Attachment_3_NEPA_Document.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Finding of No Significant Impact Determination of NEPA Adequacy

(DOI-BLM-WY-D090-2021-0038-DNA)

Dry Fork of Smiths Fork Perched Road

Crossing and Road Re-Alignment August 2021

PREPARING OFFICE

Bureau of Land Management

High Desert District

Kemmerer Field Office

430 North Highway 189

Kemmerer, WY 83101

307-828-4500

H ig h D e s e rt D is tric t - K e m m e re r F ie ld

O ffic e

B L

M

DOI-BLM-WY-D090-2021-0038-FONSI Page 2

Kemmerer Field Office

Title: Dry Fork of Smith's Fork Perched Road Crossing and Road Re-Alignment

DNA Number: DOI-BLM-WY-D090-2021-0038-DNA

Project Location:

Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming T.28N. R.118W. Section 28

Applicants: Bureau of Land Management, Kemmerer Field Office

Background:

The Smiths Fork Road 4213 parallels and crosses Smiths Fork stream in several locations. The configuration of the stream crossing in the project area results in a barrier to fish movement and disrupts natural fluvial processes of flood water dissipation and sediment conveyance. The general project design includes realignment of the roadway, establishment of a new stream crossing location and configuration, reclamation of the existing road and crossing location, and reconstruction of stable channel profile and floodplain connectivity along about 600 ft of channel.

The alternatives analyzed in the attached document are for the Proposed Action. The No Action alternative was analyzed in the EAs that were tiered to by the DNA (BLM 2002, BLM 2020).

BLM did not develop additional alternatives outside of those described above because the alternatives analyzed use a standard approach and technique to achieve the desired goals. The project is site specific to the stream crossing and therefore precluded analysis in a different location.

Based upon the information contained in the environmental assessment DOI-BLM-WY-D090-

2021-0038-DNA and the referenced EAs, all other information available to me, I have determined that the Proposed Action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. No new foreseeable environmental effects meet the definition of significance in 40 CFR § 1501.3, or exceed any significant effects described in the environmental impact statements for the Kemmerer Resource Management Plan (RMP).

Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. This finding is based on consideration of the potentially affected environment and the degree of the effects, as described below. There are no connected actions (40 CFR § 1501.9(e)(1)).

The Proposed Action has been designed to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to the extent feasible. The following Protective Measure(s) are identified in Chapter 3.6 of the referenced environmental assessment (BLM 2020), consistent with the BLM’s authority under

DOI-BLM-WY-D090-2021-0038-FONSI Page 3

43 CFR § 2805.12(a)(8), and would be included in any authorizations:

1. Any cultural and/or paleontological resources (historic or prehistoric site or object) discovered by the Holder, or any person working on his behalf, on public or federal land shall be immediately reported to the Authorized Officer. The Holder shall suspend all operations in the immediate area of such discovery until written authorization to proceed is issued by the Authorized Officer. An evaluation of the discovery will be made by the Authorized Officer to determine appropriate actions to prevent the loss of significant cultural or scientific values. The Holder will be responsible for the cost of evaluation and any decision as to proper mitigation measures will be made by the Authorized Officer after consulting with the Holder

(RMP, HR:4).

2. Avoid disruptive activity in elk calving areas from May 1 through June 30. (BLM

2010, Decision # 4013)

The Holder may request an exception in writing to the above wildlife stipulations.

Any exceptions to the stipulation must be approved in writing by the Authorized

Officer prior to conducting any surface disturbing or conducting activities disruptive to wildlife. The exception request must explain the reason(s) for the exception, why the proposed activities will not impact the species or their habitat, and the dates for which the exception is requested. Data supporting the exception must accompany the written request.

This finding is based on my consideration of the Council on Environmental Quality’s criteria for significance (40 CFR § 1501.3(b)), both with regard to the potentially affected environment and to the degree of the effects described in the DNA and referenced EAs.

Potentially Affected Environment

The project would occur within the Kemmerer Field Office boundaries and would have local impacts on the resources similar to and within the scope of those described and considered within the RMP and its respective EIS. The project is an action that would disturb or re-disturb approximately 0.9 acres of BLM administered public land that does not have known or identified international, national, regional, or state-wide importance.

Degree of Effects

The following have been considered in evaluating the degree of the effects (40 CFR §

1501.3(b)(2)), as appropriate to the Proposed Action:

1. Short and Long-term Effects

This project neither establishes a precedent nor represents a decision in principle about future actions. The Proposed Action was considered in the context of present, and reasonably foreseeable actions upon the environment by the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action is not

DOI-BLM-WY-D090-2021-0038-FONSI Page 4 unusual and significant impacts are not expected. It is not anticipated that the approval of the

Proposed Action will create any long- or short-term effects in conjunction with any other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects based on the scope of the overall project at each communications site.

2. Beneficial and Adverse Effects

The Proposed Action would affect resources as described in Section 3 of the EA for soils and aquatic organisms (BLM 2020) and described in the Environmental Impacts section in the EA for both soils and cultural resources (BLM 2002). Adverse impacts are expected during construction and reclamation activities to soils and wildlife in the area but are expected to be temporary, short in duration, and negligible due to the relatively small area of disturbance in proportion to the available habitat. The application of project timing stipulations and reclamation requirements provide protections for wildlife during critical periods. No loss of Priority Habitat

Management Area (PHMA) will occur because the project is not in a PHMA. Application of best management practices (BMPs) would minimize soil disturbance during construction and operation activities. Beneficial impacts to aquatic organisms are expected as indicated in section

1.3 of the design report (see attachments) goal numbers 3 and 4, as well as in chapter 3.1 of the

DOI-BLM-WY-2020-0038-EA NEPA document.

