united states agriculture west branch white river...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Eastern Region March 2014

West Branch White River Restoration Project

Decision Memo Green Mountain National Forest Rochester Ranger District Town of Rochester Windsor County, Vermont

For Information Contact:

Nancy Ketcham Zone Fish Biologist

Green Mountain National Forest 99 Ranger Road

Rochester, VT 05767 (802) 767-4261

Fax: (802) 767-7774 E-mail: [email protected]

Responsible Official: Christopher Mattrick

Rochester District Ranger Green Mountain National Forest

99 Ranger Road Rochester, VT 05767

(802) 767-4261 Fax: (802) 767-7774

E-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


This document is available in large print.

Contact Nancy Ketcham at 802-767-4261

or email at [email protected]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.


Green Mountain National Forest

DRAFT Decision Memo – West Branch White River Restoration Project

West Branch White River Restoration Project

Decision Memo

USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Green Mountain National Forest Rochester Ranger District

Town of Rochester, Windsor County, Vermont I. SUMMARY

As District Ranger for the Rochester Ranger District of the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF), I am approving the implementation of the West Branch (WB) White River Restoration Project. Restoration work will incorporate “natural channel design” principles that use natural stable rivers as models to create good in-stream habitat conditions as well as flood resiliency. Techniques will include installation of engineered log structures and large rocks to protect stream banks, reduce erosion, create pools, and provide high quality fish habitat. Structures will be placed both in-stream and on the floodplain. The channel will be narrowed and re-configured from a straight plain-bedded stream created by bulldozers following Tropical Storm (TS) Irene, to a more stable design with natural appearing curves, substrate, and access to the floodplain. A wetland and a perennial side-channel will also be created, and will connect a tributary to the WB White River, adding some much needed off-channel habitat for rearing of young fish and for other aquatic and semi-aquatic species preferring slow water habitats. A new access trail to the river will be constructed, incorporating the use of the snowmobile crossing of the new channel. An Interpretive Site kiosk will be moved to the front of the CCC Camp shop building. The new signs will integrate information about the CCC Camp history, the effects of Tropical Storm Irene, and the watershed restoration elements installed at the CCC Camp and elsewhere along the WB White River. Native species of trees and shrubs will be planted, and grass and forbs seeded on disturbed soils on river banks and in floodplain areas. These actions will assist in maintaining bank stability, reducing the possibility of erosion, and keeping the river cool. The in-stream, stream bank, floodplain, wetland, channel, trail and interpretive signs and riparian planting work will require the use of excavators, bulldozers, dump trucks, tractor and self-propelled powered augers, assorted small power tools, and hand tools. The project sites are located on National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Town of Rochester, Windsor County, VT, on the Rochester Ranger District of the GMNF, and on privately owned land along the WB White River (see all attached maps).



II. DECISION TO BE IMPLEMENTED

A. Background and Project Area On August 28, 2011, Tropical Storm (TS) Irene produced record rainfall which resulted in flooding and inundation of lands alongside streams in Windsor and Rutland Counties, including USDA-Forest Service (USFS) recreation and river access point at the CCC Camp, and several private land sites all located along the WB White River. The flooding also deposited great amounts of silt onto floodplains, burying young trees and shrubs that had been planted into this riparian area in recent years. Those trees and shrubs had been planted to re-establish native riparian vegetation in the buffer areas along the WB White River to reduce the opportunity for non-native invasive plants such as “Japanese knotweed” and others from overtaking the stream banks. In the long range, those trees had been expected to create groves of large shade-casting trees that later in life will fall into the river to create large wood debris for more complex in-stream fish habitat than exists presently. The CCC Camp and the private land sites are on the banks of the WB White River which is an “Eligible River” for a Recreational River designation. The CCC site is in the “Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Management Area” as described in the Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Some of the land where projects are proposed is privately owned, thus, those sites have no Management Area identification in the Forest Plan. See Map #2 for the locations of the CCC Camp and private lands upstream and downstream of the CCC Camp.

B. Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to restore the WB White River to a more natural appearance and improve its functionality as suitable fish and aquatic organism habitat. Additionally, a restored river will be better able to respond to normal high water events and provide increased resiliency in larger-than annual flood events. The need for this project arose from unauthorized gravel mining in the WB White River at two sites, one in the vicinity of the former Civilian Conservation Corps Camp, now called the CCC Camp recreation site, and the other approximately1000 feet downstream of the CCC camp. Prior to TS Irene, this reach of river had many characteristics of a stable streambed and good in-stream habitat, including large, deep pools, good hiding and thermal cover for fish and other aquatic and semi-aquatic organisms, stable banks, and areas of both fast-water and slow-water habitats. The damage caused by TS Irene in August 2011, and the subsequent gravel mining turned these sections of the river into a very wide and shallow, plain-bedded stream, and increased the stream bed slope. These changes have created a substantially shallower stream that flows at a much higher velocity than prior to TS Irene. The river was also separated from its floodplain by the bulldozer work, resulting in the detrimental effects from accelerated water speed and continual erosion of stream banks. The proposed project activities form a suite of watershed restoration projects that will more rapidly advance the restoration of the WB White River to functional aquatic and riparian habitats, provide greater flood resiliency than if left to normal, the typical long-term geomorphological stream, floodplain, and riparian re-establishment processes.



C. Description of Decision My decision is to implement the in-stream and floodplain habitat improvements that include installation of engineered log structures and large rocks, as well as channel alterations that will mimic those that were present in the West Branch White River prior to TS Irene. My decision also includes creating wetlands, a perennial channel, a river access trail, and to place an interpretive kiosk with signs describing the history of this site and the importance of the restoration activities at this site in the CCC Camp part of the project area. I am also re-planting of riparian trees and shrubs native to this river’s riparian system. My decision affirms that Federal funds will be spent on private lands as allowed by Public Law 105-277, Section 323 (As Amended), commonly known as the “Wyden Amendment”. This 1998 law helps facilitate a whole-watershed approach to river restoration. It allows federal funds to be spent on private lands when the work is expected to benefit public resources. My decision also includes implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring requirements identified in Appendix A of this Decision Memo. This decision is based upon an environmental analysis conducted by an interdisciplinary team of Forest Service specialists. This information is filed in the project planning record located in the Rochester Ranger District office. The following are descriptors of the work to be accomplished at each site and for each phase of the project:

Project Description See Map #1 of the entire project area and where all the project activities will occur.

PHASE I (See Map #2 and #3 for Phase I project area location and activities) In-Stream and Floodplain Structure (See Map #2) Engineered large wood structures will be placed in/along the banks of the WB White River. These structures will be made of large trees, many with rootwads still attached and all 16 inches or greater in diameter with boles approximately 40 to 60 feet long. The trees will be placed in trenches created with a backhoe, with the rootwads set at an angle facing upstream. Some of the boles (tree trunks) will have additional large trees on top of them in the trench, with or without rootwads, and be anchored with the excavated soil. The upstream facing rootwads are intended to reduce the potential for sediment delivery by intervening between the bank and the water flow and reduce the velocity of the water along the banks. The large wood structures will also collect other woody debris, particularly during the course of flood events. Under the water, the wood structures will provide excellent fish habitat. Mounds of gravel abandoned in the channel by the gravel mining operations will be used to bring the channel back into a narrower profile similar to what was in place prior to TS Irene. Large boulder-sized rocks will also be placed in the streambed, with similar intent of reducing the velocity of the water flow and providing a different type of fish habitat.



The stream channel dimensions will be re-established to those prior to TS Irene. Channel sinuosity will also be re-established to help reduce the velocity of the water and direct the stream course away from homes where possible.

Upstream of the CCC Camp (See Map #2) A large wedge of sediment that has built up since TS Irene will be reduced in size, and large boulder-sized rocks will also be placed in the streambed, with the intent of reducing the velocity of the water flow and providing fish habitat. A berm made following TS Irene that is blocking the entry of a side channel will be re-opened for the river to have access to its floodplain. The re-opening of the side channel also will provide a refuge for aquatic organisms to escape high water from annual snow melt-off in spring and flood flows. This side channel once provided water to a pond that also served as important off-channel fish rearing habitat and also intercepted flood waters facilitating the slow release of water following high water events.

