Three Sisters Falls Recreation Management Environmental Assessment (EA)

Transcription

1 Three Sisters Falls Recreation Management Environmental Assessment (EA) USDA Forest Service Palomar Ranger District San Diego County, California 1. Background Three Sisters Falls is an increasingly popular backcountry waterfall located on Boulder Creek near Julian, California. This site is accessed via a network of user-created trails that cross steep, rugged terrain, and additionally route hikers directly through approximately ¼ mile of riparian area. Use levels at the falls throughout 2014 and 2015 frequently reached people, and exceeded 400 people on peak days. High levels of unmanaged use in this area have resulted in public health and safety issues, widespread soil erosion, watershed impacts, plant and wildlife impacts, and impediments to traffic flow on Boulder Creek Road. The proposed action is to adopt and/or construct Class 2 system trails to Three Sisters Falls (TSF) and the summit of Eagle Peak, decommission and restore existing user-created trails, and construct a developed trailhead off of Boulder Creek Road. Constructing system trails and a developed trailhead and conducting restoration activities would maintain recreational opportunities while addressing public safety and environmental concerns. 2. Decision and Rationale Based on evaluation of alternatives in the Three Sisters Falls Recreation Management EA, supporting documentation found in the project record, and review of public comments, I have selected Alternative 2, the proposed action, for implementation. This is the most effective alternative for achieving the desired conditions while providing for public recreation. In particular, the selected alternative would improve recreational opportunities for the public in a way that protects the resources of the area, and the nature of the recommended wilderness. In order to address the purpose and need for this project, the developed a three-part proposed action to adopt and/or construct Class 2 system trails to TSF and the summit of Eagle Peak, to decommission and restore existing user-created trails, and to construct a developed trailhead. Design of the trails would be consistent with Forest Service specifications for Class 2 trails, being narrow and rough, single lane, with commonly occurring obstacles. The entirety of the Proposed Action is shown in Figure 1, attached to this decision. 1

2 The initial 1.3 miles of the existing unclassified trail leading to TSF are located in old roadbed, which is proposed for adoption into the trail system. Trail drainage and stream crossings would be improved upon the adoption of this trail, which may require minor reroutes. Approximately 1 mile of additional Class 2 trail would be constructed to deliver hikers to TSF. Approximately 1.6 miles of old roadbed and/or user-created trail leading to the summit of Eagle Peak would be also be adopted, including improvements to trail drainage and minor reroutes. In addition to the adoption and construction of system trails, remaining unauthorized trails and associated eroded areas in the project area would be decommissioned and restored. Materials needed for trail construction and restoration in the recommended wilderness would be delivered by helicopter drop on no more than three occasions. Because medical evacuations from the vicinity of TCF typically require helicopter support, a small area would be maintained free of tall vegetation for emergency use. The proposed action would also allow the Palomar Ranger District to construct a trailhead up to 2 acres in size within an 8-acre area at the junction of Boulder Creek and Cedar Creek Roads, an area known locally as the Turntable. The trailhead would fall within the backcountry land use zone, where developed facilities are suitable, by contrast with the surrounding recommended wilderness. Trailhead improvements would include hardened parking for up to 80 vehicles, a toilet facility, interpretive kiosks with educational and warning messaging, 1-3 picnic tables, animalresistant trash cans, and pipe railing and/or fencing. A short segment of Boulder Creek Road adjacent to the trailhead may be hardened to reduce erosion and delineate acceptable roadside parking. Due to funding issues, construction of the trailhead may be phased, with primitive parking facilities consisting of a cleared area possibly being developed prior to constructing the trailhead. An Adventure Pass may be required for use of the facility once developed. Based on Forest Service staff observations gleaned through years of managing Cedar Creek Falls, an average of approximately three people per vehicle travel to Cedar Creek Falls, and vehicles in the parking lot turn over once daily (one parking space provides parking for two vehicles in a given day). With peak use levels at TSF of more than 400 people on the busiest days during 2014 through 2016, a lot accommodating up to 80 vehicles would allow a similar level of use on busy days based on the assumption that use patterns at Cedar Creek Falls and TSF two destination hikes of comparable length are similar. While more than 100 vehicles have been observed on peak days, it is expected that Boulder Creek Road can safely accommodate a low level of roadside parking, and so the lot need not be large enough to accommodate peak demand. Moreover, the number of visitors to Three Sisters Falls with this volume of parking available would be similar to peak visitor numbers at Cedar Creek Falls under its visitor use permit system, which have not resulted in substantial resource impacts at an ecologically comparable site. The Forest Service has had initial discussions with the County of San Diego about potentially prohibiting parking along segments of Boulder Creek Road in the vicinity of the Turntable where roadside parking creates unsafe conditions. If approved through the County s regulatory process, this action would address safety issues associated with overflow parking beyond the capacity of the proposed trailhead. 2

