RATIONAL FOR THE DECISION

The proposed action was designed to meet the purpose and need for the project as well as
address issues and concerns.

Based on the effects analysis in the Mack’s Inn Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Application
Expansion Project EA and the supporting project record, my decision supports the need to
expand the effluent application capacity of the waste water treatment plant. | determined that
it was inappropriate to select the No Action alternative because it does not respond to the need
for action. Without the additional effluent spray field, the waste water treatment plant will not
be able to process the additional waste added to the system in the Island Park area.

The proposed Action best meets the purpose and need by:

e Amends the Forest Plan to the appropriate management prescription are designation

e Facilitates wildlife movement through the area during all seasons

© Complies with 2007 Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in Greater
Yellowstone area and grizzly bear management direction in the 1997 Targhee Revised
Forest Plan.

© Minimizes effects to ground water quality

© Complies with IDEQ requirements for public safety and water quality.

| believe this Alternative meets the purpose and need for this project, responds to public
concerns and is consistent with applicable laws, plans, amendments and policies.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, | have determined that the
Proposed Action, which | have selected, will not have a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). For this
reason, | determine that it is not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement for
the Mack’s Inn Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Application Expansion.

1. Impacts That May Be both Beneficial and Adverse: The EA includes effects discussions
for resources that could be affected through implementation of the Proposed Action.
Potential adverse effects have been identified and disclosed (EA Chapter 3, Pages 13-32)
and mitigated through development of design features (EA Pages 8-10). While the
overall effect of implementing the Proposed Action is expected to be beneficial, the
specific direct, indirect and cumulative effects will be within the standards set forth by
the Revised Forest Plan and Amendments and consistent with applicable environmental
laws and therefore not significant.

My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects
of the action.


CONTACT

For additional information concerning this decision, contact Liz Davy, P.O. 858, Ashton, ID
83420, phone, 208-652-7442.

Elizabeth Davy ae 9 2a 3
District Ranger

Ashton/Island Park Ranger District

10


Ranger District and does not set new precedent. It does not include or set precedence
for any other action on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. From review of the
analysis and Project Record documentation, it is evident that these types of actions are
consistent with the Revised Forest Plan for the Targhee National Forest (1997). Any
future decisions will need to be considered in a separate analysis. This action does not
represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. We have experience with
this type of activity.

7. Consideration of the Action in Relation to Other Actions with Individually Insignificant
but Cumulatively Significant Impacts: My review of the EA and supporting documents
indicates there has been adequate analysis of cumulative effects in and outside the
project area and no significant negative environmental impacts are likely to occur due to
this decision. Based on my review of the analysis and disclosure of effects in the EA,
Specialist Reports, Biological Assessments and Evaluations and other analysis in the
Project Record, | conclude that this project does not represent potential cumulative
adverse impacts (EA Pages 13-32).

8. Consideration of the Degree to Which the Action May 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
Historic Resources: My decision to approve this project will not have adverse affects
nor cause the loss or destruction of significant, scientific, cultural or historic resources. A
cultural resources review has been completed and no sites exist within the project area.
A determination of Significance and Effect dated February 4, 2012 from Idaho State
Historic Preservation Officer determined there would be no adverse effect from
implementation of this project.

9. Consideration of the Degree to Which the Action May Affect an Endangered or
Threatened Species or Their Habitat that has been Determined to be Critical Under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973: This project will not significantly affect threatened or
endangered species or their habitat. A Biological Assessment has been completed for
Canada lynx, grizzly bear, greater sage grouse, North American wolverine, yellow-billed
cuckoo and Ute ladies’-tresses which assessed the potential impact to threatened,
endangered and proposed species and their habitat. The determination of effects for
greater sage grouse, North American wolverine, Yellow-billed cuckoo, Ute lades’-
tresses, and whitebark pine is No Effect. The determination for Canada lynx and Grizzly
bear is May Effect Not Likely to Adversely Affect.

10. Whether the Proposed Action Threatens a Violation of Federal, State, or Local Law or
Requirements Imposed for the Protection of the Environment:

¢ National Forest Management Act (NFMA): this act guides development and revision of
National Forest Land management plans. The proposed action is consistent with NFMA
and the Revised Targhee National Forest Plan (RFP). This project incorporates all


2. The Degree to Which the Proposed Action Affects Public Health and Safety: There will
be no significant effects on public health and safety by implementing the Proposed
Action. Design criteria include Idaho Department of Environmental Quality standards
and requirements that protect public health and safety.

