Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Stanislaus National Forest Pedro Flat Campground (27121) Environmental Assessment Stanislaus National Forest Summit Ranger District Tuolumne County, CA May 2010

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 Table of Contents Introduction...1 Background...1 Purpose and Need for Action...1 Proposed Action...2 Decision Framework...2 Public Involvement...3 Issues...3 Alternatives...3 Alternative 1 (No Action)...3 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)...3 Project Design Elements and Mitigation Measures...4 Environmental Consequences...6 Effects Relative to Significant Issues...6 Effects Relative to Significance Factors...6 Consultation and Coordination...8 List of Figures Figure 1 Pedro Flat Campground Location...2 Figure 2 Pedro Flat Campground Conceptual Site Plan...9

4

5 Pedro Flat Campground Introduction Pedro Flat Campground (27121) Environmental Assessment Stanislaus National Forest Summit Ranger District Tuolumne County, California The Forest Service prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and no action alternative. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Summit Ranger District Office in Pinecrest, California. Background On January 30, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a new license for Tri-Dam Project s Beardsley/Donnells Project. As part of the Settlement Agreement between the Forest Service and Tri-Dam, owners of the dam facilities at Beardsley Reservoir, a proposed new campground would accommodate the current need created by Beardsley Reservoir. Tri-Dam is paying for all costs associated with the analysis, construction and maintenance of this project. Project Location The proposed campground is located off Beardsley Road (5N02) approximately 6 miles east of the Summit Ranger Station off Highway 108 (see Figure 1). It is located in Section 24; T4N, R17E in Tuolumne County, California. Forest Plan Direction The Forest Service completed the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) on October 28, The Stanislaus National Forest Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010) presents the current Forest Plan management direction, based on the original Forest Plan, as amended. The Forest Plan Direction includes forestwide standards and guidelines (p ) that apply to all alternatives. Scenic Corridor management area direction (p ) applies to Alternative 1 (No Action) as the current Forest Plan management area allocation. Developed Recreation Sites management area direction (p ) applies to Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) which includes a Forest Plan Amendment changing the management area allocation from Scenic Corridor (managed for scenic and recreation values) to Developed Recreation Sites (managed to provide developed recreation opportunities for the public). All proposed actions are designed consistent with the applicable Forest Plan Direction (see Project Design Elements and Mitigation Measures). Purpose and Need for Action Beardsley Reservoir attracts thousands of visitors a year and is a popular fishing and recreation area. The demand for additional camping facilities is great, but unfortunately the topography surrounding the lake is not conducive to more campground facilities (not enough flat ground). The existing campground near the reservoir does not provide room for expansion due to slope limitations, leaving a shortage of camping opportunities for the public. During the FERC re-licensing process which included collaborative discussions with various stakeholders, the Pedro Flat area was seen as the only 1

6 Environmental Assessment feasible location for a developed campground. A campground at Pedro Flat would help meet the current need for camping facilities created by Beardsley Reservoir users. The new facility would accommodate campers with boats, trailers and RVs typically found recreating at this location. Dispersed camping, currently allowed along Beardsley Road, occurred often as a convenience for users, but also as a result of inadequate camping sites closer to Beardsley Reservoir. The campsites along Beardsley Road create a number of concerns including: safety, related to ingress and egress, inadequate site distance, campfires in a high fire hazard area, compaction and associated resource impacts. Allowing camping only in Developed Recreation Sites along Beardsley Road would minimize resource impacts occurring in undeveloped areas and improve user safety by minimizing ingress and egress from unsafe areas. Figure 1 Pedro Flat Campground Location Proposed Action Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) in the following Alternatives section describes the actions proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need. Decision Framework The Forest Supervisor, as the Deciding Official for this proposal, will decide whether to approve the location and design of the proposed campground, prohibit camping along Beardsley Road (only) after construction of the campground, and whether to amend the Forest Plan management area allocation from Scenic Corridor to Developed Recreation Sites. 2