3 In response to the number of heat stress incidents that occur in the project area, and in anticipation of other environmental events that could pose significant threats to public health and safety, the Forest Service would use temporary area closure orders when extreme conditions (such as high heat, fire, or flash flooding) are expected, for the duration of the event. These closures would be put into place for both action alternatives, since a hazardous condition closure might cover areas that a complete closure (Alternative 3) would not. Design Features 1. The Forest Heritage Program Manager/Qualified Heritage Program Staff will remain informed of activities taking place in the proposed restoration area. If it is determined that proposed restoration activities will adversely affect a site, it will be revisited, recorded, and standard protection measures will be implemented accordingly. 2. Should any previously unrecorded cultural resources be encountered during implementation of this project, all work should immediately cease in that area and the Forest Archaeologist be notified immediately. Work may resume after approval by the Forest Archaeologist; provided any recommended Standard Protection Measures are implemented. Should any cultural resources become damaged in unanticipated ways by activities proposed in this project; the steps described in the Regional Programmatic Agreement for inadvertent effects will be followed. 3. Should the project boundaries or activities be expanded beyond the current APE, Section 106 compliance for this project will be incomplete until additional cultural resource review is completed. 4. Ground disturbing equipment would be thoroughly cleaned of debris before performing earthwork, and weed-seed-free materials (such as straw wattles/bales, matting, mulch, slash, chips, and imported/transported fill) would be used to prevent the introduction of new invasive weeds into the project area. 5. Plant specimens removed for trailhead construction would be salvaged or transplanted to other areas for restoration where feasible. 6. All applicable National Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (USDA 2012) would be followed. 7. Organic matter at project restoration and decommissioning sites would be retained at the site and be redistributed across the disturbed area (FSH ). 8. Soil cover (on disturbed areas) following decommissioning and restoration activities would be maintained at levels of at least 50 percent of the soil surface in upland area and at least 71 percent in the Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA). Soil cover would consist of rocks, litter, organic matter, low-growing plants, and woody debris. (FSH ) 9. Mechanical equipment use and trail maintenance would require ground conditions dry enough to prevent soil compaction (outside of the construction area), rutting, runoff of sediments to streams, or disturbance (in excess of disturbance needed to restore site). (FSH , Best Management Practice 2.3, Fac-2, AqEco-2). 10. Mechanical equipment refueling will occur outside of the RCA and will have spill containment measures in place during operations. For small quantities (5 gallons or less), fueling of gas-powered machinery would not occur within 25 feet of any body of water or stream channel to maintain water quality. (Road-10, BMP-2.11). 11. Staging of equipment will occur outside the RCA (AqEco-2). 3

