Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project -...

United States Department of Agriculture

Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Kaibab National Forest Coconino County, Arizona

Forest Service Kaibab National Forest

Williams Ranger District

September

2017

USDA Non-Discrimination Policy Statement DR 4300.003 USDA Equal Opportunity Public Notification Policy (June 2, 2015)

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/cr/docs/pdc/DR-4300-003%20Equal%20Opportunity%20Publication%20Notification_06.02.15.pdf

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

mailto:[email protected]

Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project

Williams Ranger District Kaibab National Forest

Coconino County, Arizona

Lead Agency: U.S. Forest Service

Responsible Official: Danelle D. Harrison District Ranger Williams Ranger District 742 South Clover Road Williams, AZ 86046

For Information Contact: Nick Warnke Project Leader Supervisors Office, Kaibab National Forest 800 South 6th Street Williams, AZ 86046

For Electronic Documents, Visit: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44924

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44924

Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................1 Project Area ................................................................................................................................................................1 Decision ......................................................................................................................................................................2 Project Design Criteria and Mitigations .....................................................................................................................5 Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................................................6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...................................................................................6 Rationale for the Decision ..........................................................................................................................................7

Reasons for Not Selecting Alternative 1 .................................................................................................................7 Public Involvement .....................................................................................................................................................7 Finding of No Significant Impact ...............................................................................................................................8

The Context of the Actions ....................................................................................................................................8 The Intensity of the Actions ...................................................................................................................................9

Findings Required by Other Law, Regulation, and Policy .......................................................................................13 Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines ..................................................................................................................13 National Environmental Policy Act......................................................................................................................13 Clean Water Act ...................................................................................................................................................13 National Historic Preservation Act ......................................................................................................................13 Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) .............................................................................................13 Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) .................................................................................................14 Administrative Review Opportunities ..................................................................................................................14 Objection under 36 CFR 218 ...............................................................................................................................14

Project Implementation ............................................................................................................................................15 Copies of the Environmental Assessment and Contact for Further Information ......................................................15 Responsible Official Signatures ...............................................................................................................................16


Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 1

Introduction The Williams Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest (KNF) proposes to decommission the Railroad Tank Dam by creating a structure to allow low level flows to pass through the dam, then into the existing concrete culvert beneath Interstate 40 (I-40). The Proposed Action also includes measures to repair and stabilize the existing spillway, and reestablish the earthen embankment to retain the appearance of this historic structure. An equipment staging area and temporary access route would be used during construction, and reclaimed upon completion of the project. This work would require an easement across private property. The Forest Service and Coconino County will be working with the private property owner to negotiate for this easement.

KNF prepared the Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project Environmental Assessment (EA) which is hereby incorporated by reference (USDA September 2017). This EA evaluates the environmental consequences of a No Action alternative, and the Proposed Action alternative for dam decommissioning. The components of the Proposed Action are described in greater detail below and in Chapter 2 of the EA (pages 5-10).

This draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) outlines the components of my decision to implement the Proposed Action for the Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project on the Williams Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest, the rationale for this decision, how the public was involved in developing the project, findings required by other laws and regulations, and a finding of no significant impact based on my consideration of the analysis contained within the EA in the context of the significance factors described in the Council on Environmental Quality’s Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508). Additionally, the draft DN/FONSI provides information on pre-decisional administrative review opportunities and the expected implementation date for actions authorized by the final decision.

Project Area Railroad Tank Dam is a historic Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe railroad trestle that was abandoned by the railroad in the 1930s. The trestle is covered by a large earthen embankment that currently functions as a dam. The existing spillway for the trestle is relatively small and approximately 20 feet higher than the drainage channel immediately upstream. The dirt road on top of the earthen embankment and trestle is also used to provide access to nearby private property.

Railroad Tank Dam is considered a Jurisdictional Dam for the State of Arizona and is determined to be a high hazard dam. A Screening Level Risk Assessment in 2012 made a series of recommendations to reduce the risk associated with Railroad Tank Dam. The dam is on Forest Service administered land and currently has no operator or custodian other than the Forest Service. The dam is located in Coconino County, Arizona, Section 32, Township 22N, Range 5E, Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian, on the Williams Ranger District (see Figure 1). Two occupied residences sit directly beneath the dam on the downstream side of the dam and could be threatened in the event of a large flood. The purpose of and need for this project is to reduce the risk to public safety and minimize downstream damage that could occur due to a failure of this dam in the event of a large flood.


2 Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Figure 1. Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project vicinity map

Decision My decision is to select Alternative 2, the Proposed Action to meet the purpose of and need for this project outlined in the EA. The Proposed Action would be implemented to decommission the existing dam in order to reduce the risk to public safety and minimize downstream damage in the event of a large flood. This decision authorizes the following actions, design features, mitigations, and monitoring.