3. Effects on Public Health and Safety

No aspect of the Proposed Action would have a negative effect on public health and safety as determined through scoping. The effect of the Proposed Action on the quality of the human environment will be considered low due to the amount of proposed surface disturbance. The existing road would be reclaimed and the new road would have a footprint of less than 0.3 acres.

The Proposed Action is not unique or unusual and represents standard practices that are industry standards for roadway construction, road reclamation, as well as stream channel stabilization.

4. Effects that would Violate Federal, State, Tribal, or Local Law Protecting the Environment

No park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas will be affected under the Proposed Action. Historic properties were not identified as a result of a

Class III cultural resource inventory. The Proposed Action would have no potential to affect known cultural resources or historic properties. It was determined through internal scoping that there is no potential for the Proposed Action to adversely affect any threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 or their habitat. The Proposed Action is consistent with all Federal, State, local laws, and requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

Authorized Official: ______________________________ __________________

William A. Mier Date

Field Manager, Kemmerer Field Office

DOI-BLM-WY-D090-2021-0038-DNA

July 2021

Bureau of Land Management

High Desert District

Kemmerer Field Office

430 North Highway 189

Kemmerer, WY 83101

307-828-4500

H ig h D e s e rt D is tric t - K e m m e re r F ie ld

O

Worksheet

The signed CONCLUSION at the end of this worksheet is part of an interim step in the BLM’s internal analysis process and does not constitute an appealable decision; however, it constitutes an administrative record to be provided as evidence in protest, appeals and legal procedures.

OFFICE: Kemmerer Field Office

TRACKING NUMBER: DOI-BLM-WY-D090-2021-0038-DNA

PROPOSED ACTION TITLE: Dry Fork of Smiths Fork Perched Road Crossing and Road Re-

Alignment

LOCATION/LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 6th Principle Meridian, T.28N. R.118W. Section 28

A. Description of the Proposed Action and Any Applicable Mitigation Measures configuration of the stream crossing in the project area results in a barrier to fish movement and disrupts natural fluvial processes of flood water dissipation and sediment conveyance. Project treatments include road decommissioning and road construction to facilitate a realignment and new stream crossing.

The project area is located approximately 25 miles north of Cokeville, Wyoming (via Hwy 232 and Smith Fork Rd.) on BLM property (42°25’8.21” North 110°52’9.17” West). The existing stream crossing at the project site is an approximately 6 ft round Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) culvert. The culvert outlet is perched, which results in a fish passage barrier to fish movement and disrupts natural fluvial processes of flood water dissipation and sediment conveyance.

Identified project goals include:

1. Reduce sediment inputs to the watershed;

2. Improve roadway stability and safety at the stream crossings;

3. Improve fluvial function and aquatic habitat conditions; and

4. Provide fish passage for Northern Leatherside Chub and other native fish species.

The general project design includes realignment of the roadway, establishment of a new stream crossing location and configuration, reclamation of the existing crossing location, and reconstruction of stable channel profile and floodplain connectivity along 600 ft of channel.

B. Land Use Plan (LUP) Conformance

LUP Name: Kemmerer Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management

Plan (RMP)

Date Approved: May 24, 2010

The Proposed Action is in conformance with the applicable LUPs because it is specifically provided for in the following LUP decisions:

• Goal BR:3 Manage for the biological integrity and habitat function of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to sustain and optimize distribution and abundance of all native, desirable nonnative, and special status fish and wildlife species consistent with habitat capability.

• Goal BR:4 Manage or restore forage vegetation and habitat on BLM-administered lands within the planning area to facilitate the conservation, recovery and maintenance of populations of native, desirable non-native, and special status species (BLM sensitive species, WGFD SGCN and NSS 1-4 species, USFWS listed, proposed, or petition species) consistent with appropriate local, state, and federal management plans.

• Goal BR:5 Provide quality habitat to support the expansion in range (i.e., introduction, reintroduction, augmentation, etc.) of identified high priority fish, wildlife, and plant species, as appropriate on public lands in the planning area throughout the life of the plan.

• Decision 4002 BR:3-5.1 BR:3-5.2 BR:3-5.3 BR:6.1 BR:6.2 BR:6.3 BR:6.4 BR:7. BR:7.2

BR:7.3 BR:7.4 BR:8.1 BR:8.2 BR:8.3 Mitigate impacts as close to the affected area, and for the same or similar impacted species or habitats, as possible.

• Decision 4006 BR:3-5.7 BR:3-5.2 BR:7.12 BR:7.13 BR:7.14 Identify distribution, key habitat areas, and special needs to develop management plans and conservation measures upon designation of threatened, endangered, and other special status species.

