Timber harvest, road construction and maintenance, and livestock grazing have also affected some of these stream sections. These activities can lead to loss of riparian vegetation, soil compaction, and stream bank degradation resulting in increased sedimentation and loss of riparian cover which can degrade fish habitat. Although currently with limited administrative and private use only, it is likely that existing roads along the Lake Fork Conejos River are currently having an impact on aquatic habitats during run-off events that contribute sediment to the streams thereby impacting spawning and overwinter pool habitat.

Currently, most impacts within the analysis area are considered to be localized to individual stream sections with most streams and riparian areas exhibiting stable banks and that are in fair to good condition. However, sedimentation from native surface roads are a primary issue affecting aquatic habitats in the planning area, and some existing RGCT populations are decreasing and/or suppressed due to these potential impacts. The action alternatives associated with the CPDWS have the potential to contribute additional incremental impacts to aquatic habitats, particularly in relationship to surface disturbances involving roads and road use. Under the action alternatives, re-opening and use of closed and (closed) temporary road prisms and construction of temporary roads may involve approximately 67 miles (Proposed Action Alt. 2) to 45.7 miles (Alternative 3). These roads would be in addition to the use of the existing open road system.

Project design criteria have been established that are intended to eliminate and/or minimize any additional impacts to stream areas. However, extensive monitoring of activities and quick corrective responses will be required to ensure potential impacts remain within or decrease from existing baseline conditions. Post- activity conditions on federal lands are expected to decrease potential impacts over time.

Future Actions Grazing will continue into the foreseeable future. Adjustments may be made to improve forage use and stream/riparian protection. As trees die and are cleared it may increase the forage and grazing area on a temporary basis which may help the grazing program. In the long run it is expected that the grazing program will remain the same into the future with similar effects.

Timber harvest activities are likely to increase and perhaps increase soil disturbance overall in the short term; however into the future timber activities are likely to slow and shift out of the spruce zone for an extended period, perhaps as long as 100 to 150 years. This will affect the timber program and related activities within the analysis area in the future.

Private and State lands encompass a small amount of additional acres within the CPDWS Project area. Known current and future activities within these ownerships consist primarily of annual livestock grazing. These activities are not known to be contributing to watershed health concerns on federal lands. There are no other known projects or activities planned on private or state land within the project area that would affect baseline conditions for aquatic habitats. Although some short to mid-term disturbances are anticipated from project implementation, improvement in aquatic habitat conditions are expected over

time. Therefore, depending upon the alternative selected, there is a high to moderate risk for potential cumulative effects to aquatic habitats associated with the CPDWS Project. However, project design criteria are associated with all action alternatives including monitoring and administration to ensure corrections are enacted if and when issues are discovered. These activities will be essential to ensure that habitat conditions for RGCT and RGS populations and other aquatic species will be maintained and improved over time as stated in the project EIS.

Effects Determination - Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout

Based on this analysis I determine that all alternatives associated with the CPDWS Project, including the No Action alternative, May Impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area for RGCT and/or their habitat either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. The rationale for this determination includes:

There are eight Core and/or Conservation RGCT populations within the analysis area. Approximately 25% of the RGCT populations found on the Forest are located within the CPDWS Analysis Area. Four of the seven populations are considered “At Risk”. The “Risk” may be from a variety of factors including nonnative trout, but degraded habitat conditions is contributing to the status of the RGCT populations. A relatively low percentage of the Analysis Area will receive some form of vegetative treatment in each action alternative. These actions are known to have negative impacts on aquatic habitats if not carefully controlled, monitored, and adjusted as necessary when conditions dictate. Thus, there are short-term risks associated with the action alternatives but expected long-term benefits to aquatic habitats and fisheries. Forest Plan standards and guidelines, project design criteria and Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook practices are in place to protect aquatic habitat and riparian areas. These are expected to reduce the risks associated with the action alternatives if fully implemented and successful. The No Action alternative may avoid the short-term risks associated with the action alternatives; however, baseline conditions involving vegetation, fuels, and roads are potentially contributing to negative influences on aquatic habitats and RGCT. Both action alternatives address these concerns to various degrees and are expected to help improve conditions for RGCT in the long- term.

Conservation Measures

The following Conservation Measures should be incorporated into the other project design criteria associated with this project:

Ensure that fisheries specialists are involved in all aspects of project implementation applicable to aquatic habitats, including monitoring. Hazard trees felled within the AMZ should not be removed unless coordination to do so involves the fisheries and/or watershed specialist specialists.

Involve the full ID Team in the consideration of any KV funds available for use in the analysis area, including the establishment of timber sale area boundaries that complement the need for additional restoration actions involving RGCT and their primary habitats.