7 Pedro Flat Campground Public Involvement The Forest Service first listed the Pedro Flat Campground project in the January 2009 issue of the Stanislaus National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). The Forest distributes the SOPA to about 160 parties and it is available on the internet [ In July 2009, the Forest Service sent a scoping letter detailing the project proposal to individuals, organizations and agencies that expressed interest in this specific project. In response, one individual submitted a scoping comment letter. Issues The scoping comment letter brought forward six non-significant issues 1 : the threat of fire if bear clover is left within the campground; screening; the use of attractive and compatible structures within the campground; the construction of only a single entrance into and out of the campground; campground host location suggestion; and, construction of the dump station. The Forest Service determined that the threat of fire from bear clover would be minor since the campground would be dissected by numerous rocked and non-vegetated portions and that the entire area around the campground is being treated by prescribed fire. The other issues brought forward are all being considered during the design and implementation of the project. The project record contains a detailed Forest Service response to each scoping comment. Alternatives This section describes the alternatives considered for the Pedro Flat Campground project. It includes a description of each alternative considered. Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the No Action Alternative, no additional campground facilities would be constructed in the Beardsley area. Under this Alternative the current shortage of campground facilities that do not meet current or future demands of the Beardsley Reservoir area would continue. Dispersed camping would continue to be allowed along 5N02 (Beardsley Road). The Forest Plan would not be amended. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Construction of a new campground is proposed at Pedro Flat off Beardsley Road. The new campground would be built in 3 phases. The first phase includes 20 campsites, two group camping areas, two restrooms, 12 overflow parking spaces, a kiosk, a well and water tank as well as all the associated roads and piping required to get water to the sites. The second and third phases, built in the future depending on capacity needs of Beardsley Reservoir users, would include approximately 50 more campsites, an amphitheater, an entrance facility and a dump station. The conceptual site plan estimates, at full build-out, that approximately 30 acres are required to accommodate the entire campground (see Figure 2). After the first phase of the campground is completed, Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) includes issuance of a Forest Order to prohibit camping adjacent to Beardsley Road (5N02) except in Developed Recreation Sites, from the intersection of 5N02 and Highway 108 to approximately 1.2 miles beyond the dam (at the spring above apex of the hairpin turn). Dispersed camping along all 1 Significant issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues are identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec , identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec ) 3

8 Environmental Assessment other arterial roads from 5N02 as identified on the Motor Vehicle Use Map would continue to be allowed. A decision to build a campground in this location would include a Forest Plan amendment changing the management area allocation from Scenic Corridor to Developed Recreation Sites. Project Design Elements and Mitigation Measures NEPA and CEQ regulations require identification of all relevant and reasonable mitigation measures that could reduce the impacts of the project, even if those measures are outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. When the beneficial effects of mitigation measures are applied, the results are expected to limit the degree and magnitude of adverse effects associated with the action alternatives. They are also expected to rectify impacts through repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. In order to reduce, minimize or alleviate possible adverse effects of the project, the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the action alternative. 1. Cultural Resources No Archaeological sites are known to exist in the project area. In the event that any new sites are discovered during project implementation, the District Archaeologist will be notified and the area flagged and avoided during the remaining implementation of the project. 2. Hydrology Management requirements designed to protect water quality and watershed condition are described below. They are derived from Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices (USDA 2000). Beneficial uses of water are protected by BMPs which prevent or minimize the threat of discharge of pollutants of concern. BMPs applicable to this project are described below. Well Development The well driller should be licensed by the state of California. The water supply should be tested for groundwater quality in accordance with state and county regulations. Wells should be sealed according to Tuolumne County Environmental Health Department requirements. All disturbed ground should be rehabilitated following completion of the well drilling. The temporary road to access the drill site should be rehabilitated to allow for native vegetation to revegetate the area. Applicable BMPs: 2-28: Surface Erosion Control at Facility Sites 4-2: Provide Safe Drinking Water Supplies Bathroom Facilities and Dump Station Bathroom facilities and the dump station should be planned, located, designed, constructed, operated, inspected, and maintained to minimize the possibility of water contamination. Applicable BMP: 4-4: Control of Sanitation Facilities Roads, Campsites, and Amphitheater An Erosion Control Plan should be developed to minimize impacts to water resources during campground development. 4

9 Pedro Flat Campground Equipment used in campground development should not be serviced or refueled within 100 feet of surface waters. If the volume of fuel exceeds 660 gallons in a single container, or if total storage at the site exceeds 1,320 gallons, project Spill Prevention, Containment and Counter Measure plans are required. Road drainage should be controlled using techniques such as properly spaced cross drains, drivable water bars, rolling dips, etc. Construction activities should be scheduled to avoid periods of the year when runoff is likely. Soil disturbance/compaction/loss of ground cover should be contained to roads, campsites, trails, and the amphitheater. All other areas should be left undisturbed. Applicable BMPs: 2-2: Erosion Control Plan 2-7: Control of Road Drainage 2-12: Servicing and Refueling of Equipment 2-28: Surface Erosion Control at Facility Sites 3. Noxious Weeds All equipment, including earthmoving, must be free of soil, mud (wet or dried), seeds, vegetative matter or other debris that could contain seeds in order to prevent new infestations of noxious weeds in the project area. Dust or very light dirt which would not contain weed seed is not a concern. Any gravel, soil, rock or other materials brought in must be from inspected sources with a low risk of weed introduction. Any temporary roads shall be blocked effectively so that vehicles do not continue to use them. 4. Recreation Emphasize vertical diversity and mosaics of residual trees and brush to create/retain screening between campsites. Effectively disguise closed roads with scattered slash, boulders, logs, or other barriers to discourage unauthorized motorized access. Coordinate with Tri Dam and Summit District Recreation Staff to post signs at information boards in recreation sites (campgrounds, picnic sites and trailheads) informing users of dispersed campsite closure and impending construction activities. Emphasize vertical diversity and mosaics of residual trees and brush to create/retain screening between camp sites and between the campground and Beardsley Road. Replace/repair to acceptable standards any constructed travel barriers removed for construction. Install rock barriers to ensure closures at dispersed sites adjacent to Beardsley Road. Monitor Beardsley Road for unauthorized access and use after project construction is complete. Close and rehabilitate all unauthorized access points as soon as possible. Time construction (large haul vehicle needs) during low use periods when practicable to minimize large vehicle vs. recreation traffic conflicts. 5. Vegetation Avoid large healthy pine trees (especially sugar pine) and black oaks where possible during design, moving facilities as possible or appropriate. Protect all retained trees from damage during construction. Apply sporax to all cut stumps of 2 inches diameter and greater to prevent the spread of annossum root disease. 5