• Decision 4026 BR:3-5.1 BR:3-5.3 BR:3-5.4 BR:3-5.5 BR:3-5.6 BR:6.1 BR:6.3 BR:6.5

BR:6.6 BR:6.7 BR:7.1 BR:7.3 BR:7.5 BR:7.6 BR:7.7 BR:8.1 BR:8.3 BR:8.4 BR:8.5

BR:8.6 Human-caused barriers to fish passage could be removed where appropriate and

(or) feasible to provide for more genetic diversity and population stability. Human-caused barriers may be placed in some situations to protect conservation populations of fish species from hybridization or competition.

Other document: Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments

(ARMPA) for the Rocky Mountain Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions.

Date Approved: Sept 22, 2015

C. Identify the applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and other related documents that cover the Proposed Action.

The Proposed Action is subject to the Approved Kemmerer Resource Management Plan/ Record of Decision (RMP/ROD), as approved on May 24, 2010 and amended by the Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendments (ARMPA) for the Rocky Mountain Region, approved 9/22/2015

(BLM 2015). The Proposed Action is in conformance with the RMP as amended.

Smiths Fork Road Improvement Environmental Assessment, WY-090-EA02-079, approved

6/19/2002 (BLM 2002). The proposed action is consistent with approved road improvement actions analyzed within this document.

“Dry Fork” Road Re-Alignment, DOI-BLM-WY-2020-0038-EA, approved 9/1/2020 (BLM

2020). The proposed action is consistent with the approved road realignment and stream crossing actions analyzed within this document.

D. NEPA Adequacy Criteria

1. Is the new proposed action a feature of, or essentially similar to, an alternative analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? Is the project within the same analysis area, or if the project location is different, are the geographic and resource conditions sufficiently similar to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? If there are differences, can you explain why they are not substantial?

X Yes

___No

Documentation of answer and explanation:

The project area is in the same analysis area as the WY-090-EA02-079, geographic and resource conditions are similar to those analyzed in the WY-090-EA02-079 and DOI-BLM-WY-090-

2020-0038-EA NEPA documents. The DOI-BLM-WY-090-2020-0038-EA analyzed similar disturbance for road re-routing, installing proper drainage and erosion control structures and protection of aquatic resources downstream from excessive sedimentation in section 04 of T28N, R118W 6th Principle Meridian.

2. Is the range of alternatives analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s) appropriate with respect to the new proposed action (or existing proposed action), given current environmental concerns, interests, and resource values?

The range of alternatives analyzed in the referenced applicable NEPA documents is appropriate.

The alternatives in the EAs covered the analysis area (WY-090-EA02-079) and road re-routing, installing proper drainage and erosion control structures and protection of aquatic resources downstream from excessive sedimentation (DOI-BLM-WY-090-2020-0038). Both documents also considered a No Action alternative as a baseline for analysis of the proposed actions. The range of alternatives analyzed in the referenced applicable NEPA documents is appropriate.

3. Is existing analysis adequate in light of any new information or circumstances (such as, rangeland health standards assessment; recent endangered species listings, updated list of

BLM sensitive species)? Can you reasonably conclude that new information and new circumstances would not substantially change the analysis of the new proposed action?

No new information or circumstances have come to light that would change the analysis of the new proposed action. The existing analysis and conclusion in the Kemmerer RMP/EIS, WY-090-

EA02-079, and DOI-BLM-WY-090-0038-EA are sufficiently detailed and broad enough in scope to encompass all current information and circumstances for the proposed action. It is reasonable to conclude that the few changes that have occurred between the existing analysis and the new proposed action would not substantially change the analysis of the new proposed action.

4. Are the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from implementation of the new proposed action similar (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document?

X Yes

The DOI-BLM-WY-090-2020-0038-EA analyzed similar disturbance for road re-routing, installing proper drainage and erosion control structures and protection of aquatic resources downstream from excessive sedimentation in section 04 of T28N, R118W 6th Principle Meridian.

The Proposed Action plans to realign the roadway, establish a new stream crossing location and configuration, reclaim the existing crossing location, and reconstruct stable channel profile and floodplain connectivity along about 600 ft of channel.

5. Are the public involvement and interagency review associated with existing NEPA document(s) adequate for the current proposed action?

WY-090-EA02-079, and DOI-BLM-WY-090-0038-EA and the Proposed Action were reviewed by and interdisciplinary team to assist in defining issues, alternatives, and appropriate mitigation measures. Based on the size and scope of the proposed project, external scoping was determined to be unnecessary.

E. Persons/Agencies/BLM Staff Consulted:

Name Title Resource Represented

Alex Gardiner BLM/HDD Zone Fisheries

Biologist

Project lead and Fisheries resources analysis

Doug Tingwall BLM/KFO Archaeologist Provided the cultural heritage resource analysis

Jessica Vogt BLM/KFO Planning and

Environmental Specialist

Provided the wildlife resource analysis and NEPA review

CONCLUSION

Plan Conformance:

X This proposal conforms to the applicable land use plan/s.

__ This proposal does not conform to the applicable land use plan

Determination of NEPA Adequacy

X Based on the review documented above, I conclude that this proposal conforms to the applicable land use plan and that the NEPA documentation fully covers the proposed action and constitutes BLM’s compliance with the requirements of the NEPA.

__ The existing NEPA documentation does not fully cover the proposed action.

Additional NEPA documentation is needed if the project is to be further considered.

