nevada department of wildlife - comins and bassett lakes … · 2015. 2. 26. · project location:...

Comins and Bassett Lakes Restoration

Project DRAFT

Project Proposal

Prepared by:

Nevada Department of Wildlife Fisheries Division

Reno, Nevada

February 26, 2015

Comins/Bassett Restoration Project Plan DRAFT 02.26.15

Nevada Department of Wildlife

Comins and Bassett Lakes Restoration Project DRAFT Project Proposal

Project Summary: The Nevada Department of Wildlife, Fisheries Division, intends to treat Comins and Bassett lakes in White Pine County, Nevada, to remove invasive Northern Pike using the chemical piscicide rotenone. The treatment of the two reservoirs and certain tributary and outflow waters as described below is anticipated to require one to two weeks of effort. Dates of treatment are to be determined but anticipated to be in the late summer or fall of 2015. The use of rotenone as a piscicide is a standard fish management technique for the control of invasive and undesirable species and all application will follow State and Federal application guidelines and label requirements for use of the pisicide in public waters. This proposed treatment of Comins and Bassett lakes is essential to restore important sport fisheries in these reservoirs which have been decimated by the illegal introduction of Northern Pike which is classified as a prohibited species in Nevada under NAC 503.110. The possession, transportation or introduction of live Northern Pike is prohibited under that regulation. Project Location: Both Comins and Bassett Lakes are located within White Pine County, Nevada (Figure 1). Comins Lake is located about seven miles south of Ely, Nevada on the Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area within T15N R64E Section 20 & T15N R64E Section17 (reservoir UTM Easting 688833.2, Northing 4337265.1) and is on US Highway 6/50 (Figure 2). US Highway 6/50 crosses over the dam structure of Comins Lake. The Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) owns the land surrounding the entire lake. Comins Lake covers 410 surface acres, has a maximum depth of 14 feet, and stores a volume of 2,332 acre-feet at maximum capacity. Bassett Lake is located in T19N R63E Section 35 (reservoir UTM Easting 684225.3, Northing 4370996.4) and is approximately 22 miles north of Ely and approximately six miles north-west of McGill, Nevada (Figure 3). Rio Tinto Kennecott (formerly Kennecott Copper Corporation) owns Bassett Lake; however, the Nevada Department of Wildlife has managed it as a public fishery since 1947. Bassett Lake is 77 surfaces acres, has an average depth of 5 feet, and a volume of 385 acre-feet. Tributaries to Bassett Lake that may be treated during this restoration project are Duck Creek, Duck Creek Overflow Canal, Steptoe Slough, and Tailings Creek. Duck Creek originates in the Duck Creek Basin just east of Bassett Lake, where it flows 15 miles into Bassett Lake. The portion of Duck Creek that may be treated begins at the Duck Creek Overflow Canal diversion flowing west into Bassett Lake, totaling 7.1 miles. Pretreatment surveys will indicate the need to treat this portion Duck Creek. If Northern Pike are not present then the treatment will not occur in this area. There will be an additional 3.4 miles of Duck Creek treated north of Bassett Lake. Steptoe Slough is spring fed, flowing approximately three miles. Tailings Creek originates at a springhead and flows 6.5 miles to terminate in Bassett Lake.

1


Figure 1. General locations of Bassett Lake and Comins Lake within White Pine County and the State of

Nevada

2


Figure 2. Location of project area and treatment area for the Comins Lake Restoration Project

3


Figure 3. Location of project area and treatment area for the Bassett Lake Restoration Project.

4


Background: Comins Lake is a manmade reservoir located seven miles south of Ely, White Pine County, Nevada. It was created in 1953 and served as an irrigation reservoir for the 3-C Ranch prior to its purchase by NDOW. Comins Lake has two tributary streams. The primary tributary is Steptoe Creek, which originates in the Schell Creek mountain range to the east of Comins Lake. The other stream that will occasionally add water to Comins Lake is Willow Creek. Willow Creek originates in the Egan mountain range to the south of Comins Lake. Due to continual low flow conditions and irrigation diversions, Willow Creek rarely reaches Comins Lake.

Available records indicate that native fish were not historically present in Comins Lake. However, it has been documented that a “Carp” species was present and fished for in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. The “Carp” species was most likely introduced Utah Chub Gila atraria (Fuller and Nico 2015). The first trout were stocked in Comins Lake in 1968 and additional species were added to create a multi-tiered fishery over the next few decades. Records indicate that Comins Lake was historically stocked with Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, Brown Trout Salmo trutta, Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi, Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmonides, and White Crappie Pomoxis annularis. In 1970, Northern Pike Esox lucius was first introduced into Comins Lake to biologically control nuisance levels of Utah Chub. Coupled with depredation and drought, the Utah Chub population collapsed and, accordingly, so did the Northern Pike population. In the 1980’s, Comins Lake was stocked with 1,740 Virile Crayfish Orconectes virilis. Another species, the Signal Crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus, was released into Comins Lake, however, due to depredation from Northern Pike, it failed to establish.

