My Decision. Page 1 0/9

Transcription

1 DECISION NOTICE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Lake Hemet Telecommunication Project San Jacinto Ranger District San Bernardino National Forest USDA Forest Service, Riverside County, California The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (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 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call (voice) or (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider and employer Introduction Increased demand for personal communication services has created the need for additional cell sites in rural areas. A wireless communications coverage analysis of Highway 74 determined that none of the major wireless carriers provide coverage along this highway beginning with Forest System Road (FSR) 5S05 in the north and continuing south to Morris Ranch Road. Additionally, there is no reliable coverage at Lake Hemet including the campgrounds and recreation areas. Visitors, residents, emergency service personnel and Forest Service staff in the area are currently unable to reliably access telecommunication services. This has posed not only an inconvenience but a safety risk. The improvement of communication services in the area has been advocated and requested by many, including local campground staff, hikers, equestrians, mountain bikers, residents, motorists and first responders. My Decision 1. Based on the analysis contained in the Lake Hemet Telecommunications Project Environmental Assessment (EA), it is my decision to implement the proposed action (Alternative 1) as described (EA page 7). Under this decision, the Forest Service will issue a 30 year communications site lease to authorize Vista Towers, LLC for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new multi-carrier cellular wireless facility on the project site within National Forest System lands adjacent to Apple Canyon Road and State Highway 74, west of Lake Hemet in Garner Valley, Riverside County, California. Legal description: Southwest li4 of the Southwest li4 of Section 4, Township 6 South, Range 2 East, San Bernardino Meridian. The decision authorizes an unmanned telecommunications will include: facility on a 30 year lease that A 66-foot monopole cellular tower that will be constructed to look like a pine tree. This tower may be utilized to co-locate other communication equipment. A block equipment building, approximately 16'X50' feet. The building will be located just north of the tower and its appearance will blend with the surrounding landscape. The back wall of the building will be cut into the slope and a retaining Page 1 0/9

2 wall will be constructed around it. Any excess native soil created by the slope cut will be removed from the site. A dirt access road approximately feet wide and approximately 150 feet long. Electrical power supplied via an underground cable. Construction will require equipment such as a small bulldozer and a drill rig. Approximately 4-5 people will be working on-site during construction. Postconstruction management would be minimal and involve maintaining radio equipment approximately once every three months. The Forest Service proposes to allow equipment to be staged on site to complete construction and installation of the tower. 2. A non-significant amendment to the San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan (2005) designating the Vista Towers Lake Hemet Communication site. Rationale During the Environmental Assessment analysis, the Forest Service evaluated the environmental effects of the proposed action and the no action alternative (EA, page 16). My criteria for making a decision on this project was based on how well the alternatives would meet the purpose and need and address significant issues that were raised during the scoping process and the comment period. I based my decision to implement the proposed action (Alternative 1) on the following considerations: 1. It will increase cell phone coverage reliability while in the Gamer Valley area, benefiting: Visitors Residents Forest Service Emergency Personnel Other civilian employees The Lake Hemet Municipal Water District campground and recreation area The State Park, Hurkey Creek Camp Ground and Picnic area 2. It will improve communications among law enforcement, emergency medical, fire personnel, and other first responders by increasing cell phone coverage in the area. 3. It will improve public health and safety by improving communication between emergency first responders. 4. It will allow for limited future government and commercial use if compatible with existing communication facilities and site management plan. Meeting the Purpose and Need The purpose of the project is to implement the San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan (LMP) (2005). Communication sites are one of the special uses recognized in the LMP. This project implements the Forest Plan by authorizing the construction and operation of a new telecommunications facility. The Forest Plan acknowledges the need for telecommunication facilities due to the Forest's proximity to large population centers and highways. The Forest Plan calls for telecommunication facilities planning and provides for Page2of9