Alternative 2 would decommission the Railroad Tank Dam by creating a new low level outlet to allow flows to pass through the dam. The project would maintain the appearance of this historic dam by reestablishing the earthen embankment and crest of the structure, and implementing measures to stabilize the historic dam structure and spillway which is a relatively higher outlet compared to the proposed low level outlet. To route water downstream of the proposed low level outlet, the project would establish a flow conveyance structure across private property, which would require an easement for construction. To ensure that residential traffic can reach the private property during dam decommissioning, a temporary access road would be constructed. Any temporary



access routes would be reclaimed and the existing access road would be reestablished across the dam crest upon completion of the project.

The project would be completed when conditions are dry and minimal water is stored in the tank behind the dam, more likely in the late summer or fall. Heavy equipment would be used to complete project construction, requiring use of an area for staging equipment, and maintenance of existing roads which access the project site. In areas where project actions cause ground disturbance, measures would be implemented for erosion control and reclamation. Additional mitigation measures would be implemented to prohibit spread of invasive plants, and minimize impacts for grazing permitted in this area. Post-project monitoring is planned to assure project objectives are being met and provide for adaptive management actions if needed

Create a Low Level Outlet for Dam Decommissioning The Forest Service proposes to create a new low level outlet to restrict water storage behind the embankment that is known as Railroad Tank Dam. This would decommission the structure as a dam. Decommissioning the dam would require excavating into the embankment to place pipes (or culverts). The excavation will be approximately 35 to 40 feet deep, and 20 feet wide at the base. The upstream opening of the pipes will be located in a manner to retain the limited water storage function of the small stock tank (e.g. approximately 0.2 acre feet of water) upstream of Railroad Tank Dam.

Reestablish Crest of the Structure to Maintain Appearance of a Historic Dam Fill material would be used for refilling and compacting the excavated area to restore the original shape of the embankment. The excavated material would be compacted around the pipe in order to reduce any seepage and settlement following construction. The low spots on the crest of the embankment would also be filled, to reduce the risk of overtopping, and to protect the structure.

Stabilize the Existing Historic Dam Structure and Spillway Vegetation including trees would be removed from the upstream and downstream faces of the dam to protect the structure from root penetration. Riprap (large angular stone) may be added to one or both faces of the embankment, to stabilize and protect it from erosion. The existing high spillway would be repaired and stabilized, including repairing the floor, grouting cracks, and reinforcing/stabilizing the foundations and channel. Materials used for spillway stabilization would be consistent with maintaining the historic appearance of the structure. The materials used for repairing and stabilizing the floor would include wood planks, concrete and locally-sourced rock for rip rap. Concrete grout would be used to repair cracks in the spillway arch walls. Historic graffiti located on the interior walls of the spillway would be protected during stabilization to the extent possible.

Establish a Flow Conveyance Structure on Private Property Studies of potential peak flows (Peck 2011 and 2016) and downstream flow structures have been utilized to determine the proper size capacity and flow potential of the outlet. The pipes would be sized to prevent downstream structures from being overwhelmed by discharge during flood events and to minimize the risk of downstream flooding.

The preliminary design specifies three culverts, with 36 inch diameter, placed side by side (shown as the “Proposed Channel Alignment” in Figure 2). The three culverts would convey potential flows from the new low level outlet to the existing culvert under I-40. There would also be auxiliary drainage maintained at the existing culvert under I-40 to drain surface flow from the private property. The culverts, along with the auxiliary drainage, would reconnect the historic drainage. To attain the correct slope from the new dam outlet to the existing box culvert draining beneath I-40, the three culverts would be placed approximately 1 foot above the current ground surface by placing soil fill material as the foundation for the culverts, and then covered with approximately 1-2 feet of fill material.



Figure 2. Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project Area.

Secure an Easement for the Dam Excavation and Flow Conveyance Structure on Private Property Excavation of the dam structure may affect the northeast corner of the private parcel, and a temporary easement would be needed for this excavation work. This would be a temporary easement, because the earthen embankment would be reestablished once the culverts are installed for the low level outlet. The construction of the flow conveyance structure across private land would require an agreement or easement from the private property owner whose land it will cross. The area where the flow conveyance structure would be located on private land would require a temporary easement of at least 100 feet wide for equipment operation during construction. A smaller permanent easement for the flow conveyance structure would be located within the same footprint, and would be approximately 40 feet wide. The easement would extend approximately 350 feet from the dam embankment to the I-40 drainage structure. The construction of this flow conveyance structure may require the identification and relocation of utilities, such as electrical, phone, water or sewer lines, or septic systems. An agreement or land right of entry would be needed to use an approximate 500-foot length of the existing road on private property for equipment access to maintain this structure in the future.

