RECORD OF DECISION SPECIAL USE …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATION TO LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF ... the “micropile”

Barren Ridge Renewable Transmission Project Record of Decision

[1]

RECORD OF DECISION

SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATION TO

LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER FOR THE

BARREN RIDGE RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

BACKGROUND

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) submitted a special use application to

the Angeles National Forest (ANF) in February 2007, seeking authorization for portions of the

Barren Ridge Renewable Transmission Project (BRRTP) on National Forest System (NFS) lands.

BRRTP would expand the existing Barren Ridge Switching Station, 12 miles north of the

unincorporated community of Mojave, California, from 2.9 to 5.6 acres. BRRTP would also

construct a new 6.9 acre Haskell Canyon Switching Station, in Haskell Canyon north of Santa

Clarita, California. These project components are not on NFS lands.

Sixty-one miles of new double-circuit, 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line would be constructed

between the two switching stations. The existing Barren Ridge – Rinaldi (BR_RIN) 230 kV

transmission line would be upgraded with larger capacity conductor wires, a process known as

“reconductoring”, for 76 miles between the Barren Ridge Switching Station and the Rinaldi Station

near San Fernando, California. Finally, 12 miles of new 230 kV circuit would be attached to

existing towers between Haskell Canyon and the Castaic Power Plant. Where each of these

components is on NFS lands, they are within designated utility corridors.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) is a Co-Lead Agency under the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) along with the U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and LADWP is the Lead Agency under the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for preparation of the Environmental Impact

Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR).

The Final EIS defined the project’s purpose and need as six components:

• Reduce the environmental impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions and create a

more sustainable environment


[2]

• Assist LADWP in meeting goals of their Renewable Portfolio Standard

• Meet LADWP’s future electrical energy demands

• Allow interconnection and expansion of LADWP’s renewable energy in the Tehachapi

Mountains and Mojave Desert areas.

• Increase LADWP’s system reliability and flexibility in the utilization of renewable energy

sources

• Enable the delivery of renewable energy

The Draft EIS/EIR was released for public review in August of 2011. The Final EIS/EIR was

published in August of 2012. LADWP approved those components of the proposed Project under

their jurisdiction on August 14, 2012. LADWP also filed their Notice of Determination (NOD) on

September 20, 2012. The BLM signed their Record of Decision (ROD) for the Project on

September 24, 2012. Comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR and responses to those comments

are included in the Final EIS.

DECISION

I have reviewed the analysis as documented in the Final EIS/EIR, and have reviewed all of the

public comments received. Based on this review, I have selected Alternative 2, the Agency

Preferred Alternative, which authorizes the construction, operation, and maintenance of the

BRRTP on the ANF. The approved route, as described in the Final EIS/EIR, crosses approximately

17 miles of NFS lands. The BRRTP will be authorized by issuing a 50-year special use

authorization for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of project

facilities.

The USFS cannot issue a special use authorization to LADWP without ensuring consistency with

the 2005 Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan (ANF LMP). I have determined that

issuance of a special use authorization for the BRRTP would require amendments to the ANF

LMP for the following Standards:

1. Place Specific Standard ANF S1, Pacific Crest Trail: Protect scenic integrity of foreground

views and avoid establishing nonconforming land uses within the viewshed of the trail

2. Plan Standard S9: Design management activities to meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives

(SIOs) on NFS lands

3. Plan Standard S47: Apply the five step screening process for Riparian Conservation Areas

This decision amends the ANF LMP to provide exceptions to these three standards, which apply

only to the BRRTP. These amendments do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and

objectives for long-term land and resource management or change the plan standards as they apply


[3]

to other future actions. There are no adjustments to management areas or land use zones, and

approval of the BRRTP will not preclude other actions.

This decision applies only to NFS lands. The decision is conditioned on the terms of the special use

authorization and implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring programs identified in

the Final EIS/EIR, as selected and described in this ROD. The selected alternative is Alternative 2

(Agency Preferred Alternative), as identified in the Final EIS/EIR. I am hereby adopting the

following general components of the Agency Preferred Alternative on NFS lands as part of my

decision:

• Construction of 13 miles of new 230 kV double-circuit transmission line between the

Barren Ridge Switching Station and the proposed Haskell Canyon Switching Station

• Reconductoring of 13 miles of the existing BR-RIN 230 kV transmission line with larger-

capacity conductors between the Barren Ridge Switching Station and Rinaldi Substation

• Addition of 4 miles of new 230 kV circuit on existing double-circuit towers from Haskell

Canyon to the Castaic Power Plant

I am also adopting the following specific components as part of my decision related to balancing

construction needs with the minimization and avoidance of adverse environmental impacts:

• Helicopter Construction

Although no specific locations for helicopter construction have been identified for the

Agency Preferred Alternative, I am requiring helicopter construction as mitigation for any

towers which are more than 300 feet from an existing road and cross slopes greater than

approximately 25 percent. For helicopter-constructed towers, I am requiring that LADWP

use a special technique known as the “micropile” method of foundation construction to

limit ground disturbance. These limits on road construction will greatly reduce adverse

environmental impacts from construction.

• Tower Removal and Construction of Three-Circuit Towers

In areas where there are right-of-way (ROW) expansion constraints and where LADWP

has existing 230 kV transmission lines, I am requiring LADWP to construct three-circuit

towers within the existing ROW to carry the new double circuit line and the existing BR-

RIN circuit on a single set of towers. LADWP has committed to adopting this same

mitigation for private lands. A temporary transmission line would be constructed to keep

the BR-RIN circuit energized during construction. In these areas, the existing BR-RIN

towers would be removed. On NFS lands, approximately four miles of the existing BR-

RIN single-circuit towers in the vicinity of the unincorporated community of Green Valley

would be removed, and the three-circuit towers would be installed. This would limit the

socioeconomic impacts of acquiring new ROW lands by keeping new and existing lines


[4]

within their current footprint. Refer to Chapter 2, Section 2.4.3, of the Final EIS/EIR for

more detail.

• Roads

Existing roads will be used as much as possible to minimize the need for new access roads;

however, some new roads may be required. Where new access roads would be required,

they would be constructed to support the weight of heavy vehicles and would typically be

16 feet wide, consisting of a 14-foot driving surface with a side drainage system between

one and two feet in width.

Only tower locations which do not meet the criteria for helicopter construction may have

roads constructed to them. Upon completion of construction, roads maintained,

reconstructed, or constructed for access to tower locations will be considered permanent,

and special use authorizations will be issued for their long term operation and maintenance.

The Forest Service reserves the right to require LADWP to restore any of these roads back

to a natural condition if it is determined after construction that they do not meet Forest

Service road engineering standards. Roads maintained, reconstructed, or constructed for

access to wire stringing sites, helicopter assembly yards, or other support areas used only

for construction, will be considered temporary and will be fully restored to a natural

condition.

