Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Madison Ranger District

Similar documents
USDA Forest Service Proposed Soil and Water Restoration Categorical Exclusions Frequently Asked Questions Table of Contents

Gold Ray Dam Interagency Technical Team Meeting

PUBLIC NOTICE Application for Permit

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Environmental Assessment

Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA)

1.7.0 Floodplain Modification Criteria

Decision Memo. Restore Act Land Acquisition

Restoration Planning and Development of a Restoration Bank

3. The submittal shall include a proposed scope of work to confirm the provided project description;

30-DAY PUBLIC NOTICE CHELSEA RIVER, EAST BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION PROJECT

General Permit for Activities Promoting Waterway - Floodplain Connectivity [working title]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MEDFORD DISTRICT GRANTS PASS FIELD OFFICE 2164 NE Spalding Ave Grants Pass, OR 97526

GLOSSARY OF TERMS CHAPTER 11 WORD DEFINITION SOURCE. Leopold

Restoring Anadromous Fish Habitat in Big Canyon Creek Watershed. Summary Report 2002

Neversink River East Branch

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MEDFORD DISTRICT GRANTS PASS FIELD OFFICE 2164 NE Spalding Ave Grants Pass, OR 97526

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

September 25, Dear Concerned Citizen:

Revision of Land and Resource Management Plan for the Santa Fe National Forest;

May 9, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Power Fire Restoration Project (CEQ# )

Miquon Creek STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT WHO WE ARE

The Teton Creek Restoration Project Summary:

/;L/rl 7!dolO DatE! J

King Fire Restoration Project, Eldorado National Forest, Placer and El Dorado Counties, Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

Final Report. Dixie Creek Restoration Project. Funded by Plumas Watershed Forum

Interim Technical Guidelines for the Development of Environmental Management Plans for Underground Infrastructure Revised - July 2013.

FOREST SERVICE HANDBOOK NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC

J. Template Environmental Checklist for FEMA/HUD Using the Template Environmental Checklist for FEMA and HUD Responsible Entities EHP Reviews

Lower Crooked Creek Watershed Conservation Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EFB / Online Wetland Restoration Techniques Class Syllabus

STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH ASSESSMENT FOR SAGEHEN ALLOTMENT #0208

Floodplain Connectivity in Restoration Design

March Prepared by: Irvine Ranch Water District Sand Canyon Avenue. Irvine, CA Contact: Natalie Likens (949)

RECORD OF PLAN CONFORMANCE AND CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION (CX) DETERMINATION

Record keeping...12

FirstNet Historic Preservation Requirements

Environmental Law Primer. Adapted from Vermont Law School s Environmental Law Primer for Journalists

Thank you to all of our 2015 sponsors: Media Partner

The Basics of Chapter 105 Waterways and Wetlands Permitting in PA

7.0 Stream Restoration

Restoring Ecosystems. Ecosystem Restoration Services

REFERENCE. All National Grid personnel who plan and perform work involving protected water resources are responsible for:

Chehalis River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Capital Budget Approved by Legislature in June 2013

How To Plan A Buffer Zone

Backyard Buffers that Work for People and Nature by Restoring Ecological Function

Integrated Restoration Prioritization

33 CFR PART 332 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR LOSSES OF AQUATIC RESOURCES. Authority: 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq. ; 33 U.S.C. 1344; and Pub. L

DELAWARE COUNTY STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TWO-YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR THE WEST BRANCH DELAWARE RIVER CANNONSVILLE RESERVOIR BASIN

San Diego Integrated Regional Water Management Implementation Grant Proposal Economic Analysis Flood Damage Reduction Costs and Benefits

Revising the Nantahala and Pisgah Land Management Plan Preliminary Need to Change the Existing Land Management Plan

COMMUNITY CERTIFICATIONS

2008 Compensatory Mitigation Rule: Overview and Highlights. Jenny Thomas U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wetlands Division July 2014

Stream Restoration Post-Implementation Annual Monitoring Report Year 2: 2013 Covering the Period of July 2012 to July 2013

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION. Background

Addendum D. Nomination of Moody Wash ACEC

AN INITIATIVE TO IMPROVE

Chapter 3 CULVERTS. Description. Importance to Maintenance & Water Quality. Culvert Profile