4 12. Equipment refueling and servicing will occur outside the RCA and will have spill prevention control and response plans (Road 10). 13. Decommissioned and restoration sites will be stabilized, restored, and revegetated to a more natural state as necessary to protect and enhance NFS lands, resources, and water quality (BMP 2.7, Rec-2). 14. Locate and design trail to cause minimal resource damage and decommission/restore usercreated trails with resource damage (Rec-2, Fac-10). 15. Trails added to the system will be stormproofed and added to the regular schedule of maintenance. (BMP 2.3, BMP 2.4). 16. Restoration sites and the trailhead/parking area will have erosion control plans for short and long-term recovery (BMP-2.13, Fac-2). Construction of the parking area will require an erosion control plan to handle runoff that may occur during construction/implementation (Fac-2). 17. Design the parking area to minimize damage to resources and prevent increased erosion (Road-9). 18. Develop and implement a post-construction site vegetation plan using suitable species and establishment techniques to revegetate the construction site around the parking area in compliance with FSM to prevent erosion and reintroduce cover to applicable areas (Fac- 2). 19. Add signage to encourage users to leave no trace and pack in, pack out (Rec-2, Fac- 5). 20. Provide receptacles for trash that will be located away from waterbodies, are convenient to users, are maintained regularly, and prevent wildlife foraging (Fac-5). 21. Locate sanitation facilities away from water bodies and outside the RCA (Fac-4). There were multiple comments submitted to the project expressing concerns for public safety, and protecting the recommended wilderness. The area around Three Sisters Falls is dangerous to the public in its current condition. Alternative two mitigates many of the hazards of the area, while providing for continued public access. Alternative two also allows for a balance of protection of wilderness character and public access. The addition of these trails will improve the wilderness character by focusing resource impacts on one trail and a smaller impacted area than the large number of user-created trails currently in existence. Eight resource areas were analyzed in the EA: impacts to soils and water, air, wildlife, vegetation, public health and safety, scenery and recreation, heritage resources, and adjacent private property. Overall, the selected alternative best addresses historic impacts to these resource areas. Managing visitor use in the project area will allow for improvements to natural resources and public safety. Overall, alternative two will have a long-term positive effect on recreational access and public safety while providing for sustainable natural resource and wilderness management. 3. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, no action and complete closure alternatives were considered and analyzed as part of this project. Under the no action alternative, management would continue 4

5 on as it currently is. A complete closure would close the area to access by anybody without explicit permission from the agency. The implementation of a visitor use permit system was considered but eliminated from detailed study. 4. Public Involvement The identified potentially interested stakeholders and invited them to comment on the proposed action. These stakeholders included Tribal governments, local and State government and regulatory organizations, recreation user groups, local environmental organizations, and other members of the public that have expressed interest in projects on the. Scoping and public involvement for the project consisted of the following: 1. The proposal was first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions in February A letter announcing a 30-day scoping period was sent to potentially interested individuals and organizations anticipated to have interest in the Proposed Action on February 25, Twenty-four (24) scoping comments from eight (8) individuals and notes about other public involvement activities can be found in the project record. 3. The Draft EA was made available on June 3, 2016, for public review the same day as publication of a legal notice in the San Diego Union-Tribune to initiate a 30-day comment period. Everyone who expressed interest in the project during scoping was notified about this opportunity directly, as were other parties that might be interested. Due to the July Fourth federal holiday, the comment period closed on July 5, Altogether, 48 comments were received during the comment period. Commenters expressed a wide variety of recommendations for, concerns about, and support for the project. Comments and responses can be found in Appendix A of the EA. 5. Finding of No Significant Impact After considering the environmental impacts described in the EA and after examining supporting documentation found in the project record, I find that implementing the selected alternative will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, considering context and intensity of impacts (see 40 CFR ). Therefore an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following: 1. The finding of no significant impact is not biased by the beneficial impacts of the selected alternative. The beneficial effects consist of the reduction of impacts to natural resources and recreation and public safety in the project area. 5

