manti-la sal national foresta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...olsen-mccadden...

Olsen-McCadden Livestock Water Development

Manti-La Sal National Forest Revised Oct 2010

MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST

FERRON RANGER DISTRICT CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION REVIEW

FILE NUMBER: 2240 PROJECT TITLE: Olsen-McCadden Livestock Water Development PROJECT LEAD: Steven Cox ESTIMATED DATE FOR IMPLEMENTATION: July 31

st 2014

Exclusion: 36 CFR 220 §6(e)(_9_).

LINE OFFICER DIRECTIONS

This documents my instructions to proceed with the NEPA analysis for the proposed Olsen-Gentry Livestock

Water Development Project on the Ferron Ranger District and provides you with the opportunity to identify

any concerns or specific information important for me to be aware of prior to making a decision regarding

this proposal, including any recommendations for Design Features pertinent to your resource specialty. If

you choose to use this document as a resource specialist report, address current conditions, potential direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects discussions, limited to displaying the potential for this project to breach a

significance threshold regarding extraordinary circumstances. Attach pertinent citations supporting your

conclusions with any maps and supporting references for the project record.

The projected level of analysis for the document is a Categorical Exclusion (36 CFR 220 § 6e(9)) –

Implementation or modification of minor management practices to improve allotment condition or animal

distribution when an allotment management plan is not yet in place I will use this analysis to determine if it

is appropriate to proceed with the project or if additional NEPA documentation (EA or EIS) is required prior

to implementation.

_____________ November 11, 2013 Darren Olsen Date District Ranger

PART 1 – Project Proposal PROPOSED ACTION: Well-defined proposal that includes all aspects of project design, including mitigation measures and monitoring

requirements and timing. Attach map of the project area. Identify who will be the project lead, what is the proposal, and when is the proposed date of implementation.

The Ferron-Price Ranger District of the Manti-La Sal National Forest proposes the installation of five

livestock watering facilities. Three facilities on Olsen Bench S&G Allotment, one at the Orange-Olsen

Guard Station, and one on the Gentry C&H Allotment in McCadden Hollow.

Olsen Bench- Switchback Trough: The proposed action will divert approximately 2 gpm of water from a

spring that surfaces in the uphill road cut on the last switchback going up to the White Dugway above Joes

Valley (see map #1). A pipeline will carry the water approximately 400 feet to a trough placed north of the

road about 200 feet. The pipe will be buried along the road to avoid damage from road work, but once the

route leaves the road the pipe will be left on the surface. This trough will be placed on the old road way to

lessen new impacts to the ecosystem.

White Dugway Trough: Here we will divert roughly 2 gpm from a spring that surfaces on the uphill road cut

part way up the White Dugway (see map #1). A pipeline will carry the water approximately 3500 feet to a



trough placed south of the road about 400 feet. The pipe will be buried along the road to avoid damage from

road work, but once the route leaves the road the pipe will be left on the surface.

Grassy Road Trough: This diversion will collect roughly 4 gpm from an unnamed stream that comes under

the Grassy Lake road about 1.25 miles from where the road intersects with Route 29 (see map #1). A

pipeline will carry the water approximately 1300 feet to a trough placed about 200 feet away from the

riparian zone. All pipes except at the head box and trough will be left on the soil surface to minimize

impacts.

Each of these three troughs will be of a flow thru design where the overflow will be returned the watershed

at least 50 feet from the trough. Each trough will also have a wildlife escape ramp installed.

Guard Station Trough: This diversion will take roughly 5 gpm from Littles Creek just to the north and east of

the Orange-Olsen Guard Station (see map #1). A pipeline will carry the water approximately 600 feet to a

trough placed inside the corral at the north end of the station compound. This trough will be for Forest

Service horses and water will only be diverted when horses are in the station pasture. All pipes except at the

head box and trough will be left on the soil surface to minimize impacts. The overflow will be piped back

toward the stream and day lighted at least 50 feet from the trough. This trough will also have a wildlife

escape ramp installed.

