United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project Environmental Assessment

April 2018

Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Utah County, Utah

For More Information Contact:

Russ Hanson Pleasant Grove Ranger District 390 North 100 East Pleasant Grove UT 84062 Phone: 801-785-3563 Email: [email protected]

Responsible Official David C. Whittekiend Forest Supervisor 857 West South Jordan Parkway South Jordan, Utah 84095

Cover Image of American Fork River taken by Aaron Woods, Horrocks Engineers

Document Prepared by: Horrocks Engineers

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.

i Contents Contents ...... ii Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Proposed Project Location ...... 1 1.3 Need for the Proposal ...... 1 1.4 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ...... 2 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 4 2.1 Proposed Action ...... 4 2.2 No Action Alternative ...... 5 2.3 Decision Framework ...... 5 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action ...... 6 3.1 Resources Excluded from Analysis ...... 6 3.2 Biological Resources ...... 6 Affected Environment ...... 6 Environmental Effects ...... 10 Mitigation ...... 13 3.3 Cultural Resources...... 14 Affected Environment ...... 14 Environmental Effects ...... 15 Mitigation ...... 15 3.4 Hydrology and Water Resources ...... 15 Affected Environment ...... 15 Environmental Effects ...... 17 3.5 Recreation ...... 19 Affected Environment ...... 19 Environmental Effects ...... 21 Mitigation ...... 21 3.6 Visual Resources ...... 21 Affected Environment ...... 21 Environmental Effects ...... 25 3.7 Wilderness Areas ...... 26 Affected Environment ...... 26 Environmental Consequences ...... 27 3.8 Transportation ...... 27 Affected Environment ...... 27 Environmental Effects ...... 27 Mitigation ...... 28 3.9 Cumulative Effects ...... 28 Background ...... 28 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 28 Evaluation of Cumulative Effects ...... 29 Chapter 4 – Comments and Coordination ...... 30 4.1 Communications with the Public ...... 30 4.2 Agency Correspondence ...... 30 Chapter 5 References ...... 35

List of Tables

Table 3-1. Threatened and Endangered Species for the Project Area ...... 7 Table 3-2. Forest Sensitive Species for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest / Uinta Planning Unit ...... 8 Table 3-3. Uinta National Forest MIS Species Potentially Present in the Uinta Planning Unit of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest ...... 9 Table 3-4. Impact to Forest Sensitive Species ...... 10 Table 3-5. Impacts to UNF Management Indicator Species ...... 12 Table 3-6. Assessed Waters in the Utah Lake Watershed Management Unit ...... 15 Table 4-1. Correspondence ...... 30 Table 4-2. List of Preparers ...... 31

List of Figures

Figure 1. Proposed Action ...... 2 Figure 2. Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4 Figure 3. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas Within the Project Area ...... 17 Figure 4. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classifications for the Project Area ...... 20 Figure 5. Management Prescriptions for the Project Area ...... 20 Figure 6. Visual Quality Objectives in the Project Area ...... 22 Figure 7. View of SR-92 near the Powerhouse Spring looking east up American Fork Canyon (north side of the roadway) ...... 22 Figure 8. View of SR-92 near the Powerhouse Spring looking west down American Fork Canyon (north side of the roadway)...... 23 Figure 9. View of SR-92 near the Powerhouse Spring looking north ...... 23 Figure 10. Close up showing the American Fork River looking north...... 24 Figure 11. Close up showing the American Fork River looking north...... 24 Figure 12. Close up showing the American Fork River looking west down American Fork Canyon...... 25 Figure 13. Example of an air vent ...... 25 Figure 14. Wilderness Areas in the Project Area ...... 26 Figure 15. Close Up of Spring Rehabilitation Area in Connection with Wilderness Areas...... 27

iii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AFC American Fork Canyon AGRC automated geographic reference center APE Area of Potential Effects ATV all-terrain vehicle BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMP Best Management Practices BOR Bureau of Reclamation CEQ Council on Environmental Quality EA Environmental Assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MIS Management Indicator Species MOT Maintenance of Traffic MUTCD Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NNIS non-native invasive species NFS National Forest Service NPS National Parks Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places O&M operation and maintenance RHCA Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions T&E Threatened and Endangered Species UDDW Utah Division of Drinking Water UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality UDOT Utah Department of Transportation UDWR Utah Division of Water Quality USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UWCNF Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest VQO visual quality objectives WOUS waters of the U.S.

Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 1.1 Introduction The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest is proposing to authorize American Fork City to replace an existing culinary water pipeline in American Fork Canyon (AFC). These actions are proposed to be implemented on the Pleasant Grove Ranger District of the Uinta- Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF).

Tis environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared to determine whether implementation of the American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the Proposed Action, see the Section 2.0 - Proposed Action and Alternatives. 1.2 Proposed Project Location American Fork City owns and operates two culinary spring collection systems in AFC, the Cave Camp Spring within the boundaries of the Timpanogos Cave National Monument (the” National Monument”) and the Powerhouse Springs located on National Forest System (NFS) lands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. National Forest Service (USFS) located in Utah County, Utah. The water collected from the springs is transmitted to American Fork City in a pipeline that extends from the collection areas to the mouth of AFC. The spring collection system on the National Park Service lands was recently upgraded in 2017 as part of a separate project approved under the jurisdiction of the National Parks Service (NPS). See Figure 1. 1.3 Need for the Proposal The purpose of the project is to rehabilitate a spring collection system and pipeline delivery systems by implementing necessary improvements needed to maintain a safe drinking water supply for American Fork City and comply with Utah Division of Drinking Water (UDDW) standards for culinary water sources. The objectives of the project are to:

• Protect the public health and safety by providing for a safe and reliable drinking water supply for American Fork City • Comply with current UDDW standards for culinary water collection systems • Reduce the potential for contamination of the drinking water supply due to pipe rupture and other types of service disruptions • Increase capacity of the transmission line to accommodate seasonal increases in flow

The project is needed because portions of the piped system that run alongside the American Fork River have become exposed through erosion, thereby making them more vulnerable to damage and potential contamination. Exposed pipes may rupture or be otherwise damaged by either natural forces or human intervention. The existing pipeline is suspected of leaking and is not capable of carrying the increased flow due to the newly renovated Cave Camp Spring collection system. This project is also necessary to bring the spring collection area up to current UDDW standards and better protect public health.

1 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

Figure 1. Proposed Action 1.4 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1506.6) direct federal agencies to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures. Public involvement and tribal consultation is essential for the Forest Service to develop a proposed action that meets the purpose and need for the project and is responsive to the concerns of the public. The public participation process also allows the Forest Service to disclose the nature and potential consequences of the proposed activities on National Forest System lands.

Due to this project’s direct connection with the spring collection system located within the confines of the Monument, NPS has been invited to be a cooperating agency. The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has also been invited to be a cooperating agency, due to the potential for the project to impact State Route (SR) 92. Both agencies have accepted the invitation.

A notice entitled Opportunity to Comment, USDA-Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Utah County, was published in the Provo Daily Herald on August 12, 2017, with letters being sent to the mailing matrix for the USFS on or about August 14, 2017. See Chapter 4 – Comments and Coordination for a list of agencies and individuals contacted. Notice was also posted on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) with a dedicated web page. Notices were also sent to federal, state, county, and municipal agencies, special interest groups, Native American tribes, and interested individuals and groups.

2 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Comments concerning the proposed project were accepted for 30 days following the publication of both of the notices in the newspaper. One public comment was received in response to the notices, which expressed approval for the project. Also, an inquiry was received that asked about the project’s potential for impacts to wilderness areas, but left no comments after the response was provided that the project area was outside of wilderness-designated areas.