3. Unique Characteristics of the Geographic Area such as Proximity to Historic or Cultural
Resources, Park Lands, Prime Farmlands, Wetlands, Wild and Scenic River, or
Ecologically Critical Areas: The project does not contain any park lands, prime
farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic river corridors or ecologically critical areas. A
cultural resources review has been completed and no sites exist within the project area.
A determination of Significance and Effect from Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer
determined there would be no effect on any known historic properties from
implementation of this project. Project design features required for project
implementation provide protection for new sites if discovered during project
implementation. No activities are proposed for research natural areas. Based on field
reviews and information contained in the EA and Project Record, | conclude that the
selected alternative (proposed action) will have no effects on unique resources.

4. The Degree to Which the Effects on the Quality of the Human Environment are Likely
to be Highly Controversial: Based on the limited context, size and location of the
project and my review of public comments as well as the information in the EA, | do not
find any highly controversial effects to the human environment.

5. Consideration of the Degree to Which Possible Effects on the Human Environment are
Highly Uncertain or Involve Unique or Unknown Risks: Fremont County, in accordance
with IDEQ standards has successfully installed and operated effluent application systems
in this area and has experience with this type of project. The effects analysis shows the
effects are not uncertain and do not involve unique or unknown risk. The selected
alternative (Proposed Action) is the same activity as past effluent application projects
permitted on the Ashton/Island Park Ranger District and its effects are expected to be
similar. Design features outlined above in this decision and in the EA on pages 8-10will
be incorporated by Fremont County when the project is implemented. The Proposed
Action was developed based on professional and technical insight and experience,
public input, field surveys and reconnaissance and incorporation of the best available
science. It is my conclusion that there are no unique or unusual characteristics of the
area which have not been previously encountered that will constitute an unknown risk
upon the human environment.

6. The Degree to Which this Action May Establish a Precedent for Future Actions with
Significant Effects or Represents a Decision in Principle About Future Considerations:
The Proposed Action is similar to the installation of the previous effluent application
system at the Mack’s Inn Waste Water Treatment Plant on the Ashton/Island Park


© American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Grave Protection and Repatriation Act: The
Shoshone-Bannock tribes were contacted and tribal comment was encouraged. No
tribal concerns were identified for this project.

e Environmental Justice: The selected Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations and
Departmental Regulation 5600-2 direct federal agencies to integrate environmental
justice considerations into federal programs and activities. Environmental justice means
that to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are
provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to
share the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected ina
disproportionately high and adverse manner by, government programs and activities
affecting human health or environment.

implementation of any of these alternatives will be consistent with this Order and will
not have a discernible effect on minorities, American Indians, or women or the civil
rights of any United States citizen. Nor will it have a disproportionate adverse impact on
minorities or low-income individuals. No civil liberties will be affected. The Forest
Service has considered all public input from individuals or groups regardless of age, race,
income status, gender or other social/economic characteristics.

Executive Order 12898 also directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence hunting
and fishing when an agency action may affect fish and wildlife. The decision would not
alter opportunities for subsistence hunting by Native American tribes. Native American
tribes holding treaty rights for hunting and fishing on the Caribou-Targhee National
Forest were provided an opportunity to comment on the proposal.

None of the alternatives would substantially affect minority or low-income individuals,
women, or civil rights. The implementation of this project is expected to provide
additional waste treatment services to the community of Island Park including minority
populations.

© Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294): The project area does not include any areas identified
as Roadless Areas in the Targhee National Forest Revised Plan or Final Rule for Roadless
Area Conservation.

IMPLEMENTATION DATE
Implementation of the Proposed Action can begin immediately after the signature of this
Decision and publication of notice of appeal opportunities in the paper of record.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES

This decision is not subject to administrative review (appeal). Two supportive comments were
received during the comment period; this decision is not subject to appeal (36 CFR 215.12).
Implementation will begin immediately.


Decision Notice
& Finding of No Significant Impact
Mack’s Inn Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Application Expansion Project

USDA Forest Service
Ashton/Island Park Ranger District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest
Fremont County, Idaho

DECISION

After review of the environmental assessment (EA) for the Mack’s Inn Wastewater Expansion
Project and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), | have decided to implement
Alternative 2, the Proposed Action.

The Proposed Action would increase Fremont County’s capacity to process wastewater effluent
during peak use as the population increases in the greater Island Park area. The expansion
would also enable the wastewater treatment plant to continue to comply with various agency
standards.

PROJECT AREA
The project area is located on National Forest Service System Lands near Mack’s Inn, Township
14 North, Range 44 East, Section 30 in Fremont County, Idaho.

PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the proposed action is to respond to Fremont County’s application for a special
use permit to expand the current wastewater treatment facilities at the Mack’s Inn site. The
proposed action would increase the capacity of the effluent application area in response to
platted properties in the greater Island Park area.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

| examined two alternatives in detailed: Alternative 1, the no action and Alternative 2, the
proposed action. | determined that these alternatives provided a reasonable range for the
scope of the project. Chapter 2 of the EA includes a description of the alternatives. Following is
a summary of the alternatives considered in detail.