Signature of Project Lead Date

Signature of NEPA Coordinator Date

Signature of the Responsible Official Date

Note: The signed Conclusion on this Worksheet is part of an interim step in the BLM’s internal decision process and does not constitute an appealable decision. However, the lease, permit, or other authorization based on this DNA is subject to protest or appeal under 43 CFR Part 4 and the program-specific regulations.

ATTACHMENTS:

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

Decision Record (DR)

Interdisciplinary Scoping Worksheet

Design Report

Decision Record

(DOI-BLM-WY-D090-2021-0038-DNA)

August 2021

Bureau of Land Management

High Desert District

Kemmerer Field Office

430 North Highway 189

Kemmerer, WY 83101

307-828-4500

H ig h D e s e rt D is tric t - K e m m e re r F ie ld

O

DOI-BLM-WY-D090-2021-0038-DR Page 1

Decision Record

Kemmerer Field Office

Summary configuration of the stream crossing in the project area results in a barrier to fish movement and disrupts natural fluvial processes of flood water dissipation and sediment conveyance.

The general project design includes realignment of the roadway, establishment of a new stream crossing location and configuration, reclamation of the existing crossing location, and reconstruction of stable channel profile and floodplain connectivity along about 600 ft of channel.

The Proposed Action will be located on the following public lands:

Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming T.28N. R.118W. Section 28

Decision

It is my decision to select the Proposed Action with the application of the identified mitigation measure(s), as described and considered in the attached Designation of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

1. Consistency with National Policy:

The decision to approve the Proposed Action is based upon the following:

The Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1701)

Conformance with the Land Use Plan: Kemmerer Field Office Record of Decision and

Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) (Approved May 24, 2010). It is specifically provided for in the following LUP decisions:

• Goal BR:3 Manage for the biological integrity and habitat function of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to sustain and optimize distribution and abundance of all native, desirable nonnative, and special status fish and wildlife species consistent with habitat capability.

• Goal BR:4 Manage or restore forage vegetation and habitat on BLM-administered lands within the planning area to facilitate the conservation, recovery and maintenance of populations of native, desirable non-native, and special status species (BLM sensitive species, WGFD SGCN and NSS 1-4 species, USFWS listed, proposed, or petition species) consistent with appropriate local, state, and federal management plans.

• Goal BR:5 Provide quality habitat to support the expansion in range (i.e., introduction, reintroduction, augmentation, etc.) of identified high priority fish, wildlife, and plant species, as appropriate on public lands in the planning area throughout the life of the plan.

• Decision 4002 BR:3-5.1 BR:3-5.2 BR:3-5.3 BR:6.1 BR:6.2 BR:6.3 BR:6.4 BR:7. BR:7.2

BR:7.3 BR:7.4 BR:8.1 BR:8.2 BR:8.3 Mitigate impacts as close to the affected area, and for the same or similar impacted species or habitats, as possible.

DOI-BLM-WY-D090-2021-0038-DR Page 2

• Decision 4006 BR:3-5.7 BR:3-5.2 BR:7.12 BR:7.13 BR:7.14 Identify distribution, key habitat areas, and special needs to develop management plans and conservation measures upon designation of threatened, endangered, and other special status species.

• Decision 4026 BR:3-5.1 BR:3-5.3 BR:3-5.4 BR:3-5.5 BR:3-5.6 BR:6.1 BR:6.3 BR:6.5

BR:6.6 BR:6.7 BR:7.1 BR:7.3 BR:7.5 BR:7.6 BR:7.7 BR:8.1 BR:8.3 BR:8.4 BR:8.5

BR:8.6 Human-caused barriers to fish passage could be removed where appropriate and

(or) feasible to provide for more genetic diversity and population stability. Human-caused

2. Selected Alternative:

The Dry Fork of Smith's Fork Perched Road Crossing and Road Re-Alignment alternative.

Project treatments include road decommissioning and road construction to facilitate a realignment and new stream crossing.

Compliance and Monitoring

• Any cultural and/or paleontological resources (historic or prehistoric site or object) discovered by the Holder, or any person working on his behalf, on public or federal land shall be immediately reported to the Authorized Officer. The Holder shall suspend all operations in the immediate area of such discovery until written authorization to proceed is issued by the Authorized Officer. An evaluation of the discovery will be made by the

Authorized Officer to determine appropriate actions to prevent the loss of significant cultural or scientific values. The Holder will be responsible for the cost of evaluation and any decision as to proper mitigation measures will be made by the Authorized Officer after consulting with the Holder (RMP, HR:4).

• Avoid disruptive activity in elk calving areas from May 1 through June 30. (BLM 2010, Decision # 4013)

The Holder may request an exception in writing to the above wildlife stipulations.

Any exceptions to the stipulation must be approved in writing by the Authorized

Officer prior to conducting any surface disturbing or conducting activities disruptive to wildlife. The exception request must explain the reason(s) for the exception, why the proposed activities will not impact the species or their habitat, and the dates for which the exception is requested. Data supporting the exception must accompany the written request.

3. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI):

Significance is formally defined by 40 CFR § 1501.3(b) as having two aspects: affected environment and degree of the effects of the action. Based upon the analysis of potential environmental impacts contained within the EA, I have determined that the Proposed Action will not have any significant impacts on the human environment; thus, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required. It is my decision to approve the Proposed Action, with implementation of the protective measure(s) identified in under Compliance and

Monitoring above, and site-specific Conditions of Approval applied to the permit.

