NEPADocumentsCMRD0518.pdf

Letter to File

February 22, 2017

Aspen-Sopris Ranger District White River National Forest

Maintenance Determination

Forest Service Communications Site Building Replacement

Sunlight Peak Communications Site

T. 7 S., R. 89 W., Section 19 Garfield County, CO Garfield County, CO

Purpose:

This letter documents a decision to make an “in kind” replacement of the U.S. Forest Service communications facility building currently in place at the Sunlight Light Peak Communications Site located at T. 7 S., R. 89 W., Section 19 Garfield County, CO. This replacement will occur as a matter of routine maintenance to the facility and site. The maintenance to be completed; removal and replacement of the existing structure with a building using a similar or lesser footprint. Because no change in the facility’s footprint will occur as a result of this action and all work required to complete the action meets the definition of maintenance this action is considered exempt from further analysis as mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Discussion:

Per Region 2 direction, from the Director of Lands Program, as authorized by the Regional Forester, communication site maintenance has been interpreted to include projects that would constitute “in kind” or

“like kind” replacement of facility infrastructure. In the case of this project, the replacement of the existing facility building which currently occupies an 8’ x 10’ footprint per documentation provided in the Sunlight Peak

Communications Site Management Plan, a rationale for exempting the requirement to complete NEPA required analysis would include replacing the building “in kind”. The Forest Service will be removing the existing structure and replacing the existing structure with a building that is 8’ x 8’ in floor footprint. As there is a negative change in overall footprint dimensions and no proposed layout change that would require site modification from the existing facility, this project is recognized as meeting the definition of maintenance and can be completed as such.

Per the Sunlight Peak Communications Site Management Plan, specific requirements outside NEPA-mandated analysis exist and are required to be adhered to when making modifications to existing facilities. These requirements speak to facility design and project implementation requirements and are not addressed individually as analysis that would be required to be addressed in a Categorical Exclusion (CE) or other NEPA analysis processes. Communication Sites are routinely analyzed prior to initial facility construction to ensure adhere to National Environmental Policy Act mandates; hence work which constitutes maintenance falls outside those mandates and are within the purview of individual site requirements set forth in Communications Site

Management Plans.

Determination:

As replacement of the existing structure will be limited by footprint and no extraordinary design features or work requirements will be required, work to remove and replace the existing U.S. Forest Service facility with an

“in kind or “like kind” structure can proceed as a matter of routine maintenance.

Barton Knob Repeater Project Decision Notice and FONSI

BARTON KNOB REPEATER PROJECT

DECISION NOTICE

AND

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

USDA Forest Service

Monongahela National Forest

Greenbrier Ranger District

June, 2010

INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSED ACTION

The Monongahela National Forest has completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) on a proposal to install a new radio repeater site at Barton Knob as part of its Forest net radio system upgrade in 2010. Barton Knob would be a primary communication site for the Forest, providing radio access to six other repeater sites. As a newly developed site, this site would require a radio equipment shelter (6’ x 8’ x 7’), grounding, a 60-foot tower, and a photovoltaic power system. A backup generator and security fence would also be installed due to the importance of the Barton

Knob site to the radio system.

An abandoned fire lookout tower currently occupies the Barton Knob site. This tower would be removed as part of this project. Part of the original road to the tower was obliterated around

1980 from coal strip mining southwest of the site. As part of this proposal, a route similar to the original road would be constructed and maintained. This route would cross small portions of the old strip mine and connect to the original road location (see Figure 1.1).

The radio repeater site is mostly non-forested and it has already been substantially disturbed from past activities, including an old building site associated with the fire lookout, and the lookout itself. The main disturbance related to this project would come from the construction of the access road to the site.

The access road would be gated and put on the Forest Road System for long-term maintenance and access to the site. The repeater site would be added to the designated communication sites mapped in Appendix E to the Forest Plan. Work is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2010.