Provide Temporary Access During Construction and Reestablish the Road Across the Dam Crest The access road that runs along the crest of the embankment is currently the sole access for one property owner, and is proposed to be retained. During construction a temporary access road of approximately ¼ mile in length, and 12 feet wide may be constructed for the duration of the project, if needed (Figure 2). The temporary road would be removed and reclaimed at the end of the project. A special use permit would be needed for future use of the roads on National Forest System Land to access the private property. This special use permit would be granted in a reciprocal exchange for the infrastructure easement.



Project Timing, Equipment, Staging Area, and Road Maintenance The project is expected to occur when site conditions are dry, more likely during late summer or early fall (August through October), and is expected to take less than two months to complete. If a sufficiently dry period occurs in spring, then the project may occur earlier in the year. The following equipment is expected to be utilized during project implementation: one tracked excavator, one dozer, one road grader, one compactor, one water truck, several dump trucks.

A small staging area of less than two acres would be designated (Figure 2), following archeological survey, and reclaimed upon the end of the project. The existing access road from Old Route 66 to the Railroad Tank Dam Project area would be maintained before and during the project, to include the addition of minor amounts of surfacing and blading to maintain adequate drainage.

Project Design Criteria and Mitigations The following project design criteria would be implemented with the Proposed Action and are intended to minimize the environmental impacts of implementing the actions outlined in this alternative. Monitoring will ensure that resource impacts are within acceptable limits during and following project implementation. The monitoring strategy is described later is this section.

Hydrology and Soils • The road maintenance and reclamation of the staging area would include implementation of road maintenance

and construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) as described in “National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands” (FS-990a) (USDA Forest Service 2012).

• The temporary road and staging area should be scarified once activities are complete. Scarification should be concentrated in the upper 4 inches of soil unless deeper compaction is observed. These areas should be assessed prior to rehabilitation activities being employed to address site specific concerns (utilizing deeper scarification and/or a seed mix).

• A seed mix at a rate of approximately 5 lbs/acre should be applied in disturbed areas which are devoid of vegetative ground cover. If seed is to be incorporated in post activity rehabilitation measures the seed mix will be a weed free native perennial mix (see Table 1 below for species list). Species kind and amount will depend on availability. Consult forest watershed personnel for any substitutions if availability is limited.

• Table 1. Native plant species recommended for rehabilitation seed mix.

Common Name Scientific Name Muhlenbergia montana Mountain muhly

Festuca arizonica Arizona fescue Elymus elymoides Squirreltail

Poa fendleriana Muttongrass

Wildlife • Biologists will conduct field surveys for northern goshawk nesting activity. If found, the District Ranger, in

consultation with the Biologist, will determine if protection measures may be needed during implementation of dam decommissioning activities.

Botany • Field surveys for sensitive plant species were conducted in 2017 within the project area and two populations

of the plant, Rusby’s milkvetch (Astragalus rusbyi), were found: one population is near the proposed temporary road location, and the second population is downstream from the existing dam spillway. Both



populations would be marked with flagging and/or stakes prior to project implementation for avoidance and protection.

• The use of heavy equipment will be limited to surfaced roads as much as possible. Where not possible, soil ripping will be done to reduce soil compaction after project completion.

• Seeding will only be required in areas of heavy disturbance, as described above. Native grass seed will be used.

• All equipment will be weed free before entering the project area.

Range Management • Railroad Dam Tank will be protected from all construction activity. Protection measures may include

placement of a silt fence and excluding equipment operation in the area of the water tank.

• Cattle grazing will be allowed during construction. However, the Forest will coordinate with grazing permittees and dam decommissioning project managers to try to avoid livestock in the construction area at the peak of construction.

Monitoring The following monitoring measures were developed to assess whether the Proposed Action, if implemented, is meeting project objectives and to allow for maintenance or repairs to correct any problems, as necessary.

Project-Specific Monitoring • The Forest Archeologist will be notified when excavation of the “notch” in the dam is expected. The most

damaging portion of the proposed work on the dam is the installation of the pipes. To minimize the amount of damage from this activity an archaeological monitor will help to direct the excavation of the “notch.” Also the archaeological monitor will look for and document evidence such as wood or iron posts that might suggest a construction method for the trestle.

• Forest personnel will monitor for invasive plants in the areas of construction disturbance within the project area for two years following implementation. If invasive plants are found, eradication measures will be implemented as authorized by a previous decision for weed management on the Kaibab National Forest (e.g. Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious and Invasive Weeds, Coconino, Kaibab and Prescott National Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona, 2004). Eradication measures may include mechanical removal or herbicide application.