6 2. No significant impacts on public safety will occur due to the implementation of the project (see section of the EA). The project will instead improve public safety as compared to historic conditions. 3. No significant impacts on the unique characteristics of the area will occur because this project improves natural resource conditions, including soil and water quality, and biology. The project also improves recreation experiences. 4. The impacts on the quality of the natural environment are not likely to be highly controversial because there is no known scientific controversy over the impacts of the project. Chapter 3 of the EA describes the consequences of the alternatives to the physical, biological, and social environments. 5. The Forest Service has considerable experience with the types of activities to be implemented. Analysis shows the impacts are not uncertain and do not involve unique or unknown risks. 6. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant impacts because the purpose and need for the project will be addressed by the selected alternative. 7. The cumulative impacts associated with the selected alternative are not significant (see relevant cumulative effects sections in Chapter 3 of the EA). This EA analyzed the cumulative effects of this project with activities on adjacent National Forest System lands. 8. There will be no Adverse Effect to Historic Properties by implementation of this project where Standard Resource Protection Measures will be used to protect, manage or maintain historic properties in a manner that avoids adverse effects. A heritage resource and tribal relations specialist has analyzed the area of potential effect and did not identify historic properties that would be damaged, or Tribes that would be adversely affected, by the proposed action (see section of the EA). 9. The action will not adversely impact any endangered or threatened species, or habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Project area surveys were conducted by a Forest Service wildlife biologist and are documented in a project-specific biological evaluation and biological assessment (see sections and of the EA). 10. The action will not violate federal, state, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws were considered in the EA. The action is consistent with the LMP (see section 1.3 of the EA). 6

7 6. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations My decision to implement the selected alternative is consistent with the long-term goals and objectives listed in the LMP. The project was designed in conformance with LMP standards and guidelines. 6.1 National Forest Management Act of 1976, as amended All project activities fully comply with the LMP. This project incorporates all applicable LMP forest-wide standards, guidelines, and management area prescriptions, as they apply to the project area, and complies with LMP goals and objectives. All required interagency reviews and coordination have been accomplished and new or revised measures resulting from these reviews have been incorporated. Application of LMP direction for the project ensures compliance at the project level. With the inclusion of LMP direction, this proposed project will move the existing condition of the project area toward its desired condition. 6.2 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended The action will not adversely impact any endangered or threatened species, or habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Project area surveys were conducted by a Forest Service wildlife biologist and are documented in a projectspecific biological evaluation and biological assessment (see sections and of the EA). 6.3 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended This project complies with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in accordance with provisions of the Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forest of the Pacific Southwest Region (Regional PA 2013). Native American communities were contacted and public comment was encouraged. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer was not necessary for this project. See section of the EA. 6.4 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) of 1972, as amended The design of project activities is in accordance with LMP standards and guidelines, best management practices, and applicable Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction. Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of LMP standards and guidelines and Best Management Practices will occur. Project activities are expected to meet applicable state water quality standards. See section of the EA. 6.5 Executive Order 11988, Clean Water This project is fully consistent with this executive order. 7

8 6.6 Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species Implementation of the selected alternative is not anticipated to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species. The selected alternative is designed to reduce the extent and spread of invasive species. 6.7 Executive Order 13186, Migratory Birds Management objectives of this executive order will be met. No impacts on migratory bird species are expected. 7. Administrative Review or Objection Opportunities This decision is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218. A written objection, including attachments, must be postmarked or submitted within 45 days after the date that notice of this draft decision is published in The San Diego Union-Tribune. Electronic objections in common formats (.doc,.rtf,.pdf, or.txt) may be submitted to: objections-cleveland@fs.fed.us with Subject: Three Sisters Falls Recreation Management. Objections may also be faxed to (858) to the attention of OBJECTION: Three Sisters Falls Recreation Management, sent by mail to the following address, or hand-delivered during normal business hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays: Forest Supervisor William Metz ATTN: Objections Rancho Bernardo Rd. #200 San Diego, CA Persons or organizations who meet the requirements of 36 CFR may object to this decision. Objections must meet content requirements of 36 CFR Implementation Date As per 36 CFR , if no objection is received within the legal objection period, this decision may be signed and implemented on, but not before, the fifth business day following the close of the objection-filing period. If an objection is filed, this decision cannot be signed or implemented until the reviewing officer has responded in writing to all pending objections. 8

9 9. Contact For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service objection process, contact: Lee Hamm, Recreation and Lands Officer Palomar Ranger District 1634 Black Canyon Road Ramona, CA Phone: (760) CHRISTOPHER DOWLING District Ranger Date 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. 9

10 Environmental Assessment Three Sisters Falls Recreation Management Figure 1. Three Sisters Falls Recreation Management Proposed Action 10