CERTIFIED RETURN 1100 Valley Road RECEIPT REQUESTED Reno, NV 89512

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Regional Office, R Club Drive Vallejo, CA (707) Voice (707) Text (TDD) File Code: 1570 Objection No.: O218 Date: December 2, 2014 Mark Freese Nevada Department of Wildlife CERTIFIED RETURN 1100 Valley Road RECEIPT REQUESTED Reno, NV Dear Mr. Freese: The Legal Notice of the objection period for the Incline Lake Dam Project Environmental Assessment (EA) was published on August 26, On October 17, 2014, I received your objection on the Incline Lake Dam Project on behalf of the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). You were eligible to file an objection and your objection letter was timely. On November 6, 2014, my staff sent you an in an effort to convene a meeting to discuss your concerns about the Incline Lake Dam Project. You participated in a resolution meeting with the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) and the Regional Office on November 24, This letter is my written response to your objections, as required by 36 CFR (b). Project Summary The Incline Lake Dam Project is located off of State Route 431 in Washoe County, Nevada near Tahoe Meadows. The project consists of a reservoir and dams that were part of a larger land acquisition initiated in 2008 and finalized in Site assessment completed prior to the acquisition found the reservoir and dams do not meet Federal, State, or local standards for high hazard dams. The LTBMU is proposing to remedy this issue and completed an EA. The project was listed on the LTBMU s quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on January 1, A scoping letter was mailed to stakeholders and interested parties on June 15, A press release was submitted to local news outlets (including the Tahoe Daily Tribune, Tahoe Mountain News, Sacramento Bee, Reno Gazette Journal) regarding scoping of this project and identifying how the public could learn more about and comment on the project. The press release was published in multiple newspapers and numerous newspaper articles regarding this project were published in various publications including the Reno Gazette Journal. The LTBMU held open houses in Incline Village at the Incline Village General Improvement District on July 8, 2013 and in Reno at the Homewood Suites on July 10, A new alternative was added in response to public comment (Alternative 3). The EA was released for the 30-day public comment period on May 7, 2014 with a legal notice in the Tahoe America s Working Forests - Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper

2 Objection # O218, LTBMU, Incline Lake, Nevada Dept. of Wildlife, Freese 2 Daily Tribune. Additionally, a press release announcing the public comment period was sent to local news outlets on May 5, Individual letters were sent to all of the individuals on the original scoping list, as well as any individuals who provided comments during scoping to notify them of the EA comment period. A total of 38 comment letters were received during the public comment period that ended June 6, In the Draft Decision Notice (Draft DN), the Forest Supervisor chose Alternative 2. Alternative 2 removes the dam and restores the lake bed footprint to pre-reservoir conditions. Stabilization of 15 to 20 headcuts along man-made ditches and stream channels would occur. Wetland vegetation, such as willows, would be planted to stabilize and prevent erosion in the project area as well as re-establish wet meadow and riparian habitat. The restoration and dam removal efforts will take up to three years to complete. Objection Summary and Responses Your objection letter and discussion at the resolution meeting addressed several concerns with the project including: that Alternative 1 could meet the purpose and need for the project; that with appropriate permitting and compliance Alternative 1 is equally as safe as Alternative 2; only Alternative 1 properly carries out the intended use for the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) funding; that there was a lack of coordination with stakeholders and that the Forest Service should provide for greater public input and coordination among stakeholders; that a rebuilt dam and reservoir could support a cold water put and take fishery including Lahontan Cutthroat Trout, which NDOW might provide; and that the Forest Service (FS) does not understand that the recreation kinds, amounts, and other values of the property, is largely dependent upon this decision; and that NDOW recommends that the LTBMU state in the EA that developed recreation facilities such as pit toilet, garbage receptacles, access trails etc. may be included in future analysis. Response to decision rationale objection The purpose and need for the Incline Lake Dam Project is two-fold. First, action is needed to address the safety hazard associated with the existing dam. In addition, action is needed to stabilize and restore the area impacted by the dam and reservoir to protect water quality and riparian habitat by maintaining or improving the condition of wetland, fen, and riparian systems in the project area (Draft DN/FONSI, pg.7; EA, pg. 1-5). The Draft DN/FONSI does not imply that Alternative 1 is not a viable option, but rather that this alternative only partially meets the Project s purpose and need (Draft DN/FONSI, pg. 7) because it could mitigate the safety hazard posed by the dam (EA, pp ) but would not address watershed restoration needs. (See discussion below regarding dam safety.) Potential adverse long-term effects of Alternative 1 on aquatic wildlife, hydrology, soils, and invasive plants are summarized in Chapter 2 of the EA and analyzed in detail in Chapter 3. Response to objection regarding safety issues The rationale behind the Responsible Official s decision, as described in DN (pg. 7), was to eliminate any public safety issues downstream. Though proper permitting and compliance would insure a structure in conformance with current dam safety standards and regulations, it would not completely reduce the hazard associated with the dam. Dams and other facilities are designed to