• An engineer will visually monitor the embankment after major rain events for a period of 5 years after the Proposed Action is implemented in order to determine if the modifications to the embankment are functioning as anticipated. If this monitoring determines a need, maintenance work may be performed so that the low level dam continues to function as intended.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Overview Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Several comments were received from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) in response to the Proposed Action that provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. These alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below.



Open Channel Design The Responsible Official and Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) initially considered an alternative with an open channel design for the low level outlet. This alternative was deemed undesirable because of safety concerns with an open channel on the affected private property. With the open channel design, ADOT suggested building an armored drop basin in the constructed channel, just prior to reaching the ADOT box culvert under I-40, to collect debris and sediment. The drop basin may be included with the 100 percent engineering design under the Proposed Action so that sediment and debris will not degrade the I-40 culvert. It was decided that the Proposed Action should adequately address the concerns that this suggestion was attempting to mitigate, and no additional alternative would be needed.

Maintenance of Downstream Drainage Structures on Private Land ADOT suggested in their scoping comments that debris needs to be removed from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway culvert inlet (downstream of Railroad Tank Dam) and the culvert needs to be maintained free of debris in order to prevent water from backing up through previous outlets. This was considered to be beyond the scope of this project as this debris is on BNSF Railway land. The responsible official sent a letter to BNSF Railway to make them aware of ADOT’s concern.

Added Best Management Practices for Sediment Control ADOT suggested adding additional BMPs to control sediment in storm water runoff if the project increases erosion potential (e.g. straw wattles, hydroseeding, check dams, etc.). The IDT with the concurrence of the responsible official felt that because the Proposed Action has been designed to decrease the likelihood of increased sediment that this was not necessary. The Proposed Action already addresses the concern that this suggestion attempts to mitigate.

Rationale for the Decision I decided to select the Proposed Action because I see critical need to address safety concerns with this high hazard dam. As described in Section 1.2 of the Final EA (page 1), Railroad Tank Dam is considered a Jurisdictional Dam for the State of Arizona and is determined to be a high hazard dam. Two private residences sit directly beneath the dam on the downstream side of the impoundment, which could be threatened in the event of a large flood. The purpose of and need for this project is to reduce the risk to public safety and minimize downstream damage that could occur due to a failure of this dam in the event of a large flood. A Screening Level Risk Assessment in 2012 made a series of recommendations to reduce the risk associated with Railroad Tank Dam. The Proposed Action alternative best meets the purpose and need for dam decommissioning, and would implement recommendations from the 2012 Risk Assessment, thereby decreasing risk of dam failure.

Reasons for Not Selecting Alternative 1 I did not select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, because it does not meet the purpose of and need for this project. With the No Action alternative, Railroad Tank Dam would remain at risk for catastrophic failure, thereby continuing to pose a hazard for public safety and downstream damage to property.

Public Involvement Public involvement is a key component in the planning process. The Kaibab National Forest invited public comment and participation regarding this proposal with the following scoping methods:

• The proposal was listed in the quarterly “Schedule of Proposed Actions” (SOPA), beginning in October 2014, to inform the public on the nature and the progress of the Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project.

• A scoping letter describing the proposal and requesting comments regarding the project was sent out to a list of potentially interested persons and organizations on September 24, 2014.



• The proposal, along with a description of the Proposed Action, has been listed on the Kaibab National Forest’s public website since September of 2014.

• The quarterly SOPA was sent to the local Native American Tribal Governments to keep them informed of the nature and the progress of the EA.

• The Preliminary Environmental Assessment was released for the official public notice and comment period with a legal notice published in the Arizona Daily Sun on July 26, 2017, which invited public comment on the Preliminary EA.

Using the comments from the public and other agencies (see Issues section, Final EA, page 4), the interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed a list of issues to evaluate in the environmental assessment. Potential issues included 1) increasing flow potential over or through the dam to levels that could exceed the capacity of downstream drainage structures which could lead to additional flood damage; 2) loss of a water source for wildlife and livestock in the tank behind the dam; and 3) potential damage to a heritage property (the historic trestle) that has been determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, was designed to address these issues through 1) additional analysis of capacity for downstream drainage structures, 2) design of the low level outlet to retain water in the tank behind the dam, 3) actions to restore the earthen embankment and thereby retain the appearance of this historic structure, and monitoring by an Archaeologist to record cultural resource data during project construction.

In addition, comments received during the public comment period are documented in Appendix A of the Final EA (page 41). These comments primarily focused on clarification of potential effects on downstream property with project implementation, and identified the need for KNF to obtain an encroachment permit and/or construction permit from ADOT prior to project implementation. No other issues were identified during the public comment period.