The Forest would do the road work or contract it out, and would likely participate in site clean-up and installation as well. Forest Service radio technicians would supervise building/tower installation and wire the repeater shelter and antenna.

The purpose of this proposal is to improve radio coverage in the Cheat Mountain area and across the Forest radio network. This improved coverage will improve communication and safety conditions for Forest employees who are working in and traveling through the Forest, often in dangerous situations and/or isolated areas. It will also improve coverage for reporting and responding to fire, accidents, or other emergency situations involving employees or the public.

Figure 1.1. Project Area Map

The EA documents the analysis and discloses the environmental effects of two alternatives: the

No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Proposed Action (Alternative 2). It is available for review at the Monongahela National Forest, Forest Supervisor’s Office, 200 Sycamore Street, Elkins, WV 26241, or on the Forest website at: http://fs.usda.gov/mnf.

MY DECISION

Based on the effects analyses (EA, Chapter 3), the supporting information in the Project File, and public comments, I have decided to implement Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, including the following components that are hereby incorporated by reference:

Clean up and removal of existing structure remains at the site and the old fire tower, Stabilize and level a site pad for the new radio facilities, Installation a new radio tower antenna and equipment shelter on the site, Installation of new radio equipment inside the new shelter, Installation of a photovoltaic power system and backup generator on or near the shelter, Installation of security fencing around the new antenna, shelter, and power system, Reshaping, surfacing, and drainage improvements on 0.14 mile of existing road to the site, Construction of an estimated 0.55 mile of new road, including stabilization of cut and fill slopes, and installation of drainage structures and a gate.

Monitoring described in Table 2.1 of the EA, Design features and implementation strategies described in Table 2.2 of the EA, and

Mitigation measures described in Table 2.3 of the EA, with the exception of a measure that would armor the ditch line of the new road with limestone rip-rap for at least those portions that traverse reclaimed mine spoils. After consulting with the project engineer, I concluded that ditch line armoring may result in problems related to cleaning the ditch line in a timely and efficient manner, which could lead to erosion problems as well. I decided instead to include monitoring of the ditch line condition after road construction. If the ditch line begins to degrade or unravel as a result of excessive erosion, we will determine if armoring or other mitigation is needed at that time. Meanwhile, culvert outlets will be armored as a design feature to help address erosion concerns, along with additional Forest Plan requirements.

The driving objective behind the proposed action is the need to improve the radio network, of which the Barton Knob Repeater is a key component. The proposed action would address this concern; the no action alternative would not.

RATIONALE FOR MY DECISION

I have chosen the Selected Alternative for the following reasons:

1) I believe the Selected Alternative will meet the purpose of and need for action in the area (EA, p.

1-4), and the objective of the Proposed Action (EA, p. 1-2, and listed above).

2) The Selected Alternative is consistent with the 2006 Monongahela National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), specifically Forest-wide management direction for facilities found on pages II-5 and II-56, and management direction for soil, water, wildlife, and http://fs.usda.gov/mnf vegetation on pages II-9 through II-31.

3) Action is needed now. Due to the large size of the Forest and its topographic extremes, radio coverage across the Forest has historically been spotty. The Forest has been working on improving this situation over the years; however there is still a substantial need to improve coverage in the Cheat Mountain area (see map in Appendix E of the Forest Plan). Without this coverage, Forest employees working or traveling through this area are currently at risk of not being able to contact anyone by radio if something should happen to them, to Forest resources, or to members of the public who are in need of help. Employees also need better radio coverage to efficiently and effectively conduct operations in the area. This project is being proposed as part of an overall radio system upgrade on the Forest, for which funding is available in 2010.

4) I believe that the Barton Knob Repeater can and will be installed in an environmentally sound manner. The risks to human health and safety are considered very low (EA, p. 3-3). Although there are some unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the project, they are also considered to be of relatively low risk and intensity (EA, Chapter 3 resource analyses). I have reviewed the design features, implementation strategies, and mitigation measures for this project, and I believe that they will be adequate to protect environmental resources on the Forest.

