United States Environmental Department of Agriculture

Forest Assessment Service

February 2015 Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project

Salt Lake Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Salt Lake County, Utah

Lead Agency: USDA-Forest Service Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Salt Lake Ranger District 6944 South 3000 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84121

Responsible Official: Catherine Kahlow, Salt Lake District Ranger (801) 733-2660

Contact Information: Paul Cowley, Project Leader (801) 999-2177

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

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1

1.1 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ...... 1 1.1.1 Planning Record...... 1 1.2 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 3 1.4 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 3 1.5 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION ...... 6 1.6 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE AND USE OF SCIENCE ...... 7 1.7 DECISION FRAMEWORK ...... 7 1.8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 7 1.9 ISSUES ...... 8 1.9.1 Issues considered but eliminated from detailed analysis ...... 9 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 10

2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 10 2.1.1 Multi-Phase Restoration Project for Mill Creek Canyon ...... 11 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ...... 12 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action ...... 12 2.2.2 Alternative 2: The Proposed Action ...... 13 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAIL STUDY ...... 15 2.4 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES AND MITIGATION FOR RESOURCE PROTECTION ...... 15 2.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 16 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 18 3.1.1 Cumulative Effects ...... 18 3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 20 3.3 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ...... 24 3.4 RECREATION...... 29 3.5 SOILS ...... 31 3.6 SCENIC RESOURCES ...... 33 3.7 VEGETATION ...... 35 3.8 WATER AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES ...... 38 4. REFERENCES...... 41 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 44 6. APPENDICES ...... 45 APPENDIX 1: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ...... 45

i

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 Document Structure

The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into six parts: • Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. • Chapter 2 - Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures and design features. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. • Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. • References Cited: This section lists all of the references consulted in the writing of this report. • Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the EA. • Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the EA.

1.1.1 Planning Record

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Salt Lake Ranger District Office in Salt Lake City, Utah. It contains planning records, specialist reports, field notes, and maps. 1.2 Background Over twenty years ago, the Salt Lake Ranger District (SLRD) entered into an agreement with Salt Lake County to restore and improve the natural resources and facilities in Mill Creek Drainage. This initiated the fee collection system in the canyon in collaboration with the County. A number of restoration and enhancement projects were implemented. These included: recreational facility updates, fish habitat improvement projects, planting riparian vegetation, and the development of a boardwalk and fishing pier. New restrooms were also installed. At that time, an emphasis in Utah and on the UWCNF was to provide fishing opportunities through stocking, which was done by the Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), and habitat improvement done by the UWCNF. The UWCNF worked with UDWR in a number of locations to enhance fishing through habitat manipulation (installing aerators in small ponds to prevent winter kill of the stocked fish). In 1993,

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 1

the UWCNF working with the County, dug out the pond just upstream of the Mill Creek Dam, reshaped the stream channel and installed about 1,000 feet of boardwalk along the reconstructed channel. The UWCNF began surveying the streams on the Forest to identify fish species composition and distribution in 1994. This survey work was propagated by the petition to list the Bonneville cutthroat trout under the Endangered Species Act and the increased interest in the rivers and streams within the UWCNF. By the mid 1990’s, the UDWR along with the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and other cooperators developed and entered into the Bonneville cutthroat trout Conservation Agreement and Strategy for the State of Utah. This collaborative effort led the development of a species-wide-agreement that covered the entire range of this subspecies and included the states of Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada and Utah. Based on this agreement, the USFWS determined that listing was not warranted given the interagency work that was occurring to recover the species. Since signing these agreements, the UDWR has worked with the UWCNF to re-establish Bonneville cutthroat trout in a limited number of drainages on the Forest. The Bonneville cutthroat trout was designated as the Utah State Fish in 1997. The UWCNF conducted fish surveys throughout upper Mill Creek in 2005. The surveys showed that the fish community in Mill Creek consisted of brown, rainbow and Bonneville cutthroat trout. Rainbow and Bonneville cutthroat trout had also interbred creating what is referred to as cut-bows and thus eliminating most if not all of the pure Bonneville cutthroat trout historically found in the drainage. All of the native, non-game fish that were historically believed to have existed in the drainage (sculpin, dace, suckers, etc.) had also been eliminated. This loss of native fish is primarily due to the habitat alterations and/or the impacts from non-native game fish. The UWCNF conducted forest wide surveys of culverts (metal and cement pipes that allow streams to pass under roads) and bridges in 2007. A number of culverts were found to prevent upstream fish passage in Mill Creek. A dam and a few weirs were also identified as precluding upstream fish passage in the drainage. Since the installation of the boardwalk in 1993, maintenance costs have increased as the boards had rotted and worn out. This is not surprising given that the average life of these boardwalks is about 10 year. The SLRD has also struggled to keep the small fishing pond dredged to allow easy fishing from the fish pier. Leaf litter and sediment that flows down the stream channel collects just above the dam and has filled in the pond. In 2011, a number of the partners involved in the Bonneville cutthroat trout conservation effort reviewed and discussed the opportunity of restoring cutthroat trout to the upper nine miles in the Mill Creek drainage. The partners believed that such a restoration effort would be worthwhile given the limited number of Bonneville cutthroat trout populations in the Northern Utah Geographic Management Unit found along the Wasatch Front. They also recognized the educational opportunity such a restoration effort would provide for the general public. In August 2012, recreation sites in Mill Creek Canyon were inventoried to determine where areas of bare soil are located in order to plan for restoration activities to reduce erosion and sedimentation runoff into Mill Creek. Twelve picnic areas were inventoried, including: Big Water trailhead and Box Elder, Church Fork, Terraces, Maple Grove, White Bridge, Evergreen, Maple Cove, Fir Crest, and Clover Spring picnic areas. Based on the collaborative efforts discussed above, the partners developed a multi-phase restoration project for Mill Creek Canyon that was initiated in the fall of 2013. Restoration efforts proposed for the upper nine miles of Mill Creek and the lower mile of Porter Fork in Mill Creek Canyon and include the

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 2

proposal to remove of all fish species, stock native fish species, plant riparian vegetation and the potential removal of man‐made barriers on public and private lands. The UWCNF will work with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and other key partners over the next four years to: • Remove non-native fish and replace them with native Bonneville cutthroat trout, • Restore the watershed and enhance habitat, and • Maintain safe public access. As part of the multi-phase project, an implementation plan was developed, which is discussed in Section 1.5.

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this project is to restore watershed function and aquatic ecosystems to more closely match natural conditions. The project is also designed to improve safety and decrease facility maintenance costs in Mill Creek Canyon. This action is needed to increase the number of stream miles containing Bonneville cutthroat trout, to improve watershed function, increase safety, to reduce long-term maintenance cost of the canyon infrastructure, and to improve fishing opportunities for cutthroat trout. The 2003 Revised Forest Plan for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (USDA-Forest Service, 2003(Forest Plan)) provides overarching direction, goals, standards and guidelines, and desired future conditions for all management activities on National Forest System lands. This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan, and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan. The proposed action would meet the biodiversity and viability sub-goal to maintain or restore species composition and would maintain and restore the overall watershed health. Watershed maintenance, protection and enhancement will be a primary consideration in all management decisions. The Forest Plan also recognizes the critical role in allowing a diverse range of high quality and sustainable recreation opportunities within the constraints of maintaining high quality watershed values. The project area is located within Forest Plan management prescriptions 3.1w (Watershed Emphasis) and 4.5 (Developed Recreation Area Emphasis) and the Plan recognizes the challenges of balancing uses to protect the watershed in light of growing populations and use.

1.4 Proposed Action

The SLRD-UWCNF is proposing to remove the Mill Creek Dam, located upstream of Porter Fork and to implement restoration projects in selected areas on National Forest System (NFS) lands in Mill Creek Canyon, Salt Lake County, Utah (Figures 1 and 2). The restoration projects include a number of tasks designed to improve watershed function and aquatic ecosystems in Mill Creek Canyon and to restore the environment to more closely match historic conditions while providing for sustainable public use and enjoyment. The tasks are also designed to improve safety and decrease facility maintenance costs, while restoring Bonneville cutthroat trout populations in the drainage. The proposed tasks are listed below and described in detail in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2.2). 1. (B1) Mill Creek Dam and Fishing Pier Removal 2. (B2) Boardwalk Redesign and replacement 3. (B3) Porter Fork Weir Removal 4. (B4) Porter Fork Channel Modification

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 3

A number of other related projects and tasks were developed as part of the multi-phase restoration project and they are displayed in Figure 2 and discussed in detail in Section 2.1.1.

Project Area

Figure 1: Site map for the Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 4

Proposed Actions Related Projects and Tasks B1 - Dam Removal A1 - Bridge Removal (completed: 2013) B2 - Boardwalk Replacement A2 - Culvert Replacements (completed: 2014) B3 - Weir Removal C1 - Fish Replacement (in progress) B4 - Channel Reshaping C2 - Culvert Replacements/modification (in progress) C3 - Vegetation Planting (in planning)

C3A1 B1, B2 Elbow Fork C3

A2 C3 C2 C3 B3, B4 A2 C2

C1

Figure 2: Detailed map of the tasks associated with the Mill Creek Restoration Project

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 5

1.5 Forest Plan Direction The Forest Plan provides management direction for managing the land and resources of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, and describes management goals and objectives, resources protection methods, and desired conditions: • Forestwide Goal 2 – Watershed Health: Maintain and/or restore overall watershed health (proper functioning of physical, biological and chemical conditions). Provide for long- term soil productivity. Watershed health should be addressed across administrative and political boundaries. • Forest wide Goal 3 – Biodiversity and Viability: Provide for sustained diversity of species at the genetic, populations, community and ecosystem levels. Maintain communities within their historic range of variation that sustains habitats for viable populations of species. Restore or maintain hydrologic functions. Reduce potential for uncharacteristic high-intensity wildfires, and insect epidemics. • Forestwide Subgoals – Biodiversity and Viability: o 3f. Maintain or restore species composition, such that the species that occupy any given site are predominantly native species in the kind and amount that were historically distributed across the landscape. Management direction in the Forest Plan includes the following Desired Future Conditions for recreation activities, scenery management and watershed protection in the Central Wasatch Management Area: • Given the importance of water coming from this area, watershed maintenance, protection and enhancement will be a primary consideration in all management decisions. Watersheds and streams will continue to provide high quality water supplies to the Salt Lake Valley. Various uses and developments (ski resort design and development, campgrounds, picnic areas, trailheads and trails) will be designed to prevent or fully mitigate impacts, resulting in properly functioning conditions in these watersheds. Impacts from historic activities will be mitigated to the greatest extent that is economically feasible (p.4-154). • In Millcreek Canyon, the integrity of the stream corridor will continue to improve with developed recreation site hardening and changes in user behavior resulting from effective educational efforts. Concerns about water quality will be important to users as well as managers, and annual monitoring will indicate that conditions are on a steadily improving trend. Efforts to work with adjacent landowners within this Canyon will be successful in achieving a stream corridor that is properly functioning along its entire length. In the event that Millcreek Canyon becomes designated as a culinary watershed by Salt Lake City, management of the area will be adjusted accordingly in full cooperation with the City (p.4-154). • The Tri-canyon area provides a wide array of recreational opportunities designed to serve a large and growing urban population while maintaining stable watersheds, water quality, ecological integrity of the land, its physical resources, and its biological communities (p. 4-161). • The scenery of the area will continue to be a valuable and pleasurable natural backdrop for the urban area. Views up and within the canyons of natural and developed areas will

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 6

be carefully managed to sustain scenic resources. Views from the Scenic Byways in Emigration, Big Cottonwood and Little Cottonwood Canyons will be managed for their recognized values. Guidelines for scenery management will be applied to project undertakings. The following landscape character themes will be found in the management area as mapped: Natural Evolving, Natural Appearing, Developed Natural Appearing, and Resort Natural Setting (p.4-163).

1.6 Incorporation by Reference and Use of Science

This analysis includes a summary of the scientific information that was collected or relevant documents reviewed. The analysis also identifies methods used and references and other scientific sources relied on. When appropriate, the conclusions are based on the scientific analysis that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information. Literature used by specialists in the analyses is listed in References Section and in the respective technical reports (in the project record).

1.7 Decision Framework

In consideration of the stated purpose and need and this of environmental analysis, the SLRD District Ranger, as the Responsible Official, will review the alternatives in order to make the following decisions: • Whether to authorize the proposed action or an alternative to it; • What mitigation measures and design features to require for the actions authorized; and • What evaluation methods and documentation to require for monitoring project implementation and mitigation effectiveness.