Perennial Channel and Wetland Creation (See Map #3) An existing intermittent flowing straight ditch that runs to the WB White River from VT Route 73 (Brandon Mountain Road) will be re-routed to meander through the fields around the CCC Camp building and empty into the WB White River (see attached Map #3). This channel will be approximately four feet deep to intercept ground water flow that will provide a cool water refugia for fish and other aquatic organisms at its outflow into the WB White River. Slow-water habitat for young fish rearing and other slow-moving water dependent species will be created by this new channel. The channel will widen into depressions in each of the fields to make shallow wetlands, thereby creating greater habitat diversity. A portion of the old ditch will be in-filled with excavated materials. The culvert that acts as a snowmobile bridge will be removed and replaced with a new culvert placed in the new channel about 100 feet from the culvert’s current location. The new culvert crossing will be designed to meet the US Forest Service requirements of aquatic organism passage (AOP), and to meet the US Forest Service requirements for snowmobile bridges. River Access Trail (See Map #3) The river access trail will be approximately 0.10 mile long. The trail will incorporate the snowmobile crossing of the new perennial channel, and will be approximately three to four feet wide, and will be at low gradient and have a gravel surface that will meet the design and requirements of the Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines. Interpretive Signs (See Map #3) Existing signs giving information about the history of the CCC Camp and other activities that have occurred at the CCC Camp location are worn and have out of date information. The Interpretive Site will be moved to the front of the CCC Camp shop building, near where the new river access trail will begin. The existing signs will remain until it is determined how to integrate information about the CCC Camp history, the effects of



Tropical Storm Irene, and the watershed restoration elements that will be established at the CCC Camp and elsewhere along the WB White River. PHASE II (See Map #4 for Phase II project area and activities) Slope Failure of WB White River Upstream of the Wing Brook Confluence Large trees with and without rootwads will be placed parallel to the base of a slope failure to intervene between the bank and the river. As the slope continues to slough, the soils will collect in the wood and a small terrace will be created beside the river. This will reduce the amount of sediment currently being delivered to the river, and reduce the amount of sloughing of the slope. Culvert Replacements and Large Wood Placement into Wing Brook Three culverts in Wing Brook will be replaced. The first lies where Wing Farm Road (FR64) crosses the brook and the second and third are almost adjacent to one another where Maple Hill Road (FR63) crosses Wing Brook. One will be in the eastern fork of Wing Brook, and the other in an unnamed tributary to Wing Brook. These culverts will be much larger than those that are currently in place, and will pass flood water and associated debris better. They will be designed using stream simulation method, which allows for fish and aquatic organism passage. In Wing Brook from the confluence with the WB White River up stream to where Wing Farm Road crosses Wing Brook, large wood pieces will be placed into the brook to improve fish habitat and to reduce stream velocity in future flood events. The wood will be put in place with a small excavator. Approximately one thousand (1000) feet of the brook will have wood debris placed in it.

Phase III (See Map #5 for Phase II project area and activities) Lyon’s Bridge Vicinity Following TS Irene, large rip-rap was placed along the north bank of the WB White River starting at the northwest corner of the bridge, and continuing along the bank upstream approximately 200 feet. The existing rip-rap will be better reinforced to the bank so in the next flood event, it has a higher likelihood of remaining in place. In its current state, it is very vulnerable to a high water event. Around Lyon’s Bridge, following the TS Irene flooding, large berms of gravel were created by unauthorized bulldozing in the channel. This resulted in separating the river from its flood plain and widening the channel inappropriately. The berms will be removed and that material will be used to re-establish the proper channel dimensions at this site. Upstream of the southwest corner of Lyon’s Bridge, there is a ditch that drains the field to the southwest of the bridge. This ditch will be filled in and this will allow water to back up onto the field to facilitate better growing conditions for the existing wetland plants and for planting additional wetland dependent species. The ditch will be armored in such a way as to prevent head-cutting of the ditch, but also to allow overflows and will be semi-



permeable so it will not act as a permanent dam especially during periods of higher than normal flow. Downstream of Lyon’s Bridge, during the unauthorized bulldozing of the river following TS Irene, a side channel was blocked, the stream channel was also made inappropriately wide, and large berms of rock were placed on the banks, separating the West Branch from its floodplain. Flow will be re-established back through the side channel, restore the channel dimensions, and remove the rock berms.