Overall, I feel that the potential benefits from implementing the Selected Alternative outweigh the low potential risks to the environment.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ISSUES

Public Scoping and Issue Identification

We provided a summary of the public involvement and notification in the EA (pp. 1-5 and 1-6), and the supporting documentation can be found in the Project File, sections D, E, F, P, and Q. In

January 2010, we contacted a variety of individuals, organizations, and agencies by mail, phone, and e–mail to help determine the scope of the issues and concerns related to the proposed action.

The comments we received are listed, along with the Forest Service response to each comment, in the Project File (Section E). Comments were generally supportive of the Proposed Action and did not result in the identification of any major environmental issues or concerns. However, Forest resource specialists did express concerns about potential impacts from the new road that would be built to access the repeater site for construction and maintenance purposes. These concerns can be substantially addressed through design features, mitigation measures, and monitoring found in Chapter 2 of this EA. In addition, this EA analyzes potential effects on the main resources that could be adversely affected by proposed activities. These resources include wildlife resources, botanical resources, and watershed resources. A summary of these effects by alternative is in Chapter 2 of the EA, with detailed analyses presented in Chapter 3.

The National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) did express concerns about interference from Forest radio transmissions related to radio frequencies and equipment design. The frequencies and equipment design chosen for the radio system upgrade are beyond the Forest’s direct decision authority, and the NRAO objections will be addressed through proper channels.

We have been told that the Forest will have the opportunity to provide input on these concerns, and we hope to see them resolved in such a way that will allow the NRAO to continue their important mission in a relative quiet zone while providing the Forest the radio communications needed to enhance Forest operations, as well as employee and visitor safety.

EA Comment Period

In addition to our scoping efforts, pursuant to the Forest Service Notice, Comment, and Appeal

Procedures, Section 36 CFR 215.5, we sent the EA was sent the EA to individuals, organizations, and agencies that requested the document or had provided comments during the scoping period.

We also published a legal notice in The Pocahontas Times of Marlinton, WV (Newspaper of

Record) on April 22, 2010. We only received two responses during the 30-day comment period, including a copy of the objections that the NRAO submitted during the scoping period.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

The choices for this project were essentially either to implement the proposed action or not.

However, during initial planning and scoping, a couple of potential alternatives to the proposed action road location were suggested. I considered these suggestions, but generally found them to have more potential for environmental degradation when compared to the proposed action route.

The following is a summary of the alternatives that contributed to the overall range of alternatives considered, but, for the reasons noted here, were eliminated from detailed study.

Road Access from the North and East

The Responsible Official and ID Team members originally looked at access to the repeater site using an old road that begins almost due north of Barton Knob and climbs to the top along the knob’s eastern side. During a field trip in July 2009 (see project file), this road appeared in drivable condition for the first quarter mile or so, but it deteriorated rapidly after that. Numerous wet areas and steep pitches were seen on the next quarter mile, and then the road template disappeared in a thick young stand of red spruce and mountain laurel. Although this area was surveyed for Cheat

Mountain salamander in 2009 and not one was found, it still has habitat with much higher potential for salamanders than the drier, more open southwest side of Barton Knob. Because other road locations were possible on the southwest side, I decided to explore those options rather than to reconstruct a road that would traverse Cheat Mountain salamander habitat, intersect several small wetlands, and cut through a healthy stand of native red spruce. Because of its wetter condition and northeast aspect, this road location would have also been more difficult to maintain over time and would have a shorter season of use.