3 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives This section describes the Proposed Action for the American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline project. The proposed action was developed at the onset of the project and is based on site-specific needs and preliminary issues. For this project, both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative were considered. 2.1 Proposed Action American Fork City is proposing to replace City-owned culinary water pipelines on National Forest System lands in AFC. The project is located within AFC just west of the Timpanogos Cave National Monument and extends to the intersection with Canyon Road to connect to American Fork’s water treatment facility. The project may include the following activities (see Figure 2):

• Installation of new water delivery pipelines that would consist of 14 to 16 inch HDPE pipe and overhead and buried river crossings; • Installation of new access boxes that meet the UDDW requirements (including raised and locked hatches and air vents); and • Rehabilitation of a spring located north of the pipeline (known as the Powerhouse Spring), including replacement of an existing spring collection system.

Figure 2. Proposed Action Alternative

4 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

The project would also allow for the installation of conduit to facilitate future fiber optic communication lines and associated power conduit intended for municipal, state and federal agency use.

The existing pipeline would be disconnected from all water sources, left in place, and abandoned. Disconnecting the pipeline may require some excavation to expose and cap the ends of the buried pipes and valves. The new pipeline would be located along the existing roadway to allow for easier maintenance. The new pipeline would be buried approximately two to four feet below ground and would include air vents and drains in various locations per UDDW requirements. All crossings of the American Fork River would be underneath the roadway but over the top of the existing box culverts with the exception of the existing overhead crossing near the Powerhouse Spring (which will be modified but remain over the river) and potentially the bridge crossing near Canyon Road at the lower end of the project, which may involve either going under the river or a new overhead crossing on trusses.

Minor, ongoing maintenance activities to the pipeline and spring collection areas would also be performed as needed. Such activities would include periodic inspection of the pipeline alignment, repairs in the event of pipeline breaks or erosion issues affecting the integrity of the pipeline, and re-seeding of any areas where repairs may have impacted vegetation. See Section 3.2.3 for details. 2.2 No Action Alternative Under this alternative, none of the activities described in the Proposed Action would occur in the project area, leaving the existing water delivery system intact and with no rehabilitation activities to Powerhouse Spring. Minor, ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M) activities to the pipeline and spring collection areas would continue as needed. Such activities would include periodic inspection of the pipeline alignment, repairs in the event of pipeline breaks or erosion issues affecting the integrity of the pipeline, and re-seeding of any areas where repairs may have impacted vegetation. Major improvements would not occur and the existing pipeline would remain in its current alignment. 2.3 Decision Framework In consideration of the stated purpose and need and this analysis of environmental effects, the Pleasant Grove District Ranger of the UWCNF, as the Responsible Official, will decide whether the Proposed Action will proceed as proposed, as modified, or not at all. If it does proceed, the Forest Supervisor will decide what mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will be applied to the Proposed Action. This decision will be based upon an analysis of the goals and objectives set forth in the 2003 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Uinta National Forest (May 2003), in accordance with the Forest Plan management prescriptions for the project area, as well as the applicable standards and guidelines set forth therein and as discussed in further detail in this document.

5 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action This section details the existing conditions in the project area and summarizes the potential impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives for each impacted resource. 3.1 Resources Excluded from Analysis Resources that were not impacted and therefore not further analyzed are included in this section.

• Land Use • Air Quality • Prime and Unique Farmland • Socioeconomic Conditions • Environmental Justice • Roadless Areas • Wild and Scenic Rivers • Indian Trust Assets • Soils 3.2 Biological Resources

Affected Environment

Threatened and Endangered Species The Endangered Species Act provides protection to Federally-listed threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitats and is under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). An official list of proposed, threatened, and endangered species that could potentially be present in the project area was obtained from the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) system. Table 3-1 lists the threatened and endangered (T&E) species and their associated habitat that could potentially be present within the project area.

On July 27, 2017, Horrocks Engineers conducted presence/absence surveys for federally-listed T&E species within the full project area. Vegetation type, hydrology, soil characteristics, and general biological observations were also recorded throughout. The results of the surveys identified no Federally-listed species within the project area. A report entitled Biological Assessment for Proposed, Threatened, and Endangered Species for the American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project was prepared in connection with this project and is included in the project file.

6 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Table 3-1. Threatened and Endangered Species for the Project Area Suitable Species Status Habitat Habitat? Mammals Boreal/coniferous forest ecosystems in areas with deep snow and a high-density population of snowshoe hares, their principal prey. Typically Canada lynx Threatened found above 8,000 feet. Only a few species have No Lynx canadensis been documented in Utah over the past decade and all have been determined to be transient. All designated critical habitat is outside of Utah. Birds Requires large, dense multi-story riparian Yellow-billed cuckoo habitat patches of cottonwoods/ willows stands Threatened No Coccyzus americanus (large tracts over 100 contiguous acres and in elevations less than 7000 ft.) Fishes June sucker Endemic to Utah Lake and portions of the Provo Endangered No Chasmistes liorus River. Flowering Plants Stable wetland and seepy areas associated with old landscape features within the historical floodplains of major rivers and near freshwater Ute ladies’-tresses Threatened lakes or springs, usually in association with a No Spiranthes diluvialis high water table augmented by seasonal flooding, snowmelt, runoff and irrigation; not known to occur over 7,000 feet in elevation. Restricted to the canyonlands of the Colorado Plateau in Emery County, Garfield County, Grand County, and Kane County, Utah, as well as in immediately adjacent Coconino County, Arizona. Grows in gypsiferous soils that are Jones cycladenia derived from the Summerville, Cutler, and Cycladenia humilis Threatened No Chinle formations; they are shallow, fine var. jonesii textured, and intermixed with rock fragments. Can be found in Eriogonum-Ephedra, mixed desert shrub, and scattered pinyon-juniper communities, at elevations ranging from 1219 to 2075 meters. Source: Official Species List obtained from the USFWS’ IPaC system (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) dated November 30, 2017; USFS Interoffice Memorandum dated 8/22/2003 regarding prior survey for Ute Ladies’-tresses in American Fork Canyon

USFS Sensitive Species Forest sensitive species known to occur on the UWCNF were also considered for impacts that could result from the proposed project. Table 3-2 below lists the sensitive species that could potentially be present in the project area: The species list was obtained from the USFS Intermountain Region (R4) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and, Sensitive Species List dated June 2016 as well as consultation with USFS personnel. The project area is not suitable for some UWCNF identified sensitive species and therefore they are not listed here.

7 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

On July 27, 2017, Horrocks Engineers conducted field surveys in the project area. The results of the surveys identified no specific Forest Sensitive species; however, suitable habitat for several Forest Sensitive species exists, either in the project area itself or (since most of the project area is confined to the roadway prism itself) within the immediate vicinity of the project area in AFC. A report entitled Biological Evaluation for Special Status Species Region 4, UWCNF Sensitive Species for the American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project was prepared in connection with this project and is included in the project file. Table 3-2 also includes two plant species of concern for the State of Utah that are not UWCNF or FS Sensitive Species.