The following Tribes were consulted during development of this project, with project notification by email and the project proposal available on the Schedule of Proposed Actions for discussion during the regularly-scheduled quarterly coordination meeting(s):

Havasupai Tribe Hopi Tribe Hualapai Tribe Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians Navajo Nation Pueblo of Zuni Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe

No comments or concerns about the project have been received from these Tribes.

Finding of No Significant Impact After consideration of the environmental effects described in the EA and supporting documentation, I have determined that the selected actions will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on quality of the human environment. I based this determination my consideration of both the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.13). Thus, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared. I based my findings on the following:

The Context of the Actions The context considers the potential significance of the impacts within the relevant setting(s) for the Proposed Action, such as society as a whole, the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. The Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project is a site specific project, which would not have the potential for significance within the context of society as a whole or the region. Therefore, the significance of impacts from the Proposed Action is considered in the context of the locality (e.g. downstream property that may be affected by dam decommissioning) and the affected interests (e.g. downstream property owners who may be affected by dam



decommissioning and livestock grazing permittees who depend on water in Railroad tank for their livestock operations).

The Intensity of the Actions Intensity of the actions refers to the severity of impact. The following discussion addresses the significance factors set forth in 40 CFR 1508.27, as well as severity of impacts with the Proposed Action.

1. Beneficial and adverse impacts:

Mitigations and management requirements designed to reduce the potential for adverse impacts and address issues expressed through public comment were incorporated into the Proposed Action (EA pages 3-4 and 8-9). These mitigations and management requirements would minimize or eliminate potential adverse impacts caused by dam decommissioning activities. All analyses prepared in support of this document considered both beneficial and adverse effects. None of the potential effects of the Proposed Action would be significant, as summarized here.

The analysis of impacts from the Proposed Action on wildlife species and habitat is found on pages 15-16 in the Final EA, and is summarized here. There is potential for two Forest Service sensitive wildlife species, specifically Allen’s lappet-browed bat and Navajo Mogollon vole, and their habitat to be found within the project area. There is also potential habitat for two management indicator species, specifically pronghorn and western bluebird. Due the low amount of potential habitat removal and the low risk of noise disturbance, the Proposed Action may affect individual Navajo Mogollon voles and Allen’s lappet-browed bats but it would not affect species populations on the forest or lead toward federal listing. Due to the timing of the proposed project, all activities would likely occur outside of the breeding season for western bluebirds. Thus, there would not be the potential of bluebird nesting still occurring within the project area. Therefore there is no potential loss of bluebird young or eggs. For all activities, there is no risk of killing an adult bluebird. Since very limited amount of habitat would be affected by the project, less than one acre in each habitat type, the project will not affect forest-wide habitat or population trend for either Pronghorn or western bluebirds.

The analysis of impacts from the Proposed Action on rangeland resources is found on pages 19-20 in the Final EA, and is summarized here. The analysis focuses on potential impacts to grazing management operations and the Railroad dam stock tank from the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action Alternative would not substantially affect livestock grazing management and livestock forage. Cattle grazing would be allowed within the project area but the Forest will coordinate this pasture use to avoid cattle being in this pasture during the expected 6-8 week construction period. Under the Proposed Action, mitigation to protect the berm of the Railroad dam stock tank would lead to a sustained water source for the Government Prairie Allotment.

The analysis of impacts from the Proposed Action on botanical resources is found on pages 21-23 in the Final EA, and is summarized here. Plant surveys were conducted in 2017 within the project area and two populations of the Forest Service sensitive species, Rusby’s milkvetch, were found: one population is near the proposed temporary road location, and the second population is downstream from the existing dam spillway. Both populations would be marked with flagging and/or stakes prior to project implementation for avoidance and protection. There are known populations of the rare and endemic plant species, Macdougal’s bluebells, within the project area; however, plant surveys completed in 2017 did not find this species within areas which would be disturbed by the Proposed Actions of dam decommissioning, and construction of a temporary road and staging area. The Proposed Action may affect sensitive, rare or endemic species habitat but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for these species, because of the implementation of the mitigation measures that have been designed to protect the critical habitat and avoid disturbance of known plant populations during project implementation.