2.1.2 – Road Access through the 1980 Strip Mine

Although the Proposed Action access road would traverse small sections of the reclaimed coal strip mine on the west side of Barton Knob, another more southerly route was suggested that would stay entirely within the strip mine until it reached a section of the original road near the top of Barton

Knob. This alternate route appeared in the Barton Knob Repeater scoping package that was sent out to the public in January, 2010. However, internal scoping later revealed some potential resource problems with the more southerly road location. Specifically, there were soil and water concerns raised related to the old strip mine: 1) extensive soil disturbance could result in acid-bearing material being brought to the surface where it could react with air and surface water, creating a hazard, and 2) the lower road position would likely intersect the water table as it climbed back over the mine headwall, resulting in potential drainage and erosion problems. Forest engineers also pointed out that the more southerly route would have a steeper grade to it that would be more susceptible to erosion, and thus more difficult to maintain over time. For these reasons, I decided that the project would move forward with the proposed road location shown in Figure 1.1.

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

Only two alternatives were considered and analyzed in detail, Alternative 1 (No Action) and

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). Alternative 2 is the Selected Alternative described above in this Decision Notice and in Chapter 2 of the EA. Alternative 1 (No Action) is described below, along with the reasons I did not select it for implementation.

The No Action alternative was developed as a baseline for comparison with the action alternative. This alternative provides the decision-maker with a clearer basis for a reasoned choice among the alternatives studied in detail. Under this alternative, new management activities would not be implemented to help meet the purpose and need for action described in

Chapter 1. This alternative is essentially the “status quo” strategy. It allows current management activities and policies to continue unchanged.

As I noted above in the rationale for my decision, I believe that the potential benefits from implementing Alternative 2 outweigh its potential risks to the environment. I also feel that the potential benefits from Alternative 2 would far outweigh the risks of no action at this time. The impacts from having sub-par radio communications are an ongoing source of concern to myself and the Forest as a whole, and these concerns should be addressed as soon as possible in a manner that includes implementation of the selected alternative.

FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY AND BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations require that projects designed to implement land management plans and plan amendments must be developed considering the best available science in accordance with 219.35(a) and must be consistent with the provisions with the governing plan.

As noted in the “Rationale for My Decision” section above, I have found the Selected Alternative to be consistent with the 2006 Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

(Forest Plan), specifically Forest-wide management direction for facilities found on pages II-5 and

II-56, and management direction for soil, water, wildlife, and vegetation on pages II-9 through II-31.

I also believe that this project used the best available science in analyzing and disclosing potential effects. The need to employ the best science is not new, as Agency decisions have always required a sound technical basis. What constitutes best available science can vary over time and across scientific disciplines. My conclusion that this project analysis used the best available science is based on my review of the EA and Project File that shows a thorough assessment of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible views, and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. Therefore I believe that my decision meets these NFMA requirements.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Based on the EA, I have determined that the activities and protocols associated with the Barton

Knob Repeater Project EA do not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Thus, an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed.

My determination was made considering the following factors:

Context

The physical and biological effects of this action are limited primarily to the roughly 2-acre project area where proposed activities would be implemented, although some effects may extend somewhat further into the Lambert Run watershed.

Intensity/Severity

1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. Both beneficial and adverse impacts of this project have been considered. These actions will not cause a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (EA, Chapter 3, Resource Analyses) because (1) design features and mitigation measures identified in the EA (EA, Tables 2.2 and 2.3) will be implemented to reduce potential effects; (2) the physical and biological effects are limited mainly to the project area; and (3) based on the analysis results, there are no known significant unavoidable adverse impacts or irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources (EA, Chapter 3, Resource Analyses).

2) Public health and safety. There are no anticipated significant effects to public health and safety by this action (EA, p. 3-3), and the Selected Alternative is designed to have beneficial effects on employee and visitor safety by improving radio communications (EA, p. 1-4).

3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area. There are no unique characteristics of the project area, other than it lies in the middle of the largest radio dead zone on the Forest. It does not lie within or adjacent to any wilderness, roadless, ecological, or congressionally designated areas (EA, p. 3-3), and there are no wetlands or floodplains, or prime farmland, timberland, or rangeland within the project area.