Species Analysis: Rio Grande Sucker (RGS)

Natural History/General Habitat Requirements Rio Grande Suckers (RGS) inhabit pools, runs, and riffles of small to moderately large streams, usually over gravel and/or cobble substrates. They are rarely found in waters with heavy loads of silt or organic detritus. Spawning typically occurs in the spring over clean gravel areas. A second spawn sometimes occur in the fall. Rio Grande suckers feed in moderate to swiftly flowing riffle areas on algae, diatoms, and benthic invertebrates scraped from rocks or from the interstitial gravels between cobble and boulders.

Local Survey/Occurrence Information Rio Grande Sucker (RGS) are known to occur in 12 streams within the Rio Grande Basin in Colorado. Only three of these streams are historic self-sustaining populations (none on Forest), the remaining populations were initially reestablished through stockings. Historic populations rarely exceeded 8200 feet in elevation. Eight of the attempts for reestablishment were located on the Rio Grande National Forest, including Cascade Creek, Osier Creek, and Lake Fork Conejos River. Of these, only the population in the Lake Fork Conejos River remains. Rio Grande Sucker have been introduced into Lake Fork Conejos River within the CPDWS Project analysis area. Rio Grande Sucker have been stocked into this stream in 2005, 2007, 2015, and 2016, with another planned stocking in 2017. Rio Grande Sucker are only present between Big Lake and the barrier just above Rock Lake. Multiple age classes have been observed, including young of year indicating successful spawning and recruitment. Similar to RGCT, RGS in Lake Fork Conejos River have been potentially impacted by timber harvest, livestock grazing, recreation, mining and angling.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of the Action Alternatives

Extensive activity is proposed for the Lake Fork Conejos River watershed (up to 39%), which could impact RGS as well as RGCT as mentioned previously. This is the only RGS population within the Conejos Peak Ranger District and one of only a few on the Rio Grande National Forest. No effect is anticipated from the No Action alternative, but it is likely that this watershed will undergo some amount of impacts related to the timber salvage activity. With design criteria and conservation measures in place, it is possible that impacts can be mitigated to the RGS population in Lake Fork Conejos River. The overall effects of all action alternatives are expected to be similar to those described for the RGCT.

Effects Determination - Rio Grande Sucker

Based on this analysis I determine that all action alternatives associated with the CPDWS Project, May Impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area for Rio Grande Sucker and/or their habitat either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. The rationale for this determination includes: a) There is one introduced RGS populations remaining within the analysis area, two others historically present in Cascade Creek and Osier Creek are likely no longer present. There are no historic records of their presence within the analysis area prior to stocking this stream.

b) Similar to RGCT, there are salvage activities proposed in the vicinity of Lake Fork Conejos River that might influence habitat conditions for RGS that occur there. c) Forest Plan standards, guidelines and project design criteria are in place to protect aquatic habitat and riparian areas.

Conservation Measures

Fully implement Forest Plan Standards/Guidelines and project design criteria, including incorporating all design criteria identified in the USDA Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook.

Determination Summary

Table 3. Determination and Conservation Measures Summary for Sensitive Aquatic Species.

Species List Determination Rationale Conservation Measures Rio Grande Alternative 1 - NI Core and conservation Yes – see RGCT Cutthroat Trout Alternative 2 - MI core populations are Oncorhynchus clarkii Alternative 3 - MI found in the analysis virginalis area. Rio Grande Chub Alternative 1 - NI No historical records or N/A Gila pandora Alternative 2 - NI known populations Alternative 3 - NI within analysis area.

Rio Grande Sucker Alternative 1 - NI Introduced populations Catostomus plebeius Alternative 2 - MI occur within the analysis Yes – see RGS Alternative 3 - MI area. No activity is planned where suckers are still known to occur. NI - No Impact MI- May Impact (May Impact Individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area) BI - Beneficial Impact LI - Likely Impact (Likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability in the planning area)

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are representative species selected to assess the effects of management activities on the habitats and populations of the MIS and similar species that they may represent (FSM 2620.5). MIS are evaluated and monitored to help demonstrate that a Forest Plan is providing for viable populations since their populations are believed to indicate the effects of management activities for other similar species. Management direction specific to MIS on the Rio Grande National Forest is as follows: Activities will be managed to avoid loss of population viability to MIS. The protection will vary depending upon the species, potential for impact, topography, location of important habitat components, and other potential factors. Special attention will be given during breeding, young rearing, and other times that are critical to survival. Where appropriate, measures to mitigate adverse effects shall be applied.

The Forest Plan, as amended, lists Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (or proxy) as the aquatic MIS on the Forest. Management Indicator Species are evaluated as to whether the species or their habitats were present within the CPDWS Analysis Area. Species and/or their habitat within the analysis area boundaries, but not expected to be affected by project activities, are not analyzed to the same level of detail as species that are heavily impacted by activities associated with the project.

Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout were selected as a Forest MIS to serve as an indicator of the health of montane aquatic ecosystems, due to the number of populations within the CPDWS Analysis area. Other nonnative trout such as Brook, Rainbow, or Brown Trout can be utilized as MIS if RGCT are not present within the area. Use of trout as MIS assists in monitoring whether Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are being met for riparian areas and the associated aquatic habitat. Since various forest management activities can impact the riparian environment, resulting in loss or degradation of stream habitat, trout populations can be influenced by degraded stream condition. Population size, density (fish/mile), biomass (pounds/acre), body condition, and age structures could be directly influenced by the loss of spawning, overwintering, and rearing habitat.

As noted in the RGCT section previously, there are eight Core and Conservation RGCT populations within the CPDWS Analysis area. The analysis of effects for RGCT species was completed in the associated project Biological Evaluation. The Analysis Area does constitute a significant portion (approximately 25%) of the existing RGCT core and conservation core populations found on the Rio Grande National Forest. Thus, the scale and extent of this project is such that a discernable effect on the Forest’s RGCT population trend as a whole could apply due to the number of populations found within the analysis area.

The CPDWS Project is consistent with Forest Plan requirements for MIS. The project effects were compared with what is currently known about Forest-wide RGCT populations. A review of monitoring results for RGCT suggests that current forest activities are likely having a negative consequence on aquatic MIS populations (RGCT) in at least one of the RGCT streams (Lake Fork Conejos River). The proposed action alternatives associated with the CPDWS Project would provide for a variety of forest management actions that would alleviate or reduce some of the current impacts to the aquatic habitat and should therefore minimize negative consequences to aquatic MIS populations from the standpoint of affecting viability at the Forest-level. Stream habitat conditions on the Forest generally do not pose a serious threat to the existence of RGCT, or desirable nonnative trout, and most existing habitat problems tend to be site specific and does not pose an overall threat to trout species across the Forest. Most of the perennial streams on the forest provide habitat suitable for maintaining self-sustaining trout populations. The Forest-wide and range-wide abundance and distribution of Rio Grande cutthroat trout appear to be stable and secure (Pritchard and Cowley 2006) and self-sustaining nonnative trout populations are wide spread throughout the perennial streams across the Forest.

Prepared by: Jason Remshardt, Forest Fisheries Biologist Date: August 15, 2017

Literature Cited

Alves, J. E., K. A. Patten, D. E. Brauch, and P. M. Jones. 2007. Range-Wide Status of Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis): 2007. Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Conservation Team Five Year Status Report. 32 pp.

Bestgen, K. R., R. I. Compton, K. A. Zelasko, and J. E. Alves. 2003. Distribution and Status of Rio Grande Chub in Colorado. Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 135. 61 pp.

Fausch, Kurt D.; Rieman, Bruce E.; Young, Michael, K.; Dunham Jason B. 2006. Strategies for conserving native salmonid populations at risk from nonnative fish invasions: tradeoffs in using barriers to upstream movement. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-174. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 44 p.

Inland Cutthroat Trout Viewer Database (2017). icp.wygisc.org

Nature Conservancy, 2013. Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Wildfire Risk Assessment. Prepared for New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 76 pp. Accessed online at http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/download/fishing/rio-grande-cutthroat-trout-wildfire- risk%20/Assessment-Part_1.pdf

Pritchard, V.L. and D.E. Cowley. 2006. Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Rees, D. E., R.J. Carr, and W. J. Miller. 2005. Rio Grande Chub (Gila Pandora): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Rees, D. E. and W. J. Miller. 2005. Rio Grande Sucker (Catostomus plebeius): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

RGCT Conservation Team. 2013a. Conservation Agreement for Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis) in the states of Colorado and New Mexico. Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 29p.

RGCT Conservation Team. 2013b. Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Conservation Strategy. Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 60p.

Samman, S. and J. Logan. 2000. Assessment and Response to Bark Beetle Outbreaks in the Rocky Mountain Area. Report to Congress from Forest Health Protection, Washington Office, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 46 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Biological Evaluation in Support of the Management Indicator Species Amendment to the Revised Land and Resource Management for the Rio Grande National Forest. Rio Grande National Forest. Monte Vista, CO

USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Species Assessments, Management Indicator Species. Supporting Analysis and Report to the Management Indicator Species: A Forest Plan Amendment to the Revised Land and Resource Management for the Rio Grande National Forest. Rio Grande National Forest. Monte Vista, CO.

USFWS. 2014. Species Status Report for the Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout. Albuquerque, NM.

Zuckerman, L. D. and D. Langlois. 1990. Status of Rio Grande sucker and Rio Grande chub in Colorado. Unpublished Report of Colorado Division of Wildlife, Montrose, Colorado. 44 pp.

Appendix A. RGCT Wildfire Risk Assessment

Appendix B. Treatment Description