The analysis of impacts from the Proposed Action on land use and land ownership is found on pages 30-31 in the Final EA, and is summarized here. There are three privately owned parcels just downstream from Railroad Tank Dam: one parcel has an occupied residence, one parcel has a bank-owned and unoccupied home, and the third



parcel does not have any structures or developments. In addition, Federal property at Camp Navajo and the Burlington-Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway line are a short distance downstream from the dam. There would be short term effects to the occupied parcel during construction activities. Those effects would be construction noise and ground disturbance. During the expected 6-8 weeks for construction work, there would be increased equipment traffic on the road into the area, with associated noise during day time hours while equipment is in operation. Of the privately owned parcels located at the base of Railroad Tank Dam, only one would be directly affected by the placement of the proposed water conveyance structure. This one parcel would be bisected by the drainage culverts. The area affected by placement of the culverts, when covered by soil, would be approximately 40 feet in width by 350 feet in length reaching the I-40 culvert. With the Proposed Action placement of the water conveyance culverts, the potential for flooding is greatly diminished for the private parcels just below the dam. The National Guard Base and BNSF railway line would receive additional water flows once the drainage is returned to its original capacity, but potential for flooding through catastrophic failure of the dam is mitigated.

The analysis of impacts from the Proposed Action on soils and hydrology is found on pages 35-36 in the Final EA, and is summarized here. Under the Proposed Action alternative, the soil resource would be directly affected by the use of heavy equipment, construction of a temporary road and staging area. Removal of vegetative cover, increasing bare soil and compaction during these activities would occur, but would be mitigated by following best management practices (Final EA page 8). There is potential for minor sediment delivery to the ephemeral watercourse as a result of excavation of the embankment, installation of the pipe/culvert, installation of the temporary access road and the equipment staging area. Implementation and monitoring of Best Management Practices would minimize or mitigate potential sediment delivery and adverse effects to surface water quality. No changes to stream channel morphology are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action alternative.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety:

Under the No Action Alternative, there is a moderate to high risk that the Railroad Tank dam would fail with precipitation and runoff from the 500 year and 100 year storm events (Final EA, pages 11-12). Dam failure would cause extensive flooding and damage to downstream properties, particularly homes just below the dam and at Camp Navajo. With the Proposed Action Alternative, risk of dam failure and associated downstream flooding during these storm events is reduced to low, because the proposed low level outlet would drain water from the dam and thus alleviate stress on the unstable embankment. In conclusion, the damage downstream due the dam’s failure would be much greater under the No Action alternative compared to effects of the Proposed Action alternative.

While the Proposed Action reduces the risk of dam failure and associated catastrophic flooding, it does not completely preclude downstream flood potential (Final EA, pages 14-15). Lands below the dam may see more frequent inundation (e.g. minor flooding) compared to existing conditions under the 100 year storm event, because the dam currently holds all water during a 100 year storm event, and the proposed low level outlet would allow this water to drain. This more frequent inundation would primarily affect Camp Navajo where several culverts are currently undersized to handle the predicted flow from a 100 year storm after dam decommissioning. This more frequent inundation would not affect the private homes just below the dam, because the proposed outlet culverts would contain and carry this water flow past their property to drain into the box culvert under I-40.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area:

There are no parklands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas within the project area. The project area is located completely outside designated wilderness, as well as Inventoried Roadless areas, therefore there will not be an impact to these areas.

4. The Degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial:



Based on comments from the public and the analysis of effects by an Interdisciplinary Team of Forest Service resource specialists, implementation of the Proposed Action would cause no effects on the quality of the human environment which would be highly controversial.

5. Degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks:

There are no highly uncertain, unique or unknown risks that could affect the human environment related to the Proposed Action. The project is designed to mitigate the known risk of dam failure.

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

The Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project is a site-specific project that does not set precedence for future decisions with significant effects or present a decision in principle about future considerations.

7. Whether this action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts:

The cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action on wildlife are evaluated on pages 18-19 in the Final EA, and are summarized here. The Railroad Tank Dam is located within the same zone of impact from traffic noise on I-40 which would be additional to the potential noise disturbance from the project on the Allen’s lappet-browed bat. Cumulatively, there would be limited noise impact on the Allen’s lappet-browed bat at the project site, but would not affect the overall population on the forest. For the Navajo Mogollon vole there could be some cumulative effects from the use on the private land since there are two homes constructed on the private land. At least one home owner has dogs on their property, allowing for potential that the dogs could prey on the voles. This would only have effect some individual Navajo Mogollon vole and would not cumulatively affect the overall population. The effects of private land use and the presence of traffic I-40 have some impact to the genetic flow for the pronghorn. However cumulative with the project, this will not change the forest-wide population or habitat trend for pronghorn.

The cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action on range are evaluated on page 20 in the Final EA, and are summarized here. There would be no cumulative impact to livestock grazing management or availability of livestock forage and water as a result of the Proposed Action.

The cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action on botanical resources are evaluated on pages 24-25 in the Final EA, and are summarized here. Past activities and actions such as grazing, fire suppression, wildfires, timber activities and recreation have occurred within the range of sensitive, rare or endemic plant species and have contributed to the current existing condition. Additionally, because of unique appearance for some of these species, they are occasionally collected and removed from the Forest for use as a landscaping plant. With ongoing travel management actions, negative effects from motorized vehicles such as crushing of plants, damage to potential habitat such damage to soils, fragmentation of habitat and introduction of noxious or invasive weeds into the habitats and/or populations have been reduced, as a result from the elimination of most cross-country travel and through the reduction of road density. Other actions such as grazing and wildfires would continue to occur in the range of these sensitive, rare or endemic plant species and continue to affect them. These past, ongoing and future actions, when combined with the Proposed Action would not increase impacts of vehicle traffic in the habitat of sensitive, rare or endemic plant species. None of these actions and associated cumulative effects would lead to a trend toward federal listing sensitive, rare or endemic plant species.

The cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action on cultural resources are evaluated on page 31 in the Final EA, and are summarized here. The largest effect to cultural resources would be the proposed activities related to the Railroad Tank Dam. However once the work is completed, there are no other planned activities that would affect the historic integrity of the dam. Because cultural resources have not been affected by past projects, and are not



likely to be adversely affected by future projects, there is a very low likelihood that there would be any cumulative effects to sites within this project area.

The cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action on land use and land ownership are evaluated on page 33 in the Final EA, and are summarized here. The private parcels with homes are located next to I-40 which generates ongoing traffic noise. There would be additional short term noise effects from construction activities with dam decommissioning during day time hours. Given the current condition of considerable traffic noise on I-40 during day time hours, the cumulative increase in noise with dam decommissioning actions is not expected to be substantial.

The cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action on soils and hydrology are evaluated on pages 36-37 in the Final EA, and are summarized here. This project when combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, including timber thinning, prescribed fire, livestock grazing, I-40 traffic and maintenance, private land development and use, and recreation use would improve downstream flows since water in excess of the capacity of Railroad Tank would no longer be impounded. Channel flow below the dam could be initiated more frequently following precipitation events and at snowmelt during heavy snowpack years. This would depend on the frequency, intensity and localized nature of monsoon precipitation events, rain-on-snow events, or the rate of snowmelt. No adverse cumulative effects are anticipated.

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, 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:

The analysis of impacts from the Proposed Action on cultural resources is found on page 30 in the Final EA, and is summarized here. The Railroad Tank Dam has been found eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Evaluation of Railroad Tank Dam [Site 03070102283] Kaibab National Forest, Coconino County, Arizona, for the National Register of Historic Places; Pat H. Stein, Arizona Preservation Consultants, October 2013). In order to protect the dam from failure or destruction due to a large amount of water being impounded behind the structure, the Proposed Action would breach the dam by notching it from the top to install a pipe through it, repair the existing spill way, level the top to prevent spillage, remove trees growing from the side of the dam and place riprap near the base of the dam. The results of this work would in effect repair and stabilize the dam and addresses the potential affects to the historic integrity that could be caused by a structural failure in the event of major flooding. Therefore by stabilizing the dam, it would help protect the structure and the historic values that the dam embodies. The most damaging portion of the proposed work on the dam is the pipe installation. To mitigate the damage from this activity an archaeological monitor would help to direct the excavation of the “notch” (Final EA page 9).

The project meets the criteria of No Effect on historic properties pursuant to the 2004 Amended Programmatic Agreement between Forest Service Southwestern Region (R3) and the Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas State Historic Preservation Offices and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Should any previously unidentified cultural materials be discovered during project implementation, work must cease immediately and the South Zone Archaeologists must be contacted to initiate the consultation process as outlined in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regulations (36 CFR Part 800.13).

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:

There are no federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife or plant species or habitat that are known to occur within the project area, therefore there are no impacts (Final EA pages 15-16).

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or requirements imposed for the protection for the environment:



The proposed action would not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The proposed action is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Kaibab National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2014).

Findings Required by Other Law, Regulation, and Policy The planning and decision making process for this project was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and plans. Shown below is a partial list of Federal laws and executive orders pertaining to project-specific planning and environmental analysis on Federal lands. This project is consistent with the following:

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines The Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project is consistent with the Forest Plan. The Proposed Action is designed to comply with the following Forest-wide standards and guidelines, desired conditions, and Management Area direction outlined in the Kaibab National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2014):

1. Flood plains are functioning and lessen the impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare. 2. Flooding maintains normal stream characteristics (e.g., water transport, sediment, woody material) and

dimensions (e.g., bankfull width, depth, slope, and sinuosity). Vertical down cutting and embeddedness are absent in drainages.

3. Forest Roads, bridges, and trails provide safe, legal, and reasonable access for recreation opportunities and resource management.