3 facility development, occupancy, and use unless otherwise restricted (Part 2, Strategy, pp.16, 19, 36; Part 3, Design Criteria S-44, p. 9; Appendix G, pp. 69, 70). LMP Strategy: "Existing special uses are expected to continue. New special uses will be authorized only if: 1) the use is compatible with Forest Service Manual direction; 2) the use cannot be reasonably accommodated on non-national Forest System lands; 3) impacts to national forest resources can be mitigated, and 4) the cost is not a defining issue. This project is designed to meet goals outlined in the Forest Service National Strategic Plan ( ). Goals of the Forest Vision and Forest Strategy relevant to the proposed project are as follows: National Goal 2. Provide and Sustain Benefits to the American People. Forests and grasslands [are managed} with sufficient long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of society. The Forest Service has been directed by Congress and the President to facilitate implementation of the Nation's strategy for wireless communications. On August 10, 1995, President Clinton released a memorandum entitled "Facilitating Access to Federal Property for the Siting o( Mobile Services Antennas. " In this memorandum, the following is stated: Upon request, and to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, executive departments and agencies shall make available, Federal Government buildings and lands for the siting of mobile service antennas. On February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act 0(1996 was enacted, giving further direction to Federal agencies. In response to the memorandum and the Telecommunications Act, the General Services Administration released a bulletin listed in the Federal Register on June 16, 1997, titled "Placement of Commercial Antennas on Federal Property." This bulletin provides general guidelines and processes for implementation of President Clinton's memorandum. Regarding granting of siting requests, the bulletin states: Requests for the use of property, right-of-way, and easements by duly authorized telecommunications service providers should be granted unless there are unavoidable conflicts with the department's or agency's mission, or current or planned use of the property or access to that property. Effectively manage and maintain the infrastructure to support the products, uses of NFS lands. services, and The proposed project would move the area towards Forest plan goals and objectives by developing a communication site near Lake Hemet. A wireless communications coverage analysis of Highway 74 determined that none ofthe major wireless carriers provide coverage in this area. Additionally, there is no reliable coverage at Lake Hemet including the campgrounds and recreation areas. Visitors, residents, emergency service personnel and Forest Service staffin the area are currently unable to reliably access telecommunication services. This has posed not only an inconvenience but a safety risk. The desired outcome is to improve telecommunication Page 3 0/9

4 availability for the general public and emergency personnel. The proposed site near Lake Hemet on National Forest System lands is the only viable site that can meet this purpose and need (EA page 3). Consideration of Public Comments and Concerns I have considered all comments and opinions that have been received to date on this project in making my decision. We invited residents that live near the project area, Tribes, Federal, State and local government agencies, the general public and other groups and individuals potentially interested in or affected by the project to review and comment on our initial proposal (proposed action) and the purpose and need for the Project (EA page 5). I have reviewed the five public comments received during Scoping and find that all concerns and issues have been addressed. The complete comment analysis is included as part of the project record and is located at the San Jacinto Ranger District, Idyllwild, CA. Public Involvement The Interdisciplinary Team conducted the following public involvement activities for the Ranger Peak Telecommunications project: The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning on April 1, The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during the scoping period from March 19,2009 to April 20, The scoping package was provided to interested and affected parties via direct rnailed letters, a published public notice in the local newspaper of record, The Idyllwild Town Crier and posted on the San Bernardino National Forest public website. Scoping letters were sent to: the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians on March 19 th, Five comments were received during the scoping period. The comment analysis may be found in the project record. The Environmental Analysis was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during the public comment period from November 29,2009 to December 28,2009. The EA was provided to those interested and affected parties who responded during the scoping period via direct and mailed letters, a published public notice in the local newspaper of record, The Idyllwild Town Crier and posted on the San Bernardino National Forest public website. One comment was received during the 30 day public comment period. The comment analysis and record of public involvement may be found in the project record. Issues Issues that were raised determined alternative development and resource elements which were analyzed throughout the analysis. These resource elements were chosen based on comments received through public scoping, or brought forward internally: Hydrology and Soils, Botany, Wildlife, Visual Impacts, Heritage, Human Health and Safety, and Recreation and other land designations. There was one non-significant issue identified from the scoping comments. A list Page 4 0/9

5 of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant may be found in the project record. Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, one other alternative was considered in detail - the No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) (EA, page 10). I did not select this alternative because it would not accomplish the Purpose and Need for this project. Additionally, three other alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study (EA, page 10). Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI} I have determined that these actions will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed. This finding is based on the context and intensity of the project as analyzed and documented in the EA and project file. Context The disclosure of effects in the EA found the actions limited in context. The project area is limited in size and the activities limited in duration. The project is a site specific action with no potentially significant impacts, which directly involves USFS administered land with no international, national, regional, or statewide importance. Effects are local in nature and are not likely to significantly affect regional or national resources. Intensity The following discussion is organized around the Ten Significance Criteria described in 40 CFR The following have been considered in my evaluation of intensity for this proposal. 1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. Impacts associated with the project are discussed in the Lake Hemet Telecommunications Project Environmental Assessment (EA) (pages 12-23). These impacts are within the range of those identified in the LMP (2005). The actions will not have significant impacts on other resources identified and described in the Environmental Consequences section (EA pages 12-23). The effects ofthe decision to be made are not significant in the long and short terms. My decision is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health and safety. There will be no significant adverse effects on public health and safety, rather there will be a beneficial effect from the construction of the communication site. The EA identifies the primary health and safety issue as increased reliability of emergency services communication in the area (Page 19). Page 5 0/9 1-