Under the no action alternative the Forest Service would not issue a special use permit to
Fremont County for the expansion of the land application area. The site would remain at its
current capacity serving approximately 1,250 equivalent users. This alternative would hinder
any further development of the currently platted subdivisions within the areas of Fremont
County serviced by the Mack’s Inn Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF).

Under the proposed action alternative the Forest Service would issue a special use permit to
Fremont County for the expansion of the land application area at the Mack’s Inn WWTF. The


applicable Forest Plan forest-wide standards and guidelines and management area
prescriptions as they apply to the project area. This project also complies with Forest
Plan goals and objectives. This includes additional direction contained in all Forest Plan
amendments. All required interagency review and coordination has been accomplished
(EA, BA, BE and specialist reports).

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): NEPA establishes the format and content
requirements of environmental analysis and documentation. The process of preparing
this environmental analysis was undertaken to comply with NEPA and its implementing
regulations.

Endangered Species Act: Biological Assessments (BAs)were prepared to document
possible effects of the proposed action on endangered and threatened species within
the analysis area potentially affected by the project (BA, Project Record). The analysis
concluded that implementation of the Proposed Action would have no effect greater
sage grouse, North American wolverine, Yellow-billed cuckoo, Ute lades’-tresses, and
whitebark pine. Implementation of the Proposed Action may effect but not likely
adversely effect Canada lynx and Grizzly bear. (BA Page x, Project Record). The biological
assessments prepared in conjunction with the EA supports this conclusion.

Clean Water and State Water Quality Standards: The Proposed Action alternative would
be in compliance with the applicable hydrology-related standards and guidelines from
the RFP. Design features for the proposed action are in place to address IDEQ standards
and requirements (EA Page 8, Hydrology and Soils Reports, Project Record). This
decision incorporates Best Management Practices to ensure protection of soil and water
resources (EA Pages 27 and 30, Hydrology and Soils Reports, Project Record). The
Proposed Action is consistent with other pertinent laws, regulations and directives
discussed above (Hydrology and Soils Reports, Project Record).

Clean Air Act: Upon review of the EA, | find the Proposed Action is in compliance with all
requirements with this act. There is no prescribed burning or other activities that may
affect air quality planned with this project.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act: On January 10, 2001, President Clinton signed an Executive
Order outlining responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds. Upon
review of the effects analysis regarding Migratory birds (EA Page 22) | find no significant
loss of migratory bird habitat is expected from implementation of the Proposed Action.
National Historic Preservation Act: These laws require the adequate and extensive
review of these undertakings by conducted in order to assess the possible effects of
these activities upon cultural resources. They also provide that Federal agencies conduct
adequate consultation with pertinent tribes in order to be informed of any possible
conflicts the actions taken would have on their ability to conduct traditional religious
practices.

A cultural resource review has been completed and no sites were located in the project
area. A determination of no adverse effect was made for this project and SHPO
concurred with this determination on February 17, 2012.


Slash would be piled and burned on roads where feasible. Where this is not feasible,
slash would be piled in such a way (tall and narrow) as to reduce the footprint on the
soil and piles would be burned when the soil is cold/frozen and moist.

All personnel involved with on the ground implementation of the project must comply
with the food storage order, Order Number 04-15-0063, to protect grizzly bears. This
order makes food unavailable to grizzly bears.

Prior to commencement of activities, a nest survey would be conducted to determine if
active goshawk nests are present. If nests are present and active, all activities would
occur between October and February.

Any machinery used on site for construction or maintenance will be cleaned of invasive
species seed or debris prior to working on site. The site would be monitored and
treated for invasive plant species for up to five years following the initiation of the
project. .

Tree removal activities should result in edges which appear natural with irregular lines
and shapes to the extent possible.

Following disturbance if native plants do not revegetate the site, these areas would be
re-seeded to an appropriate native plant mix approved by the Forest Botanist.

Best management practices associated with heavy equipment operation (i.e., fuel
storage, fueling procedures, spill prevention/clean-up kits present, and proper
functioning of machinery) would be implemented to prevent contamination of soils and
potential run-off of contaminants offsite.

Constructed skid trails would be obliterated and scattered with a thin layer of slash.

Landings would be revegetated with an approved native seed mix and areas of
compacted soil would be scarified prior to seeding (USDA Forest Service 1988, practice
14.11).

Vehicle staging, cleaning, maintenance, refueling, and fuel storage will be 150 feet or
more from any stream, waterbody, or wetland and in a location where surface runoff
from the site is incapable of being delivered to perennial or intermittent channels.