I am excluding NFS Road Drinkwater Canyon 5N27 from use, maintenance, or

improvement for construction access, to limit impacts to the threatened California red-

legged frog. I am allowing full use, maintenance, and temporary improvement to the

Operational Maintenance Level of City Highline 6N21, and am requiring that the major

washouts on this road near Bee Canyon be repaired as part of BRRTP. I will allow partial

use, maintenance and improvement of the following NFS roads to the extent that they are

needed to access construction sites, they should not be maintained for their entire length:

Tule Divide/Burns Canyon 7N01, Leona Divide 6N04.2, San Fran Campground 6N56,

Cherry Canyon Pipeline 6N16, Del Sur Ridge 6N18, Dry Canyon 5N29, Pettinger Canyon

5N28, San Fran Motorway 5N17, Old Ridge Route (south of Templin Highway) 8N04.

Prior to issuance of the special use authorization, the specific locations and design of all

project roads, with maintenance specifications, will be submitted to the Forest Service for

review and approval. Access roads may be excluded or limited within sensitive areas, such

as Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). Other non NFS roads may also be excluded if

they have substantially returned to natural conditions, or are not under current permit to

LADWP.

• Other Construction Areas


[5]

Sites such as wire stringing sites, tower assembly work areas, and other project support

areas on NFS lands will be required for construction. I am requiring LADWP to submit

information on these and any other areas needed for construction to the USFS for review

prior to authorization. At a minimum, this information shall include mapped locations with

precise boundaries and detailed descriptions of the proposed use. These areas will be

approved for use only after USFS staff have reviewed and verified that they are consistent

with the analysis in the Final EIS/EIR, and will not present impacts outside the scope of

those impacts analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIS/EIR.

• Herbicides

I am not authorizing any chemical herbicide treatments as part of the BRRTP. Although it

is discussed in Mitigation Measure BIO-2, herbicide use is not clearly defined as part of

Alternative 2. A Weed Control Plan shall be prepared and implemented for pre-

construction and construction invasive weed abatement, but herbicides may only be

incorporated into this plan once additional site specific analysis pursuant to NEPA has been

completed. This analysis is underway, and I anticipate that it will be completed by the time

construction of the BRRTP begins on NFS lands. All chemical herbicide use conducted for

the BRRTP will be consistent with the Environmental Assessment for the Santa Clara

Mojave Rivers Ranger District (SCMRRD) of the ANF. This component of my decision

will ensure that herbicide use for the BRRTP is consistent with the analysis of the entire

invasive plant treatment program for the SCMRRD.

For all other details of construction work, I am adopting all General Practices, listed in the Final

EIS/EIR Section 2.4.5, for environmental protection.

My decision also requires a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The plan will include all mitigation

measures selected in this ROD, as listed and described in Attachment 1 of this ROD, including

specifics of how they will be implemented in the field, and a monitoring strategy to define roles

and responsibilities. This plan will incorporate all conservation measures, reasonable and prudent

measures, and terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service for BRRTP, to the extent the species or their habitat are found on NFS lands. It will cover

communication protocols, reporting and documentation, and health and safety requirements.

LADWP has set a goal for project construction to attain 100% compliance with all required

environmental mitigation. LADWP will have primary responsibility for providing staff with the

proper expertise to monitor all aspects of environmental compliance. Oversight will be provided by

USFS staff, with assistance from monitoring staff hired by LADWP. USFS staff will oversee and

monitor construction activities only on NFS lands. This plan will be contained within and be a key

component of an overall construction plan that will be attached to and made part of the special use

authorization.


[6]

I am hereby adopting and mandating adherence to the mitigation measures listed in Attachment 1.

I have made minor revisions to several measures, to facilitate more efficient implementation and

consistency with USFS standard practices. These changes will not in any way limit the

effectiveness of the mitigation. The mitigation measures as revised will be incorporated into any

special use authorizations issued for the project. The measures were developed to minimize

adverse impacts to natural resources and other values as the project is implemented. Measures

which are not applicable to NFS lands are not listed. If during the course of the project it becomes

necessary to adopt additional mitigation, I will do so through the permit amendment process in

coordination with LADWP. With my adoption of these measures, I am satisfied that all practicable

measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the Proposed Action have been adopted.

Construction of the project may be phased. As required by the standard terms and conditions of the

special use authorization, initiation of construction is conditioned upon final USFS approval of the

construction plans, and the issuance of all other applicable permits. This approval will take the

form of a “Notice to Proceed” for each phase of construction.

DECISION RATIONALE

My decision to approve the BRRTP is made with the full recognition of the changes such

development will bring to the character and resources of the ANF. The selected alternative

addresses the need for a major upgrade to the electrical grid serving the second most populated city

in the nation. The selected alternative best meets the project purpose and need while minimizing

both short and long term resource impacts on the ANF, as described in more detail below. Higher

capacity and increased overall grid reliability will allow greater electrical capacity in existing

corridors and accommodate generation development in the area. This increased capacity and

reliability of the grid will enable California to increase the state’s use of renewable energy, an

important step given the intermittent nature of wind and solar energy, and the need to integrate

them with existing power sources.

I am selecting the Agency Preferred Alternative because it avoids several significant impacts other

alternatives would have introduced. Alternative 1 would have placed over 40 miles of new

transmission line in an area with no existing transmission lines, and it was the longest of the

alternatives. It is the only alternative, other than No Action, which would have placed new

transmission lines within Castaic Lake State Recreation Area. The Old Ridge Route, a historic

district listed on the National Register of Historic Places, would have been impacted by Alternative

1. Alternative 3 crossed the least amount of NFS lands, but would have resulted in the removal of

7 homes, possibly through use of eminent domain. The Alternative 3 corridor has up to 5 existing

lines, and in some areas has neighborhoods built adjacent to the existing ROWs. To avoid

removing even more homes, the alignment of Alternative 3 crosses back and forth over existing

lines several times. This reduces the line’s overall reliability, as a failure of the lines above would

take out the lines below. By attempting to compromise between avoiding the removal of homes,


[7]

and increasing grid reliability, Alternative 3 resulted in more impacts (removal of 7 homes) and

less ability to meet purpose and need (reliability) than the other alternatives. Alternative 2a would

have put approximately 6 miles of the new line across NFS lands where there are no existing

transmission lines, and outside any designated corridor. This area, Tule Ridge, has been

historically used as a strategic firefighting location. A transmission line would reduce firefighting

effectiveness by limiting this use. Because the reconductoring of an existing line does not vary by

alternative, choosing another location for the new transmission line would have spread the impacts

over a larger area of the National Forest. My decision locates the new transmission line adjacent to

the reconductored line. I have considered these and other trade-offs among the alternatives, which

are outlined in detail in Section 2.6 of the Final EIS/EIR.

At the State and local level, many agencies, including the Governor’s Office and Kern and Los

Angeles Counties, have publicly supported projects to upgrade, maintain, and modernize

California’s electric grid, and have recognized the link between transmission projects and

achievement of the State’s goals for use of renewable energy; this is also a part of the BRRTP

purpose and need.