Table 3-2. Forest Sensitive Species or the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest/Uinta Planning Unit Species Habitat

Wildlife Nests are almost always in tall trees and commonly near bodies Bald eagle of water where fish and waterfowl prey are available. No known Haliaeetus leucocephalus historic nests in the American Fork Canyon Bighorn sheep Requires steep rocky slopes which they are able to scale using Ovis canadensis their specially adapted hooves Occur in many habitat types including high-elevation mountain Bonneville cutthroat trout streams and lakes and low-elevation grassland streams; requires Oncorhynchus clarki utah a functional stream riparian zone to provide essential structure, cover, shade, and bank stability Boreal toad Found in a variety of habitats, including slow moving streams, Bufo boreas wetlands, desert springs, ponds, lakes, meadows, and woodlands Require mature, old-growth trees in which to build nests and Northern goshawk will utilize both deciduous (i.e. aspen and cottonwood) and Accipiter gentilis coniferous species (i.e. Douglas fir, white fir, ponderosa pine) Peregrine falcon Roost in close proximity to water and contain tall, steep cliff Falco peregrinus anatum faces or similar manmade structures Spotted bat Roost on rocky cliff faces, crevices, in caves, and in similar Euderma maculatum man-made structures Townsend’s big-eared bat Generally prefer large and open caves, tunnels, mining Corynorhinus townsendii structures, buildings, and other man-made structures for roosting Plants Ledges and cracks of limestone outcrops; currently known only Santaquin draba from Utah County (Santaquin, Provo, and American Fork Draba santaquinensis canyons) in north-central Utah; elevation range from 5906 to 8005 feet. Aspen and white fir/Douglas fir communities Moist to damp Wasatch draba soils with rocks in rock pockets or along banks. Elevation Draba brachystlis range: 5495 to 9810 feet. Mountain brush, aspen, spruce-fir, and alpine meadow Wasatch fitweed communities. Mid-mountain, along stream anywhere on forest. Corydalis caseana spp. brachycarpa Elevation range: 6210 to 10007 feet. Wasatch jamesia Mountain brush and spruce fir communities, mostly on cliffs Jamesia Americana var. macrocalyx and rocky places. Elevation range: 5,500 to 6,700 feet. Wheeler’s (Utah) angelica Boggy or very wet areas often in riparian communities or in Angelica wheeleri seeps and springs. Elevation range: 6168 to 10007 feet.

8 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Species Habitat Douglas-fir, mountain brush, and cottonwood communities. Wood Aster, Barneby woody aster Rock outcrops, cliffs, and ledges. On lower elevations restricted Tonestus kingii var. barnebyana to northern aspects. Elevation range: 6033 to 10007 feet. Species of Concern for the State of Utah Broadleaf beardtongue* Mountain brush communities; elevation range from 5003 to Penstemon platyohyllus 8875 feet Wood aster, King’s Aster* Douglas-fir, white fir, mountain brush, and cottonwood Tonestus kingii var. kingii communities. Elevation Range: 6033 to 10007 feet. Source: USFS Intermountain Region (R4) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and, Sensitive Species List, June 2016, USFS Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Sensitive Species List, August 2010 *Species of concern for the state of Utah; not UWCNF or FS Sensitive Species

Uinta National Forest Management Indicator Species The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires each National Forest to identify species that are evaluated to help monitor the success of management practices within the forest. Management Indicator Species (MIS) are identified in a Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) as organisms that serve as indicators of ecosystem health and impacts to these species are evaluated at the population level. The species in Table 3-3 below are identified as management indicator species in the Forest Plan (USFS, 2003).

Table 3-3. Uinta National Forest MIS Species Potentially Present in the Uinta Planning Unit of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Common Name Scientific Name Suitable Habitat Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Aspen/Conifer Bonneville cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki utah Aquatic Source: Uinta National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 2003

General Wildlife and Migratory Birds The protection of birds is regulated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the USFWS. The Proposed Action has the potential to affect nesting birds protected under the MBTA, if any migratory birds are present in the project area, due to construction activities. However, surveys will be conducted prior to work being started, as explained in the Mitigation section.

Due to the nature of the project area being located within the UWCNF, there are other wildlife that are in the project area. General wildlife that are likely present in the project area include mountain goats, deer, mule elk, moose, birds (songbirds and raptors), and small mammals.

Vegetation Vegetation mostly consists of species that fall within the Mountain Brush, Sagebrush Steppe, and Mountain Evergreen Forest plant communities. Specifically, Gambel oak, Bigtooth maple, Big sagebrush, Rocky Mountain juniper, Boxelder maple, Cottonwood, White fir, Douglas fir, and mixtures of native and introduced grasses, among others, are found within the project area.

9 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

Environmental Effects

No-Action Alternative Under the No-Action Alternative, no construction activities would occur and existing conditions would continue as at present with only minimal disturbances or impacts to biological resources during minor maintenance and repair activities.

Proposed Action Alternative

Threatened and Endangered Species The Proposed Action Alternative would have no effect on yellow-billed cuckoo, Canada lynx, June sucker, Ute ladies’-tresses, and Jones cyclandenia due to a lack of suitable habitat in the project area. The project would also not impact June sucker habitat in Utah Lake.

Forest Sensitive Species Under the Proposed Action Alternative, construction dust, noise, vibration, and increased human presence and equipment may result in temporary avoidance of the project area by birds and other wildlife forest sensitive species. However, these effects would be temporary and limited to the construction time-frame.

Impacts to aquatic species would be avoided by incorporating best management practices (BMPs) during construction to prevent impacts to water quality. Reseeding after construction would mitigate for impacts to vegetation as a result of excavation activities. O&M operations would be sporadic and isolated events and would be limited in scope and nature and therefore not likely to have any lasting impacts on wildlife species. Reseeding would also occur if any O&M operations result in impacts to vegetation. No permanent adverse impacts are anticipated. Table 3-4 sets forth the impacts to Forest sensitive species that may be present in the project area in connection with the project. Those species that are not included in Table 3-4 have no suitable habitat in the project area.

Table 3-4. Impact to Forest Sensitive Species Species Impact Determination Wildlife Construction dust, noise, vibration, and increased human presence and equipment may result in temporary avoidance of the project area by this Bald eagle species, if present during construction. However, the disturbance would Haliaeetus leucocephalus be limited to the construction period. The project may impact individuals or their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of population viability. Construction dust, noise, vibration, and increased human presence and equipment may result in temporary avoidance of the project area by this Bighorn sheep species. However, the disturbance would be limited to the construction Ovis canadensis period. The project may impact individuals or their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of population viability. Impacts to aquatic species would be avoided by incorporating BMPs Bonneville cutthroat trout during construction to prevent impacts to water quality. The project Oncorhynchus clarki utah would have no impact on this species.

10 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Species Impact Determination Construction dust, noise, vibration, and increased human presence and equipment may result in temporary avoidance of the project area by this Boreal toad species. However, the disturbance would be limited to the construction Bufo boreas period. The project may impact individuals or their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of population viability. Construction dust, noise, vibration, and increased human presence and equipment may result in temporary avoidance of the project area by this Northern goshawk species, if present during construction. However, the disturbance would Accipiter gentilis be limited to the construction period. The project may impact individuals or their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of population viability. Construction dust, noise, vibration, and increased human presence and equipment may result in temporary avoidance of the project area by this Peregrine falcon species. However, the disturbance would be limited to the construction Falco peregrinus anatum period. The project may impact individuals or their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of population viability. Construction dust, noise, vibration, and increased human presence and equipment may result in temporary avoidance of the project area by this Spotted bat species. However, the disturbance would happen during daylight hours Euderma maculatum and would be limited to the construction period. The project may impact individuals or their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of population viability. Construction dust, noise, vibration, and increased human presence and equipment would occur in the project area, which is mostly limited to the immediate vicinity of the roadway, which is no closer than 50 feet from the cliff faces. For the spring rehabilitation, construction would be close Townsend’s big-eared bat to the roadway as well and the adit in the project area is very small and Corynorhinus townsendii shows no signs of bat habitation. The increase in noise would not be substantially more than currently exists and would be limited to the construction period. The project may impact individuals or their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of population viability. Plants Project would be limited to the roadway prism, with the exception of a Santaquin draba small pipeline extension to the Powerhouse Spring to be rehabilitated. Draba santaquinensis The project would not impact this species.