On all of the above watering systems a valve will be placed at the head box to allow for shut off of the

system and let water return to the normal water course.

McCadden Hollow- The proposed action will divert approximately 10 gpm of water from a pond on the

East side of McCadden Hollow. A pipeline will carry the water approximately ½ mile to a trough

strategically placed on the fence line between East and West McCadden pastures (see map #2). The trough

will be a flow thru design and the overflow will be returned the watershed at least 50 feet from the trough.

The trough will only be used when cattle are in one of the two pastures (approx. 1 month), and the water will

be returned to its normal course the remainder of the year. The pipe will be buried to avoid vandalism from

the public and abuse from livestock and wildlife. The trough will also have a wildlife escape ramp installed.

PURPOSE AND NEED: Identify why this project needs to take place

There is a need to obtain a more uniform distribution of livestock use across these allotments. The purpose

of these watering systems is to encourage use of these areas at appropriate times and thereby further

scattering utilization and soil disturbance over larger areas. The installation of these watering systems will

also serve to reduce the impact of livestock on riparian areas which currently receive heavy use. LOCATION OF PROPOSED ACTION: Provide a map of the project area with other resource areas identified (allotments, IRA’s, RNA’s,

wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, etc.)

See attached maps

PLAN CONFORMANCE REVIEW: The proposed action has been reviewed for conformance with the Forest Land Management Plan

(1986). Lists the decisions and/or identify management requirements, mitigation measures and design features. Forest Plan Checklists must be completed.

The proposed action will help meet management goals established in the Manti-LaSal National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan – Invest in Range improvements that provide the greatest benefit (Forest

Management Goals III-3). Protect and enhance riparian areas (Forest Management Goals III-2).



Adjustments coupled with improved grazing management and range improvements would provide for

achievement of Forest Plan goals for grazing and maintenance of a stable local livestock industry (Record of

Decision Manti-La Sal National Forest land and Resource Management Plan pg. 9).

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION REVIEW: The proposed action is categorical excluded under 36 CFR 220 §6(e)(__). List the categorical

exclusion(s):

This decision is categorically excluded from preparation of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental

Impact Statement under FSH 1909.15, 31.2.-9. Low impact range management activities, such as fencing

seeding and installing water facilities. In reviewing all of the categories, I have determined the effects of

these projects fall within the effects of the listed examples in Chapter 30 for categorical exclusions.



PART 2 – Preliminary Internal Review and Issue Identification The proposal has been reviewed to determine the potential of any of the exceptions described In 36 CFR 220 §6(b). Surname(s) verify completion of this review by appropriate specialists. Provide information that describes current conditions and provides potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects discussions, limited to displaying the potential for this project to breach a significance threshold regarding extraordinary circumstances. List design feature recommendations and attach pertinent citations supporting your conclusions with any maps and supporting references for the project record. It is imperative that each resource area that is a part of the ID Team must provide a narrative and sign the appropriate section of this checklist form.

EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (ref 36 CFR 220 §6(b)):

(1) Resource conditions that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances related to a proposed action warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS are:

(i) Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species

proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species; (ii) Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds; (iii) Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national

recreation areas; (iv) Inventoried roadless area or potential wilderness area; (v) Research natural areas; (vi) American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites; and (vii) Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas.

(2) The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a

categorical exclusion (CE). It is the existence of a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions, and if such a relationship exists, the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist.



RECREATION / WILDERNESS / VISUAL RESOURCES

The proposal would not adversely affect unique geographic characteristics such as park, recreation, or refuge lands, wilderness areas, Inventoried Roadless areas, unroaded undeveloped areas, wilderness study area, wild and scenic rivers including those listed on the Department’s National Register of Natural Landmarks. Identify the areas that would be affected if any: If areas will be affect are there mitigation measures or design feature to reduce or eliminate impacts?