3 Objection # O218, LTBMU, Incline Lake, Nevada Dept. of Wildlife, Freese 3 reduce the probability of failure during specific event not eliminate it. In addition, Alternatives 1 and 3 do not equally address safety issues when compared to Alternative 2. As described in Chapter 2 of the EA (pp ), Alternative 1 simply breaches the main dam leaving the auxiliary dam in place. Ideally, the breach would be constructed to pass the probable maximum flood (PMF). Since the contributing watershed is relatively small (EA, pg. 3-49), resulting in a small PMF, the controlling factor for the breach size would be susceptibility to plugging which would be an estimate. Since no water is impounded, a hazard rating could not be assigned to the breached configuration. The risk, although reduced, could not be completely eliminated. Alternative 3 reduces the risk but does not reduce the hazard level currently assigned to the dam, which is rated a high hazard dam (EA, pg ). Alternative 2 involves the complete removal of all structures and their appurtenances, completely removing any safety issues associated with those facilities. Response to objection regarding the use of SNPLMA funding During land purchase negotiations between the Forest Service and the private landowners for the Incline Lake property, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the dam on the property. The Forest Service determined that acquiring the parcel with a dam of unknown integrity was not in the Federal government s interest. A site investigation and assessment of the dam and spillway was commissioned as part of the acquisition process for the property. The results of the assessment indicated that the existing dam and spillway did not meet State of Nevada and Lake Tahoe Regional water quality and safety standards for a high hazard dam. To address this issue, the Forest Service applied for, and received, funding under the SNPLMA for a proposal to remove the existing dam and spillway and construct a new dam and spillway to meet regulatory requirements and contain the probable maximum flood. Implementing the dam removal and reconstruction proposal was contingent upon the Forest Service: (1) acquiring the private property parcel and (2) conducting project planning and environmental analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In the meantime, by securing the SNPLMA funding, the Forest Service was able to continue purchase negotiations for the property since the Forest Service now had funds to bring the dam to standard, should the Agency decide to do so. Since the SNPLMA funds were acquired, project planning and environmental analysis under NEPA has proceeded, and the draft decision is to remove the dam due to safety concerns and restore the area impacted by the dam facility. The SNPLMA funds expire on December 31, A small portion of the SNPLMA funds were used for environmental planning and analysis, including an evaluation of dam safety and detailed analysis of an alternative that proposed to rebuild a dam in the existing dam s location (Alternative 3). The Forest Service plans to return the remaining SNPLMA funds, which would have been used to implement a dam removal and reconstruction project. These remaining funds account for the bulk of the SNPLMA project funds. Further, the Bureau of Land Management SNPLMA Coordinator has been receiving quarterly updates from the Forest Service regarding the status of the project. Response to objection regarding coordination The Incline Lake Dam Project EA and Draft Decision Notice describe scoping efforts conducted for the project proposal (Draft DN, pp. 9-10; EA, pp ). The project record contains the

4 Objection # O218, LTBMU, Incline Lake, Nevada Dept. of Wildlife, Freese 4 scoping letter and mailing list, scoping input received from the public and government agencies, and published newspaper articles about the proposal. On June 15, 2013, a scoping letter was mailed to a total of 32 stakeholders, government agencies (including Washoe County and the State of Nevada), and interested parties. Newspaper articles about the proposal were published by various media outlets, including the Reno Gazette Journal, Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News, Lake Tahoe News, Tahoe Daily Tribune, and YubaNet. The Reno Gazette Journal published both online and printed articles about the Incline Lake Dam Project. Printed articles about the project appeared in the Reno Gazette Journal on June 18, 2013, June 14, 2014, and September 4, Two public open houses were held in Nevada during July 2013 to share information about the project proposal and gather input from the public. Information about these open houses was provided in the scoping letter as well as news reports. The first public open house was held on July 8, 2013 in Incline Village, Nevada and the second was held on July 10, 2013 in Reno, Nevada. Thus, the LTBMU did more than was required by NEPA in regard to public outreach and agency coordination, including many of the items you suggested in your objection. Response to objection regarding fisheries On July 15, 2014, representatives from the Forest Service, Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) met to discuss NDOW s proposal to manage a Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (LCT) sport fishery in the project area. While the Forest Service acknowledges that Incline Lake may support a LCT fishing opportunity, it would not support a self-sustaining LCT population, and it is not identified as an introduction location within any recovery actions or plans by the USFWS or the Tahoe Basin Recovery Implementation Team (TBRIT) (Draft DN/FONSI pp. 28, 47). Establishing a sport fishery and/or introduced population of LCT within the Incline Lake location is outside of the scope of this project. The desired condition for this project is to remedy the existing conditions of a highhazard dam and provide a sustainable hydrological system that supports groundwater and riparian ecosystems (EA, pg. 1-5). In addition, the construction of viable LCT habitat within the project area was an alternative considered, but not analyzed in detail due to site and area conditions that were both unsuitable and infeasible (EA, pg. 2-27). The Forest Service recognized that establishment of non-native warm water species could occur within the Lake under Alternative 3 (EA, pg. 3-21). Establishment and/or presence of non-native species under Alternative 2 is also recognized (EA, pg. 3-17, BE, pg. 15). While the Forest Service appreciates the public s desire and need for recreation opportunities, the primary purpose and objectives of this project are to provide for public safety and the restoration of an altered aquatic/riparian system. Incline Lake was a privately owned and operated artificial reservoir that was drained before the Forest Service acquired the property. The Forest Service is not removing a previously utilized public recreation opportunity. In addition, there are other fishing opportunities available within a short distance of this location (Draft DN/FONSI, pp. 8-9). The Forest Service is not proposing fish stocking at this time. However, future management plans for this area have not been initiated. If fish stocking was proposed under a future management plan or action for this area, then the Forest Service would consider and analyze it through the NEPA process. The Forest Service recognizes that the NDOW is responsible for the