Living on the Fox River

HFQLG Project Evaluation Form

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SECTION 404 REGIONAL GENERAL PERMIT CHANNEL AND BANK PROTECTION STRUCTURES ON THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER

Flood Plain Reclamation to Enhance Resiliency Conserving Land in Urban New Jersey

Categorical Exclusion Documentation Format for Actions Other Than Hazardous Fuels and Fire Rehabilitation Actions

Colorado Natural Heritage Program

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as Amended (NHPA)

Conservation Tax Credit Regulations Chapter A-1 RULES OF GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CHAPTER

Carlton Fields Memorandum

ENVIRONMENT ACT PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT NOVA SCOTIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS

RE: Docket # COE ; ZRIN 0710 ZA05 Submitted via to NWP2012@usace.army.mil and Rulemaking Portal at

Angora Fire Restoration Activities June 24, Presented by: Judy Clot Forest Health Enhancement Program

Protecting Floodplain. While Reducing Flood Losses

Flood Risk Management

Flood Risk Management

Appendix A. Lists of Accomplishments and Project Costs. UMRWD 10 Year Plan Update. Appendix A UPPER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT

NATURAL RESOURCE RESTORATION LESSON PLAN Fix It!

30 DAY PUBLIC NOTICE MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF THE FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECT IN COHASSET HARBOR COHASSET AND SCITUATE, MASSACHUSETTS

Urban Stream Restoration Defining the Full Benefits of a Project. Warren C. High MACTEC Engineering and Consulting

Mission Creek Flood Control & Restoration Project. City of Fremont, Alameda County

National Environmental Policy Act and Permitting Services for the Mining Industry

IOWA STATE REVOLVING FUND CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION. To: All Interested Citizens, Government Agencies, and Public Groups

SECTION 5.4 LOGJAM REMOVAL AND RIVER RESTORATION. Overview. Logjam Removal Using Heavy. Tools. Machinery. Large-Scale River Restoration

How To Write A Watercourse Crossing

Buffer and Soil Loss Legislation

Laws and Regulatory Requirements to Consider Before You Build a Pond

4.2 Buena Vista Creek Watershed

US 281 AT PREMONT PUBLIC HEARING. US 281 at Premont Public Hearing

Chapter 9. Selected Watershed Initiatives in the Great Basin Region

Post-Wildfire Clean-Up and Response in Houston Toad Habitat Best Management Practices

JOB DESCRIPTION. GS-11 $46,006 - $59,801 Annual/Full Benefits GS-12 $55,138 - $71,679 Annual/Full Benefits

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 5.1

Environmental Compliance Questionnaire for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Financial Assistance Applicants

How To Know If A Forest Service And Bmd Plan Postfire Rehabilitation And Restoration

Michigan Wetlands. Department of Environmental Quality

U. S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration Los Alamos Area Office th Street Los Alamos, NM 87544

Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Program

The answers to some of the following questions are separated into two major categories:

DEQ Response to Comments regarding the Public Notice for a Coal Mining Project in the Panther Creek watershed In Craig and Nowata Counties.

www POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING TREATMENT OF BURIAL SITES, HUMAN REMAINS AND FUNERARY OBJECTS

BIG CREEK Nos. 1 AND 2 (FERC Project No. 2175) VOLUME 1 (BOOK 1 OF 27 BOOKS) INITIAL STATEMENT, EXHIBITS A, B, C, D AND H (PUBLIC INFORMATION)

Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC) U.S. General Services Administration U.S. Department of State

DECISION DOCUMENT NATIONWIDE PERMIT 27

Transcription:

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Madison Ranger District 5 Forest Service Road Ennis, MT 59729 406 682-4253 File Code: 1950 Date: June 19, 2012 Dear Planning Participant: The Madison Ranger District is publishing the Mill Creek Streambank Stabilization project for a 30-day public comment period. Please see the How to Comment section on pages 4 and 5. Background During high water last year Mill Creek eroded the steep streambank behind the Sheridan Work Center in Madison County on an administrative site at T4S, R5W, Section 25. Purpose and Need A significant portion of the streambank sloughed off, introducing large amounts of sediment into the stream course. Streambank stabilization repairs are needed to prevent more sedimentation downstream and protect Forest Service land and infrastructure. Proposal The Madison Ranger District proposes to stabilize about 20 feet of the eroded streambank on both sides of the stream channel next to the Sheridan Work Center Administrative Site. Work would include removing remaining portions of the eroded streambank and vegetative material that has fallen into the stream, and placing large rock, root wads, and native vegetation at the toe of the slope, with an excavator, to protect the existing bank from further erosion and scouring. All ground disturbing activities would be limited to the stream banks from the work center parking lot upstream to the residence on the property. Mitigation and Design Features Heritage If cultural resource sites or artifacts are discovered during project implementation the Forest Archeologist should be notified immediately. Hydrology Work would be directed by hydrology and fisheries personnel to ensure proper protections are in place. Vegetation Noxious weeds would be controlled following procedures in the Noxious Weed Control Program ROD (2002) for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Reasons for Categorically Excluding the Proposed Action An action may be categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA) if it is within one of the categories identified by the USDA in 7 CFR part 1b.3 or 7 CFR part 1b.3 or 36 CFR 220.6(d) or 1

(e), and there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the decision that may result in a significant individual effect on the quality of the human environment. This project has been reviewed in accordance with FSH 1909.15 Chapter 30. I have determined the project fits the following category: 36 CFR 220.6(e)(7) 32.2(7) Modification or maintenance of stream or lake aquatic habitat improvement structures using native materials or normal practices. My decision will be based on a review of the project record that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information. The record includes the following resource specialist reports: Biological assessments and evaluations for Aquatic, Botany, and Wildlife TES species Tribal and heritage resource findings Soils report Hydrology report Recreation report Scenery report Aquatics/Amphibian Report By definition, categorical exclusions do not individually or cumulatively have significant effects on the human environment (40 CFR 1508.4). Resource specialists considered direct and indirect effects from the proposed action coupled with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. I have examined the proposed action and the effects analyses disclosed in the resource specialist reports listed above and conclude that without notable individual effects from the proposed action, there would be no discernible cumulative effects. The interdisciplinary team reviewed the resource conditions listed in FSH 1909.15 Chapter 30 (32.2 (3)) and other concerns applicable to this project to determine whether any extraordinary circumstances exist. The mere presence of one or more of the resource conditions listed below does not preclude the use of a categorical exclusion. 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 potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist. The resource specialist reports have provided the necessary information to make a determination on the cause-effect relationship between the proposed action and the potential effect on the resource conditions listed in the table below, and thus the presence of extraordinary circumstances. RESOURCE CONDITION Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species. Floodplains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas. POTENTIAL EFFECT Threatened or Endangered Species: There would be no effect to grizzly bear. Sensitive Species: No Impact to all sensitive terrestrial, aquatic, or plant species. No negative impacts to municipal watersheds, floodplains, or wetlands are projected. No congressionally designated areas occur in or near the project; therefore no negative impacts to any congressionally designated areas are projected. 2

RESOURCE CONDITION Inventoried Roadless Areas Research Natural Areas American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas. POTENTIAL EFFECT There are no inventoried roadless areas within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, negative impacts to any research natural areas are not projected. There are no research natural areas within the project area. Therefore, negative impacts to any research natural areas are not projected. The project will have no impacts on the visual or setting characteristics of the Sheridan Work Center. If cultural resource sites or artifacts are discovered in the streambank, during project implementation the Forest Archeologist would be notified immediately. Based on these findings, it is my preliminary determination that a categorical exclusion is appropriate in this situation because the proposed action fits within the category described above and there appear to be no extraordinary circumstances present. Scoping and Public Comments The project was first published on the SOPA on April 1, 2011. The proposal was provided to interested members of the public and other agencies for scoping period from March 7, 2012 through April 6, 2011. One comment was received. The comment was from Native Ecosystems Council and was supportive of the proposed action. Forest Plan Direction The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the development of long-range land and resource management plans. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Plan was approved in 2009 and provides guidance for all natural resource management activities on the Beaverhead- Deerlodge National Forest. NFMA also requires that all projects and activities be consistent with the plans. The decision is consistent with Forest Plan direction including all applicable standards. Forest wide Goals and Objectives: Aquatic Resources Goal for Riparian Areas: Riparian habitat, species composition, and structural diversity of native and desired non-native riparian plant communities are maintained or restored to (IN 5-6): Provide an amount and distribution of woody debris characteristic of functioning aquatic and riparian ecosystems; Provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation for streams to support beneficial uses; Provide bank stability to maintain rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration which are characteristic of functioning aquatic and riparian ecosystems; Effectively trap and store sediment, build stream banks and floodplains, and promote recovery after watershed disturbance. (FP, page 14). 3