Low Terrace Stream Bank Protection At a bend in the river, large trees with and without rootwads will be placed parallel to the streambank edge to reinforce the streambank. Additional rock will be placed as needed to augment what is all ready present to better protect the existing bank of the low terrace. These two methods will prevent continued erosion of this terrace floodplain, which if left untended will cause a slope failure at this site.

III. REASONS FOR CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDING THE DECISION

Decisions may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) when they are within one or more of the categories of actions found at 36 CFR 220.6(d) or (e), and there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative environmental effect.

A. Categories of Exclusions

Based on the environmental analysis included in the project planning record and on experience with similar activities on the GMNF, I have concluded that this decision can be appropriately categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS. I have determined that the selected action is a routine activity within the following categories of exclusion found at 36 CFR 220.6(e)(19), “Removing and/or relocating debris and sediment following disturbance events (such as floods, hurricanes, tornados, mechanical/ engineering failures, etc.) to restore uplands, wetlands, or riparian systems to pre-disturbance conditions, to the extent practicable, such that site conditions will not impede or negatively alter natural processes”; 36 CFR 220.6(e)(5), “Regeneration of an area to native tree species, including site preparation that does not involve the use of herbicides or result in vegetation type conversion.", and 36 CFR 220.6 (d)(5), and “Repair and maintenance of recreation sites and facilities”.

B. Relationship to Extraordinary Circumstances Resource conditions that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS may be found at 36 CFR 220.6(b)(1). The degree of any potential effect from the proposed action associated with these resource conditions determines whether extraordinary conditions exist. The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion. I have considered the potential effects from the project associated with the resource conditions listed at 36 CFR 220.6(b)(1), and conclude that there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment. My conclusion is based on information



presented in this document and the entirety of the project planning record. A summary of the project’s potential effects on each resource condition is as follows:

1. Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat,

Species Proposed for Federal Listing or Proposed Critical Habitat: It was determined that there will be no impact/no affect on federally listed animal or plant species or their critical habitats resulting from this project (Wildlife Biological Evaluation, 27 February 2014). There are no federally listed threatened or endangered plant species on the GMNF/FLNF (Plant Biological Evaluation, 10 January 2014). Forest Service Regional Forester’s List Sensitive Species (RFSS): Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 direction requires analysis of potential effects to sensitive species, those species for which the Regional Forester has identified population viability is a concern. This project is not likely to lead to loss of viability or trend toward federal listing for any animal or plant on the RFSS list (Wildlife Biological Evaluation, 27 February 2014; Plants Biological Evaluation, 10 January 2014).

2. Floodplains, Wetlands, or Municipal Watersheds The project is located in the floodplain of the White River. The floodplain was substantially altered by unlawful use of bulldozers and other heavy equipment following the floodwaters of TS Irene. As a result of the illegal activity, the river was separated from its floodplain, and thus, no longer functions as a floodplain should in the event of a flood. In the present state, floodwaters from the river have no way of spreading out over the landscape to reduce velocity, which leads to increased water force and damage downstream, and greatly increases sediment production and its delivery downstream. This project will re-establish the connections between the river and its floodplain. Wetlands or municipal watersheds are not present within the project sites. This has been validated by map and site-review. This project will create some small shallow wetlands, connected by a perennial channel that will connect to the WB White River. The in-the-floodplain construction and riparian tree and shrub planting are expected to improve floodplain resiliency by holding soil in place and reducing the velocity of flood flows. Accessible floodplains provide opportunity for flood waters to spread out, thus reducing the velocity and depth and allow for local slow absorption into the soils, reducing the risk of large “waves” of water continuing downstream affecting homes, towns and infrastructure. The Soils Report for this project determined that implementation of the WB White River Restoration Project activities are not expected to have adverse effects to floodplains, wetlands, and/or municipal watersheds (Burt, Nancy. Soils Scientist, 24 October 2012). I expect that the actions approved in this decision will provide substantial improvement to the affected floodplains, wetlands, and streams. Permits from the State of Vermont and the US Army Corps of Engineers will be required for the in-stream and on-the-floodplain construction portions of this project.