At a national level, Executive Order 13212, issued in 2001, encourages the expedited and

environmentally responsible development of transmission infrastructure. The current

administration also supports these types of projects as a way to provide economic recovery, as well

as achieve greater energy independence and a healthier environment through increased use of

renewable energy.

The use of designated corridors to keep power lines consolidated is widely accepted as a method

of minimizing overall impacts on the landscape. The Agency Preferred Alternative I am

selecting makes use of a corridor that was designated specifically for utility lines in the ANF

LMP in 2006. This same corridor was again designated in a 2009 ROD for the Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), pursuant to Section 368 of the Energy

Policy Act of 2005. My consideration of the Section 368 corridor is consistent with the July

2012 Settlement Agreement which resulted from a lawsuit over the PEIS. My decision

accomplishes several key principles of the Settlement Agreement, including facilitation of

renewable energy projects, avoidance of environmentally sensitive areas such as critical habitat

and roadless areas, and improvement of the long term benefits of reliable and safe transmission.

My decision complies with all federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies applicable to

the project, as listed in Appendix D of the Final EIS/EIR. Some of the primary federal laws are

NEPA, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Historic

Preservation Act, and the National Forest Management Act. USFS policies that have been

addressed include Forest Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species, Environmental Justice,


[8]

and Forest Service Manuals for weed control, NEPA compliance, and special use application

processing.

I have considered the issues that were submitted during the environmental review. Many of the

public and agency comments concerned portions of the project that do not occur on NFS lands, and

are outside of my legal authority. Several issues were related to the ANF, and are addressed in the

following discussion.

• Wildfire and Fuels

Many residents, in and adjacent to the ANF, were concerned that during wildfires,

additional above-ground transmission lines could adversely affect fire suppression efforts

and compromise their safety. Fire risk from the potential creation of small areas of land

surrounded by transmission lines and subsequent risk to homes and residents was also of

concern. I considered all suggestions made through public involvement, including placing

new and existing transmission lines along the lower mountain ridge of the Forest (see the

section below on consideration of the Green Valley Multi-line Relocation Alternative).

The project’s three-circuit tower mitigation would lessen the potential wildfire impacts that

would have occurred from the original design and location of the new line by co-locating

the new and existing lines on a single set of towers, within the existing ROW. The

reduction in the need for new ROW means more land area will be available to firefighters

on the ground, who for safety reasons are not able to work directly under the lines. This

modification will also prevent small areas from being surrounded by transmission lines.

With this reduction in ROW width, and the co-location of the new and existing

transmission lines onto the three-circuit towers, several distribution pole contact points

which may have increased risk of ignition will be eliminated. The three-circuit towers may

be taller than existing ones by up to 30 feet, but by keeping the transmission lines located

on primarily flat terrain, and in a location where they have existed for over 40 years, they

will not pose additional hazards to firefighting aircraft.

• Air Quality

The Air Quality Management District raised concerns regarding the potential air quality

impacts from all phases of the project, especially the construction of transmission lines and

increased vehicular trips. The final General Conformity Determination for the Agency

Preferred Alternative analyzed project emissions and concluded that the total nitrogen

oxides (NOx) emissions from project construction activities would be greater than the

General Conformity de minimis emission threshold of 10 tons per year for the South Coast

Air Basin (SCAB) during 2013 and 2014. LADWP will be required to obtain NOx emission

offsets to fully offset the NOx emissions during the years when the de minimis threshold is

exceeded (see “Findings Required by Other Laws” section). Thus, the end result, as


[9]

documented in the General Conformity Determination for the project, will be conformance

with applicable State Implementation Plans required by the Clean Air Act (CAA).

• Green Valley Multi-Line Relocation Alternative

In response to comments received from residents of the unincorporated community of

Green Valley, the lead agencies investigated a variety of new alignments in the Green

Valley area to relocate both the existing and proposed transmission lines around this

community. An initial investigation of alignment options was conducted that focused on

transmission line constructability, transmission line reliability, and firefighting

effectiveness. The initial effort resulted in a single alignment, the Green Valley Multi-Line

Relocation Alternative, for which a detailed environmental review was conducted. The

proposed Green Valley Multi-Line Relocation Alternative would deviate from the Agency

Preferred Alternative by relocating the existing and proposed transmission lines to a new

alignment that is outside of the existing LADWP ROW. The new alignment would

generally be along the boundary of private and public lands in the vicinity of Green Valley.

While the Green Valley Multi-Line Relocation Alternative would avoid or minimize direct

environmental impacts to some residents of the Green Valley area, it would not avoid or

minimize overall environmental effects compared to the Agency Preferred Alternative.

Approximately 228 acres of NFS lands would be encumbered by easements under the

Green Valley Multi-Line Relocation Alternative. As the Green Valley Multi-Line

Relocation Alternative would fall outside the designated utility corridor, this alternative

would not meet the desired conditions of the ANF LMP (Part 2, p. 121; Part 1, Goal 4.1b,

p. 39). Both USFS and LA County Fire Chiefs reviewed this alternative and commented

that it actually lessened safety in comparison with the Agency Preferred Alternative, from a

firefighting perspective. In comparison with the Agency Preferred Alternative, this

alternative would increase the acreage of High Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) zones

impacted, would result in greater acreage of permanent and temporary ground disturbance

on NFS lands, and would impact a larger area of previously undisturbed habitat.

The Green Valley Multi-Line Relocation Alternative would meet the basic purpose and

need of the project and is considered feasible. However, this alternative would reduce the

ability to meet the Forest Service’s purpose of minimizing effects of utility corridors on

federally managed lands (because it would increase the ROW required on NFS lands and

deviate from designated corridors), and would not avoid or minimize overall

environmental impacts over the Agency Preferred Alternative. Thus, the Green Valley

Multi-Line Relocation Alternative was eliminated from consideration in the Final EIS/EIR

(Section 2.3.5).

• Recreation

Public commenters expressed concern for impacts to recreation users on NFS lands.

Concerns about visual impacts to these recreation resources as well as noise impacts were


[10]

expressed. Because the new line will be in an existing corridor with other lines, impacts on

recreation are primarily short term in nature, occurring during the construction phase.

LADWP is required to consult with ANF management regularly through the construction

process, and I will use these discussions to represent the interests of recreational users by

seeking to avoid construction during high use times such as holiday weekends. I am

adopting mitigation which will require LADWP to compensate USFS for any recreational

fees lost as a result of recreation site closures. This mitigation will directly enhance

recreational opportunities, and will provide forest users benefit that will last long past the

project’s construction. LADWP will also be required to install gates and other barriers to

help prevent long term degradation from illegal vehicle use on NFS lands. I have

considered these and other mitigation measures, and I find that they minimize the short

term impacts on recreation.