1.8 Public Involvement

The SLRD initiated public scoping concurrent with formal notice and comment on this project on August 5, 2013. The scoping document was sent to the public and other agencies listed on the SLRD general NEPA mailing list and to others that had been generated from public outreach on the project. The public scoping document described the proposed actions, preliminary issues identified by an interdisciplinary team, who to contact for additional information, and how and where to send comments. The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on July 1, 2013. A legal notice requesting comments was published in the “Salt Lake Tribune” on August 11, 2013. Four responses were received during the comment period (1 individual and 3 organization). Using the comments received from the public, other agencies and internally, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address. These comments were also used to shape the final proposed action. A detailed listing of the public comments, along with Forest Service response, is provided in the Appendix of this EA. The scoping and legal notice was also posted on the UWCNF website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/uwcnf/landmanagement/projects.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 7

1.9 Issues A Forest Service interdisciplinary team met onsite on June 15, 2012 to review the project and to identify preliminary issues. As the project has progressed, other issues were raised and evaluated in the analysis. Issues that have been identified included effects on vegetation, historic resources, accessible facilities, fish and aquatic resources, public health and safety, hydrology, and recreation. The final set of issues was based on results of the 30-day public scoping period and the initial analysis of environmental effects. A discussion of the preliminarily identified issues analyzed in the EA is listed below. Vegetation This issue was identified for the dam removal (B1 in Figure 2), the channel reshaping (B4 in Figure 2) and riparian planting inside of picnic areas (C3 in Figure 2). Long-term vegetative health would help maintain water quality and provide important habitats for aquatic insects, migratory birds and other species. • How will the proposed actions affect vegetation in the canyon? Cultural and Historical Resources This issue was identified for the following tasks: dam removal (B1 in Figure 2), weir removal (B3 in Figure 2), and channel reshaping (B4 in Figure 2) and vegetation planting (C3 in Figure 2). Many of the structures that prevent upstream fish movement provide the only remaining historical references to the canyon’s history of power generation. The proposed tasks would either modify or remove most of these structures in an effort to restore the historic aquatic ecology of the drainage. • How would the proposed actions affect cultural and historical resources? • What can be done to preserve the history of human use of the Mill Creek Drainage? Accessible facilities (Recreation access to streams) This issue was identified in conjunction with the dam removal and boardwalk (B1 and B2 respectively in Figure 2) with the removal of the Mill Creek Dam and fishing pier. The pier, built for the pool above the dam, would have to be removed or adjusted as the pool is proposed to be returned to a flowing stream. The associated boardwalk would also be replaced and designed to match more of a riverine environment better matching the nature of the canyon. This would be a change to the existing conditions. • How would the proposed actions affect the accessibility of the boardwalk and other facilities? Public Safety This issue was identified with the dam removal (B1 in Figure 2). The existence of high dams near high public use areas and their ease of accessibility to the public create safety concerns. Replacements of culverts in narrow canyons are not only a concern during replacement but also afterwards as the public adjust to changes in site-specific conditions. • How would the proposed project tasks affect public safety?

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 8

Hydrology around the task areas This issue was identified with the following tasks: dam removal, weir removal, channel reshaping and vegetation planting (B1, B3, B4, and C3, respectively in Figure 2). These features would potentially affect the stream course, either in channel or along the bank, water chemistry, wetlands, riparian areas, baseline and floodplains flows. There are concerns regarding potential impacts to water quality and stream flows. - How would the proposed action affect water quality in the Mill Creek? - How would the proposed action affect wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains? Fish and Aquatic Resources (including Forest Service sensitive species, aquatic insects, other amphibians) This issue was raised with all of the tasks. This issue is important during construction and for the long-term. The drainage would potentially be more capable of sustaining the populations long- term once the project is implemented and smaller individual fish populations would be expanded to cover larger stretches of streams. - How would the proposed actions affect fish and aquatic resources? Soil Resources Removal of Mill Creek dam and Porter Fork weir (B1 and B3 in Figure 2) has the potential to cause increased soil erosion and sedimentation where vegetation is removed and areas of bare ground increases. Locations where heavy equipment crosses land to access Mill Creek and Porter Fork and where heavy equipment is required to reconstruct the boardwalk are areas of anticipated increased compaction, which reduces infiltration rates and increases surface runoff. - How would the proposed actions affect soil resources?

1.9.1 Issues considered but eliminated from detailed analysis

Evaluation of the proposed actions indicated effects on the following would not vary between alternatives and/or there would be very little to no effect on these resources. Therefore, the following are not covered in detail in the EA, but are discussed briefly below to add to the overall understanding of the proposed action and alternatives. Technical reports with additional information are available in the project record. Climate Change Considerations Climate change is subject to wide interpretation by scientists, natural resource managers, and others. While uncertainties will remain regarding the timing, extent, and magnitude of climate change impacts, the scientific evidence predicts that continued increases in Green House Gas (GHG) emissions will lead to increased climate change. A number of reports (State of Utah, 2007) have concluded that climate is already changing; that the change will accelerate, and that GHG emissions, primarily carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), are the main source of accelerated climate change. Projected climate change impacts include air temperature increases; sea level rise; changes in the timing, location, and quantity of precipitation; and increased frequency of extreme weather events. These changes will vary regionally and affect renewable resources, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and agriculture.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 9

In Utah, climate change is predicted to result in warmer, drier climates. “Utah is projected to warm more than the average for the entire globe and more than coastal regions of the contiguous United States. The expected consequences of this warming are fewer frost days, longer growing seasons, and more heat waves. Studies of precipitation and runoff over the past several centuries and climate model projections for the next century indicate that ongoing greenhouse gas emissions at or above current levels will likely result in a decline in Utah’s mountain snowpack and the threat of severe and prolonged episodic drought in Utah is real” (State of Utah, 2007). When considered in a cumulative context, National Forests serve to buffer local climates and are considered large interstate regions that protect and shade forest floors from the warming effects of direct sunlight, and are large areas with layers of trees and green vegetation that consume and store carbon dioxide while oxygen is respired into the atmosphere. In the context of forest vegetation management, the Forest Service generally can respond to climate change through ecological restoration - by restoring the functions and processes characteristic of healthy, resilient ecosystems. More resilient ecosystems have a greater potential to withstand the ecological stresses associated with climate change, and help maintain long-term carbon sequestration capability in forests and grasslands. As riparian areas are restored and flatwater reduced water temperatures will be maintained or reduced which will improve the native aquatic and fish community that is being restored. Wildlife Resources The spatial scope for the wildlife resources is the immediate project area. The scale of the analysis area is the location of the project area. All of the work associated with this project would occur in Mill Creek or in the area immediately surrounding Mill Creek. The effects to wildlife would only occur within that narrow zone. There are no Threatened or Endangered wildlife species in the project area, so there would be No Impact to Threatened or Endangered Species. There are three Sensitive Species that may occur in the Project Area: Bald Eagle, Flammulated Owl and American Beaver. This project “will not impact individuals or habitat, and will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the populations or species”. Since there would be no impacts to wildlife species no further analysis is needed (Hartman, 2013).

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 10

2.1.1 Multi-Phase Restoration Project for Mill Creek Canyon

As discussed in Section 1.2, a collaborative planning effort was initiated to cooperatively explore the restoration of native Bonneville cutthroat trout in the Mill Creek drainage of Salt Lake County in order to restore genetically pure Bonneville cutthroat trout and habitat within the historical range of the species. Restoration efforts were developed that focused on the upper nine miles of Mill Creek and the lower mile of Porter Fork in Mill Creek Canyon, including the removal of all fish species, stocking of native fish species, planting riparian vegetation and potential removal of man‐made barriers. The specific restoration projects would occur on private and NFS lands and were proposed for implementation by various agencies, with assistance from other agencies and partners. Due to the complexity of the projects with respect for timing, jurisdictional authority, and funding, the project implementation strategy required a staggered/staged approach. Individual projects/tasks were developed and prioritized based on a logical and required sequence to meet the overall goals of the project. Based on this approach, a number of projects have been analyzed independent of this EA process and some have already been implemented, while others have not been implemented, and some are still in the planning stage. These projects will be discussed in this EA where appropriate and potential cumulative effects of these will be discussed by resource area in Chapter 3 and a timeline for activities is shown in Figure 3. The following is a brief description of each project/task. 1. Fish Replacement (Figure 2; C1): The native fish community in the Mill Creek drainage has been replaced by a community made up of non-native and hybridized fish. The first step in the replacement process is the removal on all fish in the creek. The most effective way to remove fish is with the use of an EPA‐approved root‐based chemical called rotenone. Care will be taken to ensure source areas are available to allow re‐colonization of amphibians and macro invertebrates. Treatments do not negatively affect water quality or human health. This drainage is not a municipal watershed. a. The upper two of three sections (above Elbow Fork) were treated with rotenone 2013 and 2014 and native Bonneville cutthroat trout have been restocked in the upper section in the fall of 2014. b. Removal of fish with rotenone for the lower section is scheduled for …? 2. Elbow Fork Bridge Removal (Figure 2; A1): A small bridge that provided access to a permitted cabin on the south side of the creek at Elbow Fork was removed in 2013. 3. Fish Passage/Culverts: Six culverts on Mill Creek were identified to be replaced as part of normal road maintenance and to allow for improved fish passage. The existing crossings are undersized and present a fish migration problem for upstream moving fish and debris passage during peak flows. The culverts on the main road are approximately 60 feet long and 10 feet wide. The culverts in the Porter Fork drainage are much smaller. During the construction periods the roads will be closed to vehicular traffic and the area around the construction site will also be closed to all traffic. a. The upper two culverts were replaced in 2014 (Figure 2; A2). b. The stream bed adjacent to the two culverts at the Firs recreation resident and two additional stream crossings in Porter Fork have been identified for

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 11

replacement to improve fish passage (Figure 2; C2). Work is proposed for 2015 and beyond, budget permitting. 4. Riparian Planting in Picnic Area (Figure 2; C3): Approximately five acres of riparian planting has been identified in the picnic areas of Mill Creek. This habitat improvement has yet to be fully analyzed 5. Fish passage at other structures: Three other structures in the drainage currently impair fish passage to some degree. These include the flume above Elbow Fork (maintained by Salt Lake City), the weir adjacent to Log Haven (owned by Flying Cloud Inc.), and the weir adjacent to the fee both (owned and managed by Salt Lake County). Work is currently underway, with the respective parties, to address fish passage at these sites. 6. Improvement of Tracy Lake and establishment of a spawning channel: Tracy Lake is a water feature on land owned and operated by the Great Salt Lake Scout Council. Historically the lake has been stocked. The plan is to redevelop the lake and install a natural stream that would feed the lake and provide spawning for native Bonneville cutthroat trout. This would eliminate the need for future stocking and potential contamination of the native fish community being developed in the drainage.

Figure 3: Timeline of Mill Creek Native Fish Restoration Plan 2013-2016. (Note: │= location of barriers).

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail

2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action

The “No Action” alternative is included to meet requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act [40 CFR 1502.14 (d)] which stipulates that “in addition to the proposed action, the no action alternative shall always be fully developed and analyzed in detail.” Under this alternative,

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 12

none of the activities described in under Alternative 2 (The proposed action) would occur in the project area”. The no action alternative would leave in place the Mill Creek Dam. The boardwalk and fishing pier would remain as the current exist. The dam and boardwalk would have to be maintained to reduce safety concerns. The fill area above the pond may or may not be dredged to provide a limited fishing opportunity. The weir in Porter Fork would remain in place along with the barrier at the water wheel.