Project would be limited to the roadway prism, with the exception of a Wasatch draba small pipeline extension to the Powerhouse Spring to be rehabilitated. Draba brachystlis The project would not impact this species.

Project would be limited to the roadway prism, with the exception of a Wasatch fitweed small pipeline extension to the Powerhouse Spring to be rehabilitated. Corydalis caseana spp. No plants were located at the Powerhouse Spring or other area during brachycarpa plant survey work completed on July 27, 2017. The project would not impact this species. Wasatch jamesia Project would be limited to the roadway prism, with the exception of a Jamesia Americana var. small pipeline extension to the Powerhouse Spring to be rehabilitated. macrocalyx The project would not impact this species.

11 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

Species Impact Determination Project would be limited to the roadway prism, with the exception of a small pipeline extension to the Powerhouse Spring to be rehabilitated. Wheeler’s (Utah) angelica No plants were located at the Powerhouse Spring or other area during Angelica wheeleri plant survey work completed on July 27, 2017. The project would not impact this species. Wood aster, Barneby Project would be limited to the roadway prism, with the exception of a woody aster small pipeline extension to the Powerhouse Spring to be rehabilitated. Tonestus kingii var. The project would not impact this species. barnebyana Species of Concern for the State of Utah Project would be limited to the roadway prism, with the exception of a Broadleaf beardtongue* small pipeline extension to the Powerhouse Spring to be rehabilitated. Penstemon platphyllus The project is not expected to impact this plant species of concern. Project would be limited to the roadway prism, with the exception of a Wood Aster, King’s aster* small pipeline extension to the Powerhouse Spring to be rehabilitated. Tonestus kingie var. kingii The project is not expected to impact this plant species of concern. *Species of concern for the state of Utah; not UWCNF or FS Sensitive Species

Uinta National Forest Management Indicator Species Under the Proposed Action Alternative construction dust, noise, vibration, and increased human presence and equipment may result in temporary avoidance of the project area by birds and other wildlife species. However, these effects would be temporary and limited to the construction time- frame. Reseeding after construction would mitigate for impacts to vegetation as a result of excavation activities. O&M operations would be sporadic and isolated events and would be limited in scope and nature and therefore not likely to have any lasting impacts on wildlife species. Reseeding would also occur if any O&M operations result in impacts to vegetation. No permanent adverse impacts are anticipated. See Table 3-5.

Table 3-5. Impacts to UNF Management Indicator Species Common Name/ Impact Reasoning Scientific Name Construction dust, noise, vibration, and May Impact, increased human presence and equipment Northern Goshawk But Not Likely may result in temporary avoidance of the Accipiter gentilis to Adversely project area by this species; the disturbance Impact would be limited to construction. Impacts to aquatic species would be avoided Bonneville cutthroat trout No Impact by incorporating BMPs during construction Oncorhynchus clarki utah to prevent impacts to water quality.

General Wildlife and Migratory Birds The Proposed Action Alternative would involve construction activities that may temporarily disrupt wildlife in the canyon. Impacts would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the construction area and of a limited duration.

The Proposed Action Alternative has the potential to affect nesting birds protected under the MBTA due to construction activities. To prevent undue harm to migratory birds, avian nest surveys for bird species listed under the MBTA would be conducted in accordance with the USFWS’

12 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Nationwide Standard Conservation Measures prior to construction to determine if there are any migratory species present in the project area. If nests are encountered within the project area, mitigation measures would be required, as set forth below. No permanent impacts are anticipated.

Vegetation The Proposed Action Alternative would require temporary ground disturbance within the project area and the removal of vegetation, including a small number of trees in the vicinity of the spring area. Any impacts to vegetation would be temporary and limited to construction. Avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented to reduce impacts to vegetation, especially woody vegetation. Impacts to woody vegetation will only occur as necessary.

Mitigation The proposed project would implement the applicable Uinta National Forest Plan standards and guidelines for Noxious Weeds Management, Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Management, Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management, and Vegetation Management.

To prevent disturbances to migratory birds during construction, avian nest surveys for bird species listed under the MBTA would be conducted in accordance with the USFWS’ Nationwide Standard Conservation Measures. The surveys would be conducted no more than five days prior to the start of construction activities, within a buffer area to be established by the USFS. If nests are encountered within the project area, an avoidance buffer (to be determined in accordance with the individual needs of the species in question by a qualified biologist onsite) would be established until the hatchlings fledge. The avoidance buffer would be fenced off and no construction activities would be permitted within that buffer until after the nestlings have fledged. Further, all employees, contractors, and/or site visitors would be briefed on the relevant rules and regulations protecting wildlife, including restrictions on collection of birds (live or dead) or their parts or nests without a valid permit. These mitigation measures would ensure minimal impacts to migratory birds.

To mitigate for vegetation impacts reseeding and revegetation utilizing native species and prior approval of the seed mix by the USFS South Zone Botanist will be performed as a part of the Proposed Action Alternative. Best Management Practices would be implemented during construction to protect the integrity of the plant communities in the area and to help prevent introduction of noxious and invasive plant species. Monitoring of the project area post construction would continue for a minimum of three years. Best Management Practices would include, but not are not limited to:

• Plan activities to limit the potential introduction and spread of non-native invasive species (NNIS) prior to construction. Weed species known to be present and/or nearby the project area include: field bindweed, jointed goat grass, Dalmatian toadflax, lesser burdock, hounds tongue, white top, musk thistle, Canada thistle, spotted knapweed, dyer’s woad, leafy spurge, yellow star thistle, and tamarisk. • Select locally native species for revegetation and restoration activities. • Ensure seed mix is weed free and approved by the USFS South Zone Botanist. • Inspect and clean clothing, footwear and gear for soils, seeds, plant parts, or invertebrates before and after activities. • Prior to moving equipment, clean soils, seeds, plant parts, or invertebrates from exterior surfaces, to the extent practical, to minimize the risk of transporting propagules. • Revegetate disturbed soils as soon as feasible to minimize NNIS establishment. • Allow natural revegetation of the ground layer to occur only where site conditions permit.

13 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

• Ensure the species specified in the plan are the ones being used. • Monitor the revegetation site for NNIS (5 years). No permanent impacts to native vegetation are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action, with the exception of a small number of trees in the vicinity of the spring area. Avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented to reduce impacts to vegetation, especially woody vegetation. Impacts to woody vegetation will only occur as necessary. Mitigation for tree removal may also include preparation and delivery of any remaining usable wood for the USFS for reuse. 3.3 Cultural Resources

Affected Environment In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Utah Historic Preservation Act (U.C.A. §9-8-102 et seq.), potential impacts of the Proposed Action on historic resources were considered. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project consisted of a 15-meter (50 foot) wide survey area along SR-92 and including the Powerhouse Spring area.

Native American tribes that may have an interest in the area were contacted to inform them about the proposed project and to solicit their participation in this evaluation at whatever level they deemed appropriate. Letters were sent to the following Native American tribes:

• Skull Valley Band of Goshute • Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation • Ute Indian Tribe • Confederated Tribe of Goshute

No verbal or written responses to the letters were received. Copies of the correspondence are attached.

A Class 1 literature search and an intensive archaeological ground survey was conducted in connection with this project. The report, entitled An Archaeological Inventory for the American Fork Canyon Waterline, is not attached in order to protect the identified cultural resources. A Supplemental Archaeological Investigation for the American Fork Canyon Waterline was also prepared to address the American Fork water system. No architectural survey was required due to the undeveloped nature of the project area.