DOI-BLM-WY-D090-2021-0038-DR Page 3

4. Public Involvement:

Scoping is an important part of the NEPA process and determines the scope of key issues related to a proposed action (40 CFR § 1501.9). Scoping can involve federal, state, and local government agencies, tribal governments, BLM resource specialists, industry representatives, local interest groups, and other members of the public.

The proposal was initially scoped October 2019 and July/August 2020. Comments received from BLM resource specialists helped to define the key issues for analysis, determine the data needs, and formulate a range of alternatives. Each discipline notifies the appropriate interest groups for review and comment of the Proposed Action, as appropriate for the project. Formal consultation with interest groups and the State Historic Preservation Office was not required as the project tiered to EAs previously scoped and found to have no impacts. Formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was not required.

The Proposed Action was not formally scoped to the general public after evaluation and consideration of the size of the project and previous analyses under the EAs that were tiered to in the DNA (BLM 2002, BLM 2020).

5. Rationale for Alternative Selected:

The decision to approve the Proposed Action is based upon the following: 1) consistency with the Kemmerer Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP); including the Approved

Resource Management Plan Amendments (ARMPA) for the Rocky Mountain Region

(approved September 21, 2015); 2) Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976; 3) federal, state, and county agency statutory requirements; 4) relevant resource and economic issues; 5) lack of potential significant impacts; and 6) meeting the purpose and need for the project.

Specifically, The Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C.

1701) and the RMP.

The Proposed Action and alternatives have been reviewed and found to be in conformance with the following BLM Land Use Plan goals and objectives:

• Goal BR:3 Manage for the biological integrity and habitat function of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to sustain and optimize distribution and abundance of all native, desirable nonnative, and special status fish and wildlife species consistent with habitat capability.

• Goal BR:4 Manage or restore forage vegetation and habitat on BLM-administered lands within the planning area to facilitate the conservation, recovery and maintenance of populations of native, desirable non-native, and special status species (BLM sensitive species, WGFD SGCN and NSS 1-4 species, USFWS listed, proposed, or petition species) consistent with appropriate local, state, and federal management plans.

• Goal BR:5 Provide quality habitat to support the expansion in range (i.e., introduction, reintroduction, augmentation, etc.) of identified high priority fish, wildlife, and plant species, as appropriate on public lands in the planning area throughout the life of the plan.

DOI-BLM-WY-D090-2021-0038-DR Page 4

• Decision 4002 BR:3-5.1 BR:3-5.2 BR:3-5.3 BR:6.1 BR:6.2 BR:6.3 BR:6.4 BR:7. BR:7.2

BR:7.3 BR:7.4 BR:8.1 BR:8.2 BR:8.3 Mitigate impacts as close to the affected area, and for the same or similar impacted species or habitats, as possible.

• Decision 4006 BR:3-5.7 BR:3-5.2 BR:7.12 BR:7.13 BR:7.14 Identify distribution, key habitat areas, and special needs to develop management plans and conservation measures upon designation of threatened, endangered, and other special status species.

• Decision 4026 BR:3-5.1 BR:3-5.3 BR:3-5.4 BR:3-5.5 BR:3-5.6 BR:6.1 BR:6.3 BR:6.5

BR:6.6 BR:6.7 BR:7.1 BR:7.3 BR:7.5 BR:7.6 BR:7.7 BR:8.1 BR:8.3 BR:8.4 BR:8.5

BR:8.6 Human-caused barriers to fish passage could be removed where appropriate and

(or) feasible to provide for more genetic diversity and population stability. Human-caused

With application of Protective Measures such as: Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), operator committed measures within surface use plans, applied mitigation, required Best

Management Practices (BMPs), and conditions of approval where required.

6. Appeal Procedures This decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR Part 4. If an appeal is taken, your notice of appeal must be filed in this office within 30 days from your receipt of this decision. The appellant has the burden of showing that the decision appealed from is in error.

If you wish to file a petition for a stay of the effectiveness of this decision during the time that your appeal is being reviewed by the Interior Board of land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, the petition for a stay must accompany your notice of appeal. A petition for a stay is required to show sufficient justification based on the standards listed on the attached document. Copies of the notice of appeal and petition for a stay must be submitted to the Interior Board of land

Appeals and the appropriate Office of the Solicitor (see 43 CFR §4.413) at the same time the original documents are filed with this office. Copy of the notice of appeal and petition at the same time the original documents are filed with this office. If you request a stay, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that a stay should be granted.

Standards for Obtaining a Stay

Except as otherwise provided by law or other pertinent regulations, a petition for a stay of a decision pending appeal shall show sufficient justification based on the following standards:

• The relative harm to parties if the stay is granted or denied

• The likelihood of the protestors’ success on the merits

• The likelihood of the immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted

• Whether the public interest favors granting the stay

Authorized Official: ______

William A. Mier Date

Field Manager, Kemmerer Field Office

FINAL DESIGN REPORT

DRY FORK SMITHS FORK ROAD

STREAM CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN

DOWNSTREAM SITE

LINCOLN COUNTY, WYOMING

Prepared For

Trout Unlimited

Prepared By

P. O. Box 8578, 140 E. Broadway, Suite 23, Jackson, Wyoming 83002

March 30, 2020

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project Area

1.2 Project Background

1.3 Project Goals and Objectives

2.0 Existing Conditions

2.1 Hydrology

2.2 Geomorphic Assessment

Channel Profile Channel Geometry Channel Pattern Bank Stability Sediment Attributes and Sediment Transport

3.0 Project Design Treatments

3.1 Road Realignment and Decommissioning

Road Construction Road Decommissioning

3.2 Stream Crossing Treatments

3.3 Channel and Floodplain Restoration

Hardened Riffle Scour Pools Bank Stabilization Treatments Floodplain Restoration

3.4 Exclusion Fencing

3.5 Revegetation

3.6 Project Implementation and Construction Quantities

4.0 Summary and Conclusions

5.0 References

Attachment A: Estimate of Project Costs

Dry Fork Smiths Fork – Downstream Site Design Report ii Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.