2.2.2 Alternative 2: The Proposed Action

The Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project consists of the following tasks as currently identified (Figure 2) and are included as the proposed action in the EA, that we are now scoping: 1. (B1) Mill Creek Dam and Fishing Pier Removal - Remove the existing twelve foot high hydroelectric dam in Mill Creek, the associated fishing pier, and about a quarter of the boardwalk attached to the pier (approximately 240 feet). These structures are located about a fourth of a mile above the Porter Fork road junction. The dam impedes fish movement within Mill Creek. Much of the structure is crumbling and steel rebar is showing as the facility decays. The cement dam is a feature left in the drainage from the early 1900’s and no other hydroelectric dam exists at the dam site. During the mid-1950’s, the pool above the dam was permitted to UDWR as a fishing pond. By the early 1980’s, UDWR abandoned the use of the facility. This abandonment occurred during the same general timeframe when a significant flooding event in 1983 occurred throughout canyon. The stream channel from the dam up to the Terraces Bridge was channelized around this same time due to the 1983 flooding. In 1993, the USFS dredged the area upstream of the dam to provide a fishing area. Over the past twenty years, this pond has been dredged three additional times to provide flatwater fishing opportunities. Once dredged, the pond and fishing pier is used for fishing for a few years until it fills back in with sediment, leaf litter and vegetation grows in front of the structure. This has become a re-occurring maintenance cost with a short-term benefit. A fishing pier is located in the channel above the dam. This pier is connected to approximately 1,000 feet of boardwalk. The fishing pier would also be permanently removed when the dam is removed and it is estimated that approximately 200 to 300 feet of stream channel would have to be reshaped to restore the natural channel slope in the system that would promote improved fish passage. The boardwalk in this area would also be removed temporarily during this period. 2. (B2) Boardwalk Redesign - Redesign and replace the remaining boardwalk utilizing more sustainable materials and establish additional pullouts for fishing and stream access along Mill Creek. 3. (B3) Porter Fork Weir Removal - Remove the cement weir in Porter Fork Creek to improve fish passage. This structure is located about a fourth of a mile above the Porter Fork road junction. The cement weir was part of the original infrastructure and is about a foot high and spans Porter Fork Creek. Water backs up and overflows the stream channel at this structure during high flows. Sandbags have been put in this location in the past to prevent

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 13

this from occurring. 4. (B4) Porter Fork Channel Modification - Modify the stream channel around the Pelton wheel to provide for fish passage. The Pelton wheel was once used to generate electricity. It has not been used for this purpose for a number of years and only the 4-foot high wheel and flow pipe remains. The structure would be left in place and the channel would be modified, the development of step pools adjacent to the wheel for about 20 feet to allow for fish passage around the structure. 2.2.2.1 Project Design Criteria Several specific tasks would be required to sustainably implement the proposed action to restore Mill Creek at the Mill Creek Dam and the Porter Fork Weir sites. These design criteria are discussed below. 1. Mill Creek Dam Site a. Divert water around construction areas by using a temporary pipeline, temporary lined channel, or pump to move water around the site to reduce sedimentation of Mill Creek during construction. The preferred method to divert water would be to assemble a 300’ pipeline on the south side of Mill Creek, construct a temporary diversion dam above the construction area, and divert Mill Creek through the pipeline and over the dam to an energy dissipation structure below the dam. b. Construct a temporary diversion dam in Mill Creek about 250’ above the dam. Divert water into the pipeline. c. Remove and stockpile all plants that would be replanted along the finished stream corridor. The stockpile area would be placed on plastic sheeting in a nearby parking lot and the plants would be watered to keep them healthy. d. Dredge Mill Creek above the dam, stockpiling or haul out the material so it could be used in rehabilitation efforts. e. Remove the dam and haul away the waste rock and cement. f. Reshape the new stream corridor and rebuild the stream channel, put drop structures to restore the natural stream gradient and sinuosity, and replant stockpiled riparian shrubs and vegetation while constructing the stream banks along the channel. This would include installing fish habitat features (large wood anchored into the bank along with rootwads) in the channel. g. Replant the riparian vegetation. h. Reconstruct the trail/boardwalk with access points along Mill Creek. i. Return the water back into the channel. j. Seed the disturbed area with an appropriate native seed mix and install erosion control measures that may include erosion blankets, straw wattles, sediment fences, and straw. 2. Porter Fork Weir Site; a. The construction area would be dewatered by a pump or a temporary diversion channel. If a pump is used, then a small dam would be placed in the channel using sand bags to create a small pool. Water would be pumped from the pool to the stream channel below the construction area. If a temporary diversion channel is used, it

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 14

would be constructed around the weir, a plastic sheet or pipe would be placed in the temporary diversion channel bottom, and a diversion dam constructed in the main channel and diverted into the temporary diversion channel. The plastic sheet would reduce sedimentation in the stream. b. The Porter Fork weir would be removed and a new channel constructed. c. The Diversion dam would be removed, the diversion channel would be blocked off and stream water would be placed back into the reconstructed channel. d. The diversion channel would be filled in with soil and rock. e. The disturbed area may be seeded if a natural seed bank is not present. The disturbed area would be covered with erosion control blanket.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detail Study Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternative actions. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the project, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to not achieve the purpose and need. Proposed Action Modified One alternative suggested was eliminated from detailed consideration. This alternative was initially planned to address the historic features in the project area. The alternative proposed to leave the historic hydroelectric dam in place and provide for fish passage using a constructed fish ladder. The ladder would consist of a series of step pools that would allow fish to move upstream over the dam. This would be similar to a stairway in a house allowing fish to move over the 12 foot high dam. This type of structure would allow for fish passage, though would increase annual maintenance costs of removing bedload from the ladder and would compromise the historic nature of the dam. This proposed alternative only meets the fish passage purpose of the proposal. The dam would have to be repaired and continually maintained to reduce the various hazards that exist on the site. The Porter Fork weir would have to be removed to allow for peak flows while leaving the Pelton Wheel in place. Because it doesn’t meet the full purpose and need of this project, it has been eliminated from further consideration. 2.4 Project Design Features and Mitigation for Resource Protection In response to public comments and resource specialist on the proposal, design features and mitigation measures were developed to minimize or eliminate any potential adverse effects from the proposed action to any of the resources in the project area. Design features and mitigation measures that apply to the project include the following: Soil and Water - Apply all National and Regional Core Best Management Practices (BMPs) relevant to the Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project (Water and Riparian Resources and Soil Resource Reports, 2013) - Incorporate a monitoring plan to assess effectiveness of BMPs and mitigation measures as well as to assess effectiveness of approved actions.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 15

Recreation and Fisheries - If sensitive plant species are found where the boardwalk and fishing access points are going to be located at the time of construction, these areas will be avoided and/or impacts are will be minimized as prescribed in Guideline-21 in the Forest Plan. - Redesign and construct the boardwalk so as to maintain user accessibility and provide additional opportunities for sustainable streamside access. - Educational material should being developed to discuss aquatic and terrestrial species, the water cycle and general ecology. This material will be made available through the Forest’s website. Fisheries - If Bonneville cutthroat trout are present in the construction reaches, minimize mortality by: . pump intakes must be screened to prevent entrainment of fish. . As the construction area is being dewatered, work with UDWR to move the stranded fish Vegetation and Noxious and Invasive Weeds - Construction equipment will be washed prior to any work on the NFS lands. - All straw wattles and seed mixes must be certified weed-free. - Bare soils will be re-vegetated with an approved native seed mix. Cultural Resources - Notify the Forest Service archaeologist immediately if and when any historic or prehistoric resources are exposed during construction activities.

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 2.1 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 2.1: Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: The Proposed Action

Mill Creek Dam and Would remain unchanged. No maintenance The structures would be removed and the Fishing Pier Removal of the fishing pond would occur. channel reshapped.

The boardwal would be re-designed and Boardwalk Redesign Would remain unchanged replaced to improve stream fishing access.

Porter Fork Weir The weir would be removed to reduce Would remain unchanged Removal flooding potential.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 16

Table 2.1: Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: The Proposed Action

Porter Fork Channel The stream would be modified to allow for Would remain unchanged Modification fish passage.

The removal of the some of the amenities found in the project area would create Recreation & Scenery Would remain unchanged changes to the built environment character and could have an effect on the recreational users. There is a potential increase in erosion/sedimentation during proposed Soil Resources Would remain unchanged activities. BMP’s would be incorporated during these activities. There would be a short-term deterimental effect to existing vegetation as it is removed from the riparian area and Vegetation Would remain unchanged stockpiled for reuse. More riparian vegetation would be planted in picnic areas along the stream improving habitat for a variety of species. There would be an adverse effect from the removal of historic features. To mitigate for this adverse effect Publish a detailed historic interpretation on the Uinta- Wasatch-Cache’s public website about the history of the Mill Creek Hydroelectric System (42 SL 713). USFS will supply a draft of the proposed digital materials for comment to the Utah SHPO and the Utah Heritage Foundation by January 1, 2017, with completion of publication by 2019.

Complete a Lidar scan of the Mill Creek Dam, and Porter Fork Water Diversion, and provide a copy of the scan to the UTSHPO, while also using the scan to supplement Stipulation I.A. for an online Cultural and Heritage The dam would be repaired to reduce digital model. USFS will supply the digital Resources safety hazards. copy to Utah SHPO by January 1, 2017

Provide on-site interpretation of the Mill Creek Hydroelectric System at an appropriate visitor facility within Mill Creek Canyon. The USFS will draft interpretive signage in compliance with USFS guidelines for interpretative sites and kiosk design. USFS will consult with the Utah SHPO and the Utah Heritage Foundation on the nature, extent, and content of interpretation. Interpretation will be installed by 2019.

Complete detailed recording of the extant features of 42 SL 713 on USFS managed lands to produce an overall map of the Mill Creek Hydroelectric System to supplement

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 17

Table 2.1: Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: The Proposed Action Stipulation I.A. and I.C., by Jan 1, 2017.

Two populations of Bonneville cutthraot The fish population and amphibians would trout would exist. These fish would be be able to move from the mouth of the more suseptable to loss because the canyon upstream to Elbow Fork and populations are smaller. Fewer miles of upstream into Porter Fork. This would stream containing Bonneville cutthroat improve the chance for long-term Fisheries and Aquatic trout. Amphibians moving upstream sustainability of the populations. There Resources would be blocked by the dam. Minimal would be short-term sediment discharge sedimentation would occur because there into the stream during costruction and after would be no ground disturbance activities the stream is returned to the newly that would delivered some level of constructed channels. sediment to Mill Creek. There would be a short-term increase in The project area would remain as it Water Resources sediment entering the streatm when the currently exists. temporaryt diversion dam is constructed.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Introduction This section summarizes the physical, biological, and social environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in the chart above.

3.1.1 Cumulative Effects

Each resource section includes a discussion of cumulative effects focused on evaluating the effects of the proposed action in context with relevant effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Past, present, and foreseeable future actions considered in the cumulative effects analyses will vary for each resource. Relevant actions are those expected to generate effects on a specific resource which will occur at the same time and in the same place as effects from the proposed action. Past and present activities are considered part of the existing condition and are discussed in the “Affected Environment (Existing Conditions)” and “Environmental Consequences” section under each resource. The analysis of cumulative effects is consistent with the direction provided in the 36 CFR 220.4(f). There is a summary in the next paragraph about the recently past, present (or ongoing), and reasonably foreseeable activities within or near the general area of the Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project that could contribute relevant effects (i.e., effects that overlap in space and time with effects of the proposed action). The analysis for each resource may not consider all actions listed below or it may consider additional actions not listed. Past and Present Action

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 18

Special Use Permits: there are water transmission lines, utility corridor and power line right-of ways in the project area that are under special use permits. Recreation residences also exist in Porter Fork which has caused stream bank trampling and sedimentation. Dispersed and Developed Recreation: developed and dispersed recreation activities such as wildlife sightseeing, picnicking, fishing, and hiking have historically occurred and continue to occur throughout the project area. Removal of Access Bridge at Elbow Fork (Figure 2; A1): A bridge that accessed a recreational residence was removed in June 2013 and the stream banks were reshaped. Culvert Replacements (Figure 2; A2): Two culverts in upper Mill Creek were replaced during the fall of 2013. Fish Replacement (Figure 2; C1 and Figure 3): The native fish community in the Mill Creek drainage has been replaced by a community made up of non-native and hybridized fish. The first step in the replacement process is the removal on all fish in the creek. The most effective way to remove fish is with the use of an EPA‐approved root‐based chemical called rotenone. Care will be taken to ensure source areas are available to allow re‐colonization of amphibians and macro invertebrates. Treatments do not negatively affect water quality or human health. This drainage is not a municipal watershed. The upper two of three sections (above Elbow Fork) were treated with rotenone 2013 and 2014 and native Bonneville cutthroat trout have been restocked in the upper section. Roads and Trails: road and trail use, construction, and maintenance will continue to occur near or within the project area. Specific projects that may have impacts to the restoration of the canyon and include sediment runoff from the County Road right-of-way and trailhead parking, lots, replacement of bridge guardrails that are deteriorating, a bridge in the lower canyon no longer being used, and noxious weed treatments Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Improvement of Tracy Lake and establishment of a spawning channel: Tracy Lake is a water feature on land owned and operated by the Great Salt Lake Scout Council. Historically the lake has been stocked. The vision is to redevelop the lake and install a natural stream that would feed the lake and provide spawning for native Bonneville cutthroat trout. This would eliminate the need for future stocking and potential contamination of the native fish community being developed in the drainage. Fish passage at other structures (Figure 3): Three other structures in the drainage currently impair fish passage to some degree. These include the flume above Elbow Fork (maintained by Salt Lake City), the weir adjacent to Log Haven (owned by Flying Cloud Inc.), and the weir adjacent to the fee both (owned and managed by Salt Lake County). Work is currently underway, with the respective parties, to address fish passage at these sites Culvert Replacements (Figure 2; C2): Replace four culverts that have been identified as impacting stream flows, woody debris passage and/or fish movement. Two of the culverts are located on the lower mile of Porter Fork. One culvert is just below Elbow Fork. Fish Replacement (Figure 2; C1 and Figure 3): Removal of fish with rotenone for the lower section is scheduled for 2015 or 2016. Vegetation Restoration in Picnic Areas: Much of the vegetation in the picnic areas near the Creek has been trampled because of high visitor use. Additional vegetation would be planted in the compacted, bare areas (approximately less than 5 acres) in the picnic areas.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 19