After a successful chemical treatment to eradicate Northern Pike in 1989, Comins Lake became a very popular sport fishery. The eradication of this highly piscivorous species allowed trophy quality Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, and Largemouth Bass fisheries to develop. Unfortunately, Northern Pike were documented once again in Comins Lake in 2000 and the first successful spawn was documented in 2001. Since the time of their illegal re-introduction, NDOW personnel have documented an explosion of the Northern Pike population. In 2007, NDOW stopped stocking trout in Comins Lake, resulting in the Northern Pike population collapsing from lack of prey. Figure 4 provides fish harvest data from creel surveys showing a shift in species composition from 1998 through 2011. Intensive creel surveys were discontinued after 2011 due to declining trout populations and resultant decline in angler use. Since their population collapse, Northern Pike have subsisted on the remaining Largemouth Bass and aquatic insects in Comins Lake. The Northern Pike in Comins Lake will continue to persist unless they are removed by means of another chemical treatment. Rotenone treatments have been proven as an effective fisheries management tool and will be used to restore Comins Lake.

Comins Lake was once a popular angling destination for anglers from Nevada and surrounding states and provided significant amounts of revenue to local communities in White Pine County. In 2004, angler expenditures for Comins Lake based on angler use days was over two million dollars (@ $59/day – 2011 USFWS Survey), with nearly 35,000 angler use days estimated for that year (Figure 5).

5


Figure 4. Comins Lake Sportfish Harvest Data 1998-2011

Figure 5. Comins Lake estimated angler use data 1996-2013

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

ANGLER USE (DAYS)

ANGLER USE (DAYS)

6


Bassett Lake is located 22 miles northwest of Ely, Nevada and six miles northwest of McGill, Nevada. Kennecott Copper Corporation, now Rio Tinto Kennecott, constructed Bassett Lake in 1942 to serve as a final siltation reservoir for mill tailings from its McGill copper operation. Bassett Lake is privately owned by Rio Tinto Kennecott. Written permission to access Bassett Lake and Rio Tinto lands will be obtained prior to the treatment. Bassett Lake receives perennial water input from Duck Creek in the Schell Creek Range, Steptoe Slough, Tailings Creek, and springs along the north side of the tailings below the town of McGill. Additionally, Duck Creek Overflow Canal is used to irrigate agricultural fields and eventually feeds Bassett Lake as well. The only outflow from Bassett Lake is Duck Creek; it has historically held Northern Pike. There are no records indicating there were native fish species present historically in Bassett Lake. Relict Dace Relictus solitarius currently exist within the project area; however, they are not expected to be in the treatment area. Prior to chemical treatment, NDOW will conduct extensive surveys to identify and rule out the presence of Northern Pike in waters that Relict Dace inhabit. Relict Dace is an endemic, non-game species in Nevada. Pretreatment surveys will indicate if Relict Dace are present in the treatment area. If Relict Dace are located within the treatment area and Northern Pike are not present, that area will not be treated with rotenone. However, if Northern Pike are located in the same water body as Relict Dace that area will have to be treated in order to ensure complete eradication of Northern Pike. The Relict Dace is identified as a state protected, sensitive fish species under NAC 503.067(2) and a priority conservation species in the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan but is not federally listed. There are populations of Relict Dace present on Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management (SVWMA) Area and any impacted populations at the Bassett Lake treatment area can be augmented with fish from the SVWMA populations. Prior to a chemical eradication project in 1963, there were nine species of fish present in Bassett Lake including Brown Bullhead Ameiururs nebulosus, Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus, Common Carp Cyprinus carpio, Sacramento Perch Archoplites interruptus, Utah Sucker Catostomus ardens, Yellow Perch Perca flavescens, Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout, and Largemouth Bass. Following treatment, the common carp population rose exponentially. Northern Pike were introduced into Bassett Lake as a biological control of Common Carp in 1966. Since that time, Northern Pike have moved throughout Bassett Lake and its tributaries. Project Need: After a successful chemical treatment to eradicate Northern Pike in 1989, Comins Lake became very popular for its warm- and coldwater fisheries. A fishery dominated by trophy quality Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, and Largemouth Bass was the result of Northern Pike removal. Northern Pike were illegally introduced and documented again in 2000. The population greatly expanded and the primary sport fisheries were decimated. The need to remove Northern Pike from Comins and Bassett lakes is two-fold. Northern pike are highly invasive and eradication of the pike is necessary to prevent further illegal introductions in other waters of the State. Secondly, their eradication is essential to allow