The archaeological survey identified one archaeological site. The site (Site 42UT1998) is an abandoned and collapsed horizontal mining adit that has not previously been recorded. It has been determined to be not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The American Fork water system that is being replaced is also present underground in this area and may also be encountered during construction. It was constructed by the City of American Fork in the 1930s and was recorded in connection with this project as Site 42UT2006. Portions of the American Fork water system were recorded in 2014 as part of the Timpanogos Cave Historic District; however, in 2015, American Fork City removed and rebuilt the spring collection system at Cave Camp in the Timpanogos Cave Historic District, which was the most significant portion of the site. Site 42UT2006 has been determined as not eligible for the NRHP.

Other sites in the vicinity include an historic railroad bed and the alignment of the penstock for the Upper American Fork hydroelectric plant, neither of which have any expression aboveground in the project area but may be uncovered by excavation during construction.

14 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Environmental Effects

No-Action Alternative The new pipeline crossing would be attached to the existing pipe and truss structure which is part of the American Fork water system; however, the water system is not eligible for the NRHP. Since there are no identified cultural resources in the project area, the No-Action Alternative would have no impacts to cultural resources.

Proposed Action Alternative Since there are no identified cultural resources in the project area, the Proposed Action Alternative would have no impacts to cultural resources; therefore, the Proposed Action would result in a No Historic Properties Affected determination.

The Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred in the No Historic Properties Affected determination on September 19, 2017. See Appendix A for the SHPO concurrence letter.

Mitigation Should construction unearth previously undiscovered cultural resources, including portions of those sites mentioned above that have previously been buried, work would be stopped in the area of the discovery and the USFS would consult with the Utah SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), as necessary. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during construction, the provisions outlined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 would be followed. 3.4 Hydrology and Water Resources

Affected Environment

Watershed The proposed project is located within the American Fork River-1 Assessment Unit of the Utah Lake Watershed Management Unit (HUC 16020201), as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). Water bodies in Utah are assigned classifications by the UDEQ depending on their beneficial uses. Streams within the project area are Class 2B, Class 3A, and Class 4 waters. According to the UDEQ, Class 2B waters are for secondary contact recreation and include activities such as boating, wading or similar activities. Class 3A waters have protected cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic life including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain. Waters of the State that are protected for agricultural use are classified as Class 4 and include irrigation of crops and stock watering (Utah, 2008). The 303(d) listed waters are those that are not meeting their designated beneficial uses. The assessed waters for each watershed are shown in Table 3-6, along with the designated use for which the water has been determined to be impaired.

Table 3-6. Assessed Waters in the Utah Lake Watershed Management Unit Assessment Beneficial Name Location Results Use American Fork American Fork River and tributaries from Diversion Supporting Uses 2B, 3A, 4 River-1 at mouth of Canyon to Tibble Fork Reservoir American Fork American Fork River and tributaries from Tibble Insufficient Data 2B, 3A, 4 River-2 Fork Reservoir to headwaters with exceedances

15 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

Assessment Beneficial Name Location Results Use American Fork and tributaries from Utah Lake to American Fork Supporting Uses 2B, 3A, 4 diversion at mouth of AFC Tibble Fork No Evidence of Tibble Fork Reservoir 2B, 3A, 4 Reservoir Impairment Silver Lake Flat No Evidence of Silver Lake Flat Reservoir 2B, 3A, 4 Reservoir Impairment Source: Utah DWQ’s Environmental Interactive Map (https://enviro.deq.utah.gov/) accessed on July 10, 2017; US EPA Surf Your Watershed website (https://cfpub.epa.gov/surf), accessed on July 10, 2017

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) are areas within watersheds where riparian- dependent resources receive primary emphasis and management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines and are established by the Uinta Long Range Management Plan (LRMP). RHCAs include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent streams, and other areas that help maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems. There is an identified RHCA located within the proposed project area in connection with the American Fork River. The RHCA is classified as a Class 1 width extending 300 feet from each edge of the waterbody. See Figure 3.

Water Quality The culinary water system within AFC currently meets EPA and UDWQ water quality standards. However, the existing pipeline is failing and deteriorating and in need of upgrading.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. On July 27, 2017, Horrocks Engineers conducted a wetland survey of the project area. The American Fork River is the only waters of the U.S. (WOUS) identified within the project area and is considered a navigable waterway. No wetlands or other WOUS were identified within the project area. Due to the lack of wetlands in the project area, no formal wetland delineation was conducted. A wetland inventory memo was prepared and is included in the project file.

16 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Figure 3. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (Classes) Within the Project Area

Environmental Effects

No-Action Alternative Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions would continue as at present and would result in no impacts to the watershed or wetlands within the project area. However, potential contamination to the culinary water system from current and future leaks, corrosion, failures, and potential root incursions in the pipes, could eventually cause the culinary water system to no longer meet UDWQ water quality standards. The No-Action Alternative would have no impacts to RHCAs.

Proposed Action Alternative

Watershed The Proposed Action Alternative includes construction activities involving ground disturbance that could result in soil erosion. However, BMPs would be utilized in order to prevent erosion and sedimentation from indirectly affecting the streams during the implementation of the project. No direct or indirect effects are anticipated for either groundwater or the springs.

17 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

Water Quality Under the Proposed Action Alternative, improvements to the pipeline would comply with current UDDW standards and would ensure the continued quality of culinary water carried by the system. The Proposed Action Alternative would involve construction activities, which have the potential to impact surface waters in the area; however, BMPs would be utilized to prevent impacts to the adjacent American Fork River.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. The Proposed Action would have no permanent impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. No wetlands were identified within the project area and the only impacts to the American Fork River would be temporary impacts related to the construction of the pipeline. Impacts to the RHCA would be temporary during construction, with appropriate measures taken to protect the integrity of the RHCA.

All crossings of the American Fork River would be underneath the roadway but over the top of the existing box culverts with the exception of the existing overhead crossing near the location of the spring to be rehabilitated (which will be modified but remain over the river) and potentially the bridge crossing near Canyon Road at the lower end of the project, which may involve either going under the river with the new pipeline (requiring a Stream Alteration permit for temporary impacts to the American Fork River) or a new overhead crossing on trusses.

Mitigation Impacts to the American Fork River would require a Stream Alteration Permit from the Utah Division of Water Rights (UDWR). However, no Section 404 permit would be required as there would be no impact to wetlands and the project would have less than 1/10th of an acre of temporary impacts to waters of the U.S.

BMPs would be implemented during construction for the protection of water resources and to minimize impacts to the American Fork River. The Standards and Guidelines applicable to this project (as set forth in the 2003 Forest Management Plan) include:

• Aqua-1 Standard: Trees shall not be felled into streams, lakes, or bogs except when needed to improve aquatic habitat. • Aqua-4 Guideline: Limit construction and other activities affecting stream channels to those periods when such activities will have the least detrimental effect on the aquatic environment, unless emergency conditions deem otherwise. • Aqua-5 Guideline: Avoid equipment operation in stream courses, open water, seeps, or springs. If use of equipment in such areas is required, impacts should be minimized. • Aqua-6 Guideline: Limit equipment operation in RHCAs. If the use of equipment in these areas is required, incorporate additional mitigation to minimize adverse impacts. • Aqua-7 Standard: Prohibit storage of fuels and other toxicants within RHCAs. Do not fuel or service equipment in RHCAs unless there is no other alternative. If such sites are required within an RHCA, appropriate containment measures must be employed. Construction of maintenance equipment service areas shall be located and treated to prevent gas, oil, or other contaminants from washing or leaching into streams. Equipment working in open water and wetlands shall be cleaned prior to entry into such areas to remove gas, oil, and other contaminants. • Aqua-9 Guideline: Subject to valid existing rights, free-flowing water and associated riparian vegetation communities should be retained at developed spring sites. If possible,

18 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

existing spring developments should be modified to return water to riparian ecosystems within the source drainage. • S&W-4 Guideline: Maintain adequate ground cover to filter runoff and prevent detrimental erosion in RHCAs. • S&W-6 Guideline: Where practical, on-site topsoil should be conserved and replaced on disturbed areas. • S&W-13: Guideline: Reduce stream sedimentation created as a result of construction.