3.2 Cultural Resources

Affected Environment As early as 1848 the settlers of the Salt Lake Valley began to recognize the waterpower in Mill Creek Canyon. The power was used to run early sawmills, gristmills, molasses mills, and shingle mills. By the end of the 19th Century, hydroelectricity began to come to the west, and Mill Creek Canyon got its first hydroelectric system in 1905. Jesse Knight, a prominent figure in Utah mining and philanthropy constructed the hydroelectric system in Mill Creek as part of his electric company “Knight Power Company”. The first power plant was constructed near Porter Fork and its water intake was located at Elbow Fork. The pipeline ran for about 2 miles until it reached the Porter Fork Plant. As water volume decreased in the fall and winter months, less electricity was generated. To help with this problem, a large dam was constructed up-stream from Porter Fork and water from Porter Fork was routed around the mountain through a pipe and pumped into the pond above the dam to add the volume of water. This smaller system was constructed around 1913 and the dam was originally 15 feet tall it was remodeled in the late 1940’s to its current condition. The cement diversion in Porter Fork dates to this 1940’s remodel. Also in 1913, the lower power plant was constructed at the mouth of Mill Creek Canyon. This was a much larger plant then the upper one and housed two water wheels The upper power plant’s pipeline was constructed out of Redwood trees from California and the lower plant’s pipeline was constructed from Douglas Fir. The change in wood occurred because Redwood, although more durable than Douglas Fir, became too expensive. The electricity originally supplied power to the cities of Murray and Holladay; by 1910 a five- year contract was negotiated with U.S. Smelting, Refining, and Mining Company that was based out of Midvale. By the 1920’s, the electricity from Mill Creek began to be used for the fast growing City of Salt Lake and by the early 1930’s, 22% of Salt Lake’s electricity came from the Mill Creek Power Plants. The Lower Plant at the mouth of the Canyon operated until 1949 and the upper plant at Porter Fork ended operations in 1970. Mill Creek Canyon, over the last 150 years has been the site of logging, grazing, sawmill-lumber production as well as hydroelectricity, mining, and recreation, both developed and dispersed. Today Mill Creek is one of the most highly utilized recreation destinations along the Wasatch Front and fees are collected by Salt Lake County that is reinvested into the canyon. These fees are used for operation and maintenance of facilities in the canyon. Management of this high use area is further complicated by private inholdings such as the Boy Scout Camp, private residences, a commercial lodge, a historic lodge operating under a special use permit, and numerous “recreation residences” located in housing tracts that are managed by the Forest Service. Much of the current recreation use is focused on developed day-use sites, fishing opportunities, hiking, and mountain biking. Mill Creek is also a focal point for recreationalists with pets, and unlike Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons, Mill Creek is not part of the culinary watershed. Mill Creek experiences a high frequency of visitors year-round, as it also provides access for cross country skiing and snowshoeing and approximately 500,000 people visit the canyon annually.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 20

Historic features that are remnants of an early hydroelectric operation exist from Elbow Fork in the east, to the mouth of the canyon in the west. Earlier industrial use of the canyon dating to the late 1840’s involved numerous sawmills, which were later replaced by the hydroelectric system, or simply dismantled. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 - No Action Under this alternative, none of the ground disturbing activities in the proposed action would occur. The project area would remain as it currently exists. No changes would occur to the Mill Creek dam, fishing pier, boardwalk, the Porter Fork weir, or the channels within the Mill Creek and Porter Fork. Maintenance may be done on the existing Mill Creek Dam to eliminate the safety concerns. Alternative 2: The Proposed Action Due to the complexity of this undertaking and its many parts, each proposed action within the project is listed below, with its associated potential affect to historic properties: A1: Bridge Removal: This user created small bridge accessed a recreation residence that no longer exists. It was removed for safety issues relating to ad hoc construction techniques, unauthorized vehicle access, stream constriction, debris blockage, and was not considered a historic structure. The Forest Service removed this structure from the stream in the spring of 2013. While the bridge itself was a non-historic later addition, the area that housed the previous recreation residence may have been originally associated with an industrial use of the canyon. The area is not going to be affected by any of the proposed actions associated with this project; however, the Forest Service archaeologists recorded and mapped the features left on the flat on the south side of the stream. The site form and associated map are included in the project file. Since the bridge was a constructed feature circa late 1970s/ early 1980s, and the historic features on the south side of the stream are outside of the area of potential effect (APE) for this proposed undertaking, There would be No Historic Properties Affected (36 CFR 800.4(d)(1)), for the site specific bridge removal. A2: Culvert Replacements (3 culverts): Culvert replacements typically fall under routine operations and maintenance activities. All of the culverts were replaced within the existing previously disturbed footprint, and none of the culverts were over 50 years of age. The previous culverts were all constructed of metal pipe, and range in construction dates from the middle 1970s to middle 1980s. - There would be No Historic Properties Affected, for the culvert replacements. B1: Dam Removal: The Mill Creek Dam (part of 42 SL 713) has been determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. The current dam, constructed in 1940, encases the original dam which dates to 1913. Removal of this dam would constitute an adverse effect to a Historic Property (36 CFR 800.5(a)(2)(i)): “Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property”. B2: Boardwalk Replacement: The Boardwalk was constructed in the middle 1990s. The boardwalk would be replaced in the existing highly disturbed footprint. There would be No Historic Properties Affected.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 21

B3: Removal of a cement water diversion feature constructed in 1940. This feature is associated with the construction of the latest incarnation of the Mill Creek Dam (1940) (referred to in B1), Since the dam itself is considered eligible to the National Register of Historic Places, this cement diversion is considered a contributing feature to the eligible hydroelectric system. Removing the cement diversion would constitute an adverse effect to a Historic Property: “Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property”. B4: Channel Reshaping: The cement water diversion (B3) lies within the channel reshaping APE and is also the cause of the proposed channel reshaping. Other than the cement water diversion (B3), no other historic properties would be affected. Since B4 is connected to B3, channel reshaping would constitute an adverse effect to a Historic Property: “Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property”, in the case of the cement water diversion. C1: Fish Replacement: Fish stocking has No Potential to Cause Effects Historic Properties (36 CFR 800.3(a)(1)). C2: Culvert Replacements (8 culverts): Culvert replacements or channel reshaping to provide for fish passage typically fall under routine operations and maintenance activities. All of the culverts would be replaced within the existing previously disturbed footprint, and none of the culverts scheduled for replacement are over 50 years of age. The existing culverts are all constructed of metal pipe, and range in construction dates from the middle 1970s to middle 1980s. There would be No Historic Properties Affected, for the culvert replacements. C3: Vegetation Planting: No historic properties were noted within the APE of the proposed vegetation planting areas. There would be No Historic Properties Affected. There are two features that would be affected by the Mill Creek Stream Improvement project. These two features are part of 42 SL 713, the historic Mill Creek Hydroelectric System (1905- 1970). The features include: 1) The Mill Creek Dam, and 2) the cement water diversion in Porter Fork that fed water from Porter Fork to the Mill Creek Dam to increase flow. The extant remains of the hydroelectric system are either in ruins, or have been repurposed into recreational infrastructure. The Mill Creek Dam facilitated the creation of a fishing pond that was further developed by the Forest Service in the 1990s, and the footprint for the pipeline that runs from the Mill Creek Dam to the lower power plant was turned into the “Pipeline Hiking Trail”. Although the system is no longer functioning, and some of it has been subjected to adaptive re-use, visitors can still retrace the system and observe features and artifacts related to it. While the overall integrity as a hydroelectric system is poor, its associated ruins and adaptively reused footprint have a high integrity under the auspicious of a historic interpretation effort, both as an onsite, and offsite visitor experience. The Mill Creek Hydroelectric System (42 SL 713) is historically significant (36CFR Part 800.4(c)) and eligible to the National Register of Historic Places and should be considered an historic property, at least the portions of the system that are found on NFS lands in T1S, R2E, Sec(s).26, 27, 28, 29. Knowing that this proposed undertaking would adversely affect two features of this system, and thus, the system on FS managed lands as a whole, the Mill Creek Stream Improvement Project (U-14-FS-0035f) would constitute an adverse effect to a Historic Property: “Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property”. Cumulative Effects

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 22

Historically and currently, this area is heavily used by the recreating public. This will likely continue whether or not the proposed action is implemented. Alternatives are evaluated based on their potential to affect historic properties, as described in 36 CFR 800.4&5. Historic properties are defined in 36 CFR 60. The public’s recreational activities, in regards to the No Action Alternative, has a potential for indirect, long-term, adverse effects to historic properties, as road surfaces are widened to allow for increased public use and as more recreationalists explore the canyon and its features. If the dam were not removed, the dam would have to be repaired to improve public safety through strengthening the spillway wing walls by adding fill. The base of the dam would also require maintenance which would include cementing over the exposed rebar at the base of the dam and resurfacing some of the cement walls that are crumbling. The action alternative’s direct effects for the individual actions are described above. Of the actions described, only the direct effects from the dam removal from Mill Creek and the cement water diversion removal from Porter Fork have an adverse effect on a historic property as per 36 CFR 800.5(a)(2)(i), “Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property” Some of the recreating public are familiar with the historic value of the Mill Creek Dam. The majority of the public are only familiar with the dam due to the fact that it was adaptively reused by the Forest Service as a fishing pond, and recreation site for the past 20+ years. From a long term perspective there are cumulative effects from the past 168 years of use in the canyon. There was a heavy industrial focus in the canyon from 1847-1950s, in the form of saw mills, timber production, and hydroelectric power. There has been an identifiable recreation component in the canyon since the area came under federal management in 1904. Besides the effects of the Mill Creek dam and the Porter Fork weir removal to other identified present and future actions currently identified to occur do not affect the archaeological, cultural and historic resources in the area because of the age of the structure being impacted. Conclusion Implementing the proposed action would have an adverse effect on contributing features to the Mill Creek Hydroelectric System (42SL718), which has been identified as a historic property. Consultation with the Utah State Historic Preservation Office began in May of 2012, and the Utah SHPO concurred with the Forest Service’s determination of adverse effect to a historic property on 2/25/14. Due the concurrence on an adverse effect determination the FS and Utah SHPO are entering into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Mitigation measures were be identified and agreed to in consultation through the MOA (see mitigation section below).

Mitigations of Adverse Effects on Historic Structures and Features

A. Publish historic interpretation on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache’s public website about the history of the Mill Creek Hydroelectric System (42 SL 713). USFS will supply a draft of the proposed digital materials for comment to the Utah SHPO by January 1, 2017, with completion of publication by January 1, 2019.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 23

B. Provide on-site interpretation of the Mill Creek Hydroelectric System at the fishing access visitor facility located south of the Mill Creek Road across from the USFS Mill Creek Guard Station. The interpretation will consist of two interpretive panels measuring 24”x36”. One panel will interpret the Native American and pre-1900 Euro-American historic use of Mill Creek Canyon. The second interpretive panel will focus on Hydroelectric Power, and the history of the Mill Creek Hydroelectric System. The USFS will draft interpretive signage in compliance with USFS guidelines for interpretative sites and kiosk design. USFS will consult with the Utah SHPO on the nature, extent, and content of interpretation. Interpretation will be installed by July 1, 2019.

C. Complete photo-documentation, GPS recording, and mapping of the extant features of 42 SL 713 on USFS managed lands to produce an overall map of the Mill Creek Hydroelectric System to be used in Stipulation I and III, by Jan 1, 2017.

These actions will provide opportunities for the public to learn about the pre-euroAmerican history of the area as well as the post-contact industrial and recreational history of the canyon, and its historic importance to the Salt Lake City. If properties are discovered that may be historically significant or unanticipated effects on historic properties found, the UWCNF shall implement the discovery plan as per 36CFR800.13, the Forest Service Heritage Program Management Handbook (FSH) 2309.12 § 13.43, and the notification and consultation protocols set forth in 43 CFR 10.4 if NAGPRA is applicable to the unanticipated discovery.