Neither the State of Vermont nor the Federal government requires permits for planting native trees and shrubs on USFS lands or on private lands where the landowner has a signed agreement for the planting.

3. Congressionally Designated Areas, such as Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, or National Recreation Area Wilderness: Congressionally designated Wilderness is allocated to the Wilderness Management Area (MA) in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, pp. 49 to 53). The project is not located within or near wilderness areas as validated by map and site-review. This project, with effects limited to the immediate area of activity, will have no effects associated with the Wilderness resource (Reichert, Melissa, Forest Planner, 24 October 12). Wilderness Study Areas: There are no congressionally designated Wilderness Study Areas on the Green Mountain National Forest. National Recreation Areas: The GMNF contains two National Recreation Areas: the Moosalamoo National Recreation Area and the Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area. The project is not located within or near these areas as validated by map and site-review. As a result, there will be no effects associated with the National Recreation Area resource expected from this project (Reichert, Melissa, Forest Planner, 24 October 12). Appalachian National Scenic Trail: The Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT) is not near or within the influence of the project. As a result, no effects are expected to affect the Appalachian Trail, or its use (Reichert, Melissa, Forest Planner, 24 October 12). Wild and Scenic Rivers: Although the GMNF does not contain any Congressionally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers, there are many river segments that are “eligible” to be further considered for addition to the National Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River System. These river segments and their associated corridors are in the Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Management Area of the Forest Plan. The project includes activity within the “Eligible” West Branch White River Recreational River Corridor. The activity within this area is consistent with Forest Plan direction for management of this resource (Forest Plan, pp. 105 to 109). As a result, the effects from the project associated with the outstandingly remarkable values identified for the White River are not expected to be adverse, and thus will not preclude it from future consideration for addition to the National Wild, Scenic and Recreational River System (Reichert, Melissa, Forest Planner, 24 October 12).

4. Inventoried Roadless Areas or Potential Wilderness Areas The project is not within any inventoried roadless area (2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule or 2006 Forest Plan inventoried roadless areas). As a result, no effects associated with the inventoried roadless area resource are expected from the project (Reichert, Melissa, Forest Planner, 24 October 12).



5. Existing and Candidate Research Natural Areas There are no existing or candidate Research Natural Areas (Forest Plan, pp. 90 to 93) for the GMNF within or directly adjacent to the project area. This project, with effects limited to the immediate area of activity, will have no effects associated with any existing or candidate Research Natural Area resource (Reichert, Melissa, Forest Planner, 24 October 12).

6. American Indian and Alaska Native Religious or Cultural Sites See Item 7 below.

7. Archeological Sites, or Historic Properties or Areas This project complies with the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archeological Resources Protection Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. All sites by virtue of being flat and immediately adjacent to the White River have the potential of being historic, if not pre-historic sites. The effects associated with the cultural or historic resources as a result of this project are not expected to be adverse (Lacy, Dave, Forest Archeologist, 31 March 2014).

C. Other Resources In addition to resource conditions that could lead to extraordinary circumstances, I have also considered the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to other resources such as soil, water, fisheries, visuals, recreation, and vegetation. The project is not expected to result in any adverse effects associated with these resources, particularly because all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines will be implemented. Specialist reviewed the WB White River Restoration Project at the Forest’s Small Projects Day held on 24 October 12.

IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

This project was listed in the quarterly Green Mountain National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) beginning in October 2013, and will remain in the SOPA until the project is authorized for implementation. Public involvement included:

• A legal advertisement published in the Green Mountain National Forest’s newspaper of record, The Rutland Herald on 18 December 2013.

• A Scoping letter was sent out to the mailing list contained in the project record for the WB White River Restoration Project, the record is available at the Rochester Ranger District, Rochester, VT.

Among the recipients of the scoping letter were Vermont State Fish and Wildlife and River Management offices, Federal Agencies involved with project review (e.g.: US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Army Corps of Engineers), the affected private property owners along the WB White River, partner groups such as the White River Partnership and Vermont Association of Snow Travelers (VAST, State and local levels), interested organizations, such as Trout Unlimited, and individuals who have expressed interest in receiving information about projects such as this.