• Biological Resources

Concern was expressed both internally and externally for wildlife habitat impacts within

protected conservation areas on the ANF, given the increasingly developed environment of

LA County. The Forest Service shared these concerns early on during the environmental

review process. By its location in an existing corridor, the Preferred Alternative will lessen

the amount of new ground disturbance and corresponding habitat loss when compared to

other alternatives. For temporary disturbance areas, an aggressive mitigation plan for

restoration of native habitats will be required. There are also equally aggressive mitigation

measures for controlling the spread of invasive plants, including vehicle washing, removal

of weeds prior to disturbance, and monitoring of effectiveness for a 10 year period

following construction. Herbicides will become an additional tool to control invasive

plants once a separate study by the ANF is completed, which is expected prior to the start

of BRRTP construction. Key habitats for threatened and endangered species will be given

specific protections according to terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion received

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The elimination of Drinkwater Canyon

Road 5N27 for construction use will protect the threatened California red-legged frog, and

the new line avoids critical habitat for this species. Three years of biological survey data

were collected, providing the Forest Service with exceptional detail on what wildlife are

present, enabling the kind of detailed wildlife occurrence mapping that makes avoidance of

impacts feasible. BRRTP will implement an Avian Protection Plan prepared and approved

by the USFWS for the long term protection of bird species, using national standards jointly

developed by a group of utilities and biologists known as the Avian Powerline Interaction

Committee, or APLIC.

• Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

EPA comments on the Draft EIR/EIS focused on impacts to biological and aquatic

resources and the crossing of riparian conservation areas in the ANF. EPA also requested a


[11]

discussion of Clean Water Act jurisdictional waters that could be potentially affected by

Project activities and the analysis of additional Alternatives.

In subsequent comments on the Final EIS/EIR, the EPA strongly advised that a

Jurisdictional Determination, under the Clean Water Act Section 404 process, be completed

as early as possible in the NEPA process to streamline permitting, avoid unnecessary

delays, and facilitate the identification of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable

Alternative (LEDPA). While I acknowledge and support the EPA’s goal of better

integration of the NEPA and Clean Water Act permitting processes, it was not considered

practical during the NEPA process to perform a Jurisdictional Determination on each

alternative for a long, linear project for which detailed design has not been completed. Due

to the inherent flexibility of structure placement in transmission line design and the

advantage of utilizing existing roads, it is expected that it will be possible to avoid impacts

to a majority of water resources crossed by the project alignment. The Final EIS/EIR

includes comprehensive and adequate analysis of environmental impacts, including impacts

to water resources and Waters of the U.S. This information will provide support for the

Clean Water Act permitting process.

I will not issue authorization to begin project construction until the completion of all

permitting processes. This includes the individual or nationwide Clean Water Act Section

404 Permit, which will require the applicant to demonstrate that, among other things, the

proposed project is the LEDPA to achieve the project’s purpose. To acquire the 404 Permit,

LADWP must also receive a Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit from the appropriate

State or Regional Water Board. A Jurisdictional Determination will be conducted after

detailed structure and support area locations are known, and are approved by the USFS. In

addition to the No Action Alternative, the Final EIS/EIR included analysis of four

alternatives that would achieve the project’s purpose. As described in Section 2.3 of the

Final EIS/EIR, additional alternatives were considered and eliminated from analysis

because they would not meet the project purpose and need, would not avoid or minimize

environmental impacts, or were not feasible.

Section 4.3.3 of the Final EIS/EIR and the Water Resources Technical Report found in

Volume IV of the Final EIS/EIR detail specific impacts to water resources, including

impacts to Waters of the U.S. for each alternative. While a Jurisdictional Determination has

not been completed, a comprehensive study of existing information including the National

Hydrography Dataset, National Wetlands Inventory, high-resolution aerial photography,

and USGS topographical maps, as well as on-the-ground reconnaissance were utilized to

analyze impacts to water resources. Specific impacts to biological resources, including

Riparian Conservation Areas, and listed and sensitive species are found in Section 4.3.1 of

the Final EIS/EIR and the Biological Resources Technical Report found in Volume IV of

the Final EIS/EIR. Based on this analysis and the additional analysis found in Chapters 4


[12]

and 5 of the Final EIS/EIR, the selected alternative was determined to be the NEPA Federal

Agency Preferred Alternative and the CEQA Environmentally Superior Alternative, as

described in Sections 2.7 and 2.8 of the Final EIS/EIR. While the draft LEDPA was not

specifically identified in the Final EIS/EIR, I believe that sufficient information was

included to facilitate the identification of the LEDPA and that the selected alternative will

be found to be the LEDPA during the Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting process. If

regulatory agencies EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers find a need to conduct further

analysis or gather more information in order to determine the LEDPA, I will ensure the full

support of the USFS, and as stated above, will not issue an authorization for the BRRTP on

NFS lands until all Clean Water Act permitting requirements are met.

I have reviewed these and other comments, and considered them in the context of the purpose and

need for the project, the project record, and the ANF LMP. My decision to approve the project will

facilitate greater access to renewable energy resources consistent with State and national energy

goals. The Final EIS/EIR discloses potential impacts, and provides an adequate record for my

decision. I have adopted all feasible and appropriate mitigation measures that are designed to

minimize impacts. The necessary amendments to the ANF LMP are appropriate for this project.

The BRRTP Final EIS/EIR documents the analysis and conclusions upon which this decision is

based. This record reflects a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of

responsible opposing views, and acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information,

scientific uncertainty, and risk.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The USFS issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a joint EIS/EIR with the BLM for the

proposed project, which was published in the Federal Register (Volume 73, Number 67) on

April 7, 2008, officially beginning the public scoping period for the project. The scoping period

began on April 7 and ended on May 7, 2008 (31-day period). The NOI included a description of

the Proposed Action and possible alternatives, a description of the scoping process and scoping

meetings, and identification of a contact at the USFS who could answer project-related

questions.

As part of the public scoping process of the proposed project, USFS, BLM, and LADWP

conducted seven public scoping meetings from April 22 to May 1, 2008 in Santa Clarita, Agua

Dulce, Castaic, Lake Hughes, Lebec, Palmdale, and California City. A total of approximately

122 people attended those meetings. The purpose of the meetings was to present information to

the public on the project and to take public comments on the scope and content of the Draft

EIS/EIR, as well as alternatives and mitigation measures to be considered. Table 1 shows the

locations and times of each of these meetings.


[13]

Public scoping meeting notices were prepared for all the scoping meetings, which provided a brief

description of the project including a map, information on the meeting locations, and information

on where to send comments, contact information, and the duration of the public comment period.

The notices were mailed or emailed to over 10,000 parties including agencies, elected officials,

area residents, and organizations that may have been interested in the proposed project. The

advertisements provided a brief synopsis of the project and encouraged attendance at the meetings

to share comments on the project. The Notice of Public Meeting, including the dates and locations

of the public meetings, was published in local and regional newspapers.