7


the restoration of the primary sport fisheries and improve recreational angling in Comins and Bassett lakes. Project Purpose: The purpose of this project is to develop viable sport fisheries in Comins and Bassett lakes and to eliminate the source of Northern Pike from Nevada. Project Objective: The objective of the project is to eradicate all fish, and specifically Northern Pike, in Comins Lake and Bassett Lake simultaneously using a combination of CFT LegumineTM (formulation 5% liquid rotenone) and Prentox® PrenfishTM Fish Toxicant Powder (formulation 7.4% powder rotenone). Project Approach and Methods: Since 2010, water has been diverted away from Comins Lake, and with the addition of evaporative losses the lake surface elevation has dropped approximately three feet below full pool. If needed by the time of treatment, a large commercial water pump may be used to remove as much water as possible in order to reduce the amount of rotenone needed. The effectiveness of rotenone will also be increased in a smaller water body. The preferred timing for treating Comins and Bassett lakes would be the last two weeks in August to allow use of the seasonal workforce and have enough time to treat each body of water independently. The exact dates for the treatments have not been determined as this is dependent on required permitting, NEPA/compliance requirements, and other factors. A treatment area is the water body where the application of rotenone is expected to produce a total kill of the target species. The treatment areas will be labeled with placards in order to ensure public safety. A project area is the treatment area plus all other surface and groundwater areas in hydrologic connection that would be affected by rotenone application and deactivation. Additionally, it also includes adjoining areas that will be affected by the presence and activity of personnel associated with the project (Finlayson et al. 2010). Pretreatment activities will take place within the treatment area for approximately two weeks prior to the dispensing of rotenone. Pretreatment activities include: determining the distribution of Northern Pike using backpack electroshocking; determining flows in streams that will be treated; determining lake volume that will be treated; and flagging/identifying areas that could serve as refuge for any fish species. The rotenone treatment for Comins Lake will take place wholly within the boundaries of Comins Lake, with the project area including the headquarters and southwest portion of the Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area (Figure 2). The rotenone treatment for Bassett Lake will take place within the confines of Bassett Lake, its associated tributaries, and outflow. Tributaries that are part of the treatment area are that portion of Duck Creek that flows from the Duck Creek Overflow Diversion east to Bassett Lake; that portion of Duck Creek that flows 3.4 miles north of Bassett Lake; the entire Duck Creek overflow canal if necessary, the entire Steptoe Slough, and Tailings Creek (Figure 3). These tributaries will be treated to improve the effectiveness of the reservoir treatment as well as to ensure that the target species will not escape into refuge waters that may be available.

8


Two formulations will be utilized to effectively and efficiently eradicate northern pike from both water bodies, CFT LegumineTM (formulation 5% liquid rotenone) and Prentox® PrenfishTM Fish Toxicant Powder (formulation 7.4% powder rotenone). Mixing both formulations into a slower release sand-gelatin mixture will ensure that targeted spring-seeps and marshy areas are treated thoroughly. Both lakes will be treated according to the “Tolerant Species in Organic Ponds” guidance label for CFT LegumineTM and Prentox® PrenfishTM Fish Toxicant Powder directing the final concentration of the application area be between 2.0 to 4.0 ppm (0.1- 0.2 ppm of active rotenone). All equipment and materials will be transported to the parking lot at Comins and Bassett lakes, which will be secured by NDOW personnel at the end of each day. NDOW personnel having training in Rotenone & Antimycin Application and are certified with the state for Restricted use Pesticide Application will supervise the two projects. Rotenone will be dispensed into marshy areas using backpack sprayers and in the lakes proper using boats having venturi pumps attached to outboard engines. The venturi pump uses prop wash from the outboard motor to assist in mixing the rotenone throughout the water column. Rotenone will be dispersed via drip buckets, backpack sprayers, and rotenone sand-gelatin mixture in all tributaries. Storage of all rotenone, prior to the treatment, will be at the Nevada Department of Wildlife Office, Eastern Region Headquarters in Elko, Nevada. In the days preceding the treatment and during the treatment, all rotenone and related treatment supplies will be stored in a secured workshop at Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area (SVWMA). In the event that a spill occurs, the material will be contained by using hand tools. Once contained the material will be absorbed using clay, soils, sawdust, or straw. If those measures do not work, the material will be collected by utilizing a pump or sponge. There will be a separate loading/mixing area adjacent to the storage area at SVWMA as well as a loading/mixing area at each treatment area. There will be containers (stock tanks) available that will function as secondary containment. If there is a spill in the treatment area that is not directly in the water, the spill will contained using hand tools, when feasible, and absorbed using the above materials. Finally, prior to the beginning of the treatments a spill contingency plan will be in place. Rotenone will be dispensed during two separate three hour treatments in lotic systems for two consecutive days. In lentic systems, rotenone will be dispensed for one day until the prescribed amount is gone, with potential spot-treating the second day. Natural deactivation of rotenone in both lotic and lentic systems may take from one week to one month. According to the label on CFT LegumineTM, placards in lotic systems can be removed 72 hours after the applications are complete. In lotic systems placards can be removed following 24-hour bioassay demonstrating survival of sentinel fish or 14 days, whichever is less. The 24 hour bioassays will determine if rotenone is active at lethal concentrations in the water. Protocol states that cages containing approximately ten rainbow trout will be placed into treated waters for a period of 24 hours. If fish survive the 24 hours of exposure, then rotenone is deemed deactivated and placards will be removed.