Wilderness Staff: Date:

Visual Staff: Date:

Recreation Staff: Date:



CULTURAL / HISTORICAL / PALEONTOLOGICAL

The proposal has no potential to disturb the ground or damage features or structures (Memo required for project file)

Memo can be completed by (give earliest date): The project has been inventoried for cultural resources and no sites were found (Archaeological report

required) Project design can avoid or protect any known/suspected sites; project needs survey (archaeological report

required) Estimated cost to complete project survey (number, grade level and days required) The proposal does not threaten to violate a federal, state, local or tribal law or requirement imposed for the

protection of the environment. The proposal would not adversely affect properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of

Historic Places. NOTE: Appropriate consultation with Native American tribes is always required under NHPA and ARPA as amended

Archaeological Staff: Date:



WILDLIFE / FISH / THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES

1. No TEP species involved (go to #4) 2. TEP Species involved but No Effect expected (go to #4) 3. TEP involved USFWS consultation expected (complete 3a – 3f and #4)

a. Document full analysis of all alternatives and all species for project file; this includes threatened, endangered and potential species, management indicator species and special interest species.

b. If something can’t be mitigated – analyze as an issue in EA c. Write BA for the preferred alternative d. Submit BA on preferred alternative to the USFWS e. Expect concurrence/denial within 30 days f. Circulate BA for USFS signatures

4. No sensitive species involved (go to #5) 5. Sensitive species involved, no impact expected (go to #6) 6. Sensitive species involved (complete 6a – 6b)

a. Write BE for preferred alternative b. Circulate BE for USFS signatures

**Estimated cost, if any, for project support (include GS grade level, number of personnel and number of days):

Wildlife Staff: Date:



FORESTED VEGETATION

If the proposed action is fuels treatment, a vegetation prescription will be completed as per Forest Service Manual direction. List any key public contacts that need to be made on page 1 Attach any additional information to this document pertaining to this proposal

List requested funding needed to support this proposal

Forester/Silviculturist Staff: Date:



RANGELAND VEGETATION

This project will have no significant effect on developed improvements. (If this project has potential impacts can these

impacts be mitigated? At what cost?)

This project will have no significant impact on livestock rotation within the planned grazing system. (If this project

has potential impacts can these impacts be mitigated? At what cost?)

This project will have no significant potential to displace wildlife and have the potential to impact other grazing allotments. List any key public contacts that need to be made on page 1 Attach any additional information to this document pertaining to this proposal


Rangeland Management Staff: Date:



Wetlands, Floodplains, Municipal Supply Watersheds, Impaired Waters

There are no wetlands in the project area.

There are wetlands in the project area, but no adverse effects are anticipated. Document rationale, may include involvement in project design, walk-through of project area, BMP’s, SWCP’s, buffer zones, etc.

There are wetlands in the project area, adverse effects are possible.

Document additional field investigation to confirm locations and proximity of wetlands to proposed activities. Document needed modification to proposed activities, additional design criteria, mitigation measures, or other measures.

There are no floodplains or flood-prone areas in the project area. There are floodplains or flood-prone areas in the project area, but no adverse effects are anticipated.

Document rationale, may include involvement in project design, walk-through of project area, BMP’s, SWCP’s, buffer zones, etc.

There are floodplains or flood-prone areas in the project area, adverse effects are possible.

Document additional field investigation to confirm locations and proximity of floodplains or flood-prone areas to proposed activities. Document needed modification to proposed activities, additional design criteria, mitigation measures, or other measures.

Municipal supply watersheds (FSM 2542) include surface supply watersheds, sole source aquifers, and the protection zones around well and springs.

There are no municipal supply watersheds or drinking water source areas in the project area. There are municipal supply watersheds or drinking water source areas in the project area, but no adverse effects

are anticipated. Document rationale, may include involvement in project design, walk-through of project area, BMP’s, SWCP’s, buffer zones, etc.

There are municipal supply watersheds or drinking water source areas in the project area, adverse effects are possible.