Table 1. Locations and Times of the BRRTP Public Scoping Meetings

Date Location Number of

people signed in

Comments

Oral Written

April 22, 2008

5:30pm-8:30pm

Santa Clarita Activity Center

20880 Centre Point Parkway, Santa Clarita 14 20 9

April 23, 2008

5:30pm-8:30pm

Agua Dulce Women’s Club

33201 Agua Dulce Canyon, Agua Dulce 32 12 8

April 24, 2008

5:30pm-8:30pm

Castaic Middle School

28900 Hillcrest Parkway, Castaic 3 0 0

April 28, 2008

5:30pm-8:30pm

Hughes-Elizabeth Lakes Union School

16633 Elizabeth Lake Road, Lake Hughes 52 36 30

April 29, 2008

5:30pm-8:30pm

Frazier Mountain High School

700 Falcon Way, Lebec 2 0 1

April 30, 2008

5:30pm-8:30pm

Hillview School

40525 Peonza Lane, Palmdale 14 4 11

May 1, 2008

5:30pm-8:30pm

California City Middle School

9736 Redwood Blvd, California City 5 0 1

Totals 122 72 60

The meetings were an open house format in addition to a presentation of the proposed project

including background, project description, maps, and potential environmental impacts. After the

presentation, the meeting attendees were allowed to present verbal comments or submit prepared

written comments. Handouts and informational materials available at the public meeting included

Meeting Agenda, Map of the Entire Project, Maps of the Alternative Routes, Project Fact Sheets,

Self-addressed Speaker Comment Sheet, and a Speaker Registration Card. A total of 231

comments were received during the scoping period, which included comments received at the

scoping meetings and via phone, email, and mail.

LADWP conducted five informational public meetings between February 17 and February 26,

2009 to update the public on scoping results, study results, and the evaluation of alternative

transmission line routes. Meeting locations were advertised in a newsletter distributed in

February 2008. Table 2 shows the locations and times of each of these meetings.


[14]

Table 2. Locations and Times of Informational Public Meetings


People Signed In

Comments

Written Oral

Feb. 17, 2009

5:30pm-8:30pm



Feb. 18, 2009

5:30pm-8:30pm

Mojave Veterans Building

15580 “O” Street, Mojave 8 7 1

Feb. 24, 2009

5:30pm-8:30pm

Agua Dulce Elementary School

11311 W. Frascati Street, Agua Dulce 20 4 27

Feb. 25, 2009

5:30pm-8:30pm

Mountainview School

22201 W. Cypress Place, Saugus 8 6 12

Feb. 27, 2009

5:30pm-8:30pm

Leona Valley Community Center

8367 Elizabeth Lake Road, Leona Valley 53 12 31

TOTAL 117 34 82

The informational public meetings were also open house format, with presentation of the same

basic information, and submission of comments in the same manner, as the public scoping

meetings. A total of 159 comments were received between July 2008 and March 2009, which

included comments received at the informational public meetings and via phone, email, and mail.

The ANF published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS/EIR in the Federal Register

on August 26, 2011. The public review comment period for the Draft EIS/EIR spanned a 60-day

period. Public advertisements of the NOA and public meetings to take comments on the Draft

EIS/EIR were placed in the local and regional newspapers. The advertisements provided a brief

synopsis of the project and encouraged attendance at the meetings to share comments on the

project.

Five public meetings were held during the public review period for the Draft EIS/EIR in Mojave,

Lake Hughes, Leona Valley, Agua Dulce, and Santa Clarita. Table 3 provides information on the

public meetings held for the Draft EIS/EIR.

Table 3. Locations and Times of the Public Meetings


people signed in

Comments

Written

Oral

September 20, 2011

5:30pm-8:30pm



September 21, 2011

5:30pm-8:30pm

Mojave Veterans Building

15580 O Street, Mojave 9 1 2

September 27, 2011

5:30pm-8:30pm

Agua Dulce Elementary School

11311 W. Frascati Street, Agua Dulce 6 2 2

September 28, 2011

5:30pm-8:30pm

Santa Clarita Activity Center

20880 Centre Pointe Parkway, Santa Clarita 9 2 1

September 29, 2011

5:30pm-8:30pm

Leona Valley Elementary

9063 West Leona Avenue, Leona Valley 29 11 6

Totals 74 23 11


[15]

The public meetings provided an opportunity for members of the public to learn about the project

and ask questions. Project-related handouts, reference materials, and maps were distributed. A brief

video presentation was shown by the project team followed by a general question and answer

session. Two geographic information system (GIS) comment stations were available at each

meeting for individuals to review maps of the project area and provide site-specific comments.

A total of 122 comments were received during the public comment period between August 26,

2011 and October 25, 2011. Comments were received at the informational public meetings, and via

phone, email, and mail.

A comprehensive mailing list was compiled for the BRRTP. The full mail and email list included

approximately 10,000 entries. The mailing list was used to distribute the NOIs and NOAs and

postcard notices, in addition to other public notices throughout the project’s environmental review

process. The mailing list was updated throughout the process with those who attended meetings or

submitted comments.

Other opportunities provided to the public to get information or comment on the project included a

toll-free telephone hotline [(877) 440-3592], a project e-mail address ([email protected]),

and a project website (http://www.ladwp.com/barrenridge). The website will remain a public

information resource for the duration of project construction. Comments received on the Draft

EIS/EIR have been responded to in the Final EIS/EIR and are in Appendix R.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

To determine the alternatives that would be analyzed in detail in the EIS/EIR, an alternatives

development process was completed and an Alternatives Development Report (ADR) (Appendix B

of the Final EIS/EIR) was produced. The ADR resulted in the identification and screening of 20

potential alternatives in total. Fifteen of those alternatives were considered but eliminated from

detailed analysis in the Final EIS/EIR because they either did not meet the project purpose and

need/objectives or were determined to be infeasible. The alternatives considered but eliminated

included: (1) generation alternatives; (2) design alternatives; and (3) routing alternatives. The ADR

included five alternatives, identified by the federal and State lead agencies, to be carried forward

and analyzed in the Final EIS/EIR. In addition to the 20 alternatives, in total, that were evaluated in

the ADR, other ideas for potential alternatives were suggested by the public during the various

public comment periods. Many of these suggestions were conceptual and were not offered as

specific alternatives, but rather as ideas to be explored. The alternatives considered, including the

potential alternatives suggested by agencies and the public, as analyzed in the ADR, and the

reasons for elimination from further consideration were summarized in Final EIS/EIR Chapter 2.

The primary screening criteria were feasibility, ability to meet purpose and need, and potential to

minimize environmental impacts.