FIGURES

Figure 1. Photograph of existing culvert crossing outlet

Figure 2. Peak flow recurrence intervals (1.5 to 10-year) at the project site

Figure 3. Mean monthly flows at the project site derived from regional regression equations (Miselis 1999)

Figure 4. Longitudinal profile of the project reach

Figure 5. Cross Section depicting incision and typical riffle channel geometry in the upstream extent of the project reach

Figure 6. Cross Section depicting typical incision and typical riffle channel geometry in the middle of the project reach

Figure 7. Cross Section depicting perched left bank terrace and typical riffle channel geometry in the downstream extent of the project area

Figure 8. Active bed surface grain size class distribution in the project reach

Figure 9. Photograph depicting stream simulation culvert channel bed

TABLES

Table 1. Summary of channel geometry within the project reach

Table 2. Project reach BEHI data summary

Table 3. Characteristic grain size percentile and percent sediment type

Table 4. Project area hydraulic characteristics

Table 5. Design channel dimensions and characteristics

Table 6. Mesic reclamation seed mix specifications

Table 7. Upland reclamation seed mix specifications

Table 8. Treatment quantities summary

Table 9. Log and dormant hardwood cutting treatment quantities

Dry Fork Smiths Fork – Downstream Site Design Report 1 Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.

DESIGN REPORT

DRY FORK SMITHS FORK ROAD

STREAM CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN

DOWNSTREAM SITE

LINCOLN COUNTY, WYOMING

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc. (Biota) has been retained by Trout Unlimited to complete a stream crossing assessment and design project in the Dry Fork of the Smiths Fork, a tributary to the Smiths Fork in the Bear River watershed. The project team includes members from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lincoln County, and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

The project documented and analyzed existing conditions at the stream crossing location to support the identification of project designs that improve stream channel function, vehicular access, stream function, sediment entrainment, and fisheries values in the project area. The Design Report includes a discussion of site assessment; topographic and morphologic surveys within the project area; hydrologic and hydraulic analyses; and sediment transport modeling. The report also includes a description of project treatments designed to develop a functional self-maintaining channel morphology in the project area.

Project designs were developed based on Natural Channel Design principles to maximize stream channel function at the stream crossing. Stream restoration design techniques were applied to ensure that the proposed crossing structure will establish a roadway-stream crossing that enables critical fluvial processes of flow and sediment conveyance.

1.1 PROJECT AREA

The project area, shown on Sheet 1 of the design drawings, is located approximately 25 miles north of Cokeville, Wyoming (via Hwy 232 and Smith Fork Rd.) on BLM property (42°25’8.21” North 110°52’9.17” West). The existing stream crossing at the project site is an approximately 6 ft round Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) culvert. The culvert outlet is perched, which results in a fish passage barrier (Figure 1).

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

The Dry Fork of the Smiths Fork, a tributary to the Smiths Fork of the Bear River, provides valuable fisheries habitat for Northern Leatherside Chub, Bonneville Cutthroat Trout, and other native fishes. The Smiths Fork Road 4213 parallels and crosses the stream in several locations. The configuration of the stream crossing in the project area results in a barrier to fish movement and disrupts natural fluvial processes of flood water dissipation and sediment conveyance.

The project area reach of stream is deeply incised and unstable, and is prone to severe localized erosion and sedimentation. Bank erosion downstream of the existing crossing structure is currently threatening the stability of the road. The elevation of the perched culvert outlet results in a severe discontinuity in channel profile.

Dry Fork Smiths Fork – Downstream Site Design Report 2 Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.

Figure 1. Photograph of existing culvert crossing outlet.

1.3 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Project goals were identified to inform the project design effort, and were based upon feedback from project proponents, knowledge of fluvial processes and fishery biology, and site-specific analyses and investigations. Identified project goals included:

1. Reduce sediment inputs to the watershed;

2. Improve roadway stability and safety at the stream crossings;

3. Improve fluvial function and aquatic habitat conditions; and

4. Provide fish passage for Northern Leatherside Chub and other native fish species.

The generalized restoration strategy applied to achieve project objectives included the following three fundamental components:

1. Complete a field survey and assessment, site inventory, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, and sediment analysis;

2. Apply Natural Channel Design principles to develop restoration design plans that reduce sediment inputs to the watershed, as well as improve fluvial function and aquatic habitat conditions.

3. Identify roadway-stream crossing alternatives that enable critical fluvial processes of flow and sediment conveyance while improving roadway travel conditions.

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Project site existing conditions were evaluated in part by working with the project partner team to gather and synthesize available data related to past site surveys, recently completed projects, and past site observations. Existing conditions were also evaluated during a field survey completed in October of 2018.