Document additional field investigation to confirm locations and proximity of municipal supply watersheds or drinking water source areas to proposed activities. Document needed modification to proposed activities, additional design criteria, mitigation measures, or other measures.

Is it likely that the degree of potential effect of the proposed action on wetlands, floodplains, or municipal supply watersheds constitutes an extraordinary circumstance.

NO YES

Is the project area adjacent to or tributary to a water quality limited stream segment or lake (from current 303(d) list or a TMDL)?

NO YES – complete Clean Water Act Worksheet.

List any key public contacts that need to be made on page 1 of this document.

Attach any additional information pertaining to this proposal. This may include required BMP’s/SWCP’s/mitigation, Clean Water Act Worksheet, maps, etc.

The proposal complies with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management). The proposal complies with Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). The proposal complies with the Clean Water Act. The proposal complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The proposal complies with Forest Plan management direction. The proposal complies with Utah Anti-degradation Policy (R317-2-3).

Hydrologist, Soil Scientist, and/or District Watershed Staff:

Date:



MINERALS/LANDS

Special use permitees are identified on page 1 List any key public contacts that need to be made on page 1 Attach any additional information to this document pertaining to this proposal


Minerals Specialist Date:

Lands Specialist: Date:



FIRE / FUELS / PRESUPPRESSION / AIR QUALITY

This project does not directly affect the safety of fire fighters If this project involves prescribed burning insure smoke management concerns are addressed as per the State Implementation Plan for Smoke Management and that smoke management is addressed in the burn plan as per manual direction (FSM 5144 and 5108) NEPA Smoke Guidance (Nov 2005) and the Interagency Prescribed Fire Guide (Jul 2008) have been reviewed and are incorporated into the NEPA document. An electronic copy is located at J:\fsfiles\office\nepa\nepaadmin\FireResources.

Fire Staff: Date:



LAW ENFORCEMENT / PUBLIC SAFETY

The proposal would have no significant adverse effects on public health or safety. List any key public contacts that need to be made on page 1 Attach any additional information to this document pertaining to this proposal


Law Enforcement: Date:



Project Area Map Map #1



Map #2



Map #4



PART 3 – PRELIMINARY DECISION (Responsible official to complete the following)

YES NO This proposal would have significant and controversial environmental effects. YES NO Extraordinary circumstances are found associated with this project. YES NO The proposal is directly related to other actions which are individually insignificant,

but cumulatively have significant effects. YES NO The proposal would have highly uncertain or potentially significant environmental

effects and involves unique or unknown environmental risks. YES NO The proposal would establish a precedent for future action(s) or represents a

decision in principle about a future consideration with potentially significant environmental effects.

YES NO This proposal, as stated, requires further analysis and an environmental

assessment is required.

I have determined that the proposal is in conformance with the Manti-La Sal National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986) as amended. It is my decision to implement the proposal, as described. APPROVED BY: DATE: District Ranger



PROJECT INITIATION LETTER COMPLETED: This document – 11/08/2012. Project implementation – 08/01/2013

IDT LEADER: Steven Cox

IDT MEMBER: Jan Curtis-Tollestrup SPECIALIST: Hydrology/Water Rights

IDT MEMBER: Kevin Albrecht SPECIALIST: Wildlife

IDT MEMBER: Diane Cote SPECIALIST: Silvaculture

IDT MEMBER: Robert Davidson SPECIALIST: Soils

IDT MEMBER: Daniel Luke SPECIALIST: Engineering

IDT MEMBER: Sara Stauffer SPECIALIST: Archaelogy

Possible Resource Areas:

Archaeology Fuels/Fire Public Safety Soils Water Rights

Botany Noxious Weeds/Invasive Species

Range Hydrology

Engineering Minerals Recreation Wildlife

PART 4 – INTERDISIPLINARY TEAM AND TIMELINES (Responsible official to complete the following)

manti-la sal national foresta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...olsen-mccadden...

Documents