10 Environmental Assessment 6. Soils Install low maintenance drainage structures such as rolling dips and out sloping for the access road to the well site. For all general construction activities: a. No soil disturbance beyond the constructed road prism, campsite spurs, building site. b. Haul away stumps. c. No soil compaction within the root zones of save trees. 7. Visual Resources Flush cut stumps (maximum 4 inches high over obstacles). Retain screening vegetation to meet visual objectives within and adjacent to the campground and especially adjacent to Beardsley Road. Environmental Consequences This section discloses the potential consequences or impacts of the alternatives. It provides the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives. It complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations, the Forest Service Manual (FSM 1950: Environmental Policy and Procedures) and the Forest Service Handbook (FSH : Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook WO Amendment ), concentrates on significant issues and on context and intensity factors which provide a basis for determining if an action would have significant effects to the human environment. This section provides brief, yet sufficient evidence and analysis to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact. Effects Relative to Significant Issues No significant issues were identified for the proposed action. Effects Relative to Significance Factors All Biological Evaluations and Resource Reports prepared for this project are incorporated by reference in this EA. They are located in the Pedro Flat Campground project file at the Summit Ranger District and are available upon request 1. Beneficial and adverse impacts. A Biological Evaluation (BE) for Sensitive Plants was completed for the project. Surveys for Sensitive Plants were completed and no sensitive plants were found on the project site. The BE concludes that the action alternative has a no affect determination. A BE for Fauna and a Wildlife Report were completed for the project. The determination from the BE concludes that the action alternative will have no effect on any Federally Threatened & Endangered Species and will have no impact on the following Sensitive species: western red bat, Townsend s big-eared bat, pallid bat, Sierra Nevada red fox, wolverine, Swainson s Hawk, Great Gray Owl, Willow Flycatcher, western pond turtle, relictual slender salamander, limestone salamander, Yosemite toad, foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow legged frog, and hardhead. The BE determination shows that the proposed action may affect individuals but will not lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for: Northern goshawk, California spotted owl, marten and fisher. In addition, it was determined that the proposed action will not significantly alter the existing trend in MIS habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of any MIS across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 6

11 Pedro Flat Campground 2. Public health and safety. This project would improve public health and safety by providing safe and improved camping opportunities within the Beardsley area. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area. The proposed action is not proximal to critical areas such as parklands (i.e. Yosemite National Park), prime farmlands, wetland, wild and scenic rivers, Wilderness, or ecologically critical areas. In addition, Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Management Requirements/Mitigations will also be implemented for this project to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to resources during construction, implementation, and utilization of the approved project. 4. The degree to which the effects on the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The effects on human health and safety and on the quality of the human environment from implementing the proposed action are not scientifically controversial. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The effects on the human environment from Alternative 2 are not uncertain and do not involve unique or unknown risks. The proposed construction is routine and similar building in the past has been previously implemented with known cause and effect relationships. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. This project does not set a precedent for future projects. Future projects would be considered, evaluated, and analyzed separately on their own merits. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant, but cumulatively significant impacts. This project does not represent potential cumulative adverse impacts when considered in combination with other past or reasonably foreseeable actions. There are no apparent adverse cumulative or secondary effects from Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), as discussed in the Fauna and Wildlife BE, the Sensitive Plant BE, the Noxious Weed Risk Assessment, the Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis (CWE) and other Resource Reports. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or may cause loss or distraction of significant scientific, cultural, or historic resources. Alternative 2 would not adversely affect the eligibility of known sites for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or cause loss of significant cultural or historic resources. There are no known cultural sites within the project area. 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of Alternative 2 would not adversely affect threatened or endangered species or their habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act as determined in the BE. There are no federally listed or proposed fauna or wildlife species within the project area. The Wildlife BE has a no affect determination. 7

12 Environmental Assessment There are no federally listed or proposed plant species within the project area. The Sensitive Plant BE has a no affect determination. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local laws or other requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Alternative 2 was developed in accordance with and does not threaten to violate any Federal, State, or local laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment (i.e. Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Federal Clean Water Act, or the Clean Air Act). Consultation and Coordination The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, agencies and tribes during the development of this EA. Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center (CSERC) Stanislaus Planning Action Team (SPLAT) Collaborative Group for Hydro Power Relicensing Tri-Dam Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Tuolumne County Planning Department Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors 8

13 Pedro Flat Campground Figure 2 Pedro Flat Campground Conceptual Site Plan 9