3.3 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

Affected Environment The sub-watershed boundary for Headwaters Mill Creek 6th Field (HUC 60202040301) is used as the geographic boundary to determine the environmental effects of this project at the both the project and cumulative levels. This geographic scope is applied because the populations of aquatic species exist at the watershed scale and each species may use different portions of the watershed throughout its lifecycle. The cumulative effects analysis area will use the same scope because of the potential for activities outside the project area to deliver sediment to streams and riparian areas downstream of the project area. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Species No threatened or endangered aquatic species or suitable habitat are present within the project area or in the Mill Creek watershed and no water withdrawals are proposed; therefore, the proposed action would have no impacts on threatened or endangered aquatic species or their habitats (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2005) (Utah Divison of Wildlife Resources, 1997). No Regional Forester’s sensitive aquatic and semiaquatic species are found in the drainage. Bonneville cutthroat trout are native to the drainage and are still present in small numbers, although most have likely hybridized to some degree with non-native rainbow trout. There are no historical observations of boreal toad in Mill Creek Canyon, but they have been observed in

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 24

adjacent canyons; therefore, it seems likely they were present in the canyon historically, but there have been no recent observations. Management Indicator Species (MIS) Management Indicator Species are representative species whose habitat conditions and population changes are used to assess the impacts of management activities on similar species in a particular area. Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout are management indicator species (MIS) for aquatic habitats on the UWCNF. Colorado River cutthroat trout are not native to the Mill Creek drainage and are not discussed further in this report. Bonneville cutthroat trout are still present in the Mill Creek drainage, but have hybridized with rainbow trout to some degree. Amphibians and Aquatic Invertebrates Little is known about distributions of amphibians or aquatic invertebrates in the Mill Creek drainage. Employees from Hogle Zoo and UDWR have surveyed for amphibians, but to date, only tiger salamander have been observed (Grover UDWR Personal Communication, 2014). Based on a broad-scale habitat suitability analysis, this project area contains substantial value habitat for tiger salamander (U.S. Dept. of Interior, National Biological Service, and Utah State University, 1997). Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action Under this alternative, none of the ground disturbing activities in the proposed action would occur. Other elements of this project such as culvert removal/replacement and removal of non- native and hybridized trout and restocking of Bonneville cutthroat would continue as they are not part of the proposed action. Culvert replacements would also continue. There would be no direct effects to fish, amphibians, or their habitats under this alternative as there would be no ground disturbing activities. In addition, there would be no impacts to riparian vegetation and stream banks. The boardwalk and fishing pier would remain in place. The pool behind the dam would continue to accumulate sediment unless the Forest continued to dredge the site periodically. This activity likely has some short-term impacts to aquatic habitat from sediment delivery and those impacts would continue if dredging continued. Under this alternative the dam and weir would remain in place; therefore, the newly restored Bonneville cutthroat trout population would remain fragmented and at increased risk from a catastrophic event like a wildland fire or chemical spill. The level of risk will not change under this alternative, but the risk would apply to fluvial (migrating) pure cutthroat trout and native non-game species rather than non-natives and hybridized cutthroat trout. Over time, the dam, boardwalk, and fishing pier would continue to fall into disrepair and some level of maintenance would likely have to occur to maintain public safety, but there should be minimal effects to aquatic resources from maintenance activities. Alternative 2: The Proposed Action 1. Mill Creek Dam Removal and Channel Restructuring Initially, water would be diverted around the construction site using a temporary lined channel, a 300 foot pipeline, or by pumping water around the site with hoses. A temporary lined channel

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 25

has the greatest potential to impact aquatic resources and their habitats as it would require removal of riparian vegetation and significant soil disturbance during construction of the temporary channel and would likely deliver some sediment to Mill Creek. A pipeline would have the least impact to aquatic resources because there would be little or no soil disturbance other than what is necessary for dam removal and channel restructuring, and there would be no risk of mortality from entrainment; however, flows may determine its feasibility. Pumping could be used alone or in combination with one of the other options, but has the risk of fish entrainment. Direct mortality of fish could occur with entrainment, but this impact could be easily mitigated by screening pump intakes. All three options would require installation of a coffer dam to de- water the construction site and divert flows out of the stream channel. Installation of the coffer dam would likely cause some disturbance to the stream banks and bottom, but the effects should be very limited and short-term. Dewatering on the downstream side of the coffer dam would result in the loss of aquatic invertebrates and possibly some fish. Most fish would likely move out of the area as water levels drop, but some may become stranded in pools. To minimize fish mortality, the area could be electro-fished, to capture fish present in the section, during the dewatering process to retrieve stranded fish. After the site has been dewatered, the fishing pier and about 240 feet of boardwalk would need to be removed to allow access to the channel. Riparian vegetation would need to be removed and stockpiled, and sediment from behind the dam would need to be dredged and stockpiled. At this stage, the dam could be deconstructed and the waste rock and concrete hauled away. Upon removal of the dam, approximately 200-300 feet of channel would be restructured using drop structures to restore stream gradient and sinuosity, and fish habitat structures such as large- woody debris and root-wads. The stream banks would then be replanted with stockpiled riparian vegetation. Sufficiently dewatering the site and utilizing effective erosion control mitigation measures such as silt fencing and other erosion control materials should minimize the risk of sediment being delivered to wetted sections downstream of the dam during this process. Following dam removal and channel reconstruction, the trail and boardwalk would be rebuilt along Mill Creek. These activities would likely have little additional impact to aquatic species and their habitat because the area will have already been disturbed during channel reconstruction. Once these structures are completed, the diverted water could be returned to the stream channel. The greatest potential for sediment impacts to aquatic species and their habitat would occur at this time because fine sediment retained in the dewatered reach would be flushed downstream. Erosion control structures would be installed and the disturbed area would be reseeded to minimize delivery of additional sediment from adjacent stream banks. The effects of removing Mill Creek Dam and channel restructuring on aquatic species and their habitats may include: a) Increased sediment delivery to Mill Creek, Sediment delivery to Mill Creek has the potential to cause a variety of direct and indirect effects to aquatic species and their habitats. First, suspended sediment can reduce the amount of light penetrating the water that would cause a reduction in photosynthesis in aquatic plants such as algae and reductions in periphyton composition (Sorenson et al., 1977)(Schofield et al., 2004). This would cause a chain reaction of indirect effects as many aquatic invertebrates feed on algae, and aquatic invertebrates are a major food source for salmonids. However, the delivery of sediment to Mill Creek would likely be greatest when diverted water is returned to the channel,

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 26

but this sediment should be flushed downstream and diluted quickly. It was observed that turbidity increased for about 1 hour after water was turned back into a 100 foot reconstructed channel in Big Cottonwood Creek (Condrat, 2013). The impacts to photosynthesis should be short term and localized due to the small section of stream being restructured; therefore, the indirect impacts from a reduction in photosynthesis on aquatic insects and fish should be minimal. Any remaining pockets of fine sediment would likely get flushed out by high spring flows, but these sediment pulses would be on a much smaller scale and should have little or no effect to aquatic species and their habitats. Until the stream banks are re-vegetated there is potential for additional sediment delivery to the stream, but with silt fences and other erosion control materials this should be minimized. Sediment can also have direct effects on aquatic invertebrates because many are filter feeders, and sediment can clog their filter mechanisms or sediment can damage their gills impairing their respiration (Jones et al., 2012). Sediment can also impact invertebrates directly by eliminating habitat when interstitial spaces are filled between gravel and cobble. It is also likely that some invertebrates, particularly smaller or less mobile individuals could be buried by sediment, resulting in direct mortality (Jones et al., 2012). Deposition of sediment may also increase embeddeness making it more difficult for burrowing varieties of aquatic insects. Although sediment delivery to Mill Creek may result in some limited mortality and short-term changes in aquatic invertebrate species composition, the populations would likely recover quickly as populations from upstream of the project site drift downstream and recolonize the area. Sediment can also have a variety of effects on fish and their habitat. One of the biggest impacts would be deposition of sediment in spawning gravels during the egg incubation period, which reduces the flow of oxygen through the gravel and the exchange of metabolic waste from eggs, both of which would likely increase mortality. Sediment deposition may also increase embeddness, preventing newly hatched fry from migrating out of the gravel. It is unlikely the proposed action would take place during the spawning or incubating periods, but rather the project would be implemented during the low-flow period in late-summer to early-fall in order to minimize impacts to Bonneville cutthroat trout which spawn in the spring; therefore, there would be no effects to eggs or newly emerged fry. Suspended sediment may cause a variety of responses in juvenile and adult fish. First, they could move to avoid suspended sediment, which may disrupt normal feeding patterns. They may also remain in the affected area and experience sub-lethal health effects, but fish can withstand high levels of suspended sediment depending on the concentration and duration (Robertson et al., 2006). The risk of mortality is low considering the duration of the primary sediment pulse from this project should be short-term (less than 1day) and the concentration although high at first would decrease rapidly over time as it travels downstream. Suspended sediment may cause some gill damage, increased respiration and heart rate, but as turbidity decreases these effects should be minimal. Increases in turbidity from suspended sediment may also reduce the ability of fish to detect prey as fish are typically sight feeders, but as the duration of the pulse is expected to be short-term it is unlikely there would be a substantial effect. Growth rates can also be reduced in turbid water (Alexander and Hansen, 1986); but again the duration of the sediment pulse is expected to be short-term; therefore, it is unlikely there would be a measurable effect on growth. b) Trampling and compaction of soil in the riparian area and stream,

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 27

Trampling in the riparian area and stream during dam removal and stream reconstruction may cause some limited direct mortality of amphibians (tiger salamanders) and aquatic invertebrates. Fish would likely have no direct mortality as they would likely move away from activity in the stream, and once the stream is dewatered they would not be present. Although there would be some mortality of aquatic invertebrates, the section of stream impacted by the proposed action would be recolonized quickly upon completion. Trampling in the riparian areas may lead to bank compaction and loss of habitat for amphibians, but the area of impact is a small section of Mill Creek. There would be no effects to Forest sensitive amphibian species as none have been observed in the drainage in recent surveys. c) Direct mortality and disturbance; and Direct mortality of fish may occur if they are either entrained during pumping or stranded during the dewatering process; however both of these effects can be mitigated so there would be little or no mortality. Pump intakes can be screened to prevent entrainment, and the dewatered section can be electro-fished as water levels drop to salvage any fish trapped in pools. Implementing the project would cause some level of disturbance, but other than the sources of mortality listed above, disturbance is unlikely to cause additional mortality because most of the work would take place in the dewatered section. Disturbance would occur as the stream is dewatered and when the water is returned to the stream. Both of these events are short-term and should have limited direct or indirect effects. d) Improved fish passage. The proposed project has a long-term beneficial effect of removing a migration barrier. Removing barriers to migration reduces the risk of loss due to a catastrophic event. It also allows genetic exchange within a larger population, increasing or maintaining genetic diversity. Currently the fish populations in Mill Creek are separated by a variety of barriers in the drainage resulting in fragmented populations. 2. Boardwalk Redesign This activity should have little additional effects on aquatic species or their habitats as the area would be disturbed during channel reconstruction. 3. Removal of the Porter Fork Weir and Channel Restructuring at the Weir and Pelton Wheel The effects of this activity on aquatic species and their habitats would be similar to those observed at the Mill Creek Dam; however because the area of disturbance is much smaller (approximately 20 feet) the effects would be much smaller. There should be little or no impact to aquatic species and their habitats. Any effects of sediment delivery to the stream would be limited and short-term. Similar to the Mill Creek site there would be a beneficial effect of improving upstream migration of fish and other aquatic organisms. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are defined as the effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future connected and cumulative actions, including any proposed action. These are the effects that have influenced, are continuing to influence, and may influence the aquatic habitats and species being analyzed. The affects to the population and its habitat from the proposed action would be limited and short-term. In addition, removal of the dam will eventually have a “beneficial affect” by removing migration barriers within Mill Creek watershed reducing the

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 28

potential for extirpation from a catastrophic event, and maintaining or increasing genetic diversity by reducing fragmentation of the population between barriers. Once treated to remove the fish from Porter Fork, No amphibians have been found in the project area. There would be no direct, indirect impacts to fish or amphibians from the proposed alternatives Conclusion: The proposed action complies with the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Management direction and also complies with applicable laws, regulations, and Conservation Agreements. Bonneville cutthroat trout would likely be present in the project area during implementation, but any effects to the population and its habitat would be limited and short-term. The proposed action “may impact individuals but it not likely to cause a trend to federal listing” and in the long term, the project would have “beneficial effects” to cutthroat by removing migration barriers within Mill Creek watershed reducing the potential for extirpation from a catastrophic event, and maintaining or increasing genetic diversity by reducing fragmentation of the population between barriers. Columbia spotted frog and boreal toad have not been documented in the project area or in the Mill Creek drainage in recent years; therefore, the proposed action would have “no impacts on Columbia spotted frog or boreal toad”. Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable or irreversible commitment of aquatic resources is expected from this project as the effects to the aquatic species and their habitats are expected to be limited and short-term.