6 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. There are no critical or unique habitats within the project site, or within the project vicinity (EA page 14-22). No historic or prehistoric structure or sites occur within the vicinity ofthe proposed project site (EA page 21); therefore, the proposed action would not impact any unique characteristics of the area. 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. Scoping and public comments did not identify any significant issues (EA page 5). Through project design, all potential issues have been mitigated (EA pages 7-9). The actions in the selected alternative are well founded in science, current research and other available information that is relevant to the action (Specialist Reports, Project Record). 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The possible effects on the human environment are not highly uncertain nor do they involve unique or unknown risks. The technical analyses for determinations of the impacts to the resources are supportable with use of accepted techniques, reliable data and professional judgment. The effects analysis shows the effects are not uncertain and do not involve unique or unknown risk (EA pages 12-22). 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. Any future proposals would need to consider all relevant scientific and site-specific information available at the time and would require full compliance with NEP A. Neither the alternatives analyzed here, nor any oftheir individual components, would establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, nor would they represent a decision in principle about future consideration. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. The proposed project is one of several telecommunication facilities being constructed on the San Jacinto District. It contributes to the positive cumulative effects of the other projects. The analysis discloses a comprehensive list of potential ongoing and foreseeable future actions that may create cumulative effects (EA page 11). I find that cumulative impacts are not significant. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Page 60/9

7 Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural or historical resources. The project would not pose any significant adverse effects to districts, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places nor will it cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical recourses (EA page 21). 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 The biological evaluations did not reveal any federally threatened or endangered species or their designated critical that will be adversely affected by this project (EA page 14-18). 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The proposed action would not threaten a violation of federal, state, or local law, or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. It is fully consistent with the LMP (2005) (EA page 3). This proposed action is also in full compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The proposed action is consistent with the National Forest Management Act and its requirements detailed in 36 CFR Compliance with NFMA in regards to both sensitive species and management indicator species is analyzed in the wildlife and vegetation sections ofthe EA (pages 14-18). The action requires a non-significant amendment to the San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan designating the Vista Towers Lake Hemet Communication site under this decision. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations I have determined that my decision is consistent with all the laws, regulations, and agency policies related to this project. A list of federal laws and executive orders are listed in the individual resource specialist reports. National Forest Management Act of 1976, as amended All management practices and activities in the selected alternative are consistent with Forest Service management direction, including Forest-wide Direction and Management Area (Places) emphasis (EA pages 2-3) in the LMP (2005). The LMP complies with all resource integration and management requirements of36 CFR through and conforms to requirements of the National Forest Management Act of Application oflmp direction for the project ensures compliance at the project level. With the inclusion oflmp direction, this proposed project will move the existing condition toward the proposed desired condition. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended The Forest Service has met the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act by preparing a Biological Assessment for Botanical Resources, the Lake Hemet Telecommunications Project Biological Evaluation and Assessment for Plants (Kramer 2009) Page 70/9

8 I and Wildlife Resources, the Biological Assessment for Lake Hemet Telecommunications Project (McDonald 2009)., Formal consultation with the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service was not required. USFWS provided a letter of concurrence (August 26, 2009) (EA page 12 and the project record). National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended Survey reports concluded that there are no historical properties located within the Area of Potential Effect, this undertaking has been reviewed and determined adequate for the purpose of historic property identification or Stipulation III(B)(5) of the 2001 Programmatic Agreement for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Undertakings on the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (EA page 21). Consultation with local tribes has been met through written notification and request for comments, and responses to the comments, and personal communications where appropriate (EA pages 5, 24). Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) of 1972, as amended The San Bernardino National Forest has entered into a Management Agency Agreement between the State water resources control board, State of Cali fomi a, and the Forest Service, Region 5 (1981). Through this agreement, the Forest Service has agreed and is required to accept responsibility of the Water Quality Management Agency designation for NFS lands in the State of California; and to provide periodic project site reviews to ascertain implementation of management practices and environmental constraints identified in the environmental document. Executive Order 11988, Clean Water This project is fully consistent with this executive order due to incorporated (BMPs) and erosion minimizing measures (EA page 23). design features Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice This executive order insures that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by, government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment. Implementation of any project activity is not anticipated to cause disproportionate adverse human health or environmental impacts to minority or lowincome populations. This project is fully consistent with this executive order (EA page 5). Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species This project is fully consistent with this executive order. The risk of invasive species will be mitigated by Botanical Design Criteria (EA page 9). Executive Order 13186, Migratory Birds This project is fully consistent with this executive order. No significant impacts on migratory bird species are expected. There may be direct effects to migratory birds in the near vicinity, however, these impacts should be temporary in nature and insignificant to the survival of Page8of9

9 individual migratory birds. The project design features will minimize any adverse impacts to migratory birds (EA page 19). Administrative Review and Appeal Opportunities This decision is not subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part because no comments were received during the legal notice and comment period. This decision is not subject to appeal by the applicant under 36 CFR 251. Implementation Date Since this decision is not appealable under 36 CFR 215 implementation of this project may begin subsequent to issuance of the communication site lease or a temporary special use permit for construction. Contact Person For further information contact: Heidi Hoggan, USDA Forest Service, San Jacinto Ranger Station, P.o. Box 518, Idyllwild, CA Telephone: hhoggan@fs.fed.us Responsible Official and Sh:nature -roflt eanne Wade Evans Forest Supervisor Date Page 90/9