BACKGROUND DECISION. Decision Memo Page 1 of 5

Transcription

1 DECISION MEMO CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL GI/FEASIBILITY STUDY U.S. FOREST SERVICE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BACKGROUND The Angeles National Forest (ANF) received an application on September 8, 2015 from the California High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) to perform a geophysical/geotechnical investigation (GI) to determine the feasibility of several high speed rail tunnel alignment alternatives that the HSRA is considering through the Angeles National Forest (ANF). Project Description: The GI would consist of drilling, installing, testing, and backfilling borings at five locations. The drilling depth would vary from approximately 900 to 2700 feet below ground surface. To avoid or minimize their effect on existing resources, these borings will be located along existing roads on the ANF. The GI will provide data to help evaluate potentially challenging conditions for tunnel design and construction by investigating groundwater, adverse geology and faults. The resulting information will also help the understanding of local water conditions and earthquake faults. Drill fluids would be approved for drinking water wells, and would be contained in on-site sump pits around the actual drill hole, then moved off-forest for proper disposal. Vegetation in the work area may be cleared to provide a safe working environment and reduce the risk of a wildfire ignition. No new roads would be constructed, and very little surface disturbance would occur at actual drill sites. Dimensions of the drill sites are less than half an acre each. Duration of the project will not exceed 12 months. Additional details can be found in the GI Proposal submitted by HSRA in August DECISION I have decided to authorize the California HSRA to perform geophysical/geotechnical test drilling and core extraction at up to 8 locations within the Angeles National Forest. Avoidance and Minimization Measures: The avoidance and minimization measures are attached to and made part of the Special Use Permit Amendment authorizing the work, are incorporated into my decision, and are mandatory conditions of the authorization for this project. This action is categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA). The applicable category of actions is identified in agency procedures as 36 CFR 220.6(e)(8) Short-term (1 year or less) mineral, energy, or geophysical investigations and their incidental support activities that may require cross-country travel by vehicles and equipment, construction of less than 1 mile of low standard road, or use Page 1 of 5

2 and minor repair of existing roads. This category of action(s) is applicable because the proposed action consists of a geophysical investigation and incidental support activities at 5 to 8 locations. I find that there are no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS. I took into account all resource conditions identified in agency procedures (36 CFR 220.6(b)(1)) that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances might exist: Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species The Biological Assessment (BA) reached a determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect for the endangered California condor. Informal consultation was initiated and the USFWS provided concurrence with this determination. Conservation measures have been developed to avoid or reduce potential impacts to the California condor. The Biological Evaluation (BE) determined that the proposed project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the following Forest Service Sensitive species: Abram s flowery puncturebract, club-haired mariposa lily, slender mariposa lily, San Gabriel Mountains sunflower, San Gabriel linanthus, Robbin s nemacladus, chickweed starry puncturebract, rigid fringepod, San Bernardino Mountain kingsnake, pallid bat, Townsend s big-eared bat, and fringed myotis. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds The ANF has identified disturbance of groundwater and municipal watersheds as a resource condition that may warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS (36 CFR 220.6(b)(1)(ii)). The proposed action itself may cause the kind of groundwater disturbance it seeks to evaluate. Watershed protection was the primary purpose for reserving the ANF in 1892, and protection of the groundwater regime is an essential element of watershed protection. o 36 CFR 220.6(b)(2) states: [t]he mere presence of [a municipal watershed] does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion (CE). It is the existence of a causeeffect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions, and if such a relationship exists, the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist. o The HSRA (i) scoped groundwater and municipal watershed stakeholders, (ii) evaluated that there might be a cause-effect relationship between the proposed action and the municipal watershed, to a distance of approximately 1000 feet of each drilling location, (iii) but demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Forest Service Officer that, by implementing the following mitigation measures, the degree of any potential effect would not be substantial. Maintain drilling mud pressure to prevent groundwater from Page 2 of 5

3 flowing into the borings. Establish trigger points to indicate when drilling mud pressure is about to be lost. If drilling mud pressure is lost, cement grout the boring from the bottom up to stop any water flow into the boring, then re-drill through the cement plug after it has cured. An erosion control plan is not necessary because there is less than 10,000 sq ft of ground disturbance per drainage. However, the project-specific Best Management Practices (BMP) checklist will need to be followed along with other minimization measures. Congressionally designated areas such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas The proposed action includes no activity in such Congressionally designated areas. Inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas The proposed action includes no activity in such areas. Research natural areas The proposed action includes no activity in such areas. American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites Correspondence with Indian Tribes and the local Native American community on the proposed scope of the geotechnical testing is ongoing, and their ability to provide input and comment will continue through the extent of the project, both through regularly scheduled meetings and correspondence with local Tribes and Native Americans on general Forest issues and mutual concerns. At this time, no specific issues or concerns have been expressed. Based on the nature of the undertaking, results from the archaeological investigation, background research, and prior and current consultation with Indian tribes, the proposed activities will not adversely affect American Indian religious or cultural sites or access to or use of resources important to the Native American community. No extraordinary circumstances exist for this resource condition. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas Heritage resource inventories of the Area of Potential Effect for the subject undertaking have been conducted for the purpose of historic property identification per standards in the Programmatic Agreement Among the USFS Forest Service Region 5, Pacific Southwest Region, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Undertakings on the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region of 2013 (Programmatic Agreement). By applying standard protection measures as outlined in the Programmatic Agreement, and documented in Section 106 Form 16SO01ISP, no adverse effects to historic properties will occur. Page 3 of 5

4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This action was originally listed as a proposal on the Angeles National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions and updated periodically during the analysis. The USFS created a webpage for this project, and uploaded the GI Proposal (project description), USFS letter accepting the proposal and inviting the HSRA to submit a special use permit application, the scoping instructions to HSRA, and the scoping letter. A link to this webpage was added to the ANF public webpage, and the link was provided in the scoping letter. The USFS also requested the HSRA to provide a link on the HSRA webpage. The public was invited to submit mail or comments by October 23, A total of 397 affected and interested stakeholders were mailed or ed scoping letters. A total of 17 mailed letters were returned to the USFS by the US Postal Service as undeliverable. The USFS issued a press release, which it sent out to 88 media contacts. The USFS received a total of 356 comments. Additional details on the extent of public participation, and a content analysis of the comments received are included in the attached Scoping Report. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS This proposed action is consistent with management direction (Angeles National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, revised 2005), as required by the National Forest Management Act (FSM and FSH ). The BE/BA provides details on forest plan compliance. This action also complies with the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Clear Water Act, Clean Air Act, and all other applicable federal laws. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) OPPORTUNITIES This action is not subject to review or appeal pursuant to 36 CFR (f). The special use authorization holder, however, may appeal this decision pursuant to 36 CFR 251, Subpart C. IMPLEMENTATION DATE The project may be implemented upon issuance of a special use authorization or authorization amendment, contingent upon adherence to all authorization conditions and compliance with stipulated mitigations/avoidance and minimization measures. ADDITIONAL DRILL SITES This Decision Memo (DM) covers the 5 drill sites included in the Proposal. If additional drill sites are requested by the HSRA, the USFS will consider these requests, and will determine if they can be added by amending the Special Use Permit. Page 4 of 5

5 CONTACT For additional information concerning this decision, contact: George Farra, Assistant Forest Engineer, , 701 N. Santa Anita Ave, Arcadia, CA /s/ JEFFREY VAIL Jeffrey Vail December 1, 2015 Forest Supervisor 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. Page 5 of 5