Three responses were received regarding this project. The responses did raise some questions and concerns about the project. These items were considered and a response provided directly to the commenter in written form. These responses are contained in Appendix B. No changes to the project proposal or level of analysis were made as a result of the comments received. This project was also internally reviewed by Forest Service staff during Small Projects Day held on 24 October 2012. Each specialist was asked for site specific mitigation measures that are itemized on Attachment A to this Decision Memo. All internal issues have been addressed.

V. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OR RELATED TO OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

My decision will comply with all applicable laws and regulations. I have summarized some pertinent laws and regulations in this section. National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires public involvement and consideration of environmental effects. The entirety of documentation for this decision supports compliance with this Act, and with the recent court decision Sequoia Forest Keepers, as regarding notification and public involvement in Categorical Exclusion projects. Forest Consistency (National Forest Management Act) The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires development of long-range land and resource management plans, and that all site-specific project activities to be consistent with direction in the plans. The GMNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was completed and approved in 2006 as required by the NFMA and provides direction for all management activities on the Forest. The WB White River Restoration Project implements the Forest Plan, and its consideration is guided by direction for the Eligible Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Management Area (Forest Plan, pages 105-109). My decision is based on the best available science, including a review of the record that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. As required by the NFMA Section 1604(i), I find this project to be consistent with the Forest Plan include goals, objectives, desired future conditions, and Forest-wide and Management Area standards and guidelines. Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act requires that federal activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of any species federally listed or proposed as threatened or endangered, or result in adverse modification to such species’ designated critical habitat. In accordance with Section 7(c) of this Act, a report of the listed and proposed, threatened or endangered species that may be present in the project area was reviewed. See Section III, Item B.1 of this decision document. Clean Water Act The intent of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of waters. The Forest Service complies with this Act through Forest Plan standards and guidelines, specific project design criteria, and mitigation measures to ensure protection of soil and water resources.



Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) Executive Order 11990 directs the agency to avoid to the extent possible the adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands, and to avoid support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practical alternative. See Section III, Item B.2 of this decision document. Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) Executive Order 11988 directs the agency to avoid to the extent possible the adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid support of floodplain development wherever there is a practical alternative. See Section III, Item B.2 of this decision document. Wilderness Act The Wilderness Act established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned land designated by Congress as “wilderness areas”. These areas are administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The Act provides for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness. See Section III, Item B.3 of this decision document. National Trails System Act The purpose of the National Trails System Act includes the designation of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail to help institute a national system of trails for the ever-increasing outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population. It also promotes the preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation. See Section III, Item B.3 of this decision document. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act institutes a national wild and scenic rivers system that includes selected rivers which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. It provides for them to be preserved in a free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments will be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. See Section III, Item B.3 of this decision document. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act addresses the discovery and protection of Native American human remains and objects that are excavated or discovered on federal lands. The Act encourages avoidance of archaeological sites that contain burials or portions of sites that contain graves through “in situ” preservation, but may encompass other actions to preserve these remains and items. See Section III, Item B.6 of this decision document. National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of a project on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. It also requires federal agencies to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. See Section III, Item B.7 of this decision document.



Archeological Resources Protection Act The Archeological Resources Protection Act covers the discovery and protection of historic properties (prehistoric and historic) that are excavated or discovered on federal lands. This Act affords lawful protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public and Indian lands. See Section III, Item B.7 of this decision document. Federal Noxious Weed Act and Executive Order 11312 (Non-Native Invasive Species) The Federal Noxious Weed Act requires cooperation with State, local, and other federal agencies in the management and control of non-native invasive species (NNIS). Executive Order (EO) 11312 requires all pertinent federal agencies (subject to budgetary appropriations) to prevent the introduction of NNIS. This project’s decision meets the intent of this law and EO by incorporating all pertinent Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and mitigation measures to ensure the management and control of NNIS. Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Executive Order 12898 requires consideration of whether projects would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. This decision complies with this order. Public involvement has occurred (see Section IV), the results of which I have considered in the decision-making process for this project. No adverse impacts to local minority or low-income populations were identified.