9


After daily treatments, all dead fish will be collected and buried at SVWMA or the air bladder will be punctured allowing them to sink in the reservoir. Some of the fish that are killed during the treatment will be irretrievable; decomposition of these fish will assist in stimulating zooplankton and other aquatic insect populations in the lakes (UDWR 2007). Post-treatment fish surveys will take place shortly after the rotenone deactivates in the water. Post-treatment surveys for Comins Lake will consist of boat electroshocking and/or gill net surveys. Given the extensive nature of Bassett Lake, post-treatment surveys will also include boat electroshocking and gill net surveys. Post-treatment surveys of the tributaries to Bassett Lake will be performed by utilizing backpack electroshockers. During post-treatments surveys, if any Northern Pike are located, a second rotenone treatment may be conducted during the winter or following spring in order to accomplish the project objectives. Protocols and treatment methodologies for any follow-up treatments will be as identified here for the primary treatment, but may encompass less than the identified full treatment areas on either water body depending on need. Expected Results of the Project: The potential for illegal Northern Pike introductions to other waters in the state will be substantially reduced by removing pike from Comins and Bassett lakes. It is expected this eradication will allow the improvement of the primary sport fisheries and increase opportunities for recreational angling. Comins Lake would be expected to again become a trophy fishing water for Rainbow Trout and Largemouth Bass. This should increase fishing license sales and provide community benefits such as increased fishing-related tourism for the Ely area. Biological Assessment of the Proposed Actions: Rotenone is a natural occurring compound that is derived from the roots of plants within the pea (Leguminosae) family. Indigenous people in Australia, Oceania, Southern Asia, and South America have been using this compound for hundreds of years to capture fish for food (Quigley 1956 and Bearez 1988). Rotenone has been used in fisheries management in North American since the 1930s (Finlayson et al. 2000). Rotenone has not only been used as a piscicide, but also as a natural insecticide on crops and for parasite control on livestock (Ling 2002). Rotenone is an efficient piscicide due to its ability to inhibit oxygen transfer at the cellular level. The reason rotenone is able to inhibit oxygen transfer is because it disrupts the biochemical process within the cell mitochondria. The electron transport is blocked by reducing the amount of NADH-ubiquinone reductase available. This causes the metabolic pathway of oxidative phosporylation to uncouple, which leads to anoxia in tissues causing cardiac and neurological failure (Ling 2003). Low concentrations of rotenone are easily absorbed in to the bloodstream of fish due to the thin cell layer of the gills, and it is transferred throughout the bloodstream. Contrastingly, non-target organisms, such as mammals and other non-gill animals, are not likely to be affected by the concentrations used in piscicide treatments (Finlayson 2000, Ling 2003, NPS 2006, USEPA 2007, MFWP 2008). By following the label recommendations for concentration, rotenone does not pose a risk to humans, other mammals, or birds. In order for rotenone to be lethal to humans, Finlayson et al. (2000) estimated that a 160-pound person would have to consume 23,000 gallons of water treated with rotenone. That

10


water would have to be treated at the highest concentration of rotenone allowed under the product label in order to cause death. Tables 1 through 13 below describe the identified possible impacts from treating Comins and Bassett lakes with rotenone. Table 1. LAND RESOURCES Will the proposed action result in:

IMPACT ∗

Can Impact Be

Mitigated Comment

Index Unknown ∗ None Minor ∗

Potentially Significant

a. ∗∗Soil instability or changes in geologic substructure?

X

b. Disruption, displacement, erosion, compaction, moisture loss, or over-covering of soil which would reduce productivity or fertility?

X

c. ∗∗Destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features?

X

d. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion patterns that may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed or shore of a lake?

X

e. Exposure of people or property to earthquakes, landslides, ground failure, or other natural hazard?

X

f. Other: X

Table 2. AIR Will the proposed action result in:

IMPACT ∗ Can Impact

Be Mitigated

Comment Index Unknown ∗ None Minor ∗


a. Emission of air pollutants or deterioration of ambient air quality? (also see 13 (c))

X

2a

b. Creation of objectionable odors? X 2b

c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature patterns or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?

X

d. Adverse effects on vegetation, including crops, due to increased emissions of pollutants?

X

e. For P-R/D-J projects, will the project result in any discharge, which will conflict with federal or state air quality regs? (Also see 2a)

X

f. Other: X

Comment 2a: The use of outboard and four-stroke motors will produce emissions; however, these emissions will be minor and of short duration.

Comment 2b: Rotenone formulations typically have an odor and it will be present during the treatment. According to the CFT LegumineTM and Prentox® PrenfishTM Fish Toxicant Powder labels, treated waters will not retain a detectable odor for more than a few days to a maximum of one month. It’s expected that any odor will dissipate more quickly given the time of year that the chemical will be used and the corresponding warm temperatures that will help break it down. Dead fish carcasses may cause objectionable odors, however

11


this will be mitigated by crews collecting floating fish that will be buried at the Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area or the air bladder will be punctured. Since the carcasses will be removed or sunk, any objectionable odors will be short term and minor

Table 3. WATER Will the proposed action result in:

IMPACT ∗ Can Impact Be Mitigated

Comment Index Unknown ∗ None

Minor ∗


a. Discharge into surface water or any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?

X

3a

b. Changes in drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff?

X

c. Alteration of the course or magnitude of floodwater or other flows?

X

d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body or creation of a new water body?

X

e. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding?

X

f. Changes in the quality of groundwater? X 3f g. Changes in the quantity of groundwater? X h. Increase in risk of contamination of surface or groundwater?

X

See 3a, f

i. Effects on any existing water right or reservation? X j. Effects on other water users as a result of any alteration in surface or groundwater quality?

X

k. Effects on other users as a result of any alteration in surface or groundwater quantity?

X

l. For P-R/D-J, will the project affect a designated floodplain? (Also see 3c)

X

m. For P-R/D-J, will the project result in any discharge that will affect federal or state water quality regulations? (Also see 3a)

X

Yes

Yes

3m

n. Other: X

Comment 3a: During treatment days, both CFT LegumineTM and Prentox® PrenfishTM will be applied according to their label instructions. CFT LegumineTM (5% liquid) and Prentox® PrenfishTM (7.4% powder) are registered with the Environmental Protection Agency as a restricted-use pesticide. Rotenone will be applied to the main standing water bodies at each location using motorboats. Backpack sprayers, drip buckets, and sand-gelatin mixture will be used to treat the surrounding wetlands that could provide refuge for northern pike.

