— Decision Memo — Page 1 of 6

DECISION MEMO

FLAT TOP MOUNTAIN RIPARIAN RESTORATION

GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT IMPROVEMENT

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

GUNNISON RANGER DISTRICT

GUNNISON COUNTY, COLORADO

BACKGROUND

The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forests, Gunnison Ranger

District, is planning habitat restoration work to benefit Gunnison Sage-Grouse on Flat Top

Mountain, approximately 8 miles north/northwest of Gunnison, CO, in Sections 10, 11, 14 and

15, T.51N, R.1W, NMPM, Gunnison County. The purpose of this project is to address cut banks,

head-cutting and incised gullies within Gunnison Sage-Grouse brood-rearing habitat. During the

life of this project, we anticipate improving up to 7.7 miles of intermittent/ephemeral streams

through various structural (small rock structures, log & fabric structures, and drift fences) and

non-structural measures, affecting approximately 248 acres.

This project is a partnership effort with the Gunnison Basin Climate Change Working Group,

The Nature Conservancy, Zeedyk Ecological Consulting LLC, Colorado Parks and Wildlife,

Natural Resources Conservation Service, BLM, and private landowners to implement actions

that build resiliency into the sagebrush ecosystem and associated riparian areas. The primary

goal is to improve Gunnison Sage-Grouse brood-rearing habitat.

The project is scheduled to begin on July 24, 2013, consisting of staging rock at six staging areas

along NFS Road 829, transporting rock to restoration site locations by ATV, transporting aspen

logs by pickup truck, and hand-building up to 80 small rock structures, two drift fences, and two

log structures. Most of the work will be completed from July 24 – August 9, 2013. Additional

restoration structures, habitat monitoring and maintenance of restoration sites will be required in

subsequent years. Of the estimated 7.7 stream miles and 248 acres that will be treated during the

life of the project, approximately 2.7 stream miles and 110 acres will be treated in Fiscal Year

2013.

DECISION

I have decided to implement the proposed action as described above. Implementation includes

the design and building of small rock structures following methods described by Zeedyk and

Clothier (2009). While no new permanent or temporary roads will be constructed as part of this

— Decision Memo — Page 2 of 6

project, included in this decision is the authorization for short-duration, temporary off-route

travel with a small front-in loader (689 ft.), ATV (2,651 ft.), and pickup truck (524 ft.) to

transport material needed for the restoration structures as identified on the attached map (in most

cases these three modes of travel will traverse the same paths). Total off-route travel will be no

more than 2,762 feet (0.52 mi). Locations of off-route travel paths were chosen to minimize

vegetation impacts while reasonably providing access for the need to transport materials to sites.

Off-route travel paths will be rehabilitated and reseeded with a native seed mix, as needed.

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

This action is categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement

(EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA). The specific category of actions cited here is

identified in agency procedures as 36 CFR 220.6(e)(6) “Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat

improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than one

mile of low standard road construction.”

This category of action(s) is applicable because of its consistency with the purpose and need for

the action, and the level of impact associated.

Use of this CE is further supported by the following rationale:

The 36 CFR 220.6 sets forth the policy, in terms of categories and examples, for exclusion of

actions from documentation in either an EIS or an EA. Examples cited, in every case “include,

but are not limited to….” examples provided. Examples, and even categories, are provided to

indicate a level of impact and type of activity.

After considering the results of scoping and the specifics of this proposed action, the level of

impact which will result, and the type of action proposed, I have determined that this action is

consistent with several categories of actions described in the FSH 1909.15. These include:

1. Construction and reconstruction of trails. Examples include but are not limited to:

i. Constructing or reconstructing a trail to a scenic overlook.

ii. Reconstructing an existing trail to allow use by handicapped individuals.

2. Additional construction or reconstruction of existing telephone or utility lines in a designated corridor.

Examples include but are not limited to:

i. Replacing an underground cable trunk and adding additional phone lines.

……..

6 Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do

not require more than one mile of low standard road construction.

8. Short-term (one year or less) mineral, energy, or geophysical investigations and their incidential support

activities that may require cross-country travel by vehicles and equipment, construction of less than one

mile of low standard road or use and minor repair of existing roads. Examples include but are not

limited to:

i. Authorizing geophysical investigations which use existing roads that may require incidental repair to reach

sites for drilling core holes, temperature gradient holes, or seismic shotholes.