Infrastructure Goal for Facilities: Administrative and/or recreation facilities are constructed, managed, and maintained to meet land and resource objectives and address recreation demand Findings Required by Law National Forest Management Act - The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was approved in 2009, as required by this Act. The Forest Plan has been reviewed in consideration of this project and the project meets all applicable management direction found in the 2009 Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Plan including consistency with all applicable standards. Endangered Species Act - See the Reasons for Categorically Excluding the Proposed Action Section of this document for a summary of the effects of this project to Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species. The summary is based on a more thorough analysis available in the project record. This project is consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Sensitive Species (Forest Service Manual 2670) - This direction requires analysis of potential impacts to sensitive species and the Regional Forester approved the sensitive species list on October 28, 2004. Our review of the potential effects of this decision upon the sensitive species has been completed and the analysis documented in the project file and Resource Condition Table above. Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) - This Order requires consideration of whether projects would disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations in or around the project area. Based on internal review and public scoping, the proposed action did not identify any adversely impacted local minority or low-income populations. Clean Water Act The intent of the Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of waters. The Forest Service complies with this Act through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). This decision incorporates Best Management Practices to ensure protection of soil and water resources and complies with the Clean Water Act and State water quality standards. Clean Air Act Under this Act, areas of the country were designated as Class I, II or III airsheds for Prevention of Significant Deterioration purposes. There will be no air quality impacts as a result of this decision. The National Historic Preservation Act As discussed earlier in this document and in detail in the project file, impacts to cultural resources are not expected. Migratory Bird Treaty Act There will be no known substantial losses of migratory bird habitat expected from the implementation of this proposal. National Environmental Policy Act - This Act requires public involvement and consideration of potential environmental effects. This document and the project record provide documentation for this decision which supports compliance with this Act. Other Laws or Requirements The proposed action is consistent with all other Federal, State, and/or local laws or requirements. How to Comment and Timeline Public comments on this proposal are invited and encouraged. No decision has been made yet. This comment period provides those interested in or affected by this proposal an opportunity to make their concerns known prior to a decision being made by the Responsible Official. Only those who provide timely comments will be eligible to appeal the decision pursuant to 36 CFR part 215 regulations. Comments in response to this solicitation, including names, postal and 4

email addresses and phone numbers, will be considered part of the public record, and available for public review. Written, facsimile, hand-delivered, oral, and electronic comments will be accepted for 30 calendar days following publication of the legal notice in the Montana Standard. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the comment period for this proposal. You should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. For appeal eligibility each individual or representative from each organization submitting comments must either sign the comments or verify identity upon request. Written comments should be mailed to: District Ranger, Madison Ranger District, 5 Forest Service Road, Ennis, MT 59729, Telephone (406) 682-4253 / FAX (406) 682-4233, Email your comments to: comments-northern-beaverhead-deerlodge@fs.fed.us and please type Mill Creek Streambank Stabilization in the subject line. For electronically mailed comments, the sender should normally receive an automated electronic acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender does not receive an automated acknowledgement of the receipt of comments, it is the sender s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means. Acceptable electronic formats include email text (i.e. ASCII text or html) and Word or PDF documents. The district office is open from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday excluding federal holidays for hand-delivered comments. Comments should include: 1) name, address, phone number, and organization represented, if any; 2) title of project on which the comments are being submitted; and 3) specific facts and supporting information for the responsible official, Madison District Ranger, to consider. If you would like more information, please call Darin Watschke at the Madison Ranger District (406) 682-4253. Sincerely, /s/ Ken Harris Ken Harris District Ranger 5