VI. OBJECTION OPPORTUNITIES This decision is not subject to an administrative review or objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218. The decision is also no longer subject to an administrative review or appeal pursuant to pursuant to 36 CFR 215. On January 17, 2014, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-76). Section 431 of that Act directs that the 1992 and 2012 legislation establishing the 36 CFR 215 (post-decisional appeals) and 36 CFR 218 (pre-decisional objections) processes “shall not apply to any project or activity implementing a land and resource management plan that is categorically excluded under the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA].” On February 7, 2014, the President signed into law the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill) (Pub. L. No. 113-79). Section 8006 of the 2014 Farm Bill repealed the Appeals Reform Act (ARA) (Pub. L. No. 102-381). The ARA’s implementing regulation was 36 CFR 215. The 2014 Farm Bill also directs that the pre-decisional objection process established in the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2012 shall not be applicable to categorically excluded projects or activities.

VI. IMPLEMENTATION DATE

This decision may be implemented immediately. Implementation is expected to begin in August 2014. VII. CONTACT PERSON

Further information about this decision can be obtained from Nancy Ketcham during normal office hours (weekdays, 8:00 am to 4:30 pm) at the Rochester Ranger District office located at: 99 Ranger Road, Rochester, VT; phone: 802-767-4261; fax 802-767-4777; or email: [email protected]




VIII. SIGNATURE AND DATE

/s/ Christopher Mattrick Christopher Mattrick District Ranger Rochester Ranger District

_March, 31, 2014_______ Date

Attachments Map # 1 – Entire Project Area – All Phases Map # 2 – Phase I Project Area Map # 3 – CCC Camp Close-Up of Project Activities Wetlands, Channel, Trail & Interpretive Site Map # 4 – Phase II Project Area Map # 5 – Phase III Project Area Appendix A – Mitigation Measures Appendix B – Scoping Response Letters and Documentation

Allen E-mail and Forest Service Response Letter Flewelling Letter and Forest Service Response Letter McDonnell Phone Conversation and Forest Service Response Letter



Maps MAP #1 – Entire Project Area – All Phases



MAP#2 –Phase I Map



Map # 3 - CCC Camp Close-up of Project Activities



Map #4 – Phase II Project Area



Map #5 – Phase III Project Area



West Branch White River Restoration Project Decision Memo APPENDIX A – Mitigation Measures

Archaeology: The Forest Archaeologist will be notified prior to the commencement of construction or planting, and where any tilling might occur, and will be on-site to observe for archaeological deposits. All participants will be watchful for man-made goods, particularly those of aboriginal origin. If a find is made, work will be halted until the Forest Archaeologist can examine the find in situ before a decision would be made as to whether or not work in that area can resume. Botany: A botanist will review the site to determine methods to reduce the number of non-native invasive plants in the vicinity, and avoid disruption of sensitive plants that may be on these sites. To prevent their spread or to prevent introductions of additional NNIP: 1) Any wheeled or tracked equipment brought in to implement the project should be clean prior to accessing the site, and should be cleaned again after implementation but before leaving the site. 2) Any NNIP directly in the path of implementation of any component of the project should be treated prior to implementation to prevent their spread as a result of the project. (This will require a site visit as the project design is developed). Ecology: Use native seed mixes or well-tested non-persistent, non-invasive, non-native grass and forb species for reseeding disturbed soil. If soil erosion or NNIP are not strong risks, I recommend leaving the bare soil to reseed itself with native species. Landscape Architecture: Do not impact the snowmobile trail that lies directly within the proposed project area at the CCC Camp. The trail needs clearance for the grooming equipment at 8’ to 12’ in height, and a trail width of 10’ to 22’ wide. Retaining natural river rock for color, shape and size is desired for the finished appearance of the restoration. Silviculture: Use bole protection on the trees to prevent beavers from consuming the newly planted trees. Steel-fence caging is recommended. Soils: Apply Standards 3, 4, 6, and 7 found in the Forest Plan on page 20. Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers: All pertinent Forest-wide, and Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Management Area standards and guidelines will be adhered to during project implementation. Wildlife: If ground nesting bird sites or turtle nests are found, or if egg bearing turtles are discovered on any site, the nest site(s) will be protected, and no heavy machinery activity or tree or shrub planting will occur around the nest site(s). Once the young birds have fledged, machinery use can resume. Egg bearing turtles will be observed from a distance to determine if eggs are deposited, and that nest site will be protected when the female has completed plugging the nest hole and has left the immediate vicinity of the nest. Monitoring: Monitoring for survival of trees and shrubs in the riparian sites will be done by Fisheries and Wildlife staff.