………..

iii. Trenching to obtain evidence of mineralization.

— Decision Memo — Page 3 of 6

………..

v. Redesigning or rearranging surface facilities within an approved site.

f. Approving interim and final site restoration measures.

vi. Approving a plan for exploration which authorizes repair of an existing road and the construction of one-

third mile of temporary road; clearing vegetation from an acre of land for trenches, drill pads, or support

facilities.

Ground disturbing actions authorized by this decision are consistent in terms of: effects, context

and intensity with those listed above. These are anticipated to have no significant impact on the

quality of the environment.

I find that there are no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant further analysis and

documentation in an EA or EIS. I took into account resource conditions identified in agency

procedures that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances might

exist:

Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species

proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service Sensitive

species – No threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat occurs in the

planning area. The Gunnison Sage-Grouse, proposed for listing as threatened or

endangered in January 2013, occurs in the project area. The project area also occurs

within proposed critical habitat for the Gunnison Sage-Grouse. The Brewer’s sparrow,

designated as a Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive species, also occurs in the project area.

A Biological Evaluation (available in the project record) determined that the proposed

project “will not jeopardize” the Gunnison Sage-Grouse nor adversely modify proposed

critical habitat; and “may impact, but not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or

result in loss of viability in the planning area” for the Brewer’s sparrow. While the

project may cause a temporary disturbance to these species during implementation, over

the long-term there should be beneficial effects to habitat.

Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds – The project will have no negative

effects to wetlands. There are no wetlands in the project area. The project is designed to

improve and have a beneficial effect on the watershed. No water impoundment or

diversions will occur.

Congressionally designated areas such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national

recreation areas – No wilderness areas or National Recreation Areas (NRA) are in the

project activity areas.

Inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas – There are no roadless or

potential wilderness areas in the project area.

Research Natural Areas – There are no Research Natural Areas within the project area.

American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites, archaeological sites, or

historic properties or areas – A cultural resource survey was completed for this project.

Cultural resource sites will be protected and buffered from disturbance. No effect on any

Native American or cultural or historic sites is anticipated.

Hence, it is my determination that no significant impact to the quality of the human environment

— Decision Memo — Page 4 of 6

will result from the proposed actions, that these reasonably fall under categories of actions for

which neither an EIS nor an EA is required.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

This action was listed as a proposal on the Gunnison National Forest Schedule of Proposed

Actions and posted to the GMUG National Forests Projects website. A Legal Notice was

published in the Gunnison Country Times the week of April 8, 2013. Public scoping officially

began on April 11, 2013 and ended May 11, 2013. No comments were received during the

public scoping period.

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

This decision is consistent with the GMUG National Forests Land Management Plan. The

project occurs within an area with a management emphasis for big game winter range and

consistent with Forest Plan direction for wildlife habitat improvement.

Requirements of the Endangered Species Act are addressed above under “Extraordinary

Circumstances.”

Requirements of the National Historic Preservation Action are also addressed above under

“Extraordinary Circumstances.”

Requirements of the Clean Water Act (as relates to floodplains, wetlands, waters of the United

States) are met as no wetlands area present in the project area and none of these water resources

are affected negatively.

There is no effect on any population of disadvantaged peoples. Requirements related to

Environmental Justice are met.

There is no effect on handicapped or otherwise physically impaired people.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) OPPORTUNITIES

In accordance with 36 CFR Part 215 and the judicial ruling in Sequoia ForestKeeper v. Tidwell,

this proposed action was subject to notice and comment procedures of the Forest Service appeal

regulations. The 30-day comment period for this project ended on May 11, 2013. Since no

comments were received, this decision is not subject to appeal (36 CFR 215.12).

IMPLEMENTATION DATE

This decision may be implemented immediately.

— Decision Memo — Page 5 of 6

CONTACT

For additional information concerning this decision, contact Matt Vasquez, Gunnison Ranger

District, (970) 642-4401, mgvasquez@fs.fed.us, 216 North Colorado Street, Gunnison, CO

81230.

REFERENCES

Zeedyk, Bill, and Clothier, V. 2009. Let the water do the work: Induced meandering, an

evolving method for restoring incised channels. The Quivira Coalition, Santa Fe, NM.

239 pages.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived

from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

— Decision Memo — Page 6 of 6