3.4 Recreation

Affected Environment The project area for the recreation analysis begins at the Mill Creek Fee Station and ends at the Salt Lake County - Summit County line at the head of the canyon. Many of recreation opportunities are found alongside the stream and adjacent to the Mill Creek Canyon Road (Forest Road #80012), along with a dispersed trail system that provides multi-use connections to adjacent canyons and includes access into the Mount Olympus Wilderness Area. Specifically, these include day-use picnic areas, developed trailheads, mountain biking, a groomed cross country ski trail, interpretive sites, a winter yurt, and an accessible fishing pond. The boardwalk affected is approximately ¼ mile length and is accessed from Mill Creek roadway and Terraces boardwalk and fishing deck. Much of the current recreation use is focused on developed day-use sites (picnic areas), fishing opportunities, hiking, and mountain biking. Mill Creek is also a focal point for recreationalists with pets, including limited equestrian use, because Mill Creek is not considered part of the culinary watershed. Mill Creek experiences a high frequency of visitors year round, as it also provides access for groomed cross country and backcountry skiing and snowshoeing. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 29

Under the No Action Alternative, the project area would remain as it currently exists. No changes would occur to Mill Creek channel, the Mill Creek dam, fishing pier, or boardwalk beyond regular maintenance. The pool area above the dam could be dredged to provide a deep pool for fishing. No recreational impacts would occur within Porter Fork Creek project area. Alternative 2: The Proposed Action The removal of the some of the amenities found in the Mill Creek Terraces boardwalk area would create changes to the built environment character and this could have an effect on recreational users. The amenities and associated recreational opportunities that would be eliminated are potential opportunities to fish in a large pool area (approximately 50 foot by 30 foot) for Mill Creek, viewing deck on dam abutment, interpretive panels, and approximately 240 feet of boardwalk. For local recreational users, the fishing pier is a valued part of their recreation experience for this section of the Canyon. The elimination of the historic hydro-dam would create a loss of experience to visitors who have knowledge about this type of feature or its historical context. For casual visitors that are not aware of this amenity, there would be no change in recreation experience beyond the loss of fishing opportunity or enjoyment of the ambiance of the pond. Approximately 240 feet of boardwalk would be permanently removed to accommodate the new stream channel construction to a more natural gradient. In the short term this may have an effect on the local visitor, but more than likely the knowledge of this section of boardwalk would fade in their memory because of remaining canopy cover meandering boardwalk sections that would remain along the stream. Replacement of the rest of the boardwalk and new public access points to the stream would have a short term effect on the local visitor because once vegetation is re-established, the character and access should return similar to the character prior to reconstruction. Stream channel construction to a more natural gradient may have a short term effect to the local and causal visitors until vegetation has re-established. Because of reconstruction methods and mitigation measures proposed for this alternative, the stream should appear natural in the long term when viewed from the boardwalk and roadway. The Porter Fork Weir is located away from roadways and within a summer home tract and does not provide recreation opportunities to the general public other than in passing for users walking the road to access the trail system in upper Porter Fork.. The removal of the weir and stream channel re-construction would have a short term effect until vegetation has established on the stream banks for both the local and casual visitor to the site. Cumulative Effects The proposed action would result in a cumulative effect to a visitor who is familiar with the history and recreation opportunities associated with the project area. Many of the cabins within the analysis area have been in continuous family ownership since they were constructed in the first part of the twentieth century and the residents are intimately familiar with the built environment within Mill Creek Canyon. To the casual visitor any effect would be short term and associated with construction activities such as removal of the boardwalk and dam and reshaping of the stream channel.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 30

For the no action alternative there will be no change in recreation experience in the project area and thus no direct, indirect or cumulative effects. For the action alternative, the recreating public who use the boardwalk and the fishing pier there will be a permanent loss of recreational opportunities and visitors may try to relocate to another location. There could be some members of the public that will experience continued frustration as trails in the canyon and the road above the snow gate have been closed for improvements in past years. This frustration would increase if they were to want to use the project area and find it also closed for rehabilitation. For ongoing activities, the replacement of culverts will continue to impact recreationalists using the boardwalk as traffic may be more congested and use is increased with road closures when people would have travel to other hiking locations. Visitors experience would improve once the new boardwalk is constructed in by allowing for increased access. For future activities, the cumulative impact will be more vegetative screen between recreationalist making for a more private setting as additional willows are planted and the boardwalk provides more pull offs along the stream. Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitment of Resources Implementing the proposed action will have an irreversible commitment of recreational experience resources with the removal of the historic hydroelectric dam and its large pool that is accessed by a boardwalk and viewing/fishing platform. Implementing the proposed action will have a irretrievable loss of an accessible large pool created by a historic dam which provides fishing opportunity in the Mill Creek Drainage. The dam will be removed and the pools, above and below the dam, will be divided into a number of smaller pools as the stream channel is reshaped and the natural channel restored to improve fish passage. Access will also be modified as the boardwalk is reconfigured to match the new stream gradient. Individual fishing and viewing platforms would be constructed along the newly aligned boardwalk that would provide stream access for individuals.

3.5 Soils

Affected Environment The Mill Creek project area lies within the Central Wasatch Management Area as described in Chapter 4, of the Wasatch-Cache NF 2003 Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA-Forest Service, 2003). The main soil type within the project area, around the dam, weirs and boardwalk, is Wanship- Kovich loam located on stream terraces (USDA-NRCS, 2009). In general, these soils are moderately deep and make up the stream terraces and slopes where construction activities would occur with the proposed action. Soils have formed in alluvium, colluvium, and/or residuum derived from local parent material as well as from parent material upstream of the site. Erosion causing a downward trend in soil would show some combination of the following; rill erosion, active gully formation, alluvial deposition, pedestaling at the base of plants, active terrace formation on side slopes, exposed plant crowns or roots, lichen lines on rocks found

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 31

above the soil surface, wind-scoured depressions, wind-deposited sediment accumulation, and changes in vegetation composition from the potential plant community. These conditions were not currently widespread or common. There are small areas of soil erosion occurring along the boardwalk, however most of the area around the boardwalk and along the stream banks are well covered with trees, willows, grass, and leaf litter. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the project area would remain as it currently exists. No changes would occur to the Mill Creek dam, fishing pier, boardwalk, the Porter Fork weir, or the channels within the Mill Creek and Porter Fork. The no action alternative would have no ongoing impacts to soil resources. Alternative 2: The Proposed Action For the soil resource the direct effects of this project would be: 1) the potential increase in erosion/sedimentation into Mill Creek and Porter Fork during activities related to the removal of established plants, removal of the dam and weir, trail and boardwalk reconstruction, and channel reconstruction and, 2) the potential for compaction where equipment is used to remove the dam and weir, for trail and boardwalk reconstruction, and where equipment accesses the project area. Indirectly, removal of vegetative cover can increase raindrop impact, decrease organic matter and soil aggregates, increase soil temperatures, and decrease infiltration rates. Reduction in protection of the soil surface can accelerate erosion. Compaction causes a reduction in soil pore space which reduces infiltration rates and increases surface runoff. Erosion removes nutrient- and organic-rich topsoil, which in turn lowers soil productivity. Erosion can cause indirect effects such as deteriorating water quality and aquatic habitat as eroded sediments move into waterways. The direct and indirect effects to the soil resource would be the short-term increase in erosion when the willows are removed from riparian areas along Mill Creek and Porter Fork. This would be approximately 15 feet on either side of the channels for approximately 240 feet of the Mill Creek channel (0.17 acres) and 20 feet in Porter Fork channel (0.01 acres). In addition, erosion would increase in areas where stream bank reconstruction takes place. Removal of the vegetation and other construction work would indirectly cause sedimentation into Mill Creek and Porter Fork until vegetation is reestablished on the stream banks. Erosion and sedimentation BMPs, as outlined Section 2.4, would be implemented during construction to retain soil on site and minimize sedimentation into Mill Creek and Porter Fork. Soil disturbance (less than 1,000 feet) would be expected where there is new trail construction along the reconstructed creek channels. BMPs would be incorporated into the trail design to maintain trail stability and soil stability. The trail would be built to current Forest Service standards and BMPs would be incorporated for erosion control. These would help ensure the soil resource was protected from off-site movement. Compaction associated with the boardwalk reconstruction would occur within the footprint of current recreation use. Erosion and sedimentation control BMPs would be implemented during construction to retain soil on site and minimize sedimentation into Mill Creek.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 32

Compaction associated with dam and weir removal would increase where equipment crosses land to access the structures but is expected to be minimal as much of the work would be completed in the diverted stream channel. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include a discussion of the combined, incremental effects of human activities. For activities to be considered cumulative their effects need to overlap in both time and space with those of the proposed actions. Legacy soil disturbance that has occurred as a result of past activities forms the foundation of the soil condition on the landscape today. Past activities within the project area that could be considered detrimental to the soil resource have been accounted for in the existing conditions of this document. The proposed activities have also been accounted for in the Affected Environment section of this document. The alternative developed for this project does not have the potential to result in detrimental direct or indirect effects to the soil resource; therefore there is no potential for cumulative adverse effects to the soil resource. There are no future foreseeable activities that have the potential to impact the soil resource, therefore future actions would be analyzed and documented in a separate document. Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable or irreversible commitment of soil resources is expected from this project.

3.6 Scenic Resources

Affected Environment The project area for the scenery analysis is the ¼ mile length area that is viewed from Mill Creek roadway and Terraces boardwalk and fishing deck. The project area is part of the Terraces complex area that includes the Terraces picnic area above the project site, parking for summer and winter users on both sides of the roads and an accessible interpretive/fishing boardwalk, which meanders along Mill Creek for approximately 800 feet. Key amenities include: access points to the stream along with an interpretive signs and fishing deck at it western terminus with a 50 foot by 30 foot water pool adjacent to the deck. The landscape character is a narrow canyon with side slopes of shrub, maple and conifer and a riparian vegetation type within the flood plain of the stream. A 24 foot wide two-way road that is offset from the stream by 40 to 100 feet, follows the north side of its alignment through the entire project area. A 133-vehicle parking lot and a smaller 6-vehicle parking lot are located on the north side of the roadway with a vegetated island between the larger parking lot and the roadway. There is also a driveway access to the Mill Creek Guard Station on the north side of the road. On the south side of the roadway there are four smaller 4-8 vehicle parking lots with accessible parking stalls that provide access to the boardwalk and fishing deck. These parking areas are separated by vegetated islands of low shrubs and plants. An accessible restroom is located at the west end of these parking lots.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 33

The existing landscape integrity is intact and meets the Forest Plan scenic integrity objective of “High”, as these amenities are valued in this developed natural appearing landscape and the built environment does not dominate the viewed landscape for beyond the ¼ mile of the project area. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the project area would remain as it currently exists. No changes would occur to Mill Creek channel, the Mill Creek dam, fishing pier, or boardwalk. The pool area above the dam could be dredged to provide a deep pool for fishing. No changes would occur within Porter Fork Creek project, and as such, no effect to the scenic integrity are expected for either area. Alternative 2: The Proposed Action The removal of the some of the amenities found at the Mill Creek Terraces boardwalk area include changes to the built environment character and could have an effect on users. The amenities that would be removed are potential opportunities to fish in a pooled area (approximately 50 foot by 30 foot), a viewing deck on dam abutment, interpretive panels, and approximately 240 feet of boardwalk. For local users the fishing pier is a valued part of the built environment for this section of the Canyon because it provides the structure and water pool to cast a fishing line for people of all abilities. For this alternative, the dam, viewing platform, accessible pier and fishing access to a pooled area on Mill Creek would be permanently removed. No other opportunities that would incorporate this type of built feature are planned into the future for Mill Creek. This would create a long term effect to the local visitor who is aware of these amenities in the Canyon. For the casual visitor that is not aware of these amenities there would be a short term change in the viewed landscape until vegetation has been established. Approximately 240 feet of boardwalk would be permanently removed to accommodate the new stream channel construction to a more natural gradient. In the short term this may have an effect on the local visitor, but more than likely the knowledge of this section of boardwalk would fade in their memory because of remaining canopy cover meandering boardwalk sections that would remain along the stream. Part of the trail may be reconstructed in this area as the new stream section is installed and stabilized. Replacement of the rest of the boardwalk and new public access points to the stream would have a short term effect on the local visitor because of the change from their historic experience. Once vegetation is re-establish the character and access would become the new historic reference point and their experience would also improve. Stream channel construction to a more natural gradient may have a short term effect on the visual integrity of the area to the local and causal visitors until vegetation has re-established. Because of construction and revegetation methods proposed for this alternative the stream should eventually appear natural when viewed from the boardwalk and roadway. Because Porter Fork weir abutment is located away from roadways and public interaction, removal of weir and stream channel construction would have a short term visual effect until vegetation has established on the stream banks for both the local and casual visitor.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 34

Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative adverse effects as a result of past, present or future projects in the Mill Creek canyon area that would result from activities that move away from a “High” scenic integrative objective in a developed natural appearing landscape character theme. No irretrievable or irreversible commitment of scenic resources is expected from this project.