Operation and maintenance operations would be limited in scope and nature, occurring on an as- needed basis, and would not adversely impact the hydrology of the project area. 3.5 Recreation

Affected Environment The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a land management tool used to classify lands based on the different recreation settings they provide. The ROS classes were inventoried and identified in the Revised Forest Plan. The study area has two classifications dependent on which side of SR-92 is referenced (refer to Figure 4). The north side of the roadway is classified as Primitive, while the south side is classified as Roaded Modified, which is a variation on the Roaded Natural classification (Revised Forest Service Plan).

Management prescriptions for the project area (refer to Figure 5) also include Dispersed Recreation (south of SR-92) and Wilderness (north of SR-92) with an overall designation of Wildlife Urban Interface (Revised Forest Service Plan).

The project area consists of the roadway prism for SR-92 which runs through AFC, with the small exception of the Powerhouse Spring to be rehabilitated. SR-92 in the project area is a narrow, two- lane roadway with limited pull-out areas.

19 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

Figure 4. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classifications for the Project Area

Figure 5. Management Prescriptions for the Project Area

20 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Environmental Effects The project would have a temporary impact on access to recreation resources in the project area due to construction activities that would impact travel on SR-92. Due to the nature of the project area, the narrowness of the roadway through the canyon, and the construction methods, travel on SR-92 would need to be restricted to one-lane during construction to allow for the trenching activities needed to install the pipeline within the roadway prism. Construction is anticipated to occur during the spring of 2018 or 2019. While traffic restrictions due to constructions activities would impose a considerable inconvenience to travelers, it would be a temporary impact and mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the expected delays.

There would be no long-term impacts to recreational resources once construction is completed since the pipeline and the conduit would be buried and no other impacts would occur.

Mitigation The travel restrictions would be limited to the smallest geographical area and shortest timeframe possible while still ensuring construction zone safety and efficiency. Contractor shall submit a Traffic Control Plan to the USFS for approval prior to construction activities. Traffic control measures such as lights and flaggers would be utilized during construction to allow for continued access to the recreation facilities and opportunities in AFC.

No work that endangers, interferes, or conflicts with traffic or access to work sites shall be performed until a plan for satisfactory warning and handling of traffic has been submitted by the contractor and approved by the Forest Service and UDOT. Construction signing for traffic control shall conform to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Further, areas for staging operations and storage of materials shall be approved by the Forest Service. The construction activities would be coordinated with the NPS as well as other proposed projects on the Forest in order to prevent unnecessary traffic bottlenecks on SR-92. 3.6 Visual Resources

Affected Environment Impacts on visual resources are measured by how a given management activity meets adopted visual quality objectives (VQOs). According to the Revised Forest Service Plan, the VQO for the project area is defined as Retention (Revised Forest Service Plan). To the north of the project area is the Lone Peak Wilderness Area, which has a VOQ of Preservation, which applies to classified areas such as wilderness. See Figure 6.

The project area consists of the roadway prism for SR-92 which runs through AFC, with the small exception of the Powerhouse Spring to be rehabilitated. SR-92 in the project area is a narrow, two- lane roadway with limited pull-out areas. Recreation activity within the project area includes the scenic values of the AFC designated as the Alpine Loop Scenic Bypass, as well as access to the Timpanogos Cave Visitor Center, which is located farther up AFC just beyond the project limits for this project. See Figures 7 through 12 for examples of the viewshed in the project area.

21 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

Figure 6. Visual Quality Objectives in the Project Area

Figure 7. View of SR-92 near the Powerhouse Spring looking east up American Fork Canyon (north side of the roadway)

22 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Figure 8. View of SR-92 near the Powerhouse Spring looking west down American Fork Canyon (north side of the roadway).

Figure 9. View of SR-92 near the Powerhouse Spring looking north

23 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

Figure 10. Close up showing the American Fork River looking north.

Figure 11. Close up showing the American Fork River looking north.

24 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Figure 12. Close up showing the American Fork River looking west down American Fork Canyon.

Environmental Effects The project would have a temporary impact on visual resources in the project area due to construction activities that would impact travel on SR-92. The project would also have a temporary impact to the visual quality of the project from the rehabilitation of the Powerhouse Spring that would require the removal of some vegetation due to trenching. The impact would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the spring and the proposed alignment of the pipeline and would be revegetated to prevent erosion of the soils and to facilitate the regrowth. Removal of woody vegetation would be limited to that which is necessary to rehabilitate the spring. See also Section 3.2 for more detail on mitigation for vegetation impacts.

Once construction is completed, there would be minor visual impacts due to the inclusion of several air vents sporadically placed along the pipeline alignment, which are needed for safety and to comply with UDDW standards (see Figure 13). Visual impacts would meet retention VQO because the air vents would be installed in such a manner as to minimize their intrusion into the viewshed through such measures as strategic placement of the air vents to conceal them from the traveling public on SR-92, painting the vents (as directed by the USFS) to act as camouflage, etc. Further, they would not constitute a longitudinal visual feature and are not inconsistent with a roadway facility.

Figure 13. Example of an air vent

25 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

3.7 Wilderness Areas The Wilderness Act of 1964 created a protective overlay to selected portions of national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands. It mandates that each wilderness area be administered to preserve the “wilderness character of the area.” The Wilderness Act allows certain uses (e.g., resource extraction, grazing, etc.) which existed before the land became wilderness to be grandfathered in, permitting them to continue to take place although the area that was designated as wilderness typically would not concede such uses. Specifically, mining, grazing, water uses, or any other uses that don’t significantly impact the majority of the area, can remain in some degree.

Affected Environment The Lone Peak Wilderness area is located to the north of SR-92. This wilderness is generally bounded on the north by Little Cottonwood Canyon, on the south by AFC, on the west by the Salt Lake and Utah Valleys and on the east by Twin Peaks and is comprised of approximately 30,088 acres. The southernmost boundary is specified at 300 feet north of the centerline of the roadway). The Proposed Action is located within the roadway prism for SR-92, with the exception of the Powerhouse Spring that is to be rehabilitated. The spring is located just north of the American Fork River, which runs adjacent to SR-92 on the north side of the roadway in this area. The entire project area is located south of the boundary for the Lone Peak Wilderness, Further, it is also outside of the wilderness management area for the USFS. See Figure 14 and Figure 15 for a close-up of the proposed spring rehabilitation area.

Figure 14. Wilderness Areas in the Project Area

26 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Figure 15. Close Up of Spring Rehabilitation Area in Connection with Wilderness Areas.

Environmental Consequences The entire project area is located south of the boundary for the Lone Peak Wilderness, and it is also outside of the wilderness management area for the USFS. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have no impact on wilderness areas. 3.8 Transportation

Affected Environment The Alpine Loop Scenic Byway (SR-92) begins at the mouth of AFC and runs east then south over the divide to the North Fork of the Provo River drainage. The roadway in the project area consists of a two-lane roadway that has narrow shoulders and winds up the canyon. This road is heavily used by recreationists to access and pass through the area.

Environmental Effects The project involves the installation of a 14- to 16-inch HDPE pipeline, as well as a fiber optic conduit, and would occur mostly within the roadway prism for SR-92. During construction, the project would require some limitation of traffic to facilitate construction activities for trenching and to ensure the safety of construction personnel and the traveling public.