Project area topographic data was collected with professional survey grade GPS equipment. Topographic data were collected to represent the stream channel, road grades, and site topography. The stream channel

Dry Fork Smiths Fork – Downstream Site Design Report 3 Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.

surveys included measurement of channel profile (thalweg), bed and bank features, (e.g. bankfull, top of bank), channel geometry, and planform attributes. The survey encompassed more than 1,900 linear feet of stream channel in the project vicinity. Sediment data were collected to determine surface size class distribution. Field data were also collected to describe bank stability using the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) model.

2.1 HYDROLOGY

The hydrology of the project reach was investigated using multiple analytical techniques that incorporate hydrologic modeling, open channel flow hydraulics, and regional regression equations. Fundamental investigations involved identification of bankfull discharge, which is the design discharge used for site assessment, analysis, and specific treatment development. Bankfull discharge is the flow rate, and bankfull stage is the corresponding water surface elevation at which instream water escapes the active channel and inundates the floodplain (i.e. when incipient flooding occurs). Bankfull discharge was selected as the primary hydrologic parameter for assessment and design purposes because it can be identified and corroborated through field investigations, as opposed to potential alternate parameters of dominant discharge (e.g., the flow rate responsible for the stable morphology) or effective discharge (e.g., the flow rate that transports the greatest fraction of the annual sediment load) that are primarily derived through analytical processes, without empirical corroboration.

Two methodologies were used to determine bankfull discharge, including: (1) regional regression equations that estimate peak flow rate at different recurrence intervals (Miller, 2003); and (2) using field-surveyed channel geometry and profile data in conjunction with calculated hydraulic roughness and standard open channel flow hydraulic analysis techniques. Results derived from the regional regression equations (Miller 2003) based upon drainage area (sq mi) and mean January precipitation (in) estimated bankfull discharge at 32 cfs (Figure 2). Results derived from the open channel flow hydraulic analysis indicated a bankfull discharge of 27 cfs. These results are in close agreement, and the bankfull estimate of 27 cfs was utilized for hydraulic analysis and design because it was derived based upon site specific field measurements and conditions.

Figure 2. Peak flow recurrence intervals (1.5 to 10-year) at the project site.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Pe ak

Q (c fs

Peak Flow Recurrence Interval (yrs)

Bankfull = 1.5

Dry Fork Smiths Fork – Downstream Site Design Report 4 Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.

Additional hydrologic investigation was completed using regional regression equations developed for the Wyoming Range (Miselis 1999) using basin characteristics of stream length, mean monthly precipitation, and channel slope as variables. The monthly equations chosen for this analysis have an average standard error of 0.31. Mean monthly flows calculated for the project area are shown in Figure 3. The mean monthly flows indicate that peak flows typically occur in the project area during the months of May and June with low flow (or no flow) occurring for approximately half the year from October to March (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Mean monthly flows at the project site derived from regional regression equations (Miselis 1999).

2.2 GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT

A geomorphic survey of the project area reach was performed in the fall of 2018. The geomorphic survey data were used to assess channel dimension, planform, and profile through the reach. The methods for the geomorphic assessment were based on the analysis techniques of Rosgen (NRCS 2007).

The planform of the project reach consists of regular and irregular confined meanders. Depositional features include point bars and lateral bars. The channel upstream of the crossing is a deeply incised, single thread channel with moderate entrenchment, moderate width/depth ratio, high sinuosity, and low slope.

Fine sediment depositions are frequent throughout the project area.

Channel Profile The channel profile through the project area was analyzed to investigate vertical stability including sub-reach slope, bed feature sequences and lengths, channel entrenchment, and influences of the road crossing.

A longitudinal profile of the project reach (Figure 4) depicts site conditions of channel thalweg (in red), bankfull elevations (in green), cross section locations (black asterisks), top of bank elevations (black dashes), and bankfull slope (dotted line). The channel profile upstream of the road crossing has reduced slope and widespread deposition, which is likely as a result of the backwater hydraulics created by the perched road crossing culvert.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

M ea n M on th ly Q

(c fs

Month

Figure 4. Longitudinal profile of the project reach.

Bankfull Slope 0.29%

Bankfull Slope 0.63%

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

El ev at io n (ft

Distance (ft)

Thalweg

Bankfull

Top of Bank

Xs-Location

Linear (US Bkfl Trend)

Linear (DS Bkfl Trend)

Culvert Crossing

XS 8

XS 7

XS 6

XS 5

XS 4

XS 3

XS 2

XS 1

Channel Geometry Cross sections surveyed within representative riffle bed features throughout the project reach were analyzed to quantify geometric attributes of the channel. The average bankfull channel width in the reach is 18 ft, the average mean riffle depth is 0.4 feet, the average width/depth ratio is 18, and the average entrenchment ratio is 1.9 (Table 1). Representative existing conditions channel cross sections are depicted below in Figures 5 to 7. The cross sections reflect the fact that the channel is moderately entrenched and deeply incised and has widespread excessive bank heights that facilitate undermining of vegetative root depth and significant inputs of fine sediment to the watershed.

