Attachment_0006-_NEPA_CE_DR_Enchanted_Pond_Outflow_System_Replacement.pdf

Decision Record DOI-BLM-Eastern States-M034-2025-0001-CX

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Northeastern States District

Lower Potomac Field Station

10406 Gunston Road

Lorton, VA 22079

DECISION RECORD

for Enchanted Pond Outflow System Replacement

DOI-BLM-Eastern States-M034-2025-0001-CX

September 24, 2025

I. DECISION

It is my decision to select the Proposed Action as described in Section B of the categorial exclusion

(CE) for the Enchanted Pond Outflow System Replacement. Specifically, I approve the replacement of the current outflow system with a new outflow system to ensure proper flow regulation and to prevent any future erosion or adjacent flooding issues associated with the deteriorating outflow system.

A. Mitigation Measures

Required mitigating measures to minimize surface disturbance impacts during construction activities would include:

• Ground protection matting in high trafficked areas to minimize soil disturbance.

• Operations would not occur after a rainfall of 0.5 inches or more.

• Operations would not continue if any equipment sank into the ground more than 2 inches.

• The installation of sediment fence around the excavation area.

• Construction equipment must adhere to manufacturers’ guidance regarding fuel and maintenance schedule.

II. COMPLIANCE AND CONFORMANCE

Land Use Plan Name: Meadowood Farm Planning Analysis/Environmental Assessment

Date Approved: March 2003

The Proposed Action is in conformance with the applicable LUP because it is clearly consistent with the following LUP decision(s) (objectives, terms, and conditions) even though it is not specifically provided for:

“Riparian/Wetland and Ponds: Increased land disturbance and recreational activities would require additional resource commitments and general project-by-project restrictions to protect riparian resources. Trail and facility construction would avoid RPAs or would be completed using boardwalks to avoid long-term impacts on riparian/wetland areas. Riparian habitat would improve as weed species would be controlled. All riparian/wetland protection and improvements would be conducted in accordance with

BMPs as mentioned in Chapter 2. Also, some riparian improvement projects would be implemented to speed riparian habitat recovery where needed.

Regular cooperative management of pond fisheries would be performed, which would assist in avoiding the ponds filling due to sedimentation and aquatic vegetation growth.”

(p. 4-22).

The Proposed Action is categorically excluded from further documentation under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with:

1) 43 CFR Part 46.210 (f) Routine and continuing government business, including such things as supervision, administration, operations, maintenance, renovations, and replacement activities having limited context and intensity (e.g., limited size and magnitude or short-term effects).

2) 516 DM 11.9 (I) (1) Emergency Stabilization – Planned actions in response to wildfires, floods, weather events, earthquakes, or landslips that threaten public health or safety, property, … and are necessary to repair or improve lands unlikely to recover to a management approved condition as a result of the event. Such activities shall be limited to repair and installation of essential erosion control structures, replacement or repair of existing culverts, roads, trails, fences, and minor facilities, and removal of hazard trees, rocks, soil, and other mobile debris from, on, or along roads, trails, campgrounds, and watercourses.

3) 516 DM 11.11 (J) (3) Restoring wetlands, streams, riparian areas or other water bodies by removing, replacing, or modifying water control structures such as, but not limited to, dams, levees, dikes, ditches, culverts, pipes, drainage tiles, valves, gates, and fencing, to allow waters to flow into natural channels and floodplains and restore natural flow regimes to the extent practicable where valid existing rights or special use authorizations are not unilaterally altered or canceled.

III. RATIONALE FOR DECISION

I have reviewed the attached CE and approve the Proposed Action because the current outflow system is compromised; it is filled with silt, vegetation, and other natural material, which does not allow water to flow properly causing the pond to overflow into the surrounding meadow. The intake for the Enchanted Pond is currently clogged, and water leaks underneath the outflow pipe.

These issues weaken the structural stability of the pond embankment. My rationale for making this decision is based on the following:

1. Replacing the Enchanted Pond outflow system would have a positive impact to public safety.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-43/subtitle-A/part-46#p-46.210(a)

2. The outflow system replacement provides favorable long-term benefits to ensure proper flow regulation to prevent future erosion issues and provide a healthier ecosystem.

IV. RIGHT OF PROTEST AND/OR APPEAL:

This decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), Office of the

Secretary, in accordance with the regulations contained in 42 CFR Part 4, Subpart E. In accordance with 43 CFR 4.410, any person whose interest is adversely affected by a final decision of the authorized officer may appeal the decision for the purpose of a hearing before an administrative law judge. The appeal shall state clearly and concisely the reason(s) why the appellant thinks the final decision of the authorized officer is wrong.

If you wish to file a petition for a stay of the effectiveness of this decision during the time your appeal is being reviewed, the petition for a stay must accompany your Notice of Appeal. Pursuant to 43 CFR 4.21(b)(1), a petition for stay, if filed, must show sufficient justification based on the following standards:

1. The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied;

2. The likelihood of the appellant’s success on the merits;

3. The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; and,

4. Whether the public interest favors granting the stay.

According to 43 CFR 4.21(b)(2) the appellant requesting a stay bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that a stay should be granted.

Detailed instructions on filing an appeal are on the enclosed Form 1842-1.

V. APPROVAL

Nick Weber, Field Manager Date

Lower Potomac Field Station

Pamela Mathis, District Manager Date

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Enchanted Pond Outflow Culvert Replacement Categorical Exclusion DOI-BLM-M034-

2025-0001-CX

2. Form 1842-1