3.7 Vegetation

Affected Environment The lower end of the project boundary is located approximately eight miles east of Mill Creek, Utah in Mill Creek Canyon (Township 1S, Range 2E, SBM sections 26-28, 34; Figure 1). The spatial scope for this analysis is the immediate project area. All of the work associated with this project is in Mill Creek or in the area immediately surrounding Mill Creek. Literature, records, topographic maps and aerial photos were reviewed to determine potential habitat for any threatened, endangered or sensitive plant (TES) species (USDA-Forest Service, 2009). Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the project area would remain as it currently exists. No changes would occur to the Mill Creek dam, fishing pier, boardwalk, the Porter Fork weir, or the channels within the Mill Creek and Porter Fork. No vegetation would be disturbed, and as such, no impacts to vegetation or TES species are expected. Alternative 2: The Proposed Action Federally Listed Affected Species The following list includes endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species known to occur in Salt Lake County that could be impacted by the proposed action (Table 3.7.1). The list was compiled from the FWS’s Federally Listed and Proposed (P) Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed (P) and Candidate (C) Species and Critical Habitat in Utah by County, last updated August 2013 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014a). Table 3.7.1: Impact Analysis Summary for Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, Proposed or Candidate Species - Plants Species Status Determination Ute ladies' tresses, ESA Threatened No effect. See discussion. Spiranthes diluvialis

Effects of the Proposed Action Ute ladies' tresses: Spiranthes diluvialis habitat is moist, seasonally flooded soils near wetland meadows, springs, lakes, and streams. Plants typically inhabit point bars, floodplains, and streambanks with low-growing, relatively sparse grass or forbs below 7000feet. No suitable

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 35

potential habitat was found within the project areas. The project area is in the upland several hundred feet from the river. There would be no effect to this species by the proposed action. Forest Service Sensitive Species Affected Species The following list includes sensitive species that could be impacted by the proposed action (Table 3.7.2). The list was compiled from the most recent update of the Intermountain Region (R4) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 2013).

Table 3.7.2: Impact Analysis Summary for Forest Service Region 4 Sensitive Species - Plants Wheelers Angelica, Angelia USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. See discussion. wheeleri Dainty moonwort, USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for Botrychium crenulatum this species. No further discussion. Slender moonwort, USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for Botrychium lineare this species. No further discussion. Wasatch fiweed , Corydalis USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. See discussion. caseana spp. Brachycarpa Brownie lady's slipper, USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for Cypripedium fasciculatum this species. No further discussion. Lesser yellow lady’s slipper, USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for Cypripedium parviflorum this species. No further discussion. Wasatch Shooting Star, USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for Dodecatheon utahense this species. No further discussion. Wasatch Draba, Draba USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. See discussion. brachystylis Burkes Draba, Draba burkei USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for this species. No further discussion. Rockcress draba, Draba USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for glabosa this species. No further discussion. Maguire whitlow-grass USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for Draba maguirei this species. No further discussion. Santaquin draba , Draba USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for santaquinensis this species. No further discussion. Cronquist's daisy, Erigeron USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for cronquistii this species. No further discussion. Garrets fleabane, Erigeron USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for garrettii this species. No further discussion. Logan buckwheat, USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for Eriogonum loganum this species. No further discussion. Utah ivesia, Ivesia utahensis USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for this species. No further discussion. Wasatch Jamesia, Jamesia USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. See discussion. americana var. macrocalyx Wasatch pepperwort, USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for Lepidium montanum var. this species. No further discussion. Alpinum

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 36

Garrett's baldder pod, USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for Lesquerella garrettii this species. No further discussion. Alpine poppy, Papavar USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for radicatum ssp. Kluanense this species. No further discussion. Cache penstemon, USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for Penstemon compactus this species. No further discussion. Cottam cinquefoil, USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for Potentilla cottamii this species. No further discussion. Uinta Greenthread, USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for Thelesperma pubescens this species. No further discussion. Frank Smith's violet, Viola USFS R4 Sensitive No Impact. No ground disturbing activity within habitat for frank-smithii this species. No further discussion. Source: USDA-Forest Service, 2013 Effects of the Proposed Action This section addresses the projected impacts to the Forest Service Intermountain Region (R4) sensitive species that are known to occur or have suitable habitat in Salt Lake County. Effects Determination and Rationale Angelia Wheeleri: Habitat: Wet Meadows, Bogs associated with Riparian communities 5,600- 10,000 feet. No individuals or populations were located during field surveys (2013) at proposed project sites and only minimal habitat exists. There would be no impact to this species by the proposed action. Corydalis caseana spp. Brachycarpa: Habitat: Grows in and around riparian areas, seeps, springs and stream banks. (Elevation: 6,200-10,000 feet). No individuals or populations were located during field surveys (2013) at proposed project sites. There is one existing population within the project area, but there are no ground disturbing activities taking place in or around the population. There will be no impact to this species by the proposed action. Draba brachystylis: Habitat: The Wasatch draba grows in moist locations on steep rocky slopes within aspen, white fir, or Douglas fir communities at elevations between 5,500 and 9,850 feet. It generally flowers between June and July. No suitable potential habitat was found within the project area during field surveys (2013). There will be no impact to this species by the proposed action. Jamesia Americana var macrocalyx: Habitat: Wasatch Jamesia is a perennial shrub that occurs on rocky substrates and cliffs that also may grow in cracks and crags. (Elevation: 5692-9005 feet). The project area was surveyed (2013) and areas where ground disturbing activities would occur as outlined in the proposed action are considered more riparian in nature, and did not have suitable habitat for Wasatch Jamesia. There are previously recorded populations within the project area but are not associated with ground disturbing activities in the proposed action. There would be no impact to this species by the proposed action. Cumulative Effects The alternatives developed for this project (alternatives 1 and 2) do not have the potential to result in detrimental direct or indirect effects to the vegetation; therefore there is no potential for cumulative adverse effects to the threatened, endangered or Forest Service sensitive plant species.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 37

Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable or irreversible commitment of botanical resources is expected from this project.

3.8 Water and Riparian Resources

Affected Environment The sub-watershed boundary (Headwaters Mill Creek, HUC#160202040301) is used as the geographic boundary to determine the environmental effects of this project at both the project and cumulative levels. The project area elevation is about 6,100 feet. From data at the Utah State University Utah Climate Center, precipitation is about 24 inches per year at Mt. Dell Reservoir, a station in Parleys Canyon located north of Mill Creek Canyon. In Utah most precipitation occurs from summer thunderstorm activities and winter snowfall. Thunderstorms generally occur as cloudbursts that may drop heavy precipitation along a narrow path (Ashcroft et al. 1992). The watershed is approximately 13,900 acres and is oval shaped in an east-west direction. Mill Creek is the main stream with Porter Fork and other tributaries contributing water to Mill Creek. Mill Creek and tributary stream banks are mostly composed of fine sediments and the stream bed is composed of gravel and cobble with fine sediments moving through it. Small ephemeral stream channels are located on slopes that drain into the perennial river channel. Snowmelt dominates the hydrology of the Mill Creek drainage, although occasional summer thunderstorms occur in the area. At the Forest Boundary, Mill Creek is about 20 feet wide and at Mill Creek Dam is about 15 feet wide. In Porter Fork the stream is about 8 feet wide. Based on information from US Geological Survey station data, average annual discharge is 9 to 15 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the mouth of Mill Creek canyon (USGS Station #10170000) and 6.5 to 9.5 cfs on Mill Creek at Elbow Fork (USGS Station #10169800). The Mill Creek watershed is not a municipal watershed for Salt Lake City. Almost all of the stream channels in the project area are in good condition and stable as indicated by deep-rooted willows along the banks of Mill Creek at the Mill Creek Dam and rock in stream banks along Porter Fork. In the Mill Creek Dam area, the riparian area occurs along the stream channel where willows grow along Mill Creek. The riparian area extends about 45 feet from the channel edge along 150 feet of the stream above the dam for a total area of 6,750 square feet. In the Porter Fork project area, the riparian area is very narrow, about 1 foot from the stream edge. In the project area, the riparian area and wetland area are in the same location. Floodplains are defined by Executive order 11988 as “lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters”. Using this definition, there are no floodplains in the project area because the streams are relatively steep and do not flood very far from the channel’s edge. The upland areas have good ground cover and have very little accelerated erosion as indicated by lack of rilling and soil depositional features. Mill Creek and Tributaries (Jordan River Basin) are classified by the State of Utah to support beneficial uses 2B, 3A, and 4. The beneficial uses of streams within these watersheds, as designated by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality, are:

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 38

• Class 2B – protected for recreation • Class 3A – protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic species • Class 4 – protected for agricultural uses. The numeric water quality standards can be found in Section R317-2, Utah Administrative Code, Standards of Quality of Waters of the State (Utah, State of. 2014). In addition to the state designated beneficial uses, the State of Utah has designated all surface waters geographically located within the outer boundaries of U.S. National Forests whether on public or private lands as being High Quality Waters - Category 1. Mill Creek and Tributaries within the project area of analysis are considered “High Quality Waters – Category 1” and are subject to the State of Utah’s Anti-Degradation Policy. The policy requires that existing high water quality be maintained and that new point-source discharges are prohibited. Control of non-point sources of pollution is required to the extent feasible through implementation of best management practices (Utah, State of. 2014). The State of Utah has determined that the water quality of Mill Creek within Mill Creek Canyon meets State water quality standards and their beneficial uses for which they have been assessed (Utah, State of. 2010). Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action The direct and indirect effects to water resources would be that water quality (sedimentation) would remain unchanged from existing conditions because no treatments would be implemented. The direct and indirect effects to water resources would be that wetlands and floodplains would remain unchanged from existing conditions because no treatments would be implemented. At the Mill Creek Dam area, the riparian/wetland area extends about 45 feet from the channel edge along the stream above the dam within the project area. In Porter Fork project area, riparian/wetland area is very narrow about 1 foot from the stream edge. Alternative 2: Proposed Action The direct and indirect effects to water resources would be a short-term increase in sediment entering the stream when the temporary diversion dam is constructed in Mill Creek above the project area. This is due to the placement of sandbags and plastic sheeting in the stream channel. Sedimentation would also occur when the water is diverted back into the new channel toward the end of the project. When the temporary diversion dam is constructed, increased sedimentation is expected to occur for about one-half hour until water is diverted into the pipeline that would be used to dewater the construction area. When water is turned into the new channel, turbidity is expected to increase and last for about one hour when sediment that is in the new channel bottom is washed downstream. Forest Hydrologist from the UWCNF observed that a 100 foot-long new stream channel that was constructed in a side channel that flows into Big Cottonwood Creek had increased turbidity for about one hour, until the sediments were removed from the new channel bottom. In summary, the small sedimentation amount that is expected to increase the turbidity in Mill Creek should have little adverse effects on aquatic organisms because there would be very little sediment and the time of sedimentation is short.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 39

For the Porter Fork weir and stream channel near the Pelton wheel, similar effects are expected except that much less sedimentation should occur because the site disturbance area is much smaller, only about 20 linear feet along the stream. Very little effect to aquatic organisms is expected. The direct and indirect effects to wetlands would be a temporary removal of the existing willow- type riparian/wetlands area until a new riparian/wetland area is constructed by replanting of wetland plants along the new stream channel. The area where riparian/wetland would be created will be along 240 feet of the new stream channel. It is expected that there would be very little change in the amount of riparian wetland area because new willow riparian/ wetland area would be re-planted about 15 feet on each side of the channel which is a little more area than where the existing willows would be removed before constructing the new channel. No effects to floodplains are expected. Cumulative Effects The State of Utah has determined that the water quality of Mill Creek within Mill Creek Canyon meets State water quality standards and their beneficial uses for which they have been assessed. Past and present and ongoing activities have resulted in the water resource’s existing condition. The proposed action is expected to have very little effect on sediment reaching streams. The cumulative effects of Alternative 2 on water resources is expected to have very little change in water quality because of the past and present activities are not causing water quality degradation of streams within watersheds that drain the project area as indicated by the water in the Mill Creek drainage meeting Utah water quality standards. In the future, the reasonably foreseeable actions in Mill Creek drainage are not expected to change water quality of the streams, springs, or wetlands very much. Cumulatively, very little change in water quality is expected from the identified actions. For wetlands and floodplains, the primary past and present activities that have effects are motorized roads and trails and recreation facilities and summer homes along Mill Creek and Porter Fork. Roads built in the past have impacted some of the wetlands/riparian areas in Mill Creek Canyon however the remaining riparian/wetlands areas appear to be functioning properly. Cumulatively, there is expected to be very little change in riparian/wetland areas in Mill Creek Canyon as a result of the proposed action. It is expected that after the proposed project is completed there will be very little adverse direct or indirect effects to riparian/wetlands areas in the project area. No effects to floodplains are expected form the proposed action and would result in no cumulative effects. Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable or irreversible commitment of water resources is expected from this project because no water is taken from the area and very little effect to water quality of streams or riparian/wetland is expected.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 40