CFT LegumineTM (5% liquid) contains a combination of rotenone and other resins that are active ingredients and constitute 10% of the total product. The remaining 90% of the product is made of diethylene glycol ethyl ether (DGEE), Fennedo 99TM and N-methylpyrrolidone, which are inert ingredients. The inactive ingredients assist with the emulsification and dispersion of rotenone within water. Due to it its ability to breakdown in an aquatic environment, residue from these compounds are less likely to accumulate in the water or sediments. When rotenone breaks down, one of the byproducts is rotenolone. Rotenolone is considered toxic; however, it is an order of magnitude less toxic than rotenone. The main products of rotenone when it breaks down are carbon dioxide and water.

12


Some of the other ingredients that are detected in CFT LegumineTM are benzene-based compounds, hexanol, and naphthalene. These other ingredients occur in such small amounts that they are measured in parts per trillion (ppt). These ingredients are found in lower concentrations than is permitted in drinking water standards.

Rotenone can be detoxified in three different ways, dilution, oxidation, and natural degradation. Detoxification is by simply diluting rotenone with freshwater. Fresh groundwater or flowing water can be used to detoxify the lake. The second way of detoxifying rotenone is to use potassium permanganate (KMnO4). Potassium permanganate is a crystalline oxidizing agent that, when mixed with lake water at the correct concentration, will detoxify rotenone.

The form of detoxification that will be used on this treatment is to allow the natural decomposition of the rotenone. Natural degradation is caused by exposure to sunlight, water temperature, water chemistry, depth, organic debris, and concentration (Schnick 1974 and Hinson 2000). Given the drawdown that will occur at Comins Lake, and an average depth of five feet at Bassett Lake, allowing rotenone to breakdown naturally is reasonable. Cages containing sentinel fish (rainbow trout) will be used to confirm that the applied concentration is adequate to cause fish mortality. After post-treatment surveys, Steptoe Creek will be rerouted back into Comins Lake, diluting any remaining rotenone or residues leftover from the treatment.

Comment 3f: Since rotenone breaks down readily in an aquatic environment and has low to moderate mobility in soil and sediments, there is no anticipation of groundwater contamination. Finlayson et al. (2001) found that residues from rotenone, rotenolone, and other constituents in the formulations could not be detected in 26 wells that were monitored from 1987-1997 in California. One well that was monitored was a minimum of 1 meter deep and 3 meters horizontally from the rotenone-treated water bodies. In most soil types rotenone will leach less than 2 cm; and less than 8 cm in sandy soil (Finalyson et al. 2001).

Comment 3m: The treatment will occur within Comins Lake, Bassett Lake, and Basset Lake’s tributaries. Pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 445A.615, the Nevada Department of Wildlife will submit an application to Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) for a Fish Eradication Permit prior to the treatment.

Table 4. VEGETATION Will the proposed action result in:


∗ Comment

Index Unknown ∗ None Minor ∗ Potentially Significant

a. Changes in the diversity, productivity or abundance of plant species (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?

X

4a

b. Alteration of a plant community? X

c. Adverse effects on any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species?

X

d. Reduction in acreage or productivity of any agricultural land?

X

e. Establishment or spread of noxious weeds? X

f. For P-R/D-J, will the project affect wetlands, or prime and unique farmland?

X

g. Other: X

Comment 4a: Comins and Bassett Lakes have multiple roads and unimproved parking lots available to personnel for access to the treatment area. The only impact to vegetation that will occur is from personnel that are

13


walking through the wetlands during the treatment. Some plants will be disturbed, but this is only temporary. There will be no changes in the diversity, productivity, or abundance of plant species due to the use of rotenone and at the concentrations that it will be administered.

Table 5. FISH/WILDLIFE Will the proposed action result in:

IMPACT ∗ Can Impact Be

Mitigated ∗

Comment

Index

Unknown ∗ None Minor ∗


a. Deterioration of critical fish or wildlife habitat? X b. Changes in the diversity or abundance of game animals or bird species?

X

5b

c. Changes in the diversity or abundance of nongame species?

X

5c

d. Introduction of new species into an area? X e. Creation of a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?

X

f. Adverse effects on any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species?

X

g. Increase in conditions that stress wildlife populations or limit abundance (including harassment, legal or illegal harvest or other human activity)?

X

See 5b,c

h. For P-R/D-J, will the project be performed in any area in which T&E species are present, and will the project affect any T&E species or their habitat?

X

i. For P-R/D-J, will the project introduce or export any species not presently or historically occurring in the receiving location? (Also see 5d)

X

j. Other:

Comment 5b: Fish: This project is designed to kill non-native, injurious, and invasive fish species. There are no native, non-game

fish species present in Basset Lake or Comins Lake. Relict dace may occur within the project area of Comins Lake and Bassett Lake, but not within the treatment area.

Game mammals and non-game mammals: Antelope, cottontail rabbits, deer, and elk can occur within the project areas, as well as various non-game mammals. The EPA has shown that at the proposed concentrations, rotenone will have no effect on mammals that are exposed to or drink rotenone-treated water (Schnick 1974a, 1974b; Herr et al. 1967).

Migratory waterfowl: Migratory waterfowl will be present during the proposed treatment and may be disturbed by the treatment activities and temporarily leave the area. The availability of other waters nearby will minimize those impacts. Birds may feed on rotenone-killed fish shortly after the treatment; however, research has shown that birds cannot physiologically consume sufficient quantities of rotenone-killed fish to result in a lethal dose (Finlayson 2000 and USEPA 2007).