[16]

Based on the alternatives development process, three of the alternatives considered in the ADR

(Appendix B of the Final EIS/EIR) were carried forward to be analyzed along with the No

Project/Action Alternative and LADWP’s Proposed Action (Alternative 2). The three alternatives

were Alternatives 1, 2a, and 3 (See Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR for detailed alternative

descriptions). Two additional alternatives were analyzed in the Final EIS/EIR in response to

comments on the Draft EIS/EIR. The Green Valley Multi-Line Relocation Alternative was

analyzed as described above in the section on Decision Rationale. Another comment received on

the Draft EIS/EIR resulted in evaluation of a new three-circuit alternative, which would use three-

circuit towers along the entire existing BR-RIN corridor instead of the proposed double-circuit

tower and existing single-circuit BR-RIN towers. These two additional alternatives analyzed after

the Draft EIS/EIR were eliminated from consideration because they did not fully meet the

proposed project’s purpose and need, nor did they avoid or minimize direct environmental impacts.

As described above, three-circuit towers will still be required as mitigation in and around certain

communities.

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS

National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires projects and permits to be consistent with

the LMP for activities occurring on National Forests. If a proposed site-specific decision is not

consistent with the applicable plan, I may modify the proposed decision to make it consistent with

the plan, reject the proposal, or amend the plan to authorize the action.

Consistency with the ANF LMP is discussed in three sections of the Final EIS/EIR. The overall

review of the project for consistency with various aspects of the LMP is in Section 4.2.3 of the

Final EIS/EIR, Land Use. The amendments to the ANF LMP are discussed in their respective

resource sections: 4.3.1, Biological Resources (Riparian Conservation Area Standards), and 4.2.9,

Visual Resources (Scenic Integrity Objectives and Pacific Crest Trail). These sections analyze and

explain the details of how the project is not consistent with the LMP within these two resource

areas.

Based on this information in the Final EIS/EIR, authorizing construction, operation, and

maintenance of the BRRTP, including mitigation, would require an LMP amendment. My decision

incorporates an amendment to the LMP to address the following place-specific design criteria and

plan standards:

LMP Amendment 1 - Aesthetic Management Standards (LMP Part 3, page 6)

ANF S1: Pacific Crest Trail- Protect scenic integrity of foreground views as well as from

designated viewpoints. Where practicable, avoid establishing nonconforming land uses within


[17]

the viewshed of the trail (Liebre-Sawmill, Santa Clara Canyons, Soledad Front Country and

Angeles High Country).

S9: Design management activities to meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) shown on the

Scenic Integrity Objectives Map.

The Scenic Integrity levels resulting from the Agency Preferred Alternative would generally be

Low to Very Low, and would not meet the designated High SIOs or Moderate SIOs mapped for

the NFS lands crossed; the SIOs would not be met along 13.3 miles of the Agency Preferred

Alternative. Even with implementation of visual mitigation measures, the Final EIS/EIR

concludes that the project will not meet these requirements (Final EIS/EIR Section 4.2.9). My

decision includes exceptions to these requirements.

LMP Amendment 2 - Riparian Conservation Area Standards (LMP Part 3, page 11)

S47: When designing new projects in riparian areas, apply the Five-Step Project Screening

Process for Riparian Conservation Areas as described in Appendix E - Five-Step Project

Screening Process for Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs).

The LMP Appendix E process requires that the effects of activities within RCAs be either neutral

or move the area closer towards the desired conditions. Even with biological and hydrologic

mitigation, the Final EIS concludes that the project will not meet that standard. My decision

includes an exception to this requirement.

Management Indicator Species (LMP Part 1, pages 44 – 45)

The LMP identifies twelve Management Indicator Species (MIS) for habitat types and issues. An

MIS report included as Appendix C of Appendix I of the Final EIS/EIR concludes that

implementing the Agency Preferred Alternative will not alter or contribute to existing forest-

wide habitat trends for MIS.

Endangered Species Act

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC § 1531 et seq.), a

federal agency that authorizes, funds, or carries out a project that “may affect” a listed species or

its critical habitat must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). As the lead

federal agency for the Section 7 consultation process, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

prepared a Biological Assessment for the FWS in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act. This document covered all listed species and habitats on NFS lands, and ANF staff

worked closely with BLM in preparing it. FWS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) on September

17, 2012, determining that the project is not likely to adversely affect species or result in adverse

modification of critical habitat and has established mitigation measures to reduce any anticipated

impacts. I am incorporating and adopting all conservation measures, reasonable and prudent

measures, and terms and conditions from the BO in this decision. I will amend project

conditions, if necessary, to respond to any revised BO issued for this project by the FWS.


[18]

Clean Water Act

The BRRTP will fully comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA requires states to set

standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source

and certain non-point source discharges to surface water. Point source discharges are regulated

by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process, outlined in

CWA Section 402. NPDES permitting authority is delegated to, and administered by,

California’s nine RWQCBs. California’s State Water Resources Control Board regulates the

NPDES storm water program. In addition, Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (USACE) to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill materials into navigable

waters of the U.S., including certain wetlands and other waters of the United States. The USACE

issues individual site-specific or general (nationwide) permits for such discharges.

The construction of BRRTP may result in discharges to surface water and may require the

construction or improvement of access roads through streambeds that would require filling for

access purposes. These and other potential impacts will require LADWP to obtain approvals

from the USACE and State Water Resources Control Board under the CWA, including

certification (or a waiver) under Section 401 from the State that the proposed discharge complies

with water quality standards. I will not issue a special use permit for construction until LADWP

demonstrates compliance with all applicable programs of the CWA. I will amend project

conditions, if necessary, to respond to any certification issued by the State Water Resources

Control Board.

In addition, NPDES permits would be issued by the appropriate Water Quality Control Board. In

order to comply with NPDES regulations, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be

prepared for the construction activities.

Clean Air Act

BRRTP is expected to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 176(c) of the

CAA prohibits federal agencies from, among other things, issuing licenses or permits or

approving any activity that does not conform to an approved State Implementation Plan. Both the

South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins are in non-attainment status for ozone, and the South

SCAB is designated Serious Non-attainment and Non-attainment for PM10 and PM2.5,

respectively. Federal conformity regulations assume conformity with state plans where project

emissions are below applicable thresholds (the “de minimis thresholds”).

I am herby adopting a Final General Conformity Determination for BRRTP. This document,

dated June 2012, analyzed project emissions and concluded that the total NOx emissions from

project construction activities would be greater than the General Conformity de minimis emission

threshold of 10 tons per year for the SCAB during 2013 and 2014. LADWP will be required to

obtain NOx emission offsets to fully offset the NOx emissions during the years when the de


[19]

minimis threshold is exceeded. This measure has been included as an enforceable project

mitigation measure: AQ-4a.

Thus, the Final General Conformity Determination prepared for this project demonstrates

compliance with the CAA. I am requiring LADWP to comply with Mitigation Measure AQ-4a,

General Conformity Offset Mitigation. LADWP has several options for obtaining emission offset

mitigation, including:

• Traditional NOx emission reduction credits that are in units of lbs/day, where 1 lb/day

equals 365 lbs/year. These credits can now be subdivided into short-term yearly credits

for purchase. These credits are available at market-based prices.

• Reclaim Trading Credits that are in units of lbs and are year-specific.