National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental consequences of proposed actions and solicit input from State and local governments, Indian tribes, the public, and other Federal agencies during their decision making processes. The EA prepared for this project and this Decision Notice satisfy the environmental effects analysis requirement, and also describes the agencies and persons consulted in development and analysis of the project.

Clean Water Act Chapter 3 of the EA analyzes the impact of this project on water quality. Although motor vehicle use can result in water quality impacts, the mitigation measures and adaptive management strategy included in this decision will minimize these effects.

National Historic Preservation Act Chapter 3 of the EA analyzes the effects of this project on cultural resources. Cultural resource surveys have been completed and archaeological monitoring will occur during dam decommissioning for this project. The Kaibab National Forest determined that this project would have no adverse effect on historic properties or cultural resources, and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office concurred with this finding on July 6, 2015.

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) This EO requires all Federal agencies to avoid adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Chapter 3 of the EA analyzes the effects of this project on soil and watershed resources. The project is designed to reduce risk of dam failure and catastrophic flooding for downstream properties located in flood hazard zones.



Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) This EO requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their mission. I have determined that this decision will not disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations.

Administrative Review Opportunities

Objection under 36 CFR 218 The Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project implements an existing land management plan and is not authorized by HFRA; thus it is subject to 36 CFR 218 subparts A and B. Objections, including attachments, must be in writing and filed (regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand-delivery, express delivery, or messenger service) with the Objection Reviewing Officer (36 CFR 218.8) within 45 days following the date of publication of a legal notice announcing the Opportunity to Object in the Arizona Daily Sun. The publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection (36 CFR 218.5 (c)). Those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.

Objections will only be accepted from those who have previously submitted specific written comments during designated opportunities for public comment (36 CFR 218.5(a)). Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project or activity and attributed to the objector, unless the issue is based on new information that arose after the opportunities to comment (36 CFR 218.8 (c)).

Objections must meet content requirements of 36 CFR 218.8(d) and include:

(1) Objector’s name and address as defined in §218.2, with a telephone number, if available; (2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail

may be filed with the objection); (3) When multiple names are listed on an objection, identification of the lead objector as defined in

§218.2. Verification of the identity of the lead objector must be provided upon request or the reviewing officer will designate a lead objector as provided in §218.5(d);

(4) The name of the proposed project, the name and title of the responsible official, and the name(s) of the national forest(s) and/or ranger district(s) on which the proposed project will be implemented;

(5) A description of those aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, including specific issues related to the proposed project; if applicable, how the objector believes the environmental analysis or draft decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy; suggested remedies that would resolve the objection; supporting reasons for the reviewing officer to consider; and

(6) A statement that demonstrates the connection between prior specific written comments on the particular proposed project or activity and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the designated opportunities for comment (see paragraph (c) of this section).

Objections, including attachments, may be filed by mail, hand-delivery, express delivery, or messenger service (Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding holidays) to:

Forest Supervisor Heather Provencio (Reviewing Officer) Attn: Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project Kaibab National Forest 800 South Sixth Street Williams, Arizona 86046;

Via fax: (928) 635-8208, or in electronic format via e-mail to: [email protected] . Electronically filed objections must be submitted in a format such as an e-mail message, Word (.doc), rich txt

mailto:[email protected]



format (.rtf), plain text (.txt), portable document format (.pdf), or hypertext markup language (.html) formats. Please include “Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project” as the subject matter in the correspondence heading.

Objections, including names and addresses, will become part of the public record and may be released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Incorporation of documents by reference is permitted only as provided in §218.8(b). It is the objector’s responsibility to ensure timely filing of a written objection with the reviewing officer pursuant to §218.9. All objections are available for public inspection during and after the objection process.

Project Implementation Implementation would occur as outlined in the description of the Proposed Action, above. Implementation is anticipated to begin as early as spring of 2018.

Copies of the Environmental Assessment and Contact for Further Information Copies of the Final EA and Draft Decision Notice (DN) with the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are available from the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 800 South 6th Street, Williams, Arizona 86046-9122. Electronic versions of the Final EA as well as the DN and FONSI are available online at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44924 . For additional information concerning this decision, contact Nick Warnke, Project Leader, at (928) 635-5600, or at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office address listed above.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44924



Responsible Official Signature As the Responsible Official, my signature below certifies that I am the Agency employee who has the authority to make and implement the decision specified in this Decision Notice.

Date pending completion of DRAFT DN/FONSI – Signature Pending objection review process DANELLE D. HARRISON Date Williams and Tusayan District Ranger

Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project -...

Documents

Transcript of Railroad Tank Dam Safety Project -...