Other Birds: It is possible that additional bird species will be present during the treatment and come in contact with rotenone-treated water, drink rotenone-treated water, and/or consume rotenone-killed fish. Efforts to remove rotenone-killed fish that surface would minimize any potential risks to these birds. However, at the concentrations necessary to kill fish, birds are not harmed even if they do consume rotenone-killed fish (Finlayson et al. 2000, USEPA 2007). All impacts to Comins Lake and Bassett Lake as a result of this treatment will be temporary and short-lived.

14


Comment 5c: Organisms such as zooplankton, aquatic insects, bullfrogs, and muskrats might be present during the treatment. Aquatic insects and zooplankton have been shown to be less sensitive to rotenone than fish (Schnick 1974b), however toxicity varies among taxonomic group with Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera being the most sensitive (Vinson et al. 2010). Given their life cycles and ability to disperse, aquatic insect populations are capable of recovering (Anderson and Wallace 1984, Jacobi and Deegan 1977). Vinson et al. (2010) found that invertebrate populations returned to the pre-treatment levels in less than one year. Even though populations were able to recover, species richness did not recover as quickly. Regarding non-native bullfrogs, larval and tadpole life stages could be affected by rotenone at fish killing concentrations, but adults are more resistant to the effects of rotenone. Currently, there is no documentation suggesting that native amphibians are present at either treatment area. Pre-treatment surveys will allow NDOW personnel to confirm this. Even if native amphibians are found to be present, treatments will occur late in the year after metamorphosis has occured, significantly reducing any potential effects.

Table 6. NOISE/ELECTRICAL EFFECTS Will the proposed action result in:


∗

Comment

Index

Unknown ∗

None Minor ∗


a. Increases in existing noise levels? X 6a b. Exposure of people to serve or nuisance noise levels?

X

c. Creation of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects that could be detrimental to human health or property?

X

d. Interference with radio or television reception and operation?

X

e. Other: X

Comment 6a: There will be an increase in noise in the treatment areas associated with pretreatment and post-treatment surveys, as well as during the treatment itself. All of these noise increases will be short term and minor.

Table 7. LAND USE Will the proposed action result in:


∗

Comment

Index

Unknown ∗

None Minor ∗


a. Alteration of or interference with the productivity or profitability of the existing land use of an area?

X

b. Conflicted with a designated natural area or area of unusual scientific or educational importance?

X

c. Conflict with any existing land use whose presence would constrain or potentially prohibit the proposed action?

X

d. Adverse effects on or relocation of residences? X e. Other: X

15


Table 8. RISK/HEALTH HAZARDS Will the proposed action result in:


∗

Comment

Index

Unknown ∗

None Minor ∗


a. Risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or other forms of disruption?

X

8a

b. Affect an existing emergency response or emergency evacuation plan or create a need for a new plan?

X

c. Creation of any human health hazard or potential hazard?

X

See 8a

d. For P-R/D-J, will any chemical toxicants be used? X See 8a, c e. Other: X

Comment 8a: All rotenone applicators will follow standardized protocols and wear proper personal protective equipment (PPE) listed on the CFT LegumineTM label. Additionally, all supervisory applicators have completed the training course “Planning and Executing Successful Rotenone and Antimycin Projects” from the AFS Fish Management Chemicals Subcommittee. All other personnel will be briefed on safety procedures the evening prior to the commencement of the treatment.

Rotenone will be mixed, transported, handled, applied, and stored according to the label specifications to minimize the potential for human exposure or spill. In the event of an accidental rotenone spill within the two project areas, personnel will contain the spill and, if warranted, immediately contact the NDEP for assistance. As stated previously, storage of all rotenone, prior to the treatment, will be at the Nevada Department of Wildlife Office, Eastern Region Headquarters in Elko, Nevada. In the days preceding the treatment and during the treatment, all rotenone and related treatment supplies will be stored in a secured workshop at Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area (SVWMA). In the event that a spill occurs, the material will be contained using hand tools. Once contained the material will be absorbed using clay, soils, sawdust, or straw. If those measures are not effective, the material will be collected using a pump or sponge.

There will be a separate loading/mixing area adjacent to the storage area at SVWMA as well as a loading/mixing area at each treatment area. There will be containers (stock tanks) available that will function as secondary containment. If there is a spill in the treatment area that is not directly in the water, the spill will contained using hand tools, when feasible, and absorbed using the above materials. Prior to the beginning of any treatments a written spill contingency plan will be in place.

Comments 8c: See the section “Description of Rotenone” on page 8.

16


Table 9. COMMUNITY IMPACT Will the proposed action result in:

IMPACT ∗ Can Impact

Be Mitigated

∗ Comment Index

Unknown ∗

None Minor ∗


a. Alteration of the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?

X

b. Alteration of the social structure of a community?

X

c. Alteration of the level or distribution of employment or community or personal income?

X

d. Changes in industrial or commercial activity? X e. Increased traffic hazards or effects on existing transportation facilities or patterns of movement of people and goods?

X

f. Other: X

Table 10. PUBLIC SERVICES/TAXES/UTILITIES Will the proposed action result in:


∗

Comment

Index

Unknown ∗

None Minor ∗


a. Will the proposed action have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: fire or police protection, schools, parks/recreational facilities, roads or other public maintenance, water supply, sewer or septic systems, solid waste disposal, health, or other governmental services? If any, specify:

X

10a

b. Will the proposed action have an effect upon the local or state tax base and revenues?