5 Objection # O218, LTBMU, Incline Lake, Nevada Dept. of Wildlife, Freese 5 management of State wildlife resources and appreciates our continued partnership and your willingness to assist with natural resource issues. Response to objection regarding recreation facilities analysis Regarding comment 18-5: For the Incline Dam Removal Project adding developed recreation facilities, such as pit toilets and trash receptacles, was determined to be outside the scope of the project (EA, pg. 2-28). The assumption was made that until a decision is made regarding the dam, the level of management and needed infrastructure was unknown (EA, pg. 3-75). The Forest responded to the issue by stating future planning effort will consider a long-term management of the project area including potential recreation development (Draft DN/FONSI, pg. 47). Regarding comment 18-14: The Forest explained their definition of isolated (Draft DN/FONSI, response to comment pp ). While the site is physically located in close proximity to Highway 431, access to the site is limited by topography and by the ability of the general public to reach the site. Under all alternatives the site [would] continue to be accessed by walking approximately 1 mile along the entrance road, and would require traversing of topography that exceeds that of an accessible trail or outdoor recreation access route (ORAR). Public access is limited to non-motorized means (Draft DN/FONSI, response to comment pp ). The Forest Service further responded by stating that the EA was updated to clarify the isolated location with respect to public access to the site (Draft DN/FONSI, response to comment pp ). The Forest stated that adding developed recreation facilities was outside the scope of the project. Providing for recreation needs would be considered in long-term management of the area. Requested Relief You asked to change the project in the following ways: 1. We recommend correcting the DN to reflect that Alternative 1 is a viable option. 2. If the FS is unwilling to select Alternative 1, the FS at a minimum should acknowledge that alternatives 1 and 3 equally address the safety issue. 3. We recommend selecting Alternative 1 per the discussion during the July 15, 2014 meeting (i.e. select Alternative 1 to allow the FS and NDOW to further explore dam improvement options) per the intended purpose of the funding request and as supported by agencies, the general public, and others. 4. We recommend the FS organize a stakeholder meeting including but not limited to Washoe County, IVGID, Nevada Division of State Lands, NDOW, and others prior to making a decision to discuss opportunities for partnerships and to explore and ensure the right decision is being made. Additionally, we recommend hosting a public meeting in Reno and advertising in the Reno Gazette Journal, to allow for public input to be gathered as we suspect that many are unaware of this project as the opportunity for public comments wasn t posted in any Nevada media outlets even though the project site occurs entirely within the State of Nevada. 5. In our letter dated July 18, 2013, our proposal was to manage and promote Incline Lake as a native LCT sport fishery. Many fisheries through the State are maintain through

6 Objection # O218, LTBMU, Incline Lake, Nevada Dept. of Wildlife, Freese 6 hatchery stocking. We assert that the reservoir has potential to offer a quality put and take cold water fishery and are willing to provide an annual allocation of fish for the reservoir at no cost to the Forest Service. 6. Future planning efforts for the management of the reservoir would certainly include coordination between NDOW as the state wildlife agency and USFS as the land management agency. 7. We again request that the FS analyze alternative 1 and 3 with recreation facilities (e.g., public access routes, pit toilet, trash receptacles etc.). A full analysis is not warranted at this time as future planning is needed for greater detail and analysis; however, we recommend you state that develop recreation facilities such as pit toilet, garbage receptacles, access trails, etc., may be included in future analysis and would address those issues raised and discussed in section 3.6. I considered these proposals and appreciate your participation in the resolution meeting. Note that the LTBMU has addressed your requests regarding public outreach and meetings. I determined that instituting your other requests for relief would not allow the LTBMU to best meet the purpose and need for the project, which includes promoting public safety. Instructions to the Responsible Official Clarify the decision rationale in regard to not selecting Alternative 1. Conclusion The Forest Supervisor s rationale for this project is clear and the reasons for the project are logical and responsive to direction contained in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land and Resource Management Plan. As described above, I made a reasonable and appropriate effort to resolve the concerns that were brought forward while maintaining a balanced approach to managing the lands and meeting the purpose of the project. By copy of this letter, I am instructing Forest Supervisor Nancy Gibson to proceed with issuance of a Decision Notice for this project once the instruction listed above has been completed. There will be no further review of this response by any other Forest Service or U.S. Department of Agriculture official as per 36 CFR (b)(2). Sincerely, /s/ Ronald G. Ketter RONALD G. KETTER Deputy Regional Forester Reviewing Officer cc: Nancy J Gibson