Table 1. Summary of channel geometry within the project reach

Bankfull Width

(ft)

Bankfull Mean

Depth (ft)

Bankfull Max Depth

(ft)

Slope

Entrenchment Ratio

W/D Ratio

Bankfull Q (cfs)

18 0.4 1.0 0.57% 1.9 18 27

Figure 5. Cross Section depicting incision and typical riffle channel geometry in the upstream extent of the project reach.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

El ev at io n (f t)

Distance (ft)

XS-Grade Bankfull

Dry Fork Smiths Fork – Downstream Site Design Report 2 Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.

Figure 6. Cross Section depicting typical incision and typical riffle channel geometry in the middle of the project reach.

Figure 7. Cross Section depicting perched left bank terrace and typical riffle channel geometry in the downstream extent of the project area.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

El ev at io n (f t)

Distance (ft)

XS-Grade Bankfull

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

El ev at io n (f t)

Distance (ft)

XS-Grade Bankfull

Dry Fork Smiths Fork – Downstream Site Design Report 3 Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.

Channel Pattern Channel planform data were collected throughout the project area using field survey data and Geographic Information System (GIS) analyses. Data were used to investigate channel meander pattern, reach sinuosity, and valley attributes. The sinuosity of the project reach is relatively high at a value of 2.

Bank Stability Bank stability and sediment supply from bank erosion were evaluated to assess the lateral stability of the project area. The Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) model was applied throughout the project area to evaluate bank stability based on seven variables including bank height, root depth, root density, bank angle, surface protection, bank material, and stratification of bank material. The BEHI rating classifies bank instability by categories of ‘Very Low’, ‘Low’, ‘Moderate’, ‘High’, ‘Very High’, or ‘Extreme’. The BEHI ratings for the project reach ranged from Low to Very High with 31% of the surveyed bank length classified between High and Extreme (Table 2).

Table 2. Project reach BEHI data summary.

BEHI Rating Total Length (ft)

Percent of Project Area

Very Low 0 0% Low 826 68% Moderate 16 1% High 138 11% Very High 134 11% Extreme 106 9% Total 1220 100%

Sediment Attributes and Sediment Transport Sediment attributes and sediment transport processes were evaluated throughout the project areas to identify design treatments and conditions that will improve flow and sediment conveyance. The size distribution of surface grains within the project area was assessed using pebble counts that sampled randomly selected particles from active riffle bed features within the project area. Particle size distribution results are depicted in Figure 8. The characteristic grain sizes (i.e. D35, D50, D84) and percent sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder are shown in Table 3.

Dry Fork Smiths Fork – Downstream Site Design Report 4 Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.

Table 3. Characteristic grain size percentile and percent sediment type

Percentile Size (mm)

Sediment Type

Percent of Total

D16 8 silt/clay 0%

D35 13 sand 5%

D50 17 gravel 88%

D65 21 cobble 7%

D84 34 boulder 0%

D95 73

Figure 8. Active bed surface grain size class distribution in the project reach.

Sediment transport competence within the project area was analyzed using the active bed particle size distribution and existing riffle channel morphology. Table 4 contains hydraulic characteristics including velocity, shear stress, and stream power calculated for the project area. The calculated dimensional bankfull shear stress in the project reach is 0.2 lbs/ft2. This bankfull shear stress condition is capable of mobilizing a 38 mm particle according to a modified Shields curve depicting the incipient motion of sediment particles based on shear stress (Rosgen 2010). The results indicate that the reach is capable of mobilizing the approximate 84th percentile particle (D84) of the surface grains. Results indicate that the silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

N um ber of Particles Pe rc en t F in er

Particle Size (mm) cumulative % # of particles

Dry Fork Smiths Fork – Downstream Site Design Report 5 Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.

existing surface grain size class distribution provides limited resistance to erosion and degradation of the channel.

Table 4. Project area hydraulic characteristics.

Slope

Bankfull Flow (cfs)

Velocity (ft/s)

Shear Stress

(lbs/sq ft)

Particle Entrained

(mm) 0.57% 27 2.4 0.2 38

3.0 PROJECT DESIGN TREATMENTS

Design components were developed in collaboration with the project team to meet identified project goals.

Throughout the design development process, constraints that could potentially inhibit restoration were identified, considered, and incorporated into project designs. Constraints considered for this project included: fish passage requirements of Northern Leatherside Chub; crossing structure maintenance requirements; road erosion risk; future road improvement plans; economic constraints; and geomorphic and ecological restoration potential.

The general project design includes realignment of the roadway, establishment of a new stream crossing location and configuration, reclamation of the existing crossing location, and reconstruction of stable channel profile and floodplain connectivity along about 600 ft of channel. Sheets 3 to 11 of the design drawings depict the design site plans, profile, cross sections, construction stakeout points, and treatment details. The following sections contain design details for the road stream crossing improvements, road construction, road decommissioning, and revegetation project treatments.

3.1 ROAD REALIGNMENT AND DECOMMISSIONING

Project treatments include road decommissioning and road construction to facilitate a realignment and new stream crossing location. The location of the road realignment is shown on Sheet 3.

Road Construction The project includes approximately 600 ft of new road construction. The road construction design specifications must comply with the BLM 9113 Road Standards Manual requirements. The realigned road segment will have a road surface width of 20 ft and be surfaced with 6 inches of aggregate base. The road construction specifications will be compatible with existing BLM design plans for future road reconstruction at this location.

The road alignment centerline will follow the construction stakeout points derived from site specific topographic data (Sheets 3 and 4).