Due to the nature of the project area, the narrowness of the roadway through the canyon, and the construction methods, travel on SR-92 would need to be restricted to one-lane during construction to allow for the trenching activities needed to install the pipeline within the roadway prism. The travel restrictions would be limited to the smallest geographical area and shortest timeframe

27 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

possible while still ensuring construction zone safety and efficiency. Traffic control measures such as lights and flaggers would be utilized during construction to allow for continued access to the recreation facilities and opportunities in AFC. Construction is anticipated to occur during the spring of 2018 or 2019.

Mitigation No work that endangers, interferes, or conflicts with traffic or access to work sites shall be performed until a plan for satisfactory warning and handling of traffic has been submitted by the contractor and approved by the Forest Service and UDOT. Construction signing for traffic control shall conform to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Further, areas for staging operations and storage of materials shall be approved by the Forest Service. The construction activities would be coordinated with the NPS as well as other proposed projects on the Forest in order to prevent unnecessary traffic bottlenecks on SR-92.

Due to the nature of the project area, the narrowness of the roadway through the canyon, and the construction methods, travel on SR-92 would need to be restricted to one-lane during construction to allow for the trenching activities needed to install the pipeline within the roadway prism. The travel restrictions would be limited to the smallest geographical area and shortest timeframe possible while still ensuring construction zone safety and efficiency. Traffic control measures such as lights and flaggers would be utilized during construction to allow for continued access to the recreation facilities and opportunities in AFC. The construction activities would be coordinated with the NPS as well as other proposed projects on the Forest in order to prevent unnecessary traffic bottlenecks on SR-92.The spring rehabilitation would be conducted at the same time as the pipeline alignment construction and therefore would not result in longer impacts to the recreational usage of the area. 3.9 Cumulative Effects

Background CEQ regulations require the assessment of cumulative impacts in the decision-making process for federal projects. Cumulative impacts are defined as “ the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions: (40 CFR 1508.7).

This section analyzes cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on environmental resources within the project area. For the geographic boundaries, the cumulative impacts analysis focuses on AFC in the project area, unless otherwise noted; for the temporal boundaries, the cumulative impacts analysis utilizes a 100-year time span, beginning with the installation of the spring collection system in the 1930s.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Past projects in the project area include the construction of SR-92 through the canyon, the installation of the American Fork culinary water system, the designation of the Timpanogos Cave National Monument (including the construction of the visitor center and other associated facilities), and the development of recreational facilities (including camping areas, trails, etc.)

Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects planned for the area (excluding the pipeline project that is the subject of this EA) include improvements to the Timpanogos Cave Visitor Center

28 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

and associated facilities, the installation of fiber-optic conduit extending from the mouth of the canyon to Tibble Fork Reservoir and the Pine Hollow Gate (a portion of which is included in this EA), and pavement rehabilitation improvements to SR-92. Further, improvements to the Battle Creek culinary water system are also included in this analysis, as access to the project site must utilize SR-92 through AFC. No other present or reasonably foreseeable future improvements are planned.

Evaluation of Cumulative Effects Potential cumulative impacts in AFC would be associated with the combined human recreational use and the pipeline construction and maintenance activities connected with the American Fork culinary water system,

Air Quality The project area for the cumulative air quality analysis is Utah County due to the regional nature of the resource impacts. Utah County is designated as a non-attainment area for PM10 and PM2.5. The predominant air quality factors influencing particulate matter emissions in Utah County have historically been, and will likely continue to be, stationary and mobile sources associated with development, which is expected to continue.

As described previously, the Proposed Action Alternative would involve a minor, temporary increase in particulate matter emissions related to construction activities and, on a permanent basis, minor intermittent emissions related to maintenance activities on the pipeline. The proposed project would not cause, or significantly contribute to, exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), nor is it likely that the addition of the spring rehabilitation project in the project area would result in new violations of the NAAQS, increases in the frequency or severity of existing violations, or result in delays in attaining the NAAQS. The project would have temporary construction impacts in the immediate area; however, it would not involve ongoing emissions.

Biological Resources The proposed project would have temporary impacts to wildlife and vegetation due to construction activities. Cumulative impacts on wildlife and vegetation would likely be temporary and minor. Areas of disturbed vegetation would be restored to their existing condition (with the exception of a small number of trees in the vicinity of the spring area), including post-construction monitoring of the project site for NNIS for five (5) years. See Section 3.2 mitigation for more details.

Cultural Resources There are several cultural resources that were identified as being potentially present in the project area that lacked expression aboveground and may be uncovered during construction. Typical mitigation measures would include stopping construction activities in the area of the find and contacting responsible parties with USFS. No cumulative impacts on cultural resources are anticipated.

Hydrology During construction, there would be temporary impacts to surface waters due to the construction of temporary crossings as part of the Proposed Action, but the overall hydrology of the area would not be impacted. The spring collection system rehabilitation would not alter the hydrologic patterns of the canyon and would only enable American Fork to better utilize its existing water right. The limited scale, and temporary nature of the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, and the relatively limited nature of the activities that are permitted in the project area under the

29 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

Watershed classification of the Forest Management Prescription Plan would not result in a substantial cumulative degradation of the watershed hydrologic function.

Recreation During construction of the proposed project and the spring rehabilitation activities (to be conducted contemporaneously), the project would have considerable, albeit temporary impacts on recreation resources in the project area due to construction activities that would impact travel on SR-92. There would be no permanent impacts to recreational resources and therefore, the proposed project would have no cumulative impacts on recreational resources.

Visual Resources The proposed project would not have any major permanent adverse impacts to the viewshed in the canyon and would maintain the natural-appearing scenic value in the area. It would include new air vents, in addition to those that are already present in the project area, as required by the UDDW standards for culinary water systems. However, the visual intrusion of these air vents would be minimized using powder-coating/painting, strategic placement and other measures. The spring rehabilitation at the Powerhouse Springs would likely have temporary impacts during construction due to excavation at the spring collection site, including vegetation removal. Areas disturbed by construction activities would be restored to their existing condition after construction. The present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would have no permanent adverse effects on visual resources in AFC.

Chapter 4 – Comments and Coordination Chapter 4 summarizes the coordination efforts with agencies and the public throughout the environmental documentation process. 4.1 Communications with the Public An article entitled Request for Scoping Comments was published in the Provo Daily Herald on August 12, 2017 to request public comments, with letters being sent to the mailing matrix for the USFS on or about August 14, 2017. Written, facsimile, hand-delivered, and electronic comments concerning the proposed project were accepted for 30 days following the publication of both of the notices in the newspaper. One public comment was received in response to the notices. Also, an inquiry was received by phone conversation from the Save Our Canyons organization that asked about the project’s potential for impacts to wilderness areas. The response was provided that the project area was outside of wilderness-designated areas. Another comment was left by phone message simply stating that they had no objections to the proposed action. No name was provided. 4.2 Agency Correspondence Correspondence letters (both sent and received) are shown in Table 4-1 below and are included in Appendix A, in order by date.

Table 4-1. Correspondence Date To From Subject 8/14/2017 Interested Parties and Russ Hanson Jr. Scoping Public Entities/Agencies Pleasant Grove Forest Ranger 8/2017 Russ Hanson Jr. Private Citizen Scoping Pleasant Grove District Ranger

30 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Table 4-2 shows a list of those who participated in the preparation of this EA.