The following Best Management Practices related to sanitation systems would be
applicable to the project (USFS 2012):

o Anoperation and maintenance plan would be prepared and maintained for the
waste treatment and disposal facilities (FSM 7410).

co Follow-up actions identified during inspections of the facility would be implemented
as needed to ensure that the system is working properly.

co Procedures would be included in the operation and maintenance plan to contain or
avoid releases of pollutants in floods or other emergencies.

o. The waste treatment and disposal facilities authorized on NFS lands would be
operated and maintained according to applicable regulations and direction.

4


A site specific forest plan amendment would be implemented The proposed action would
change the management prescription area from 5.1.3(a) (timber management) to 8.1
(concentrated development areas) (USFS 1997b p. Ill-157). This change would be applied to
approximately 50 acres where the new effluent application area would be located.

Design Features Associated with the Proposed Action Alternative
¢ The land application expansion site would be designed in such a manner as to comply
with all Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) standards and requirements.
These include but are not limited to maximum hydraulic loading rates, buffer zones,
seasons of use, ground water quality, fencing and posting, and odor management.

o Seasons of use — growing season: May 1 thru October 15 (168 days).
© Maximum hydraulic loading rates — 18 inches/acre per growing season.
o Buffer zones —

= Distance to public access — 50 feet

= Distance to inhabited dwellings — 300 feet

= Distance to streams — 100 feet

= Distance to private water sources — 500 feet

= Distance to public water sources — 1,000 feet

* Single sample maximum total coliform level — 240/100ml

o Ground water quality — ground water quality shall be in compliance with Idaho
Ground Water Quality Rule IDAPA 58.01.11 and monitored with existing
monitoring wells on site. If necessary new wells will be installed at the request
of IDEQ.

© Sign posting — signs should read “Irrigated with Reclaimed Wastewater — Do Not
Drink” or equivalent, to be posted every 500 feet and at each corner of the outer
perimeter of the buffer zones of the site.

o Odor management — the WWTP and other operations associated with the facility
shall not create a public health hazard or nuisance conditions, including odors.
These facilities shall be managed in accordance with an IDEQ approved Odor
Management Plan which shall be submitted to and approved by the Department
as a part of the preliminary engineering report described in Section 4110f IDAPA
58.01.16. The Water Environment Federation Guidance referenced in Section
008 of these rules provides guidance for use in developing an odor management
plan that is inclusive of the facilities being designed.

¢  |fany historical sites are found during construction, work would be immediately
stopped and the Forest Archeologist would be contacted.

© During timber removal, off-road tractor use would be postponed when soil moisture is
high and use is causing soil disturbance consistent with Soil Disturbance Class 3 (defined
in the Soil Disturbance Field Guide (USDA FS 2009).


special use permit required for the proposed action would authorize the use of 50 acres of
contiguous National Forest System lands for the expansion. The 50 acres would provide for the
installation of two center pivot irrigation units (pivots) to apply the treated wastewater; a 500
foot buffer area between the land application area and residential structures as per IDEQ
setback requirements; and a perimeter fence around the land application area to limit trespass
in the area (Figure 3).

The perimeter fence constructed around the area used for the pivots would be a three strand
smooth wire fence to facilitate wildlife movement through the area. The fence would be let
down in late fall to allow winter wildlife passage, prevent damage to the fence associated with
snow loads in the winter, and allow access by snowmobiles during snow months. The fence
would be put back up in the non-snow months Signage would be added to the fence during
non-snow months to inform the public that the area is used for treated waste water disposal.
This would make the fence visible to the public using the adjacent National Forest System lands
for recreation.

To facilitate installation and operation of the pivots all the trees within the area would be
removed. The trees are primarily lodgepole pine (Pinus contortus) with an average age of 30
years. The County would cut the trees and then use a combination of piling the trees and
burning the piles along with some broadcast burning. The County will install erosion and
sediment control methods until the site has stabilized. Once cleared, the vegetation
communities within the land application area would be routinely maintained using mechanical
treatment (i.e., chainsaw or front end loader dependent upon tree size) to prevent interference
with the operation of the pivots.

The pivots would be connected to the WWTF via a buried pipeline. The pipeline would connect
to a pump located at the treatment facility and be buried in an 18 inch wide trench
approximately six feet below ground surface. The pipe would be an eight inch PVC pipe, that
would travel north through the existing land application field for approximately 1,000 feet and
then turn west and cross Forest Service Road 338, traveling 1,000 feet west to the first center
pivot irrigation unit in the land application expansion area. After leaving the first irrigation unit,
the pipe would travel the remaining 1,200 feet to the second center pivot irrigation unit. An
electrical line would also be buried in the trench used for the pipeline to supply electricity to
the irrigation systems. The irrigation units would be designed and installed to accommodate
future growth. The expansion of the land application area would allow the Mack’s Inn WWTP
the ability to distribute 24.4 million gallons of treated wastewater through the land application
process.