X

c. Will the proposed action result in a need for new facilities or substantial alterations of any of the following utilities: electric power, natural gas, other fuel supply or distribution systems, or communications?

X

d. Will the proposed action result in increased used of any energy source?

X

e. Define projected revenue sources X f. Define projected maintenance costs. X g. Other: X

Comment 10a: Comins Lake is part of Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area and access by the public will be limited at the time of the treatment. Bassett Lake is privately owned; however, it is a public fishery. Access will be limited at the time of the treatment as well. The restricted access will be temporary and will end as soon as the waters are deemed safe to occupy. This will be determined following a 24-hour bioassay demonstrating that fish survive or 14 days after the application is complete, whichever is less.

17


Table 11. AESTHETICS/RECREATION Will the proposed action result in:


∗

Comment

Index

Unknown ∗

None Minor ∗


a. Alteration of any scenic vista or creation of an aesthetically offensive site or effect that is open to public view?

X

11a

b. Alteration of the aesthetic character of a community or neighborhood?

X

c. Alteration of the quality or quantity of recreational/tourism opportunities and settings?

X

11c

d. For P-R/D-J, will any designated or proposed wild or scenic rivers, trails or wilderness areas be impacted? (Also see 11a, 11c)

X

e. Other: X

Comment 11a: Comins Lake is on the Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area. Access to Comins Lake will be restricted during the treatment period. There is the possibility that odors from the rotenone formulations and the decomposing fish may cause some public concern. However, the odors from the rotenone formulations will dissipate quickly and personnel will be disposing of any floating fish carcasses during and after the treatment. Bassett Lake is privately owned; therefore restricting access will follow guidelines set in the Rotenone Standard Operating Procedures Manual. The only issues that will be potentially offensive are the same as those for Comins Lake. They will be mitigated in the same manner.

Comment 11c: The goals of this project are to eradicate northern pike in Comins Lake and Bassett Lake and eventually re-establish the trophy Rainbow and Brown Trout and Largemouth Bass fishery at each location. Since Northern Pike have become established at Comins Lake, angler use has dropped 95% from the peak in 2004. Restoration of both fisheries will result in increased angler use, which translates to increased local economic revenue.

Table 12. CULTURAL/HISTORICAL RESOURCES Will the proposed action result in:


∗

Comment

Index

Unknown ∗

None Minor ∗


a. ∗∗Destruction or alteration of any site, structure or object of prehistoric historic, or paleontological importance?

X

b. Physical change that would affect unique cultural values?

X

c. Effects on existing religious or sacred uses of a site or area?

X

d. ∗∗∗∗For P-R/D-J, will the project affect historic or cultural resources? Attach SHPO letter of clearance. (Also see 12.a)

X

e. Other: X

18


Table 13. SUMMARY EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Will the proposed action, considered as a whole:

IMPACT ∗ Can

Impact Be Mitigated

∗

Comment

Index

Unknown ∗

None Minor ∗


a. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project or program may result in impacts on two or more separate resources that create a significant effect when considered together or in total.)

X

b. Involve potential risks or adverse effects which are uncertain but extremely hazardous if they were to occur?

X

c. Potentially conflict with the substantive requirements of any local, state, or federal law, regulation, standard or formal plan?

X

d. Establish a precedent or likelihood that future actions with significant environmental impacts will be proposed?

X

e. Generate substantial debate or controversy about the nature of the impacts that would be created?

X

13e

f. is the project expected to have organized opposition or generate substantial public controversy? (Also see 13e)

X

13f

g. List any federal or state permits required. X 13g

Comment 13e and 13f: A presentation of the Comins Lake and Bassett Lake Restoration Plans was given at a formal public meeting of the White Pine County Water Advisory Committee. Approximately 50 residents of White Pine County attended this meeting. Only three individuals at the time opposed the removal of northern pike from Comins Lake and Bassett Lake. The community of Ely is overwhelmingly in support of the proposal, based on public input received to date and informal contacts with members of the White Pine County Rotary Club. The project proposal will be presented for public comment at meetings of the White Pine County Commission, White Pine County Water Advisory Committee, and the White Pine County Wildlife Advisory Board. Presentations will be given at County Wildlife Advisory Boards in the surrounding counties, including Clark, Elko, Eureka, Lincoln and Nye, and to the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners. The Draft project plan will be made available for public comment on the NDOW web site.

Comment 13g: See Comment 8a.

Alternatives Considered for this Project: Alternative 1- No Action The no action alternative will result in these public fisheries continuing in a static to downward trend, with limited angling opportunity. Since Northern Pike are highly piciverous listed as an injurious and prohibited species within the State of Nevada (NAC 503.072 and NAC 503.110, respectively), the Nevada Department of Wildlife will not stock sport fish in waters they occupy. This alternative will continue an existing high risk of Northern Pike being illegally moved to other waters in the State of Nevada.