Table 4-2. List of Preparers Years of Name Project Role Education Experience Horrocks Engineers BA, Anthropology Aaron Woods Cultural Resources MA, Anthropology 14 PhD, Anthropology (2018) BA, Political Science Judy Imlay Environmental Analysis 20 JD BS, Horticulture Ryan Pitts Environmental Analysis 9 MLA, Landscape Architecture BS, Civil Engineering Stan Jorgensen Environmental Manager 22 MS, Civil Engineering BS, Anthropology Peter Steele Cultural Resources 6 MA, Anthropology U.S. Forest Service Jana Leinbach Botanist BS, Range/ Wildlife Mgmt. 31 BA, Biology Karen Hartman Wildlife Biologist 29 MS, Biology Recreation, Lands & Special BS – Natural Resource Charles Rosier 19 Uses Management BS – Parks and Recreation Russ Hanson Jr. Pleasant Grove District Ranger Management 3.5 Masters – Environmental Policy BA – University of Montana MA – University of Alaska, Tom Flanigan Forest Archaeologist Fairbanks 22 PhD Candidate – University of Utah David Hatch Landscape Architect BLA- Utah State University 28 BS – Fisheries Management Justin Robinson Fisheries Biologist 13 MS – Fisheries Management Andrea Hannan Biological Technician-Plants BS – Biology/Ecology 10 Brendan Waterman Hydrologist BS – Environmental Studies 17 Darcy Stock GIS/Mapping

Scoping notices were sent to the following individuals and agencies/groups:

• Federal Agencies o Federal Energy Regulatory Commission o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers o U.S. Fish and Wildlife o National Park Service o Timpanogos Cave National Monument o U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation • State Agencies o Utah Department of Environmental Quality o Utah National Parks Council – Orem Office o Utah Division of Wildlife Resources o Utah Department of Transportation – Region 3

31 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

o Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands o Utah State Hospital o Utah Lake State Park o Utah Department of Natural Resources o Utah Division of Air Quality o Wasatch Mountain State Park o Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation • Counties/Agencies o Mountainland Association of Governments o Lone Peak Fire District o Utah County Public Works o Utah County Community Development – Utah County Planner o Wasatch County Council o Utah County Fire Chiefs o Utah County Fire Marshal o Utah County Sheriff’s Office o Salt Lake County Council o Salt Lake County o Utah County Search and Rescue o Utah County Public Works o Utah County Parks and Recreation o Wasatch County Public Lands Committee o Utah Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau o Utah County Commission o Utah Bureau of Environmental Health Services o Utah County Health Department, Bureau of Air Quality • Cities/Entities o Lehi City o Midway City o American Fork City o American Fork High School o Provo City o Provo City Division of Water Resources o Provo City Parks and Recreation o City of Cedar Hills o Lindon City o Eagle Mountain o Highland City o Pleasant Grove City o Pleasant Grove High School o Springville City o Vineyard City o Orem City o Alpine City o Draper City • Utilities o PacifiCorp – Lead Environmental Analyst o North Fork Special Service District o Metropolitan Water District o Central Utah Water Conservancy District o North Utah County Water Conservancy

32 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

o Manila Culinary Water Company (dissolved and out of business) • Representatives o Representative Mia Love o Representative Chris Stewart o Representative Rob Bishop o Representative Jason Chaffetz o Senator Orrin Hatch o Senator Mike Lee • Special Interest Groups o Save Our Canyons o Utah Snowmobile Association o Uinta Trail Council o Wasatch Mountain Club o Western Lands Project o WildEarth Guardians o Utah Avalanche Center o Mutual Dell Organization Camp o Jeeprassic Productions and Lone Peak 4-Wheelers o Rock Canyon Preservation Alliance o Utah Four Wheel Drive Association and Utah 4x4 Club o Lofty Peaks Adventures o Utah Trout Unlimited o Western Watershed Project, Wyoming Director o Public Lands Equal Access Alliance o Utah Rocky Mountain Bikers o Hi-line and Hobbles Back County Horseman o Sportsmen for Habitat, Inc. o Timpanogos Half Marathon Race Directors • Native American Tribes o Skull Valley Band of Goshute o Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation o Ute Indian Tribe o Confederated Tribe of Goshute • Private o Snowbird o Sundance o TERT o Silver Lake Flat Homeowners Association o Tibble Fork Homeowners Association o Pacific Legal Foundation o David Little, permittee o Amberlee Andrus, permittee o John Chamberlain o Robert Easton o Lee Gibbson o Michael Kelsey o Vicky Lane o Don LeBaron o Dan Proctor o Stephen Shelley

33 American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project

o Richard and Jean Stagg o Cindy White o Matt Peterson o Rich Black o Willie Holdman o Bry Christensen o Dennis Eggett

34 Pleasant Grove Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Chapter 5 References Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map Service Center. Website located at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=vernal%20utah#searchresultsanchor.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. Website located at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.

Personal communication with Jana Leinbach, USFS on March 22, 2018; Interoffice Memorandum regarding Ute Ladies’-tresses Surveys in American Fork Canyon dated 8/22/2003.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Species List. Obtained from the USFWS’ IPaC system (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) dated August 17, 2016.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017. Surf Your Watershed website, accessed on July 10, 2017 at (https://cfpub.epa.gov/surf).

U.S. Forest Service. 2003. 2003 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Uinta National Forest (May 2003).

U.S. Forest Service. 2005. U.S. Forest Service Manual. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi- bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsm?2600

U.S. Forest Service. 2016. USFS Intermountain Region (R4) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and, Sensitive Species List, February 2013 update.

USDA, Forest Service. 1982. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Users Guide.

Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center (AGRC). Website located at https://gis.utah.gov/.

Utah Conservation Data Center (UCDC), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2016. Retrieved from http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/.

Utah DWQ’s Environmental Interactive Map (https://enviro.deq.utah.gov/) accessed on July 10, 2017.

35 APPENDIX A Request for Scoping Comments American Fork Culinary Water Pipeline Replacement Project Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Pleasant Grove Ranger District Utah County

The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest would like your input on a proposal from American Fork City to authorize the rehabilitation of a spring collection system and the replacement of certain City-owned culinary water pipelines on Forest Service management lands in American Fork Canyon. The project, which would impact an area totaling approximately 7.5 acres, is proposed in order to maintain a safe drinking water supply for American Fork City and comply with Utah Division of Drinking Water (UDDW) standards for culinary water sources. The project would also allow for the installation of conduit to facilitate future fiber optic communications lines intended for municipal, state and federal agency use.

Information about the proposal will be posted on the project-specific link at:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=52338

Individuals and organizations who wish to be eligible to object must meet the requirements of 36 CFR 218 subparts A and B. Persons who provide comments are responsible for submitting them by the close of the scoping period. Only persons who submitted timely and specific written comments on the project during this scoping period or a subsequent comment period on the draft environmental assessment will be eligible to file an objection under 36 CFR 218.

The 30-day scoping comment period for the proposal begins with publication of the legal scoping notice in the Provo Daily Herald. Written, facsimile, hand-delivered, and electronic comments must be received or postmarked by the end of the 30-day period. The publication date in the Daily Herald is the exclusive means for calculating the scoping period, Persons who wish to provide scoping comments should not rely upon dates or information provided by any other source. Regulations prohibit extending the length of the comment period.

Submit comments to District Ranger Russel Hanson Jr., 390 North 100 East, Pleasant Grove, Utah 84062, via telephone at (801) 785-3563, or by fax at (801) 785-6932. Business hours for submitting hand- delivered comments at the address above are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic comments must be submitted in a format, such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to [email protected]. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to a comment, a verification of identity will be required for objection eligibility. If using an electronic message, a scanned signature is one way to provide verification.

Please include the following information with your comments: (1) your name, address, and contact telephone number or email; (2) the name of the project on which you are commenting; and (3) specific written comments related to the project. For further information about the project, including documents or maps, or about the objection process, please contact District Ranger Russel Hanson Jr. at (801) 785- 3563 or [email protected].