West Branch White River Restoration Project Decision Memo APPENDIX B – Scoping Response Letters and Documentation

Allen E-mail and Forest Service Response Letter

From: Allen, Robin - NRCS, Colchester, VT Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 4:25 PM To: FS-comments-eastern-green-mt-finger-lakes-rochester Subject: Comments on West Branch White River Restoration Project A few comments on the West Branch White River Restoration Project. 1. I think this is a worthy project with great value of getting wood/trees back into the stream system. 2. Comment document is not a design but provides a concept of the planned work. Attachment 2 is a bit confusing…not sure if that’s a profile or cross section, but appears to be a little of each. Will the public get a chance to review the final design before implementation? 3. I would like to see the design specifics of the log jams that are intended to provide some streambank erosion protection on the outside bends. Rob Allen, PE State Conservation Engineer USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 356 Mountain View Drive Colchester, VT 05446



Flewelling Letter and Forest Service Response Letter PO Box 118 January 7, 2014

Rochester, VT 05767

Nancy Ketcham

Rochester Ranger District 99 Ranger Road

Rochester, VT 05767 Dear Nancy, I reviewed the Project Information for the West Branch White River Restoration Project, and have the following comments. In general, I understand the purpose and need to restore the West Branch to its pre-Irene condition in the area that the gravel mining took place, and in the area just above the Lyon's bridge where the rip-rap was improperly tied into the bank. These two parts of the proposal were caused by actions taken after TS Irene. For the remainder of the project, I am less certain about the connection to TS Irene. For example, was there slope failure upstream of the Wing Brook confluence prior to TS Irene? As you are aware, there are numerous slope failures along the West Branch and Brandon Brook. Is the Wing Brook the highest priority for repair, or are you addressing it at this time simply because it falls within this reach? The three Wing Brook culverts proposed for replacement are on Town of Rochester roads, yet I see no mention of the Town as a cooperating partner. Have they agreed with this proposal? Where will the funds for the culvert replacement/upgrade come from?

It appears that the low terrace stream bank and well protection are being done solely to protect private property. In that case, I feel the landowner should be responsible to protect his assets. If there is another purpose and need it is not clear to me. My biggest concern is the proposed Perennial Channel and Wetland Creation. As far as I know, the intermittent stream has been in its current location for 70 years or more. I



can say for certain it has been there for over 45 years. Why change it now. The Land and Resource Management Plan, under 2.2 Forest-wide Goals and Objectives does not list creation of new riparian areas under Goal 4 (pg. 13). So what is the purpose and need for this portion of the proposal? In addition, when some of the properties adjacent to the White River in Stockbridge were acquired, one of the justifications was the need for more grasslands. The hay field currently in that location would have to be abandoned under this proposal. Has a cost-benefit analysis been done for the project as a whole, or any art of the project? In my opinion the Forest Service would be in the “hot seat” trying to explain this “showpiece” project (the Perennial Channel, Access Trail and Interpretive Signs portion) at a time when most Forest resources are in a maintenance or critical projects only mode. Yes, the interpretive signs need to be updated, but that can be done without the remainder of the project. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Bruce Bruce K. Flewelling



McDonnell Phone Conversation and Forest Service Response Letter Phone call responding to phone message from JoAnne McConnell, Rochester resident, about the West Brach White River Restoration Project:

15 January 2014 – 10:30 a.m.

Per her phone request, I called JoAnne at her office phone at the Rochester Town Office.

JoAnne wanted to know if there would be a swimming hole at the CCC Camp that was easy to get into on foot, like what was there prior to the flood of 2008. The 2008 flood waters sheared the banks of the swimming hole, making it very steep and hard to get in and out of, especially for small children (she had to assist her grandchildren in and out if it).

I told her that Bob Gubernick (RO employee) was working on the design right now, and that I would pass her concern on to him. I told her that some of the large engineered wood jams were being designed with the intent of creating pools.

/s/ Nancy Ketcham NANCY KETCHAM Zone Fish Biologist

united states agriculture west branch white river...

Documents