19


Alternative 2- Rotenone Treatment and Fisheries Rehabilitation – Preferred Alternative This alternative will use two rotenone formulations, CFT LegumineTM (liquid rotenone) and Prentox PrenfishTM (powdered rotenone), to remove all fish from Comins Lake and Bassett Lake. Following the application of the rotenone and natural detoxification, both lakes will be stocked with trout and largemouth bass. This is the preferred alternative, which will offer the highest probability of achieving the goal of providing a quality recreational fishery at Comins and Bassett Lakes. Alternative 3- Draining Comins Lake has been pumped down in the past for irrigation purposes. It is estimated that using a 6,100 gallon/minute pump, it would require pumping 24 hours a day for 90 days to drain the lake from full pool. Unfortunately, Bassett Lake water elevations cannot be lowered enough through pumping as the numerous tributaries and marshlands would continue to provide refuge for northern pike. Draining would be a feasible alternative if both lakes were capable of being completely drained. Since they cannot be drained, the risk of Northern Pike escapement and illegal reintroductions would continue to be very high and actions to restore the Comins Lake sport fishery would likely be unsuccessful. Alternative 4- Mechanical Removal Mechanical removal of Northern Pike has been attempted in the past at Comins Lake, just after their initial sightings. Utilizing hoop nets and boat electroshockers, personnel were unable to keep up with the rate of Northern Pike reproduction. The complexity of habitats and the extensiveness of tributaries, particularly at Bassett Lake, are such that removal by these methods would require unreasonable time and manpower, with absolutely no expectation of complete removal. Project Proposal preparers/contacts: Heath Korell, Fisheries Biologist Nevada Department of Wildlife 1218 N. Alpha Street Ely, Nevada 89301 [email protected] John Elliott, Supervising Fisheries Biologist Nevada Department of Wildlife 60 Youth Center Road Elko, Nevada 89801 [email protected]

20

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Literature Cited: Anderson, N.H. and J.B. Wallace. 1984. Habitat, life history, and behavioral adaptations of aquatic

insects. Pages 38-58 in R.W. Merrit and K.W. Cummins (eds.), An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. 2nd Edition Kendall/Hunt Publishing, Dubuque, Iowa.

Bearex, P. 1998. First archaeological indication of fishing by poison in a sea environmental by the

Engoroy population at Salango (Manabi, Equador). Journal of Archaeological Science 25. 943-944.

Finlayson, B.J., R.A. Schnick, R.L. Caiteux, L. DeMong, W.D. Horton, W. McClay, C.W. Thompson, and G.J.

Tichacek. 2000. Rotenone use in fisheries management; administrative and technical guidelines manual. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Finlayson, B.J., J. Trumbo, and S. Siepmann. 2001. Chemical residues in surface and ground waters

following rotenone applications to California lakes and streams. Pages 37-54 In Rotenone in Fisheries: Are the Rewards Worth the Risks? Cailteux, R.L., L. Demong, B.J. Finlayson, W. Horton, W. McClay, R.A. Schnick, and C. Thompson, editors. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 129 pp.

Finlayson, B., R. Schnick, D. Skaar, J. Anderson, L. Demong, D. Duffield, W. Horton, and J. Steinkjer. 2010.

Planning and standard operating proecedures for the use of rotenone in fish management—rotenone SOP manual. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Fuller, P. and Nico, L. 2015. Gila atraria. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL.

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=531 Revision Date: 8/5/2004. Herr, F., E. Greselin, and C. Chappel. 1967. Toxicology studies of antimycin, a Fish Eradicant.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 96 (3):320-326. Hinson, D. 2000. Rotenone characterization and toxicity in aquatic systems. University of Idaho,

Principles of Environmental Toxicology. 13pp. Jacobi, G.Z. and D.J. Deegan. 1977. Aquatic macroinvertebrates in a small Wisconsin trout stream

Before, During, and Two Years after Treatment with the Fish Toxicant Antimycin. Investigations in Fish Control. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 80:24 p.19 ref 8, figure 9.

Ling, N. 2003. Rotenone, a review of its toxicity and use fisheries management. Science for Conservation

211. 40p. ISBN 0-478-22345-5.

21


Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). 2008. Rotenone Treatment of Tunnel Lake for Removal of an Expanding White Sucker Population: Environmental Assessement. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. http://fwp.mt.gov/publicnotices/default.aspx. Accessed: 01/17/15.

National Park Service (NPS). 2006. Restoration of westlope cutthroat in the East Fork Specimen creek

watershed: Environmental Assessment. National Park Service, www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/final_wct% Accessed: 01/17/15.

Quigley, C. 1956. Aboriginal fish poisons and the diffusion problem. American Anthropologist 58:508-

525. Schnick, R.A. 1974a. A review of the literature on the use of rotenone in fisheries. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Fish Control Laboratory. La Crosse, Wisconsin. 130pp. Schnick, R.A. 1974b. A review of the literature on the use of rotenone in fisheries. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Fish Control Laboratory. La Crosse, Wisconsin. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2007. Final environmental assessment and finding of no

significant impact for naïve trout restoration and enhancement projects in southwest Utah. South Region Office, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Cedar City.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Reregistration eligibility decisions for

rotenone. Document 738-R-07-007. USEPA, Washington, D.C. Vinson, M.R., E.C. Dinger, and D.K. Vinson. 2010. Piscicides and Invertebrates: After 70 Years, Does

Anyone Really Know? Fisheries 35 (2) 61-71.

22

http://fwp.mt.gov/publicnotices/default.aspx

http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/final_wct%25

nevada department of wildlife - comins and bassett lakes … · 2015. 2. 26. · project location:...

Documents