4. REFERENCES Cultural Resources Chamberlin, Ralph V. 1911. Ethno-botany of the Goshute Indians of Utah. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 2(5):329-405. Lancaster, Pa. Flanigan, T. 2014. Cultural Resources Report: Mill Creek Stream Improvement for the Salt Lake Ranger District. Salt Lake City, UT. 11 p. Keller, Charles, L. 2001. The Lady in the Ore Bucket: A history of Settlement and Industry in the Tri-Canyon Area of the Wasatch Mountains. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) 2014. Letter of Determination of Significance and Effect. February 28, 2014. USDA-Forest Service. 2014. Letter to State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). February 11, 2014. 2 p. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Alexander, R. R., and Hansen, A. E. 1986. Sand Bed Load in a Brook Trout Stream. North American Journal Of Fisheries Management, 6:9-23. Condrat, C. (2013). Mill Creek Restoration Project: Water Resources Technical Report for the Salt Lake Ranger District. Salt Lake City, UT. 14 p. Grover UDWR Personal Communication, M. (2014, January 28). Personal Communication (Email) With Mark Grover, UDWR Regarding Recent Amphibian Surveys In Mill Creek Canyon. Grover UDWR Personal Communication, M. (2013, September 18). Personal Communication With Mark Grover Regarding Boreal Toads In Little Cottonwood Canyon. Jones, J. I., Murphy, J. F., Collins, A. L., Sear, D. A., Naden, P. S., and Armitage, A. P. 2012. The Impact Of Fine Sediment On Macro-Invertebrates. River Research And Applications, 28:1055-1071. Robertson, M. J., Scruton, D. A., Gregory, R. S., and Clarke, A. K. 2006. Effect of Suspended Sediment On Freshwater Fish And Fish Habitat. Canadian Technical Report Of Fisheries And Aquatic Sciences , 2644: V+37 Pp. Schofield, K. A., Pringle, C. M., and Meyer, A. J. 2004. Effects of Increased Bedload on Algal- And Detrital-Based Stream Food Webs: Experimental Manipulation Of Sediment And Macroconsumers. Limnology And Oceanography, 49(4):900-909. Sorenson, D. L., Mccarthy, M. M., Middlebrooks, E. J., and Porcella, A. D. 1977. Suspended And Dissolved Solids Effects On Freshwater Biota: A Review. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report 600/3-77-042, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Or. Pp 72. U.S. Dept. Of Interior, National Biological Service, And Utah State University. 1997. (U. C. Center, Producer) Retrieved January 2014, From Utah Gap Analysis: An Environmental Information System. Predicted Habitat For Amphibian Species In Utah.: Http://Www.Utahcdc.Usu.Edu/Rsgis2/ Utah Division Of Wildlife Resources. 2005. Boreal Toad (Bufo Boreas Boreas) Conservation Plan. Utah Division Of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, Ut. Utah Division Of Wildlife Resources. 2005. Conservation Agreement And Strategy For Least Chub (Iotichthys Phlegethontis). Utah Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. P. 47.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 41

Utah Divison Of Wildlife Resources. 1997. Inventory of Sensitive Species And Ecosystems In Utah: Inventory Of Sensitive Vertebrate And Invertebrate Species - A Progress Report. Utah Reclamation And Mitigation Commission And Department Of The Interior Cooperative Agrement No. Uc-95-0015 Sect. V.A.10.A. Pp. 727. Whitton, K. 2014. Mill Creek Watershed Restoration: Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Technical Report for the Salt Lake Ranger District. Salt Lake City, UT 27 p. General References Hartman, K. 2014. Millcreek Restoration Project: Wildlife Resources Technical Report for the Salt Lake Ranger District. Salt Lake City, UT. 13 p. Rosier, C. 2014. Millcreek Restoration Project: Recreation Resources Technical Report for the Salt Lake Ranger District. Salt Lake City, UT. 12 p. State of Utah. 2007. Climate Change and Utah: The Scientific Consensus September 2007. USDA-Forest Service. 2003. Revised Forest Plan Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Wasatch- Cache National Forest, Region 4. Salt Lake City, Utah. USDA-Forest Service. 2003b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2003 Land and Resource Management Plan, Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 8236 Fed. Building 125 S. State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. USDA-Forest Service. 2013. Intermountain region (R4) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species Known / Suspected by Forest.19 pgs. Ogden, UT. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Federally Listed and Proposed Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate species list and Critical Habitat in Utah – Species List By County as of April 2, 2013. 11 p. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Listed species by county name for Salt Lake County. Environmental Conservation Online System. Site accessed on March 12, 2014. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips =49035 Whitton, K. 2014. Mill Creek Watershed Restoration: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Report for the Salt Lake Ranger District. Salt Lake City, UT 26 p. Scenic Resources Hatch, D. 2014. Scenic Resources Report for the Mill Creek Watershed Restoration for the Salt Lake Ranger District. 20 p. USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics, a Handbook for Scenery Management Soils USDA-Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1. USDA-Forest Service. 2011. FSM 2500 - Watershed and Air Management. Chapter 2550 - Soil Management Handbook. Supplement 2500-2011-1. Region 4. Ogden, UT. 14p. USDA-NRCS. 2009. Soil Survey and Interpretations Soil Survey of Summit, Salt Lake and Wasatch Counties, Utah. Weems, S. 2014. Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project: Soil Specialist Report for the Salt Lake Ranger District. Salt Lake City, UT. 13 p. Vegetation

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 42

Duncan, M. 2014. Mill Creek Restoration Project: Botany Technical Report for the Salt Lake Ranger District. Salt Lake City, UT. 14 p. Water and Riparian Resources Ashcroft, Gaylen L., Jensen, Donald T. and Jeffrey L. Brown. 1992. Utah Climate. Utah Climate Center, Utah State University, Logan ,UT. Condrat, C. 2013. Mill Creek Restoration Project: Water Resources Technical Report for the Salt Lake Ranger District. Salt Lake City, UT. 14 p. Utah, State of. 2010. Utah 2010 Integrated Report, Chapter 6, Utah Lake-Jordan River Watershed Management Unit. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality. Utah, State of. 2014. Standards of Quality of Waters of the State, Section R317-2, Utah Administrative Code. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 43

5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this EA: Name and Affiliation Contributions Paul Cowley IDT Leader Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF Tom Flanagan / Rachelle Green Cultural Resources Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF Michael Duncan Botany Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF Charles R. Condrat Hydrology Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF Karen Hartman Wildlife Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF Stacey Weems Soils Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF Kellie Whitton Fisheries Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF Charles Rosier Recreation Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF David Hatch Scenic Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Utah Division of Wildlife Resources TRIBES: Northern Ute Indian Tribe Goshute Tribe, Skull Valley Band

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 44

6. APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Response to Comments

This section summarizes the public involvement for this project. A list of agencies, organizations, and individuals contacted during scoping is presented. Comments received are listed in a table format by commenter and a response is noted to how that comment or concern would be addressed in this analysis. On August 5, 2013, the Salt Lake Ranger District of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF) issued a public scoping notice summarizing the Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project and inviting comments regarding the scope of the associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. A public scoping notice was mailed to 110 agencies, organizations, and individuals on the UWCNF mailing list. The notices were also posted on the UWCNF website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/uwcnf/landmanagement/projects or in hard-copy form to anyone requesting them. The scoping notice, copy of the letters and comments are available in the Project Record. A legal notice of proposed action was published in the Salt Lake Tribune, newspaper of record on August 11, 2013 initiating the start of the 30-day comment period concurrently with a public scoping period. The 30-day scoping period closed on September 10, 2013. Public Comments Received Four responses were received during the comment period (Table 1). Table 1 identifies each commenter, the date received, the name and affiliation of the commenter. A copy of the letters is in the project file. A content analysis was conducted on the public comments. Comments received from the proposed action and the response of the IDT to each comment or concern is presented in Table 2.

Table 1: Comments received Commenter Date Received Name Affiliation # 1 08/07/2013 Marian Hubbard Individual 2 08/09/2013 Will McCarvill Wasatch Mountain Club 3 08/27/2013 Margo Provost Nature, Nurture, Nourishment Log Haven 4 09/10/2013 Kevin Mueller Utah Environmental Congress

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 45

Table 2: Public comments received with their Forest Service responses Commenter Resource / Comment Comment Response Area # “Would you like notice of this sent out in the General Yes, you can send this notice to the Jordan River 1-1 Jordan River Watershed Council (JRWC) Watershed Council (JRWC) listserv listserv?” “We support the proposed action but have a few General / Thank you for your comment. Out of the scope of this project, however…rotenone is a 2-1 concerns regarding the use of Rotenone” Fisheries registered pesticide under the EPA and is being applied according to the label instructions. “We think there should be adequate warning Fisheries Out of the scope of this project before use and post treatment testing of water to We refer you to Utah Division of Wildlife ensure the safety of the public and pets.” Resources web page on the project. See 2-2 frequently asked questions in regards to safety concerns: http://wildlife.utah.gov/millcreek- restoration.html “Although the toxicity is low for mammals we Fisheries Out of the scope of this project, just want to make sure that the entire stretch of however…rotenone is a registered pesticide 2-3 creek to be treated is safe before public access under the EPA and is being applied according to is resumed.” the label instructions. “Potential Surge of Debris, Scouring of Stream Hydrology The proposed action will result in very little Banks, and Damage to Adjoining Property: debris and sediment entering Mill Creek and How would the proposed action affect the Porter Fork stream because water will be stream banks, the roadway and shoulders, and diverted away from the construction area when the private properties that adjoin the stream construction occurs. Increased sediment in the banks?” stream will occur for a short time when the diversion structure is constructed. Water will be diverted around the construction sites as the stream channel is reconstructed and the dam is removed. Excess material will be removed from the dewatered channel. Very little damage to the roadway or shoulders is expected because heavy equipment will be located off the road. Stream 3-1 banks adjoining private properties are not expected to be impacted because very little sediment or debris should be washed down the channel from the work site and the work sites are not located near private property. No scouring of stream banks should occur from this project because the project work will be done during low flow stream conditions and no increase in flow over existing conditions are expected from the project. For the steps on how the dam will be removed see the description of the project design criteria in section 2.2.2.1. See effects section for water resources for more information.

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 46

Table 2: Public comments received with their Forest Service responses Commenter Resource / Comment Comment Response Area # “Impact upon Insect Infestations in Millcreek Entomology Sediment generated from the project will have a Canyon: How would the proposed action affect short term impact on the aquatic insect the insect population in Millcreek Canyon?” community. Best management practices will be employed to minimize this impact. The effects 3-2 of rotenone are outside of the scope of this proposed project. Rotenone will kill fish and aquatic insects and we anticipate the drop of fish and aquatic insect populations (UDWR for more technical information) “Impact upon Activity in Millcreek Canyon: General Outside of the scope of this project. However, The USFWS and UDWR representatives have rotenone is a registered pesticide under the EPA 3-3 assured us that the active ingredients used to and is being applied according to the label kill the fish will have no adverse effects upon instructions. people or non-gilled species.” “UEC is highly supportive of the purpose and General need of the project. This support includes 4-1 Thank you for your comment components B-1 through B-4 of the proposed action” “UEC supports, in particular, the effort to General restore the fish and larger aquatic and riparian 4-2 Thank you for your comment. communities to as close to pre-settlement condition as is possible” “UEC supports the efforts described to restore General 4-3 Thank you for your comment. non-game fish communities” “It is excellent to see this focus on native fish General 4-4 community restoration as the primary Thank you for your comment. objective” “Finally, UEC supports full restoration of General native animal and plant communities in the 4-5 watershed … including when doing so means Thank you for your comment. decreased opportunities for other facilities or used, such as recreation”

Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment 47