• Creation of new emission reduction credits, such as mobile source emission reduction

credits, where considered enforceable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for

purposes of General Conformity offsets, through methods such as the South Coast Air

Quality Management District Regulation XVI Mobile Source Offset Programs or other

methods similar to existing stationary source control programs such as the Carl Moyer

Program.

At my discretion, a revised construction emission estimate for construction activities within the

SCAB portion of the ANF may be completed and approved by the USFS. The offset

requirements will be based on the latest USFS-approved emission estimate prior to initiation of

construction within the ANF, and be based on the applicable thresholds in force at the time of the

USFS approval of the General Conformity Analysis.

Emissions of other non-attainment pollutants during construction and operation are below their

respective General Conformity de minimis thresholds for the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air

Basins; therefore, they are considered to conform to the State Implementation Plan.

National Historic Preservation Act

The basis for determining significance of cultural resources is driven by the National Historic

Preservation Act. In particular, Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account

impacts upon resources listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Section 106 compliance for BRRTP is in accordance with a Programmatic Agreement (pursuant

to 36 CFR 800.14(b)) executed by the USFS (ANF), BLM Ridgecrest Field Office, LADWP,

and the California State Historical Preservation Officer in summer 2012. This document is

Appendix O to the Final EIS/EIR.

Additionally, I am committed to complying with Executive Order 13007, issued in 1996, which

directs federal agencies responsible for managing federal lands to accommodate access to, and

ceremonial use of, Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners; avoid adversely affecting


[20]

the physical integrity of such sacred sites; and maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. No

information has been received from Tribes regarding sacred sites in the BRRTP area, nor have

any Tribes raised concerns about specific sacred sites during the NEPA scoping and Section 106

consultation process. The ANF will continue to solicit and consider Native American concerns

during the implementation of mitigation measures and during construction. Avoidance is the

preferred measure for preventing impacts to cultural resources. The Programmatic Agreement

prepared by the ANF and BLM describes the process for assessing adverse effects on cultural

resources, treatment of human remains, and unanticipated discoveries. USFS staff will oversee

and monitor implementation of the Programmatic Agreement only on National Forest System

lands. Implementation of the Programmatic Agreement on non-NFS lands shall be the

responsibility of LADWP or other appropriate land managing agencies.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

Special use permits for transmission lines on NFS lands are authorized under the authority of the

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). FLPMA requires, in part, that

right-of-way authorizations contain conditions to minimize damage to scenic and aesthetic

values and fish and wildlife habitat and otherwise protect the environment. Adopting the

mitigation measures in Attachment 1 ensures that the project is in compliance with this

requirement. FLPMA also requires location of the ROW along a route that will cause the least

damage to the environment, taking into consideration feasibility and other relevant factors. The

selected alternative best meets the project purpose and need while minimizing the impact to the

environment. My decision to authorize the BRRTP on NFS lands is consistent with the

requirements of FLPMA.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires an assessment of whether implementation of the Proposed

Action would disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations. Section 6.6.12 of

the Final EIS/EIR documents the analytical process used to comply with this executive order. As

described in the Final EIS/EIR, no adverse environmental effects or effects on human health as

they pertain to environmental justice were identified with the selected alternative on NFS lands.

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE

In accordance with NEPA, I have determined that the selected alternative, Alternative 2, or the

Agency Preferred Alternative, is the Environmentally Preferable Alternative. This alternative

best meets the purpose and need with the least overall impact on the environment, as described in

the rationale for my decision. I have considered the important long term environmental benefits

that will occur from the project’s facilitation of increased use of renewable energy.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) OPPORTUNITIES


[21]

This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. In

accordance with 36 CFR 215.11, for decisions made in conjunction with other federal agencies,

only that portion of the decision made by the USFS affecting NFS lands is subject to appeal

under this part. The appeal must be filed (regular mail, fax, email, hand-delivery, or express

delivery) with the Appeal Deciding Officer at:

Appeal Deciding Officer

Randy Moore, Regional Forester

USDA Forest Service

1323 Club Drive

Vallejo, CA 94592

Attn: APPEALS

Only persons or organizations who meet the requirements of 36 CFR 215.13 may appeal this

decision. Appeals must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14.

The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered appeals are: 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic appeals must be submitted in a format

such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), portable document (.pdf) or

Word (.doc) to [email protected] or fax to (707) 562-9229. In

cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity

will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification. Appeals, including

attachments, must be filed within 45 days of the publication date of the legal notice for the ROD

in the Los Angeles Times, the newspaper of record.

IMPLEMENTATION DATE

If no appeals are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of the decision may occur

on, but not before, the 5th

business day following the close of the appeal filing period. When

appeals are filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th

business day following

the date of the appeal disposition.

CONTACT

For additional information concerning this decision or the USFS appeal process, contact Lorraine

Gerchas at (626) 574-5281 or [email protected] .


[1]

ATTACHMENT 1: Mitigation Measure Selection and Revisions

Because the project covers such a large area with widely varying geography and resources, many

mitigation measures proposed in the Final EIS/EIR are not necessary or applicable on NFS Lands.

I have not included any mitigation measures specific to federal threatened or endangered species,

as I have reviewed the Biological Opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service and found that it

adequately reflects all proposed mitigation for these species. It is adopted as part of my decision

and is enforceable by law.

I am adopting only those measures listed below, including revisions as necessary to make the

implementation more practicable and consistent with standard practices on USFS projects. Only

the headings are listed here; please see the Final EIS/EIR for the full text of each mitigation

measure. An asterisk notes those that have been revised. Revisions follow the table.

Mitigation

Measure Number

(from Final EIS)

Mitigation Measure Heading

AIR-2a Implement Construction Fugitive Dust Control Plan

AIR-2b Properly Maintain Mechanical Equipment

AIR-2c Use Ultra Low-sulfur Diesel Fuel

AIR-2d Restrict Diesel Engine Idling to Five Minutes

AIR-2f Off-road Diesel-fueled Equipment Standards

AIR-2h Off-road Gasoline-fueled Equipment Standards

AIR-4a General Conformity Offset Mitigation

R-1a Coordinate construction schedule and maintenance activities with managing

officer(s) for affected recreation areas

R-1b Identify and provide noticing of alternative recreation areas

R-1c Notification of temporary closure of Off-Highway Vehicle routes

R-1d Notification of temporary closure and reroute of the Pacific Crest National

Trail and/or other trails

R-1e Compensate ANF for reductions in Adventure Pass sales due to recreation

area closures associated with the project

R-2 Avoid permanent upgrades to National Forest System roads

R-3 Installation of physical barriers

HAZ-2 Document compliance with measures for encountering unknown

contamination

VIS-1 Crossing Linear Features

VIS-2 Feathered Vegetation Clearing

VIS-3 Existing Access Road Widening or Upgrades

VIS-4 Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail


[2]

Mitigation

Measure Number

(from Final EIS)