4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. Based on public involvement and support of the Proposed Action, the effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be controversial. All potential environmental impacts have been carefully considered (EA, Chapter 3). Given the nature and scope of this project, there is no indication that the Selected Alternative would disproportionately or adversely affect racial minorities or low-income groups. Although the

NRAO has raised objections to the project, these objections must and will be addressed through channels outside the NEPA process.

5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. State and federal agencies have constructed roads and communication sites for decades, and the potential effects of these actions have been scientifically analyzed in the EA. There is an unknown risk associated with whether road construction will intersect buried mine spoils, resulting in acid-producing drainage that could affect water or aquatic resources off site. However, the risk is considered low (EA, p. 3-11), and monitoring and mitigation measures have been provided (EA, Tables

2.1 and 2.3) to address acid drainage problems, should they occur. Otherwise, the Selected

Alternative poses no known significant effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

6) The degree to which this action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

Implementation of the Selected Alternative does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects. The Forest Service has implemented actions and mitigations similar to those for described in the EA for many years without causing significant adverse effects.

7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. There are no significant cumulative effects between the

Selected Alternative and other projects that have been implemented or are planned in the project or analysis areas (EA, Chapter 3 Resource Analyses).

8) The degree to which action may adversely affect districts, site, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. This project has been reviewed by the Forest Archeologist, and he has determined that the proposed action would result in no effect to heritage resources. He evaluated the Barton

Knob Fire Tower for National Register of Historic Places eligibility and found it to be not eligible due to lack of integrity of setting and materials, and lack of research potential. The

State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with this finding (Project File, Section K).

9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973. The Selected Alternative will not result in any adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any endangered or threatened species (EA, Chapter 3, Wildlife

Terrestrial Threatened and Endangered Species section and Threatened, Endangered, and

Sensitive Plants sections). The likelihood of occurrence of any listed species on the Forest being present in the project area, or being affected by project activities, is extremely low.

10) Whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The Selected Alternative is consistent with direction in the Forest Plan and other applicable local, state and federal laws or policy

(EA, Chapter 3, Resource Analyses).

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND APPEAL RIGHTS

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to regulations at 36 CFR 215. An appeal may be filed by those who provided comment or otherwise expressed interest in the proposed action during the official 30-day comment period. To appeal this decision, a written Notice of Appeal must be postmarked or received within 45 calendar days of when the Legal Notice is published in The

Pocahontas Times newspaper of Marlinton, West Virginia. However, when the 45-day filing period would end on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, then filing time is extended to the end of the next Federal working day. The date of the publication of the Legal Notice is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Those wishing to file an appeal should not rely upon dates provided by any other source.

The Notice of Appeal must be sent to: Appeal Deciding Officer, Attn: Appeals & Litigation, USDA - Forest Service, Eastern Region, 626 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53202.

The Notice of Appeal may alternatively be: faxed to (414) 944-3963, Attn: Appeals Deciding

Officer; mailed electronically (in a format such as pdf, txt, rtf, or other format compatible with

Microsoft Office applications) to appeals-eastern-regional-office@fs.fed.us; or hand delivered to the address listed above between the hours of 7:30 am and 4:00 pm., Monday through Friday.

Contents of the Notice of Appeal must meet the requirements of 36 CFR 215.14.

IMPLEMENTATION DATE

If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may not occur for 15 days following the date of appeal disposition (36 CFR 215.9).

CONTACT PERSON

Detailed records of the Barton Knob Repeater Project are available for public review at the

Monongahela National Forest Supervisor’ Office, 200 Sycamore St., Elkins, West Virginia, from

8:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday. A copy of the EA can be obtained by writing to

David Ede at the address listed above, or by calling (304) 636-1800. Questions regarding the EA or this decision should be directed to my attention or to David Ede at the above address and phone number.

/s/William Dunk June 16, 2010

William Dunk Date

Greenbrier District Ranger

Monongahela National Forest mailto:appeals-eastern-regional-office@fs.fed.us

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's target center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-w, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-9k. 410 or call 202-720-

5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider.