S-10-0164 Attachment 28 Environmental Assessment.pdf

Environmental Assessment Eagle Lake Sewage Ponds Project

Eagle Lake Ranger District, Lassen National Forest

Lassen County, California

Legal Description: T31N, R10E, NE¼NE¼ Section 21, Mount Diablo Meridian (MDM)

Introduction _____________________________________________________

The Eagle Lake Ranger District of the Lassen National Forest (NF) is proposing the Eagle Lake Sewage Ponds (EL Facility) Project. The proposed action is designed to implement and be consistent with the 1992 Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and 1993 Record of Decision (ROD) as amended by the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG), Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS), Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement (FSEIS) and RODs (1999, 2003), the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) FSEIS and ROD (2004), and the Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species (SNF MIS) Amendment (2007).

The LRMP as amended gives specific direction on how to manage Lassen NF lands. The EL Facility lies entirely within Management Prescription (MP) B (Range/Wildlife Prescription) of Eagle Management Area 14 (Chapter 4, pp 4-42 to 4-43 and pp 4-136 to 4-140). Within the parcel there are the Little Merrill Flat wetlands (Merrill wetlands). Therefore, MP F (Riparian/Fish) also applies to how the area is managed (Chapter 4, 4-50 to 4-53). Both MPs emphasize fuels management and permit facility construction/reconstruction. MP F emphasizes limited timber management and MP B permits limited timber management. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources and all cited references referred to in this EA, may be found in the project planning record located at the Eagle Lake Ranger District, 477-050 Eagle Lake Road, Susanville, CA 96130.

Note: Since the original scoping in June 2009, several clarifications have been made to the Proposed Action and Purpose and Need. Those changes to the original language are noted in italics;

Genus and species names are also italicized.

Background _____________________________________________________

General Description of the Project Area

The 40-acre parcel is located approximately 20 miles northwest of Susanville, California and approximately two miles southwest of Eagle Lake on the Eagle Lake Ranger District of the Lassen NF (See Figure 1. EL Project Location Map). The project area is accessed via National Forest System Road (NFSR) 31N07 and located in T31N, R10E, Sec. 21 of Lassen County (Figure 2. Facility Project Vicinity Map).

Eagle Lake Sewer Pond Project EA March 10, 2010

Figure 1. EL Facility Project Location Map

The EL Facility Project involves a 40-acre National Forest System parcel that is completely surrounded by private land. The site is located on the geomorphic province of the Modoc Plateau that is an undulating plateau. Most of the area consists of basalt lava flows and volcanic ash deposits. Average annual precipitation is about 30 inches, most of which occurs as snow in the fall, winter, and spring months. The EL Facility is located on an alluvial terrace, Little Merrill Flat, underlain by fractured volcanic rock. Soils of the alluvial terrace are silty clay, with permeabilities between 1 x 10-05 and 1 x 10-07 cm/sec.

The natural environment of the EL Facility Projects consists of slopes that are generally less than 20 percent, with elevations ranging from approximately 5,393 feet to 5,420 feet. Uplands are covered by an eastside pine forest with very little understory. The uplands lead down to an altered seasonal wetland (Merrill wetlands) and meadow, at the edge of which the existing EL Facility is located. The altered seasonal wetland and adjacent meadow occupies a basin nearly closed, except in the southeastern corner where it is drained by Merrill Creek flowing northeast into Eagle Lake. Common wildlife species such as mule deer (Odecoileus hemionus), black bear (Ursus americnus), common raven (Corvus corax) and coyote (Canis latrans) inhabit the area. Water resources in this area consist of seasonal streams, seasonally saturated wetlands, and small depressional seasonal wetlands areas that are closely associated with seasonal runoff and that supports hydric soils and plant species of moist to wet, open flats, such as

Ranunculus alismifolius, Castelleja lacera, Polygonum polygaloides ssp. confertiflorum, and Juncus hemiendytus var. hemiendytus. Additionally, water resources in the project area support common aquatic species adapted to seasonal waters such as chironomids, damselfly larvae, may fly larvae, and Pacific tree frogs, (Pseudacris regilla).

The Papoose Meadows Wetlands Restoration Project (PMWR) was identified as a mitigation site for the altered Merrill wetlands that would be lost by the EL Facility Project under Alternative 1, the Proposed Action. Papoose Meadows is a large seasonal wetland and marsh within the same 5th field watershed as the Merrill wetlands. The Papoose Meadows wetland is drained by Papoose Creek flowing north into Eagle Lake. Papoose Meadows was once fed by four springs, three of which are perennial even in drought years. The eastern and northern portions of the Papoose wetland are ponded with the extent of ponding depending on the water year. Water from three of the four springs is currently intercepted by multiple ditches leading to Papoose Creek, which were created to drain the meadow when it was homesteaded in the 1800’s. The PMWR includes using barriers and fill to redirect water from the ditches into the main wetland, potentially increasing the size and duration of inundation within the wetland.

Figure 2. EL Facility Project Vicinity Map

History of the Facility

In the 1970’s the EL Facility was constructed with a pond (Primary Pond 1) that covered approximately one acre and spray fields under an operating permit with what is today known as the State of California’s Lahontan Region Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan). A spray field for onsite wastewater treatment is similar to a lawn sprinkler system. (The wastewater is sprinkled over the surface of the field.) Over the years, Lassen NF’s method of operating the facility has changed. In the 1980’s Lassen NF stopped using the spray fields and created a no discharge facility as directed by the Lahontan. To create the facility, two Ponds (Evaporation Ponds 1 & 2) were constructed that covered approximately five acres. In the early 1990’s, the storage capacity of the facility was increased so that the facility could withstand a 100-year storm event without overtopping the banks of the ponds. (A 100-year storm event is based on a statistical technique used to estimate the probability of the occurrence of a given precipitation event. For example, assume there is a 1/100 chance that 6.60 inches of rain would fall in a certain area in a 24-hour period during any given years. Thus, a rainfall total of 6.60 inches in a consecutive 24-hour period is said to have a 100-year recurrence interval and is also referred to as a 100-year storm event.) This increase was created by constructing Primary Pond 2 and Evaporation Pond 3. The expansion resulted in the EL Facility covering approximately 11 acres. Since that time, the footprint of the EL Facility has not changed.

However, in the late 1990’s, as a result of above average snowfalls, this capacity became a concern; in response, in 2000, the Lassen NF raised the banks of Evaporation Pond 3, to match the height of Evaporation Ponds 1 and 2. See Figure 1 for the current facility.

Since the inception of the EL Facility the Merrill wetlands have been altered. Alterations, in consultation with Lahontan included; 1) installation and removal of spray field piping in the Merrill wetlands, 2) hauling excess materials from the construction of the Evaporation Ponds across the Merrill wetlands, 3) having an excess materials area within 75 feet of the Merrill wetlands, 4) constructing berms for the Evaporation Ponds adjacent to the Merrill wetlands, 5) using the Merrill wetlands as a borrow source. In the fall of 2008, field work was begun for a wetlands delineation study of the Merrill wetlands on Lassen NF. In January 2009 the wetlands delineation study of the Merrill wetlands on Lassen NF was completed.

Currently, Lassen NF’s operation permit with Lahontan allows approximately 2.6 million gallons of effluent water to be pumped into the facility yearly. For the past ten years Lassen NF has pumped approximately 1.6 million gallons of effluent water into the facility yearly. The facility’s function is to service the Lassen NF’s Eagle Lake Recreation Area (ELRA). The ELRA consists of five campgrounds with 318 campsites, two group campgrounds: one 100-person site and one 75-person site, two day use areas, two boat launching facilities, a marina (that includes a store, showers, laundry facilities and fish cleaning stations), Camp Ronald McDonald, a research facility and hiking and biking trails. Per data provided by the ELRA concessionaire (LCF 2009), approximately 80,000 people camped in the campgrounds from May to October of 2009. Additionally, according to the front page of Camp Ronald McDonald’s® at Eagle Lake website (http://www.campronald.org/home.php, accessed on December 10, 2009) their “35 acre, fully handicap-accessible, camp welcomes nearly 1,000 disabled and disadvantaged campers” yearly.

Existing System

On April 23, 2009, the Forest Supervisor received a Notice of Violation from the Lahontan requiring a leak location survey to be performed on the non-visible portions of the liners. This survey was completed and a report of findings submitted to the Board in October 2009. On June 16, 2009, the Forest Supervisor received another Notice of Violation requiring a soil and groundwater investigation be performed to determine the hydrogeology of the area and to determine whether any contaminants are present in the surrounding soils. A contract was awarded for this investigation in September 2009. The contract was completed and a draft report of findings submitted to Lahontan on December 16, 2009. No water was found in three of the four newly drilled groundwater monitoring wells. Although water was found in the remaining well, not enough volume was produced to perform proper sample analysis nor can definitive conclusions be drawn from these tests. The draft report further stated “Since no fecal coliforms were detected in the water samples, it is likely that the wastewater ponds are not the source of water in MW-4.”

The existing wastewater collection and treatment system layout provides the following path:

1. Sewage is collected from ELRA and pumped to the treatment facility.

2. Sewage is directed to either Primary Pond 1 or Primary Pond 2 by a manually operated valve.

3. Once sewage is deposited into the primary ponds, the heavier solids settle out to the bottom.

When the level of material in the primary ponds reaches a set elevation, the suspended solids and fluids are allowed to gravity flow through spill pipes to the evaporation ponds. Primary Pond 1 flows directly into Evaporation Pond 1only; Primary Pond 2 flows into Evaporation Pond 1 or 3.

There is no direct link between Evaporation Pond 3 and Primary Pond 1.

4. The fluids flowing into Evaporation Pond 1 are then intended to be controlled by a gate valve in the middle of the lower berm between Evaporation Pond 1 and 2. Currently this valve is frozen in the open position resulting in equalization of the pond levels in these two ponds. Fluids freely flow through the 18” corrugated steel pipe and cannot be controlled.

5. Evaporation Pond 3 is used as an emergency overflow pond in the event that levels in Evaporation Ponds 1 and 2 reach the required 2 feet of freeboard. In 4 of the past 15 years overflow fluids have flowed into Evaporation Pond 3. Additionally, even with the additional capacity added to Evaporation Pond 3 in 2000, it was within 2.5 feet of exceeding the required 2 feet freeboard limit after the heavy snowfall year of 2006.

Purpose and Need for Action _______________________________________

The Eagle Lake sewage ponds were lined in the 1980’s and the liners are beginning to deteriorate. The number of patches required to maintain functionality of the sewage treatment facility have increased considerably the past few years due to the age of the existing lining which has reached its life expectancy.

The banks on which the liners were originally placed have crusted over, which are now puncturing the liner. In addition, water fowl of various types use the ponds and are damaging the lining; hunters using the area shoot at the liner, resulting in lining punctures.

The patches are considered temporary fixes to mitigate the potential immediate safety hazard of small leaks in the lining. Complete replacement of the liners is needed to prevent widespread failure of one or more of the ponds’ linings. Without the proposed expansion of the facility, draining the ponds and replacing the liners would require closure for at least one season of the Eagle Lake campgrounds, marina and Camp Ronald McDonald. Closure of these recreation facilities would have a negative impact – political and/or economic – on the public, surrounding communities, and the Lassen National Forest.

Finally, the existing storage capacity of the evaporation ponds may be inadequate to handle future capacity increases to the Eagle Lake campgrounds and marina. The possibility of inadequate storage capacity is based on three facts. First, the Lassen NF permit allows approximately 1 million gallons more than we are currently treating to be treated at the facility. Increasing the number of gallons treated at the facility may exceed the two foot freeboard limit. Second, multiple years of above average snow fall may result in Lassen NF exceeding the two foot freeboard limit at the facility. Third, in the event of a biological treatment process issue there may not be adequate capacity to operate the facility in the short term.

Under the proposed action, impacts would occur to 0.77 acres of the 0.89 acres of wetlands on National Forest System (NFS) land as a result of the existing sewage treatment facility expansion. The

0.89 acres of Merrill wetlands located on NFS lands are only a small fraction of the greater Merrill wetlands which is located on private lands. The PMWR project would be used as a mitigation bank for the EL Facility project. This mitigation would at a minimum, create the required one and one-half times more wetlands habitat than would be impacted by the Proposed Action.

The integrated design features pertaining to the wetlands and its 300 foot riparian conservation area (RCA) are intended to minimize impacts to and protect the functionality of the greater Merrill wetlands on private lands, and to maximize the time in which the wetlands area on NFS lands can serve as functional habitat.

To reduce the risk of a wildfire damaging the EL Facility, thinning activities are needed to initiate structural changes that would increase crown base height and remove ladder fuels throughout the stand.

Thinning is also needed to maintain individual tree growth, reduce mistletoe infection, decrease the risk of tree mortality due to insects attacking overstocked stands and reduce the risk from wildfire to surrounding timber.

The site clearing activities are needed to provide an area from which the borrow site could be established on NFS lands, and to make room for the expansion of the smaller evaporation pond. The available NFS lands are limited on the parcel. The 40-acre parcel is already highly developed by the existing sewage treatment facility, and using a borrow site adjacent to this facility would therefore restrict the disturbance caused by this project to a compact, contiguous area.

Proposed Action__________________________________________________

The Proposed Action is divided into four phases as described below. Each phase outlines the work to be completed before the next phase can begin. In summary, as shown in Figure 3, Evaporation Ponds 1 and 2 would become one pond by removing the center berm that currently divides them, while Evaporation Pond 3 would be enlarged to double its capacity. Material for construction would be removed from the borrow site and thinning would occur throughout the remaining 40-acre parcel to reduce hazardous fuels.

It should be noted that during Phases II and III, material in the existing ponds would be transferred to other ponds as necessary, to allow for removal and relining of each pond1. Liner selection and design would occur during the EL Facility design process and under consultation with Lahontan. All replaced liners would be removed off National Forest System land and disposed of according to existing regulations2

Heritage Site Evaluation

. Figure 3 displays the location of the newly constructed site, the site where soil material would be used to build the new pond (borrow site), and the area where tree thinning would occur to reduce hazardous fuels to protect this site.

Heritage Site FS05-06-58-499, adjacent to what is currently Pond 3 cannot be avoided or protected by the application of standard protection measures. The site was evaluated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP). The LN Forest determined the site not to be eligible for inclusion in the NHRP and requested concurrence with this finding from the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). On February 11, 2010, SHPO concurred with the LN Forest that the site is not eligible for listing on the NRHP.

Phase I – Site Preparation

• Remove existing barbed wire and above ground sprinkler heads from the old spray field area.

• Remove 3,100 feet of existing barbed wire fence from the perimeter of the sewage treatment facility site, and construct a temporary fence around the entire project area. Construct a cattle guard at the entrance gate to the project area. Unused fence material would be removed off National Forest System land.

• Clear the 12-acre3

• Thin from below approximately 14-acres borrow site and pond expansion areas; leave stumps in place.

1 . Per the Hydrogeologic Investigation Draft Report, Cascade Earth Sciences, December 8, 2009, clay soil found at the site at a depth of 8-10 ft below the berm, which appears to be at least 10 feet thick throughout, had permeability of about 10-7 cm/sec.

This clay presence should greatly limit infiltration of any wastewater from the ponds, as 10-7 cm/sec is often the design specification for clay pond liners. The depth to groundwater at this location is approximately 250 ft. The clay layer and additional clays at the surface of the deep aquifer would prevent leakage from the upper soils to the ground water below.

of forested land, as described in the thinning prescription.

2 Federal Acquisition Regulations that would be included in the contract involving replacement of liners include standard language that contracted work is to be in conformance with all local, State and Federal requirements.

3 In the scoping document the acreage was incorrectly listed as 16 acres.

4 In the scoping document the acreage was incorrectly listed as 10 acres.

• Prior to commencing any thinning and or clearing operations the Lassen NF would obtain a 2009 Timber Waiver Permit from Lahontan. (Where thinning and clearing operations are mentioned in the remainder of this document this statement shall apply)

Phase II – Pond Expansion

• The construction contractor would remove stumps and, if necessary, slash piles and any remaining vegetation. Stumps could be temporarily stored on site.

• Develop the 7-acre5

• The area west of Evaporation Pond 3 would be leveled to the same depth of the existing pond and an earthen berm would be created to form the new perimeter. Most of the leveling would be done by adding fill material obtained from the borrow site, although some excavation is possible.

About 28,000 cubic yards of borrow material would be excavated from the borrow site. This would expand the surface area of Evaporation Pond 3 from approximately two acres to five acres, and expand its capacity to approximately 13 million gallons.

borrow site by retaining and storing the topsoil to be used during Phase IV.

• Evaporation Pond 3 would then be expanded from approximately two acres to five acres, and relined. The sub-grade preparation, compaction and final inspection prior to installing of the synthetic liner would at a minimum meet the liner's manufacturer’s specifications.

• Lysimeters would be installed for early detection of leaks and to sample water quality in the unsaturated soils surrounding the ponds. At a minimum the lysimeters would be capable of collecting and storing enough groundwater/fluid for analysis to assure that groundwater contamination is not occurring and would support the requirements of the Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to the Lassen NF Permit from Lahontan to operate the EL Facility.

Location, quantity and design of the lysimeters would be determined in the wastewater facility design. (Where lysimeter installation is mentioned in the remainder of this document the above statements about what the lysimeters would be used for and how they would be designed and installed shall apply).

Figure 3. Alternative 1- Relining Layout of EL Facility

5 In the scoping document the acreage was incorrectly listed as 8 acres.

Phase III – Pond Reconstruction

• Remove the 12,000-cubic-yard dike between Evaporation Ponds 1 and 2, creating a single rebuilt pond to be called Evaporation Pond 1, approximately four acres in size.

• Place the 12,000 cubic yards of material from the dike in the borrow site.

• Lysimeters would be installed for early detection of leaks and to sample water quality in the unsaturated soils surrounding the ponds.

• Remove stumps from National Forest System lands.

Phase IV – Reclamation

• Remove cattleguard and temporary fencing from perimeter of project area.

• Construct approximately 4,250 feet of 8-foot-high chain-link fence around the sewage treatment facility perimeter.

• Re-spread retained topsoil in the borrow site.

• Revegetate approximately 16 acres, including the borrow site and any areas disturbed during construction (see CEQA Appendix 1).

• Construct a temporary fence around the borrow pit to exclude cattle from the re-vegetated area post-project, until such time as reclamation is complete and grazing can resume.

Thinning Prescriptions

Within the timbered stand, there are two aggregates. Aggregate 1 encompasses the majority of the stand.

Trees range in size from 3 to 30 plus inches. The aggregate has a homogeneous structure with approximately 200 trees per acre (TPA). The trees are evenly distributed with crowns that touch. Existing basal area (BA) was calculated at approximately 170 square feet. .

Aggregate 2 is located in the northwest corner of the stand and is approximately 3 acres. The larger trees are generally found at a wider spacing than aggregate 1 with clumps of smaller trees between.

Existing BA was calculated at approximately 80 sq ft.

Both aggregates have heavy mistletoe pockets throughout. A majority of the understory trees show evidence of infection. The Hawksworth 6-Class Dwarf Mistletoe Rating System rates the severity of dwarf mistletoe infection on a scale from 0 (no visible infection) to 6 (highest possible infection). In both timbered aggregates the largest, healthiest conifer trees would be designated as leave trees. All conifers that are 30 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and greater would be marked as leave trees regardless of tree health, vigor, or species. All snags greater than 15 inches dbh would be retained regardless of species, unless they pose a safety or operational concern. All conifer stumps greater than 14 inches in diameter would be treated with SPORAX® (Sporax). Activity-generated fuels would be mechanically and/or hand piled and burned, removed, or chipped to provide organic matter.

In Aggregate 1, the prescription would thin from below to 100-110 square feet of basal area per acre. All pine 30 inches dbh and greater would be leave trees unless they have Hawksworth mistletoe rating greater than 3. In Aggregate 2, the prescription would thin from below to 50-70 square feet of basal area per acre. All pine of 14 inches dbh and greater would be leave trees unless they have a Hawksworth rating greater than 3.

Wetlands Mitigation

An area of the existing Merrill wetlands (0.77 acres of the 0.89 acres of wetlands located on National Forest System land) would be eliminated when Evaporation Pond 3 is expanded. The eliminated wetlands would be mitigated by creating at least 1.34 acres of other wetlands; the PMWR Project would be used as mitigation for this project. Papoose Meadows is located approximately 4.5 miles east of the Eagle Lake sewage ponds and is in the same 5th-field watershed. The Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the PMWR Project were signed in 2008, under the South Eagle Lake Grazing Allotment decision.

Papoose Meadows is a large, 270-acre meadow located south of Eagle Lake in T. 31 N., R. 11 E., Sections 20 and 29, MDM. At present, approximately 160 acres are a seasonally flooded wet meadow and marsh system. Historically, this wetland complex was ditched to dry it out to improve hay production for livestock. The ditches would be filled or successively plugged. Cursory analysis indicates that between 30 and 110 acres could be restored.

Integrated Design Features (IDFs) for the Proposed Action

Integrated Design Features are elements of the project design that are applied in treatment areas and are developed to reduce or avoid adverse environmental effects of the proposed action to forest resources.

The following features are generally listed in phases. For those features that overlap phases, this overlap is noted. The Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) is designated as a 300 feet buffer surrounding Merrill wetlands.

Aquatics

1. A “75 foot” no mechanical equipment” buffer would be designated around the delineated wetlands within Little Merrill Flat during Phase I timber removal [Phase I}.

The following would apply within the RCAs for the Merrill wetlands:

2. Landings would be located outside the seasonal wetlands and the RCA.

3. Conifers would be removed with feller-bunchers that have 24-inch or greater track widths.

4. Skid trails would be kept to a minimum (no more than one every 100 feet) and no water bars would be installed after treatment on slopes that are gentle (1-2%). Where slopes are gentle, water bars are more likely to interfere with natural flow paths than serve their intended purposes, which, is to disperse concentrated flows away from skid trails.

5. Ground-based equipment would be used to remove timber using one-end suspension.

6. Skid trails within the RCA of Little Merrill Flat would require 90 percent of existing ground cover6

6 Using “existing cover” rather than a predefined quantity allows site-specific application of this IDF to better approximate pre-activity conditions across a heterogeneous landscape.

on bare soil on the trails; slash would be spread over these open areas.

7. Slash piles within the RCA would be hand-piled and burned in the outer 225 feet of the RCA of Little Merrill Flat. Machine piles would be located completely outside the RCA.

Botany

8. Deleted7

9. New occurrences of Threatened and Endangered and Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive (TES) plant species, discovered before or during ground-disturbing activities within the 14-acre thinning unit, would be protected through flag and avoid methods. Avoidance buffer widths would be based on the requirements of the TES species present [Phase I].

9a. All fence work in the south and east margins of the project area, including the installation of permanent chain-link fence around the treatment facility, would occur when soils are dry, so that plants of Mimulus pygmaeus would have completed their annual life cycle [Phases I and IV].8

10. All equipment would be weed-free prior to entering the Forest. Staging of equipment would occur in weed-free areas [Phase I].

11. Certified weed-free mulches or fill would be used in all phases as necessary [Phase I].

11a. If, prior to ground-disturbing activities, new noxious weed infestations are identified within thinning units or on access roads, the infestations would be evaluated, then dug up or pulled by hand and avoided by project activities [Phase I].

12. If, prior to ground-disturbing activities, new noxious weed infestations are identified outside of thinning units or on access roads, and they cannot be eliminated through hand-pulling, tarping, or other cultural methods such as seeding with competitive native species, topsoil infested with these weeds would not be re-spread into impacted areas of the project [Phase IV].9

13. Post-project monitoring for implementation and effectiveness of weed treatments, control of new infestations and borrow site re-vegetation would be conducted as soon as possible and as needed [post Phase IV].

Silviculture – Thinning Area

14. All conifer stumps greater than 14 inches in diameter would be treated with SPORAX® within the thinning area. No Sporax would be applied within 25 feet of known Sensitive and Special Interest Plants or applied within 25 feet of the RCA [Phase I].

Soils – Thinning Area

15. Deleted and addressed by a Forest Plan Amendment. (See Decision to be Made)10

16. Existing landings and skid trails would be used as much as possible to minimize new disturbance [Phase I].

17. Deleted for the following reason. Subsoiling would not be used in this area as the soil texture type is prohibitive to ripping activities – i.e. high percentage of rock fragments in soils. Furthermore, detrimental soil compaction is not anticipated to be permanent in the project area due to the presence of coarse textured soils and high amounts of rock fragments. Past timber operations in the area have not had permanent negative impacts on soil compaction (i.e. these soils recover naturally as a result of bioturbation.

18. Outside the RCA, Lassen NF Wet Weather Operations and Wet Weather Haul Agreement, and Lassen NF Timber Waiver permit from Lahontan would be followed during all operations. When

7 Original IDF 8 deleted and replaced with IDF 11a.

8 In the original scoping document 9a was inadvertently omitted.

9 IDF 12 was modified to work in conjunction with IDF 11a.

10 The areal extent of detrimental soil disturbance would not exceed 15 percent of the area dedicated to growing vegetation

[Phase I].

a conflict exists between the Wet Weather Operations and Wet Weather Haul Agreement, and the Lassen NF Timber Waiver permit the most stringent requirements would apply. [All phases].

19. Soil would be dry to a depth of 12 inches prior to mechanical work commencing in the outer RCA boundary (75-300 ft), and work would occur when risk of precipitation is minimal. This period is usually between May 1 and October 15. Work in the RCA would temporarily halt when the National Weather Service forecasts a 30 percent or more chance of precipitation, and then continue again once soils are dry to 12 inches. (BMP 2-3 Timing of Construction Activities) [Phases I, II and III]

20. Landings constructed for timber operations supporting borrow site development would be located within the perimeter of the borrow site [Phase I].

21. Any activity-generated surface fuels would be piled and burned on project landing areas in order to limit the distribution of the sterilizing effects of fire on soil microbiota.11

22. If trees are pushed over in the pond expansion area and borrow area to facilitate stump removal, then soil would be dislodged on site [Phase I].

[All phases].

23. Runoff from source areas would be diverted away from the project site, including spoil sites.

Before ground-disturbing activities, site-specific erosion and sediment control devices would be installed to prevent sediment movement. These devices would include, one of the following at a minimum, silt fencing, straw bales, coir logs (i.e., straw waddles), plant cover, and mulch. (BMP 2-11 Control of Side-Cast Material During Construction and Maintenance; BMP 2-13 Control of Construction; BMP 2-19 Disposal of Right of Way and Roadside Debris; BMP 2-15 Diversion of Flows around Construction Sites; BMP 2-18 Regulation of Borrow Areas) [All Phases].

24. Provide visible delineations around construction and borrow sites. Also delineate wetlands areas that would remain free of machinery operations and materials storage. Materials would be stored on flat slopes at least 100 feet from the Merrill wetlands on private lands. (BMP 2-18 Regulation of Borrow Areas) [Phases II and III]

25. The size of the borrow site would be designed to be the minimum area necessary to complete the sewer pond construction such that soil productivity would be maximized. Excavation would not occur below the water table. Monitoring Well #4, developed in October of 2009, would be used to verify groundwater level before excavation. (BMP 2-18 Regulation of Borrow Areas) [Phases II and III

26. Mulch, chips, and/or organic material would be spread in the borrow site area to provide a minimum of 50 percent surface coverage, to reduce soil erosion and overland flow, and to maintain soil moisture. Fifty percent ground cover has been demonstrated to provide adequate cover for minimizing erosion, for allowing vegetative understory recovery and for minimizing fuel accumulation in thinning operations in the eastside pine ecotype. [Phase IV].

27. Retain up to three logs per acre of downed large woody material during borrow site development for surface replacement after the borrow site is no longer needed [Phase IV].

Transportation System

28. Develop and implement a dust abatement plan along the road in the project area. Logging and vegetation management activities would be dust abated where rubber-tired vehicles are operating on haul routes. Water for dust abatement would be trucked-in, or a dust palliative may be approved which may include magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, lignin sulfate, or an approved equal. Dust palliatives would not be used within 25 feet of the RCA. Dust palliatives would be stored and mixed outside of the RCA [Phases I and II].

11 The following was deleted from IDF 21. “….such that the intensity and duration of the fire minimizes soil sterilization.)

Water Quality

29. Applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) as described in Water Quality Management for

Forest System Lands in California would be implemented. All applicable BMPs are listed in the Hydro Report [All Phases].

30. At a minimum the contractor would have on site at all times sufficient absorption materials and tools to cleanup and properly dispose of any size oil or oil products spill. Additionally the contractor would maintain storage facilities for oil or oil products in the project area and would take preventative measures to ensure that any spill would not enter the Merrill wetlands or groundwater. If the total oil products storage exceeds 1,320 gallons in containers of 55 gallons or greater, then the contractor would prepare a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan.

In addition, these BMPs would be followed: BMP 2-12 Servicing and Refueling of Equipment;

BMP 7-4 Forest and Hazardous Substance Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan [All Phases].

31. Berms would be constructed with slopes less than 25 percent, unless sound structure cannot be achieved. In the event a sound structure cannot be achieved, a design would be prepared and approved during the wastewater facility contract for a slope that would have a sound structure.

(BMP 2-4 Stabilization of Slope Surfaces and Spoil Disposal Areas; BMP 2-28 Surface Erosion Control at Facility Sites) [Phases II and III]

32. To the extent practicable, use organic materials and rocks generated from the project to back fill the borrow site. (BMP 2-27 Restoration of Borrow Pits) [Phase IV]

Wildlife

33. To the extent practicable, disturbed areas would be seeded, with a variety of locally adapted native plants. These plants should provide food value to wildlife in the form of browse, fruits and seeds, possibly including but not limited to such plants as elderberry, serviceberry, chokecherry, Scouler’s willow, and native grasses. Any substitute locally-adapted plants would be similar or better than those listed plants at providing food value. Newly constructed or reconstructed berms around the sewage ponds would be stabilized with a mix of native grasses (possibly including but not limited to Poa secunda, one-sided bluegrass; Elymus glaucus, blue wild rye; and Bromus carinatus, California brome, or any substitute locally-adapted native plants that would be similar or better than those listed plants at preventing wind and soil erosion) to prevent wind and soil erosion. (BMP 2-4 Stabilization of Slope Surfaces and Spoil Disposal Areas; BMP 2-28 Surface Erosion Control at Facility Sites). [Phase IV]

Decision to be Made _______________________________________________

The responsible official for this project is the Lassen NF Forest Supervisor. Given the purpose and need, the responsible official would review the proposed action, alternatives, issues, and environmental consequences analyzed in this Environmental Assessment in order to make a decision for implementing the proposed project.

The decision to be made is: 1) whether to implement the Proposed Action as described above, 2) whether to implement an alternative which better responds to the Purpose and Need for Action, as well as significant issues, or 3) whether the No Action Alternative should be implemented.

Additionally, the decision to be made would include one amendment to the management direction contained in the LRMP, as amended.

Non-significant Forest Plan Amendment: This is a project specific plan amendment to deviate from the following soils standard and guideline which states “The areal extent of detrimental soil disturbance would not exceed 15 percent of the area dedicated to growing vegetation” so that the Eagle Lake Sewer Ponds Project can be implemented, regardless of the alternative chosen. The 40-acre parcel, where the EL Facility is located, has been managed as an administrative site, since its construction. The administrative use of this 40-acre parcel for the EL Facility is consistent with the Forest Plan goals to manage the ELRA.

The Lahontan Water Board is the Lead Agency under CEQA. In cooperation with Lahontan, included as Appendix 1 to this document is the California Environmental Quality Act Eagle Lake Sewage Ponds Project Environment Checklist Form (the CEQA document). This Checklist serves as the CEQA Initial Study (CEQA IS). The CEQA is included to provide a single joint document to affected and interested parties and other agencies. This joint EA/IS document was circulated to initiate both the Forest Service (NEPA) and CEQA 30 day comment periods.

In a decision independent of the Forest Service’s Decision Notice the Lahontan Water Board will decide whether or not to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Eagle Lake Sewage Ponds Project. In determining whether or not to adopt a MND the Lahontan Water Board will consider whether sufficient mitigation measures have been provided in the EA/IS to reduce any potential significant effects (pursuant to CEQA) on the environment to a level of insignificance.

Public Involvement ________________________________________________

The Eagle Lake Sewage Ponds Project was first published in the Lassen NF Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on October 1, 2008 and quarterly thereafter.

Public Scoping

The Proposed Action and maps were provided to affected and interested parties and other agencies for external comment on April 27, 2009 with a request for responses to be submitted by May 8, 2009. The scoping package was mailed to 11 individuals and organizations with interest in the EL Facility Project and to nine tribal representatives.

Two letters and one phone call to review draft comments were received during the scoping period. Scoping comments were analyzed by Forest Service personnel. Copies of the letters received and draft comments may be found at the Eagle Lake Ranger District, 477-050 Eagle Lake Road, Susanville, CA 96130 in the project record.

Consultation with Tribes

On April 1, 2009 a consultation meeting was held with the Pit River Tribe (PRT) at the Hat Creek Ranger Station in Fall River Mills to discuss the EL Facility Project. A formal consultation letter was sent to the PRT and Anna Barnes, Aporige Band representative, regarding the project On April 27, 2009.

Preliminary findings from the excavation of sites 05-06-58-499 and 05-06-58-982 were discussed at the quarterly consultation meeting with the PRT on July 1, 2009, and Susanville Indian Rancheria Tribe on October 13, 2009. On October 30, 2009, the agency initiated consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requesting concurrence with a finding of “no historic properties affected.”

Public Meetings

Three meetings and one teleconference were held to discuss the EL Facility Project. The first collaborative meeting was held on May 1, 2009 at the facility. The phone call was held on May 13, 2009 with an Engineering Geologist and a Water Resource Control Engineer both from Lahontan. The second meeting was held on October 6, 2009 at the Eagle Lake Ranger District office. The third and final collaborative meeting was held on October 7, 2009 in Reno, Nevada.

Issues __________________________________________________________

The Forest Service identified one significant issue raised during scoping:

Issue 1: The state of California is losing wetlands at a high rate, small portions at a time. By destroying the 0.77 acres of Merrill wetlands, the EL Facility Project would contribute to this loss.

Issue Measure: Number of wetland acres destroyed.

Alternatives ______________________________________________________

Alternative 1 -The Proposed Action

Alternative 1 is the Proposed Action, as described starting on page 7.

Alternative 2 - No Action

Under the No Action alternative no proposed replacement of the liners, associated improvements to the facility, or thinning would be implemented. Figure 4 displays the layout of the EL Facility for the No Action Alternative.

Figure 4. Alternative 2 - Sewage Ponds for Eagle Lake

Alternative 3

In this alternative existing Primary Pond 2 would be expanded and converted into Evaporation Pond 4. A new Primary Pond 2 would be relocated to the north of its existing location. The bank between Evaporation Pond 1 and 2 would be raised so that the ponds function as two separate ponds. Evaporation Ponds 1, 2 and 3 and Primary Pond 1 would be relined. A sludge drying bed would be constructed north of the new Primary Pond 2. Additionally, one water well would be developed east of Primary Pond 1.

This alternative is divided into five phases as described below. Each phase outlines the work to be completed during that phase. Work from multiple phases may occur concurrently. During Phase I through IV material in the existing ponds may be transferred to other ponds as necessary, to allow for removal and relining of each pond. All replaced liners would be removed off NFS land. Figure 5 displays the location of the newly constructed sludge drying bed, primary and evaporation ponds, the site where soil material would be spread from newly constructed features, the boulder stockpile area, approximate location of the new water well and the area where tree thinning would occur.

Phase I – Site Preparation

• Remove the existing barbed wire fences on the interior of the 40 acres and the above ground sprinkler heads from the old spray field area.

• Remove 3,100 feet of existing barbed wire fence from the perimeter of the sewage treatment facility site.

• Construct approximately 4,500 feet of 8-foot-high chain-link fence around the sewage treatment facility perimeter.

• Repair and or construct a barbed wire fence around the perimeter of the property where the 8-foot chain-link fence does not exist.

• Construct a cattle guard where the access road enters the property.

• Develop a water well for dust abatement East of Primary Pond 1.

• Unused fence material would be removed off National Forest System land.

• Clear the approximately 8 acres for the stockpile area, sludge drying area, pond expansion areas and primary pond area; leave stumps in place.

• Thin approximately 13 acres of forested land.

Phase II – Construct Sludge Drying Bed & Reline Evaporation Pond 3

• Remove stumps and, if necessary, slash piles and any remaining vegetation.

• Remove and stockpile boulders that are suitable for other uses on the forest in random areas within the boulder stockpile area.

• Stockpile the topsoil.

• Construct the road to the sludge drying area (300 feet by 18 feet wide).

• Excavate the sludge drying bed (0.8 acres, 1,500 CY) to a depth of approximately 5 feet. .

Excavated topsoil would be stockpiled for later distribution. All other excavated material would be stockpiled for possible use in future phases. Construct the walls, floor and handrail for the sludge drying bed

• Haul and spread topsoil in the disturbed area outside the sludge drying bed.

• Revegetate the disturbed area outside the sludge drying bed.

• Transfer the sludge from Evaporation Pond 3 to the sludge drying bed.

• Remove the dried sludge from the sludge drying bed and haul it to a landfill in accordance with existing regulations.

• Pump all liquids from Evaporation Pond 3 into Evaporation Ponds 1 and 2.

• Remove the existing lining from Evaporation Pond 3.

• Haul the removed lining to a landfill in accordance with existing regulations.

• Install functionality features for Evaporation Pond 3.

• Prepare the surface for a new lining and reline Evaporation Pond 3.

Figure 5. Alternative 3 – Layout for the Expansion of the EL Facility to the North

Phase III – Construct Primary Pond 2 and Evaporation Pond 4

• Excavated Evaporation Pond 4 and Primary Pond 2 to the appropriate depths and stockpile the excess material 15 feet high in the stockpile area for use on future Lassen NF projects (3.5 acres, 66,000 CY). All topsoil would be stockpiled for later distribution.

• Remove and stockpile boulders that are suitable for other uses on the forest in random areas within the boulder stockpile area.

• Transfer the sludge from existing Primary Pond 2, Evaporation Ponds 1 and 2 to the sludge drying bed.

• Remove the dried sludge from the sludge drying bed and haul it to a landfill in accordance with existing regulations.

• Pump all liquids from Primary 2 to the Evaporation Ponds.

• Remove the existing lining from Primary Pond 2.

• Haul the removed lining to a landfill in accordance with existing regulations.

• Install functionality features for Evaporation Pond 4 and Primary Pond 2.

• Prepare the surface for new lining and line Evaporation Pond 4 and Primary Pond 2.

• Install lysimeters

• Install aerators

• Revegetate the disturbed area outside Evaporation Pond 4 and Primary Pond 2.

Phase IV – Reline Primary Pond 1, Evaporation Ponds 1 and 2

• Transfer the sludge from Primary 1 to the sludge drying bed.

• Remove the dried sludge from the sludge drying bed and haul it to a landfill in accordance with existing regulations.

• Pump all water from Primary Pond 1, Evaporation Ponds 1 and 2 into Evaporation Ponds 3 and 4.

• Remove the existing lining from Primary Pond 1, Evaporation Ponds 1 and 2.

• Raise the berm between Evaporation Ponds 1 and 2 obtaining approximately 3,110 CY of material from the stockpile area.

• Haul the removed lining to a landfill in accordance with existing regulations.

• Install functionality features for Primary Pond 1, Evaporation Ponds 1 and 2.

• Prepare the surface for new lining and reline Primary Pond 1, Evaporation Ponds 1 and 2.

• Install lysimeters

• Install aerators

Phase V – Reclamation

• Haul and spread topsoil in the remaining disturbed area.

• Revegetate the remaining disturbed areas.

• Remove cattleguard and temporary fencing from perimeter of project area.

Alternative 4

The bank between Evaporation Pond 1 and 2 would be raised so that the ponds function as two separate ponds. Additionally, the depth of Evaporation Ponds 1, 2 and 3 would be increased by approximately two

(2) feet. Evaporation Ponds 1, 2 and 3 and Primary Ponds 1 and 2 would be relined. A sludge drying bed would constructed north on the Primary Pond 2. Additionally, one water well would be developed east of Primary Pond 1. This alternative is divided into six phases as described below. Each phase outlines the work to be completed during that phase. Work from multiple phases may occur concurrently. During Phase I through V material in the existing ponds may be transferred to other ponds as necessary, to allow for removal and relining of each pond. All replaced liners would be removed off NFS land and disposed of according to existing regulations. Figure 6 displays the location of the newly constructed sludge drying bed, the sites where soil materials would be removed and spread as need for the newly constructed features and the lowering of the evaporation ponds, the boulder stockpile area, approximate location of the new well and the area where tree thinning would occur to reduce hazardous fuels to protect this site.

Phase I – Site Preparation

• Remove the existing barbed wire fences on the interior of the 40 acres and the above ground sprinkler heads from the old spray field area.

• Remove 3,100 feet of existing barbed wire fence from the perimeter of the sewage treatment facility site.

• Construct approximately 3,700 feet of 8-foot-high chain-link fence around the sewage treatment facility perimeter.

• Repair and or construct a barbed wire fence around the perimeter of the property where the 8-foot chain-link fence does not exist.

• Construct a cattle guard where the access road enters the property.

• Develop a water well for dust abatement east of Primary Pond 1.

• Unused fence material would be removed off…