VIS-5* Clean Up Construction Related Areas

VIS-6 Construction Site Clean Up and Restoration

VIS-7 Fence Screening

VIS-8 Reduce Glare and Light Spill

VIS-9 Darkened Structure Treatment

VIS-10 Landscape Screening

VIS-11 Avoid Skylining of Towers

VIS-12 Minimize Vegetation Clearing

VIS-13 Avoid Locating New Roads in Bedrock

VIS-14 Excavated Materials Disposal

VIS-15 Construction Area Site Selection

VIS-16 Compensation for Impacts to Landscape Character and Visual Quality

VIS-17 Span Matching of Existing Structures

CUL-1 Programmatic Agreement

F-1b Remove the Potential for Wooden Pole Contact

F1-c Share Costs for ANF Fuel Break Maintenance Programs

F1-d Provide Transmission Line Safety Training to Regional Fire Prevention

Agency Staff

F-1e Coordinate During Emergency Fire Suppression Activities

F-1f

Implement FAA/USFS Review for the Appropriate Installation of Aerial

Warning Signage and/or Lighting per FAA “Advisory AC70-74600-

Obstruction Marking and Lighting.”

F-2a Develop and Implement a Construction and Maintenance Fire Prevention

Plan

F-2b Cease Work During Red Flag Conditions

F-2c Remove Hazards from the Work Areas

BIO-1* Provide restoration/compensation for impacted sensitive vegetation

communities

BIO-2* The following prescriptions would prevent the spread of invasive weeds into

previously uninfested areas in the designated construction right-of-way

BIO-3 Incorporate riparian area avoidance and permit measures

BIO-4* Provide restoration/compensation for affected jurisdictional areas

BIO-5 Construction activities and vehicle operation would be conducted to

minimize potential disturbance to wildlife

BIO-6 Implement a Worker Environmental Awareness Program

BIO-7 Impacts to Raptors


[3]

Mitigation

Measure Number

(from Final EIS)


BIO-8 Avoid nesting season and limit disturbance of nesting birds

BIO-11 Reduce avian electrocutions/collisions on transmission lines

BIO-13* Protect special-status plant species and their habitat

BIO-19 Protect California spotted owl

BIO-21 Protect sensitive bat species

GEO-1 Active faults

GEO-2 Landslides

PR-1 Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan

PR-2 Paleontological Monitor

PR-3 Construction Personnel Training

PR-4 Resource Recovery

PR-5 Resource Curation

HYD-1 Use of Existing Water Crossings

HYD-2 New Road Construction Over Waterways

HYD-3 Restoration of New Impervious Services

HYD-4 Erosion and Sediment Control

HYD-5 Avoidance of Flood Flow/Elevation Disruption

HYD-6 Flow Obstruction Avoidance in Floodplains

HYD-7 Structures Below Lakes and Reservoirs

Revisions to Mitigation Measures

Measure BIO-1, 1a, # 1

• Insert as the last sentence “Topsoil storage shall not be required until the Habitat

Restoration and Revegetation Plan is approved as part of the special use permit.”


• After the first sentence, “Locally collected is defined as within the same 6th

level

hydrologic unit as the restoration area.” is added

• “All areas dominated by non native species before project disturbance shall be

revegetated using appropriate native species. The seed mix shall consist of native, locally

occurring species collected from local seed sources. Cuttings and bare-root stock shall be

of local origin.” is deleted

• At the end of the 5th

sentence, “according to the dominant vegetation communities

impacted, as identified in Table BIO-MM-1.” is added

• “or until the success criteria are met” is deleted


[4]


• “USFS botanist” is deleted and replaced with “USFS forester or silviculturist”

• “any construction related activities such as equipment or soil staging” is deleted

• “and oak trees/shrubs” is deleted and replaced with “(including only oak species which

are not classified as shrubs)”

• Add to the end of #3 “Tree replacement ratios are applicable only to individual, isolated

trees removed as a result of road-related project activities. For areas of tree removal, the

appropriate habitat type, corresponding replacement ratio from Table BIO-MM-1, and

appropriate stocking rates and success criteria shall be determined by a USFS forester or

silviculturist, and included in the Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan.”


• Add to the end of #4 “Tree replacement ratios are applicable only to individual, isolated

trees removed as a result of road-related project activities. For areas of tree removal, the

appropriate habitat type, corresponding replacement ratio, and appropriate stocking rates

and success criteria shall be determined by a USFS forester or silviculturist, and included

in the Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan.”

• “The replacement ratio for damaged trees shall be 2:1 for tress with DBH less than 12

inches and a 5:1 ration for trees with DBH greater than 12 inches. The DBHs for scrub

oaks will be measured following California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)

guidelines.” is deleted.

• “USFS botanist” is deleted and replaced with “USFS forester or silviculturist”


• “On NFS and BLM lands, impacts will be considered permanent if the trees are not

likely to recover by ten years post-disturbance.” is deleted and replaced with “On NFS

lands, impacts will be considered permanent for those sites authorized for long term use

upon completion of project construction.”


• 2nd

sentence “until the success criteria outlined in the restoration plan are met” is deleted.

Measure BIO-2, 2a, #1

• After 2nd

sentence, insert “This information shall correlate to the success criteria, and no

more than a 25% increase in the composition of native species shall be required. Other

factors outside of the project which influence the presence of non-native species shall be

taken into account in setting success criteria”.


[5]


• “or until success criteria in the Weed Control Plan are met. Treatment of all identified

weed populations shall occur at an appropriate interval so as to meet the success criteria.

When no new seedlings or resprouts are observed at treated sites for three consecutive

years the weed population can be considered eradicated and weed control efforts may

cease for that site.” is deleted.


• All of 6) deleted

Measure BIO-4

• Add as #4c “Any areas of NFS lands under jurisdiction of ACOE or RWQCB shall have

mitigation and restoration requirements defined by the regulatory agency, and will not

have additional mitigation required by the USFS according to Measure BIO-1. USFS

will work with the regulatory agencies in an attempt to ensure that mitigation for impacts

on NFS lands occurs on NFS lands to the greatest extent feasible. For impacts to NFS

lands under CDFG jurisdiction, mitigation must occur on NFS lands.”

Measure BIO13, 13a

• “Petitioned” and “USFS Watch” and “California Native Plant Society listed” are deleted.

Preconstruction surveys on NFS lands are only required for federal Threatened,

Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and USFS Sensitive species.

Measure BIO-13, 13c

• “(i.e., USFS Sensitive, CNPS List 1.2 and 4 species)” is deleted and replaced with “(on

NFS lands only USFS Sensitive)

• After 4th

sentence, insert “This determination must be consistent with Forest Service

policy, and must clearly demonstrate that without preservation of offsite habitat, the

project would reduce the overall species viability or result in a trend toward federal

listing.”

Measure VIS-5

• Add “This requirement may be waived if it is determined by USFS that leaving material

on site would be more beneficial for restoration purposes”.

Documents

RECORD OF DECISION SPECIAL USE …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATION TO LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF ... the “micropile”