Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2013. 4. 19. ·...
Transcript of Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2013. 4. 19. ·...
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
March 2013
Environmental Assessment
Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine Aquatic Organism Passage Project
Placerville and Georgetown Ranger Districts, Eldorado National Forest Eldorado County, California
For More Information Contact:
Jann Williams Eldorado National Forest
100 Forni Road Placerville, CA 95667
530-621-5240 [email protected]
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) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal
opportunity provider and employer.
Environmental Assessment
i
Table of Contents
Background ...............................................................................................................................................2 Purpose and Need for Action ....................................................................................................................2 Decision Framework .................................................................................................................................2 Consistency with Planning Documents .....................................................................................................2 Issues .........................................................................................................................................................3
Proposed Action and No Action Alternative .................................................................................................3 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................................6 No Action Alternative .............................................................................................................................14
Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................................................14 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ..............................................................15 Proposed Action Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................20 No Action Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ...............................................................................21
Agencies and Persons Consulted .................................................................................................................21 Federal, State, and Local Agencies: ........................................................................................................21 Tribes ......................................................................................................................................................22 Others ......................................................................................................................................................22
References ...................................................................................................................................................23
List of Tables
Table 1. Potential Effects of Aquatic Organism Passage Crossing Replacement ......................................15
List of Figures
Figure 1. Plum Creek Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................4 Figure 2. Sailor Ravine Vicinity Map ..........................................................................................................5 Figure 3. Plum Creek existing low water crossing .......................................................................................6 Figure 4. Example of bridge to be installed at Plum Creek Crossing ...........................................................7 Figure 5. Plum Creek Crossing project activity locations ............................................................................8 Figure 6. Example of bottomless arch to be installed at Sailor Ravine ........................................................9 Figure 7. Sailor Ravine Crossing - Project Activity Locations ..................................................................10
Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine Aquatic Organism Passage Project
2
Background During 2011, seventy-five stream crossings were surveyed on the ENF using the National
Inventory and Assessment Procedure for Identifying Barriers to Aquatic Organism Passage at
Road-Stream Crossings (USFS 2005) protocol. This protocol assessed whether or not juvenile
and adult salmonids could pass through the crossings during low stream flow. Between 64 and 91
percent of the culverts surveyed were assessed as impassable using the California Department of
Fish and Game criteria and the Region 1 Forest Service criteria.
Plum Creek was identified because of the importance of the fishery to the community and the
improvement in stream connectivity that could be achieved. Sailor Ravine was identified because
of the amount of available aquatic habitat which could be increased upstream (0.55 mile) and the
poor condition of the crossing.
Purpose and Need for Action This proposal is needed because both crossings prevent the passage of fish and other aquatic
species. The crossings also restrict movement of annual bed load causing substrate to aggrade in
the channel upstream of the crossings and degrade the channels downstream, sometimes down to
bedrock.
The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment provides direction to “maintain and restore the
hydrologic connectivity of streams by identifying roads and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt
natural surface and subsurface water flow paths” (RCO100), and to “ensure that culverts or
other stream crossings do not create barriers to upstream or downstream passage for aquatic-
dependent species”(RCO 101) (USFS 2004).
Additionally, unauthorized dispersed camping access roads shall be blocked to reduce impacts to
Plum Creek. Dispersed camping next to the stream has led to compacted soil, reduced riparian
vegetation, and water quality impacts.
The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment provides direction to “Identify conditions that
degrade water quality or habitat for aquatic and riparian-dependent species. At the project level,
evaluate and consider actions to ensure consistency with standards and guidelines or desired
conditions” (RCO-116)(USFS 2004).
Decision Framework Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action, the other
alternatives, and their environmental consequences, in order to determine whether to implement
the proposed action as described, select a different alternative or take no action at this time.
Consistency with Planning Documents A complete discussion of the management practices, general forest direction, and standards and
guidelines are included within the Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan (LRMP) (USFS 1988) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SNFPA DSEIS) (USFS 2010).
The stream crossings are in the Streamside Management Zones (SMZs). Proposed activities
would be consistent with applicable LRMP direction regarding activities in SMZs.
Environmental Assessment
3
Issues No issues were identified by the public.
Proposed Action and No Action Alternative In this section, the proposed action is compared to the no action alternative. The no action
alternative provides a baseline to compare to the proposed action.
The locations of the project areas are as follows and are shown on figures 1 and 2:
Plum Creek – Placerville Ranger District – Road 10NY20A, T10N, R14E, Section 10, NE ¼,
NW ¼
Sailor Ravine – Georgetown Ranger District – Road 12N70, T12N, R 11E, Section 36, NE ¼,
NE 1/4
Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine Aquatic Organism Passage Project
4
Figure 1. Plum Creek Vicinity Map
Environmental Assessment
5
Figure 2. Sailor Ravine Vicinity Map
Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine Aquatic Organism Passage Project
6
Proposed Action The proposed action is to remove existing crossings at two locations and replace them with
crossings that allow passage of fish and other aquatic organisms. Existing crossings are shown on
figures 3 and 5. Details of the proposed action are provided below.
Plum Creek - Road 10NY20A
At the Plum Creek crossing, the existing concrete vented low water crossing structure would be
removed. Built up bedload upstream of the crossing would be removed if a forest hydrologist or
engineer deems it excessive and taken to an appropriate stockpile location. Concrete footings
would be installed on both stream banks and a permanent prefabricated bridge would be placed
across the creek (similar to the bridge shown in figure 4) to allow Sierra Pacific Industries access
to their land in Section 3.
Figure 3. Plum Creek existing low water crossing
Environmental Assessment
7
Figure 4. Example of bridge to be installed at Plum Creek Crossing
Three dispersed campsites and unauthorized road entrances off Forest Road 10NY20 would be
blocked using partially buried logs or barrier rock.
A landing area located on Forest Road10NY20 at the crossing would be used to stage equipment,
pile brush, barrier rock, and temporarily stockpile excess fill material. The concrete and steel
from the existing crossing would be hauled away and recycled.
Proposed activities and locations at Plum Creek are shown on figure 5.
Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine Aquatic Organism Passage Project
8
Figure 5. Plum Creek Crossing project activity locations
Environmental Assessment
9
Sailor Ravine - Road 12N70
Road fill and the two existing double culvert pipes would be removed and a bottomless arch
would be placed in Sailor Ravine at Road 12N70. The road grade would be lowered to reduce the
length of the bottomless arch crossing. An example of a bottomless arch crossing is shown in
figure 6.
Figure 6. Example of bottomless arch to be installed at Sailor Ravine
Two existing landings are located on the northern approach to the crossing, on the east and west
sides of the road. One is near the stream and the other is approximately 200 meters to the north
of the crossing. These would be used as equipment staging areas, brush pile storage, and
temporary excess fill material storage. Rebar and concrete from existing stemwalls would be
hauled away and recycled.
Proposed activities at Sailor Ravine are shown on figure 7.
Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine Aquatic Organism Passage Project
10
Figure 7. Sailor Ravine Crossing - Project Activity Locations
Environmental Assessment
11
Both Crossings:
Stream simulation1 would take place in the stream channels of both crossings by placing habitat
elements in appropriate locations within the stream channel and/or on the stream banks. This
work may include the addition of habitat elements such as logs, boulders, or step pools.
Development and implementation of this work would be guided by a Forest Fisheries Biologist or
Hydrologist. During the rainy season, native plants approved by the Forest Botanist would be
planted along the stream banks of all crossings.
It is estimated that it would take approximately 120 days to complete each structure replacement.
During this time each road would be closed to the public. Road closure locations would be
signed at appropriate road junctions.
2.1.2 Design Features
The following resource protection measures shall be used during project implementation.
Cultural Resources
CR-1. The district archaeologist shall be notified prior to implementation to provide sufficient
time to flag resources at risk. The Cultural Resources Manager of the United Auburn
Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria will be notified prior to implementation so
that he can participate in the flagging of at-risk sites.
CR-2. Flagged areas shall be avoided during all phases of the project, unless an archaeologist is
present to monitor work and provide authorization for certain activities within these
areas. Flagging shall be removed after the project is completed.
CR-3. Native materials to be used as natural barriers or habitat elements will not be harvested
from, or dragged across, flagged cultural resource sites.
CR-4. Should any previously unrecorded cultural resources be encountered during
implementation of this project, all work shall immediately cease in that area and the
District Archeologist be notified immediately. Work may resume after approval by the
District Archeologist. Should any cultural resources become damaged in unanticipated
ways by activities proposed in this project, the steps described in the Sierran PA for
inadvertent effects will be followed (USFS, 1996).
CR-5. Should the project boundaries or activities be expanded beyond the current APE, Section
106 compliance for this project would be incomplete until additional cultural resources
review is completed.
CR-6. Monitoring of the area would occur after the project has been completed. The District
Archaeologist would be kept informed of the status of various stages of the project, so
that subsequent field work can proceed in a timely fashion. All subsequent inventory
monitoring and site monitoring related to this project would be documented in
amendments to this report, as appropriate.
1 Stream simulation is a method for designing and building road-stream crossings intended to permit free
and unrestricted movements of any aquatic species.
Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine Aquatic Organism Passage Project
12
Botany
B-1. Sensitive plant occurrences discovered during project implementation would be flagged
for avoidance and reported to the project botanist.
B-2. Sensitive plant occurrences would be monitored by a Forest Botanist after the completion
of the project to ensure that protection measures were effective.
B-3. Forest Service personnel would monitor staging areas, fill deposit sites, and disturbed
areas for invasive plants in the two years following completion of the proposed action. If
priority invasive plant species are detected, Forest Service personnel would treat the
plants by hand pulling or digging. Invasive plants that have or are developing seeds
would be disposed of off National Forest System lands.
B-4. The Himalayan blackberry occurrence found north of Plum Creek crossing would be
removed by Forest Service personnel prior to project implementation.
B-5. Equipment would be cleaned per standard contract specifications prior to entering the
project area to avoid the introduction of invasive plant species.
B-6. Locations of any new infestations of invasive plants species discovered prior to or during
project implementation, would be mapped, reported to the project botanist, and
documented for possible treatment and monitoring, and/or flagged and avoided.
B-7. Mulch or straw would be used for erosion control would be certified weed free. A
certificate from the county of origin stating the material was inspected would be required.
B-8. Any seed used for erosion control or restoration would be from a locally collected source
and approved by the project botanist prior to use.
B-9 Off-site fill material or barrier rocks would come from weed-free sources. Consult with
Forest Botanist for list of weed-free sources.
Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife
W-1. Any fish that are impounded by project operations would be netted safely out of the
construction area and moved downstream.
W-2. Prior to construction activities a qualified biologist would clear the area of any sensitive
aquatic species, i.e. fish or frogs, and move all individuals to a safe location.
W-3. Any western pond turtles found in the area during construction would be moved to a safe
area.
W-4. To avoid attracting opportunistic predators such as coyotes, domestic and feral dogs and
cats, opossums, skunks and raccoons, all food and trash must be appropriately stored in
closed containers and removed from the project site at the end of each day.
W-5. Maintain a limited operating period (LOP), prohibiting activities within ¼ mile of the
spotted owl activity center for PAC ELD 0046 from March 1 through August 15 unless
non-nesting for the season is confirmed.
W-6. If any newly listed or unknown occurrences of special status species are found within the
affected project area during project preparation or implementation, work would stop in
Environmental Assessment
13
the area and the District biologist would be contacted immediately to determine
appropriate action. Additional species protection measures may be required.
Water Quality
WQ-1. Project activities should be scheduled to occur between August 15 and October 15 to
avoid the period of highest rainfall, streamflows, and erosion potential.
WQ-2. Ground and vegetation disturbance would be minimized during implementation of the
project.
Windblown dust is not anticipated during implementation due to the small area of
disturbance. If windblown dust is observed, disturbed areas will be sprayed with water or
covered with mulch or tarps.
WQ-3. The goal during in-channel work is zero discharge. The following practices have proven
effective in achieving zero discharge and could be used:
Whenever possible, delay activities until flow has ceased or is at lowest flow (Both
creeks are perennial and are expected to have some flow during project implementation);
If flow is present, convey flow around the construction site and discharge in a stable
location;
install a coffer dam below the site to trap sediment and detain any turbid water;
dispose of any sediment from behind the crossings in a stable location; and
remove turbid water by pumping and sprinkling it in a location and manner to allow
infiltration into the soil.
WQ-4. Stop operations when there is a 50 percent or greater predicted chance of precipitation by
the National Weather Service and implement temporary erosion control measures as
needed. Operations will cease until the site is dry enough to resume work and there is no
potential for off-site sediment transport. Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs
will be applied to all disturbed ground during temporary construction delays caused by
inclement weather or other circumstances. Measures applied will vary with conditions,
but are likely to include
Placement of readily available mulch materials (e.g., pine needles, branches, coarse
woody debris) and/or imported mulch materials (e.g., certified weed-free rice straw);
Placement of tarps to cover exposed soil; and
Installation of straw wattles, silt fences, and/or hay bales.
WQ-5. Earthen spoils generated during the construction that are not immediately used would be
temporarily stockpiled in stable staging areas. Straw wattles, silt fences, or hay bales
would be installed around the base of temporary stockpiles if needed, to intercept runoff
and sediment draining from the stockpiles. Tarps will also be kept on hand to cover
spoils in the event of rainfall during the construction interval. If necessary, the stockpiles
will be further stabilized by mulching them with available forest materials or an
appropriate geotextile material.
Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine Aquatic Organism Passage Project
14
Most excavated material will be used to reconstruct the crossing road or bridge
foundation. Spoils that are not used during construction will be hauled offsite and
deposited in stable areas, i.e. roads or landings, once construction is complete.
WQ-6. If stream is flowing or groundwater is encountered during construction, flow would be
diverted around active construction and disturbed areas. Disturbed surfaces would be
mulched with local or weed-free imported cover or protected with straw wattles, silt
fences, or weed-free straw bales as needed. These areas may also be actively re-vegetated
with appropriate native plant species, using plant materials (i.e., seed, container stock,
transplant plugs, pole cuttings) collected from local sources.
WQ-7. Project vehicles and equipment will be staged, re-fueled, and maintained on previously
used landings or barren areas as shown on figures 4 and 6. Earthmoving equipment will
be clean and free of invasive plant species seeds prior to being moved to the project site.
Fuel and lubricants will not be stored on the project site overnight but will be brought in
daily. A spill and containment kit will be located in the vehicle and equipment staging,
fueling, and maintenance area. The equipment will be inspected daily for leaks.
WQ-8. Wastes and petroleum products used during construction will be collected and removed
from the project site in accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
regulations and federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
standards. Wastes will be disposed of in an appropriate manner.
No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the existing crossings at Plum Creek on Forest Road 10NY20A
and on the unnamed stream in Sailor Ravine at Forest Road 12N70 would not be replaced and the
dispersed campsites would remain available for public use.
Environmental Consequences This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and no action alternatives.
Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial cause or
action. Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity,
but would occur in the foreseeable future. Cumulative effects result when the incremental effects
of actions are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless
of what agency or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative effects can result from
individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. Past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are assessed along with the effects of the
Proposed Action to determine whether significant cumulative effects may occur. This analysis is
consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality memo from James L. Connaughton titled
"Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis" dated June 24,
2005, which is incorporated by reference. A list of projects considered in determining cumulative
effects for various resources is noted in the Background section of Chapter 1.
This section is organized by resource topic and presents comparative analyses of the effects that
would occur from implementing either the No Action or Proposed Action alternative. The
affected environment, direct and indirect effects, and cumulative effects are addressed separately
for each location. The following reports are incorporated by reference: Wildlife and Aquatics
Environmental Assessment
15
Biological Assessment and Evaluation, which includes the Management Indicator Species Report,
Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment for Sensitive Plants, Hydrology Specialist Report,
and Heritage Resource Report.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Direct and indirect effects of the proposed action are summarized in table 1 below and presented
in detail in the text.
Table 1. Potential Effects of Aquatic Organism Passage Crossing Replacement
Attribute Direct Indirect
Hydrology
Removal of ground cover
leaving areas of exposed
soil immediately adjacent
to stream
Potential for erosion and
sediment deposition to
stream
Slight, short-term decrease
in water quality; increase in
stream sediments with
downstream migration
Fill material being moved
over and adjacent to stream
with potential for
placement of fill in stream
channel
Increased sediment in
channel; change in channel
shape
Slight, short-term increase
in sediments to stream with
downstream migration
Use of mechanical
equipment in and adjacent
to channel with potential
for fuel or fluids to be
discharged to stream
Introduction of
contaminants to stream
Short-term decrease in
water quality downstream
Removal of cover from
stream banks and channel
Increase in water
temperature; decrease in
cover for aquatic organisms
Alteration of aquatic
organism habitat
Removal of existing
crossings and excess fill
material
Streamflow and bedload
transport resume under
more natural channel
configuration
Establishment of natural
habitats and stream
conditions; allows aquatic
organisms access to
additional habitats upstream
Installation of AOP
Crossing
Maintains natural gradient
and channel configuration.
Allows passage of storm
flows and in-channel
sediment.
Establishment of natural
habitats and stream
conditions; allows aquatic
organisms access to
additional habitats upstream
Blocking dispersed
campsites
Soil compaction, stream
bank damage and riparian
vegetation damage cease
Restoration of riparian area;
addition of riparian habitat
Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife
Noise and disturbance from
equipment and personnel
Short-term interference
with daily activities; death
or injury of individuals
Short-term changes in
habitat
Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine Aquatic Organism Passage Project
16
Attribute Direct Indirect
Botany
Ground disturbance
Removal of marginally
suitable sensitive species
habitat; potential increase
of invasive plants
Localized and minor
reduction in sensitive
species; increased
competition with invasive
plants
Change to channel gradient
and bedload
Potential erosion or
inundation of potentially
suitable sensitive species
habitat
Localized and negligible
reduction in sensitive
species suitable habitat
Disturbance of bedrock
outcrop surface
Removal of suitable
sensitive species habitat
Localized and negligible
reduction in sensitive
species suitable habitat
Cultural Resources
Use of heavy equipment Disturbance or destruction
of cultural resources
Increased erosion and
deposition removing or
covering artifacts
Installation of vehicle
barriers
Disturbance or destruction
of cultural resources
Increased erosion and
deposition removing or
covering artifacts
Removal of old crossings
and installation of new
crossings
Displacement of sediment;
removal of cover
Increased erosion and
deposition removing or
covering artifacts
Hydrology
Use of earth moving equipment within and adjacent to stream channels can result in the
introduction of sediments and equipment fluids (fuel, hydraulic fluid) to the stream. Even with
the use of BMPs and design features, this can cause short-term decreases in water quality. These
impacts would be diluted to negligible levels as they travel downstream.
The restricted work areas and the use of design features and BMPs will minimize the potential for
adverse impacts. Streams will be routed around the active work area and erosion control
measures will be taken to prevent introduction of sediments and fluids to streams. New crossing
structures will allow natural stream channel characteristics to re-form, reducing potential for
erosion and water quality degradation, and allowing passage of aquatic organisms.
Removal of the concrete low water crossing at Plum Creek will allow channel substrate, i.e.
sands, gravels, and cobbles, to be mobilized and move downstream through the drainage system
as the natural gradient re-establishes itself. This will result in a mass of channel material moving
and spreading downstream which could result in minor moderate-term increase in stream bottom
sediments downstream of the project site. The excess sediment would spread and disperse as it
migrated downstream and the impacts would diminish with distance and time. This may have
some adverse and beneficial impacts to downstream aquatic organism habitats. Migrating
Environmental Assessment
17
sediments could cover existing habitat resulting in adverse effects. The sediments would also
create habitat in areas scoured to bedrock, thus creating beneficial effects.
The natural movement of stream channel sediments through these stream reaches will allow the
stream to regain a more natural channel configuration and allow the passage of aquatic
organisms. These are long term, local, beneficial impacts of the proposed action.
Implementation of the proposed action in a single location in separate drainages is a small step
toward improving several aspects of the condition class of each drainage, including aquatic
organism passage and returning channel configuration and sediment transport to more natural
conditions. Implementation of additional AOP crossings would result in improvements in
additional locations within drainages.
Botany
There are no occurrences known in the project area that would be impacted by project activities,
hence there would be no direct impacts to mountain lady’s slipper, saw-toothed lewisia, Sierra
blue grass, or veined water lichen.
Indirect impacts to mountain lady’s slipper, saw-toothed lewisia, Sierra blue grass, and veined
water lichen would be attributed to alterations of potentially suitable habitat, and are discussed
below.
At Plum Creek there will be substantial ground disturbance at the sites where the existing
crossing structure would be removed. The impact to suitable habitat for mountain lady’s slipper
and Sierra blue grass would be the removal of marginally suitable habitat and the potential for
increases in invasive plant species. This impact would be very localized and minor. Removal of
the crossing barrier would result in the bed load migrating to areas downstream and possibly
changing the current channel course (Gail Bakker, personal communication, 2013). This could
result in inundation of potentially suitable habitat for mountain lady’s slipper and Sierra blue
grass. This impact would be localized and negligible.
At Sailor Ravine two existing culvert pipes would be removed and the road grade would be
lowered. There will likely be some bed load and minor changes in stream structure directly
downstream of the crossing when this occurs. This would impact potentially suitable habitat for
the veined water lichen by either eliminating or creating habitat. There is suitable habitat for both
Sierra blue grass and mountain lady’s slipper on the roads and banks of the stream that will be
disturbed during project activities. This disturbance could impact these species by creating
suitable habitat for invasive species and/or eliminating elements of the habitat that render it
suitable. This impact would be very short term, localized and negligible to minor. The rock
outcrops at Sailor Ravine that provide suitable habitat could be disturbed by personnel working in
the vicinity, or climbing on the rocks, which could result in minor losses of suitable habitat for
saw-toothed lewisia. This impact would be localized and negligible to minor.
Vegetation within both project areas is composed primarily of native species in the mixed conifer
and riparian vegetation types, although there is the presence of some nonnative species. Riparian
habitat is considered to have increased vulnerability to invasion (D’Antonio et al. 2004). The
project area’s riparian habitat combined with presence of roads makes the current habitat highly
vulnerable to invasion. This vulnerability is tempered with the high canopy covers throughout
areas adjacent to roads and stream crossings which greatly reduces the suitability of the habitat
for nonnative invasive plants. There is a moderate risk for invasion based on habitat vulnerability,
as the areas that are vulnerable are highly localized.
Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine Aquatic Organism Passage Project
18
Indirect effects could occur from bed load in the stream shifting during high water events to
downstream areas. This would have similar impacts as it could both create areas of fresh
disturbance and bare soil where invasive plants could become established, and could result in
distributing nonnative invasive plant propagules downstream. This impact is likely already
occurring as Himalayan blackberry, bull thistle, oxeye daisy, and woolly mullein are already in
close proximity to the stream channel and are likely dispersing downstream, so the project would
result in a negligible increase in this risk.
The occurrence of perennial pepperweed along Road 10N20 has the potential of being transported
to the project area. This risk is determined to be very low to low due to two factors. The first is
that the occurrence is receiving ongoing treatment by forest staff (M. Brown, personal
communication, 2012). The second is that the occurrence is in a ditch about ¼ of a mile beyond
where project activities would occur where it is unlikely that project associated vectors would
park or walk.
Design features, including removal of existing patches of nonnative invasive plant species, use of
weed-free fill or rock material, and mulching or revegetating disturbed areas with native plant
species will minimize the risk of introducing or encouraging the spread of invasive plant species.
Cultural Resources
Potential direct effects to cultural resources at the Plum Creek crossing include subsurface ground
disturbance as a result of the operation of heavy equipment while removing the existing crossing
structure and installation of the new structure. There is potential for similar direct effects where
natural barriers will be installed along road 10NY20 in the Plum Creek APE. Ground disturbance
and compaction will also occur at the staging area. A large amount of ground disturbance and
compaction will occur in each of the staging areas at both project locations.
The removal of the existing crossing at Plum Creek will likely cause some erosion, which could
potentially result in future indirect effects such as the displacement of cultural resources from the
stream bank and/or the deposition of sediment and debris within cultural resource sites
downstream.
Finally, there is the potential for direct effects from ground disturbance and the displacement of
artifacts or features within cultural resource sites as a result of harvesting and dragging boulders,
logs, or other materials to be used as natural barriers or as habitat elements when implementing
the project. Prehistoric and historic-era cultural resource sites within the Plum Creek APE are at
risk from the activities described above, and protection measures are required for those sites that
are considered to be at-risk based on their location and National Register status.
Standard Resource Protection Measures of the Sierra Nevada Programmatic Agreement (USDA
FS, 1996) will be applied in order to ensure protection of at-risk cultural resources under the
proposed action. Four at-risk sites in the Plum Creek APE will be flagged for avoidance prior to
project implementation. Flagged areas will be avoided during all phases of the project, unless an
archaeologist is present to monitor work and provide authorization for certain activities within
these areas. Flagging shall be removed after the project is completed. In addition, future
monitoring will occur at two of the sites to determine whether indirect effects, such as the
displacement of cultural resources, are occurring as a result of long-term erosion and/or changes
in stream behavior. By following the above recommendations and using the design criteria, there
will be no effect to cultural resources from implementing this project.
Environmental Assessment
19
There are no cultural resources in the vicinity of the Sailor Ravine Forest Road 12N70 so there
will be no direct or indirect effects.
Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife
Potential direct effects to Foothill Yellow-legged Frog and Western Pond Turtles include crushing
of individuals by heavy equipment, and disturbance due to the presence of personnel and
equipment which can lead to temporary displacement of individuals. Most frogs and turtles will
move away from disturbance activities even if it is the presence of a person in the area. The risk
of direct effects occurring will be decreased due to a design feature which requires both sites to be
cleared of sensitive aquatic species by a qualified biologist prior to project activities. If any
individuals are found, they will be moved to a location away from project activities. During
project activities, if a sensitive aquatic species is found, it will also be moved away from the site
to a safe location.
Indirect effects may include changes in habitat within the crossing area. The area of impact is
small and areas up and downstream from the site will not be altered. Sedimentation resulting from
project activities may also affect frogs in the area, but the impact will be short term. In addition,
project activities are expected to begin in mid to late September which is when the water flows
are typically at the lowest. This will minimize the amount of sediment flowing downstream
during project activities. In both cases, the overall change will result in improved conditions for
frogs and turtles to move upstream and downstream in the drainage.
Environmental protection measures (BMPs) listed in the hydrology report for this project (USFS
2011) will provide additional protection to aquatic species. As the crossings are replaced, habitat
elements will be re-created including the planting of native vegetation and the placement of logs,
boulders and step pools as guided by a fisheries biologist or hydrologist. This will also help to re-
create a natural stream gradient which will allow frogs and turtles to move upstream and
downstream through the area.
The proposed project at Plum Creek may directly affect spotted owls due to noise disturbance
resulting from the presence of personnel and the use of heavy equipment. A limited operating
period prohibiting the use of heavy equipment in the Plum Creek area will be in effect from
March 1 through August 15 for spotted owls associated with owl PAC ELD 0046. The LOP
applies to PACs located within 0.25 mile from the project area and will minimize impacts to owls
during the breeding season.
The proposed project may directly affect spotted owls due to noise disturbance resulting from the
presence of personnel and the use of heavy equipment. A limited operating period prohibiting the
use of heavy equipment in the Plum Creek area will be in effect from March 1 through August 15
for spotted owls associated with owl PAC ELD 0046. The LOP applies to PACs located within
0.25 mile from the project area and will minimize impacts to owls during the breeding season.
There are no direct effects expected to occur to any of the bat species. There will be no removal
or alteration of roosting habitat; minimal alteration of foraging habitat; and all activity will occur
during the day when bats are roosting.
Foraging habitat will be altered during project activities and over time it will be restored. After
the crossing is removed and replaced, habitat elements will be placed in the drainage and native
vegetation will be planted. This will reduce the amount of time it will take for vegetation to
become established. Changes in the vegetative structure will affect the distribution of insects in
Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine Aquatic Organism Passage Project
20
the area. This in turn will alter foraging conditions and possibly foraging behavior for bats. Since
the project will remove less than 0.1 acre of riparian and upland habitat at each crossing site,
substantial impacts to individuals of these species would be unlikely to result from any alteration
or displacement of foraging activities due to the project.
Proposed Action Cumulative Effects The ENF established Threshold of Concern (TOC) values for specific watersheds, and
documented an assessment of watershed condition based on comparing the watershed disturbance
level measured by the ERA methodology (Elder 2008, Haskins 1986, Seidelman 1990). The ERA
methodology is an accounting tool that documents past actions and converts the different
disturbance types to “equivalent road acres” for comparison and tracking disturbance levels using
a common unit of measure. The ERA method can be used to evaluate and compare proposed
future actions by predicting the added level of disturbance that would result from project
implementation.
The most recent watershed analysis conducted by the ENF for the affected watersheds was
performed in 2004 and gave a TOC range of 10 to 12 for the watersheds containing each project
area. The more conservative TOC of 10 was selected to calculate the cumulative impacts for the
Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine project area HUC 7 drainages.
There are a number of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the analysis area
as well as a relatively high road density and extensive areas of private lands. The private lands
are subject to repeated timber harvests which contribute to disturbances. Cumulative effects from
timber harvest, fuels treatments, and road maintenance projects would be unchanged under the
Proposed Action Alternative.
The ERA analysis indicates that the Plum Creek drainage is in Class 1, low disturbance level.
Based on observations of Plum Creek during the field visit and on NAIP imagery, the ERA for
this drainage appears low due to the large percentage of private lands which are harvested at
regular intervals.
During crossing removal and installation, the proposed action would disturb less than 0.1 acre,
which is less than one tenth of one percent of the drainage area. This is too small an area to have
significant cumulative impacts to the drainages as a whole. The ERA analysis shows that
implementing the proposed action in the Plum Creek drainage could increase the cumulative
impact risk from 0.31 to 0.32, which does not change the overall disturbance level.
The ERA analysis for the Whaler Creek drainage indicates that it is in Class 3, high disturbance
level, likely due to extensive timber harvest on private lands and the presence of many miles of
roads. The crossing replacement would result in disturbance to less than 0.1 acre which is a
negligible increase in the ERA for this drainage. Implementing the proposed action in the Whaler
Creek drainage does not change the cumulative impact risk, which remains at 1.10.
The proposed project when added to all of the types of activities that have occurred or may occur
in the future will not result in a cumulative effect for any of the aquatic or terrestrial wildlife
species analyzed in this document.
The Botanist has determined that the proposed action, when added to other types of activities that
have occurred or may occur in the future will not result in a cumulative effect for Listed Species,
Candidate Species, Sensitive Species, or other species known to occur or having suitable habitat
Environmental Assessment
21
within the project areas. The anticipated non-native plant species response to the proposed action
is a low potential for introducing and spreading nonnative invasive plants.
The implementation of this project in addition to all of the types of activities that have occurred
or may occur in the future will not result in a cumulative effect to cultural resources.
The proposed project when added to all of the types of activities that have occurred or may occur
in the future will not result in an adverse cumulative effect for any of the affected resources and
will actually provide minor long-term beneficial cumulative effects to hydrology and aquatic
resources. In the long term, the beneficial impacts from the proposed action would actually
improve the condition of the drainages in the vicinity of the crossings, although not enough to
change the disturbance level or condition class.
No Action Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The Plum Creek crossing would continue to block passage of fish and other aquatic organisms,
affecting the fishery upstream and downstream of the crossing. Upstream aggradation and
downstream degradation would continue.
The dispersed campsites off Forest Road 10NY20 would continue to be used resulting in on-
going vegetation damage and soil compaction within the SMZ for Plum Creek.
The Sailor Ravine crossing would continue to block aquatic organism passage resulting in
reduced habitat for fish and other aquatic life. Upstream aggradation and downstream
degradation would continue.
The disturbance levels for the two HUC 7 drainages would remain the same under the no action
alternative. There would be no increase in cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife,
botany, non-native plant species, and cultural resources.
Agencies and Persons Consulted During scoping, the Forest Service sent 74 letters to affected private individuals and agencies in
the general project areas. The Forest Service received responses from the following during the
development of this environmental assessment:
United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria
Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc.
Trout Unlimited, Eldorado Chapter
Federal, State, and Local Agencies: No formal or informal consultation with the USFWS has been conducted since no threatened,
endangered or candidate species would be affected by project activities.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region
Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine Aquatic Organism Passage Project
22
Tribes The Forest Service consulted with United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria to
coordinate having a tribal representative present during flagging and project implementation.
Others Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc.
Environmental Assessment
23
References
Bakker, Gail, Hydrologist. USDA Forest Service, Adaptive Management Services Enterprise
Team, Nevada City. Communication in person, January 9, 2013.
Bakker, Gail. January 2013. Hydrology Specialist Report: Aquatic Organism Passage
Crossing Replacement at Two Locations. Hydrology specialist report.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CSQA). 2009. Stormwater Best
Management Practice Handbook: New Development and Redevelopment. Available online at: https://www.casqa.org/store/products/tabid/154/p-5-new-
development-redevelopment-handbook.aspx
D’Antonio, Carla, Eric Berlow, and Karen Haubensak. 2004. Invasive exotic plant species in
Sierra Nevada ecosystems. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. PSW-GTR-
193.
Elder, Don. November 2008. Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis, Shasta-Trinity
National Forest: Quantitative Models for Surface Erosion, Mass-wasting and
ERA/TOC. ACT2 Enterprise Team, USDA Forest Service.
Haskins, Donald M. November 1986. A Management Model for Evaluating Cumulative
Watershed Effects. Presented at the California Watershed Management Conference,
West Sacramento, California.
Seidelman, Paul J. February 1981. Methodology for Evaluating Cumulative Watershed
Impacts. R-5 Watershed Management, process paper.
Sue, Teresa. January 22, 2013. Eldorado National Forest Biological Assessment and
Evaluation for the Aquatic Organism Passage Project on Plum Creek and Sailor
Ravine. Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife specialist report.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 1988. Eldorado National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 1996. Programmatic Agreement
among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, the California State
Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic properties
managed by the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada, California.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). November 2005. National Inventory
and Assessment Procedure for Identifying Barriers to Aquatic Organism Passage at
Road-Stream Crossings. National Technology and Development Program.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). February 2010. Sierra Nevada Forest
Plan Amendment: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. R5-MB-
213. Pacific Southwest Region.
Plum Creek and Sailor Ravine Aquatic Organism Passage Project
24
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). December 2011. Soil and Water
Conservation Handbook. R5 RSH 2509.22, Chapter 10. Pacific Southwest Region.