3.15 WILDERNESS AND RECREATION Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project 3.15 Wilderness and Recreation 3.15.1 Introduction This section describes effects related to wilderness and recreation that would be caused by implementation of the TRTP. The following discussion addresses existing environmental conditions in the affected area, identifies and analyzes environmental impacts for a range of Project alternatives, and recommends measures to reduce or avoid adverse impacts anticipated from Project construction and operation. In addition, existing laws and regulations relevant to wilderness and recreation are described. In some cases, compliance with these existing laws and regulations would serve to reduce or avoid certain impacts that might otherwise occur with the implementation of the Project. This discussion has been revised to focus on substantive information that has changed or been updated since the publication of the Draft EIR/EIS and relates to the federal decisions. This includes relevant information and analysis included in the Supplemental Draft EIS. For the most part, the information and analysis in this section relates to the alternatives that involve federal lands, which include the No Project/Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE’s Proposed Project (Alternative 2), Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). Within these alternatives, the segments traversing federal lands include Segments 6 and 11, which cross NFS lands, and Segments 7 and 8, which cross USACE lands. For all other alternatives and segments, the reader is referred to the information and analysis presented in the Final EIR (October 2009). While those elements of the Project located off federal lands have already been approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in CPUC Decision 09-12-044 (December 24, 2009), they will be considered by the federal decision makers as part of the whole of the Project. Scoping Issues Addressed During the scoping period for the Project (August-October 2007), a series of scoping meetings were conducted with the public and government agencies, and written comments were received by agencies and the public that identified issues and concerns. The following issues related to wilderness and recreation were raised during the scoping period and are addressed in this analysis: • Noise associated with the Project would impact recreation areas and open space enjoyment, as well as wildlife in designated preservation areas. • The noise from helicopters used to construct transmission towers would impact recreationists and wildlife. • The Project would impact recreationists in the Puente Hills Landfill Native Habitat Area (Puente Hills Habitat Area). • The Project would impact recreation areas planned for development by the Water Conservation Authority (WCA) and the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RCA). In particular, the River Commons at the Duck Farm Project (Duck Farm Project) would be affected and the Project could interfere with wildlife movement. • The Project would impact Los Angeles County parks and compromise park patrons’ experience due to construction of the 500-kV towers. Summary and Comparison of Alternatives Table 3.15-1 on the following page presents some key factors related to wilderness and recreation for each of the alternatives involving federal lands. It is important to note that the “Environmental Issues” indicated in Table 3.15-1 represent selected information in order to provide a comparison between the alternatives. Specific impacts that have been identified for the Project and alternatives are described in Sections 3.15.5 through 3.15.11. Final EIS 3.15‐1 September 2010 3.15 WILDERNESS AND RECREATION Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project Section 3.15.2.1 describes that as a result of the Station Fire, which burned the majority of the Central Region between August and October of 2009, many recreational resources and opportunities described in the Draft EIR/EIS were destroyed and/or are currently not accessible to the public due to fire-related road damage. The numerical comparison of Developed Recreation resources provided below in Table 3.15-1 assumes that the Station Fire burn area is fully restored, and all recreational resources and opportunities described in the Draft EIR/EIS have been repaired or replaced. Table 3.15-1 also reflects changes to the proposed Project that were identified in the Supplemental Draft EIS and have been incorporated into Chapter 2 of this Final EIS, including new helicopter assembly yards (HAYs) and modified access road. As mentioned above, specific impacts of the proposed Project and alternatives are discussed in Sections 3.15.5 through 3.15.11; these sections address potential changes in the nature or magnitude of impacts resulting from the Station Fire and Project changes. Table 3.15‐1. Summary Comparison of Environmental Issues/Impacts – Wilderness and Recreation Environmental Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Issues (No Project/Action) (SCE’s Proposed Project) (Max. Heli. Construction in ANF) (66-kV Subtransmission) Total number of Another, similar 147 Total 140 Total Same as Alternative 2. Developed Recreation transmission line project 13 North Region 13 North Region resources located would likely introduce 74 Central Region 68 Central Region within one-half mile of similar impacts to (61 on NFS lands)2 (56 on NFS lands)2 1 Project components recreational and 60 South Region 59 South Region (North Region / wilderness resources that (13 / 74 / 60) (13 / 68 / 59) Central Region / would be introduced South Region) through the Project or an alternative. Level of disturbance Same as above. MED HIGH Same as Alternative 2. to Dispersed Alt. 2 would require the The use of helicopters to Recreation that would use of some roads not construct 151 towers occur as a result of included under Alt. 6 throughout the Forest would construction-related (such as West Fork San distribute helicopter noise access restrictions or Gabriel River), but Alt. 6 and disturbance more than disturbances such as helicopter use would be under Alt. 2, which would increased noise.2 more disruptive to construct 33 towers by Dispersed Recreation helicopter. than road closures. Level of unmanaged Same as above. MED LOW Same as Alternative 2. recreation that would Road improvements Alt. 6 would require fewer occur as a result of required for construction road improvements than Alt. Project construction3 could facilitate 2, thus lowering the unmanaged recreation, potential for unmanaged particularly OHV. recreation to occur. Level of temporary Same as above. MED LOW Same as Alternative 2. degradation of the Four helicopter staging No helicopter staging areas “Solitude and areas (HAY 5A, HAY 6, are adjacent to the WA, but Unconfined HAY 6A, and HAY 8) are helicopter use would still Recreation” located near the WA, and occur nearby. characteristic of the flight paths may enter San Gabriel WA4 airspace over this WA. Level of temporary Same as above. HIGH / LOW HIGH / LOW Same as Alternative 2. degradation of the Alt. 2 would construct 33 Alt. 6 would construct 151 “backcountry towers by helicopter with towers by helicopter with experience” on the three helicopter staging one helicopter staging area PCT (temporary / areas adjacent to different adjacent to the PCT; permanent)5 portions of the PCT; degradation of the degradation of the backcountry experience backcountry experience would be more distributed, would be more site- due to the use of more specific, concentrated helicopters throughout the near the staging areas. Forest. September 2010 3.15‐2 Final EIS 3.15 WILDERNESS AND RECREATION Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project Table 3.15‐1. Summary Comparison of Environmental Issues/Impacts – Wilderness and Recreation Environmental Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Issues (No Project/Action) (SCE’s Proposed Project) (Max. Heli. Construction in ANF) (66-kV Subtransmission) Miles of Forest Roads Same as above. 43.1 Total 22.2 Total (48.5% less) Same as Alternative 2. (FR) designated for FR 2N23: 25.9 FR 2N23: 11.5 OHV use (OML 2) FR 4N24: 7.1 FR 4N24: 2.4 that would be FR 4N18: 10.1 FR 4N18: 8.3 temporarily upgraded to OML 3 standards, restricting OHV use until OML 2 standards are restored Level of temporary Same as above. LOW MED Same as Alternative 2. disturbance and/or Less extensive use of Alt. 6 would not affect preclusion that would helicopters under Alt. 2 recreational fishing along affect hunting and would introduce less noise West Fork San Gabriel fishing opportunities with potential to disturb River, but would introduce in the ANF6 hunting activities. more helicopter noise throughout the Forest. 1 Project components include transmission line towers, access roads, and helicopter staging areas. Recreational resources on NFS lands in the ANF are managed by the Forest Service as either Developed Recreation or Dispersed Recreation; this row only reflects Developed Recreation resources, which are regularly maintained by the Forest Service. Resources that would be affected by the Project in more than one area (particularly trails and OHV routes) are only counted once in this table. Please see Table 3.15-14a for detailed description of each resource. 2 Level of disturbance” is indicated as being “LOW”, “MED”, or “HIGH”, which represent generalized rankings for the purposes of comparison only and do not reflect impact significance determinations, which are discussed in the impact analysis for wilderness and recreation. Dispersed Recreation includes undeveloped areas such as open space and natural scenic vistas which are used for recreational purposes but are not regularly maintained by the Forest Service or other responsible agency. 3 Unmanaged recreation refers to recreational activities that occur but are not authorized, such as OHV use in areas that are managed to be non- motorized. In the ANF, unmanaged recreation would be expected to occur in areas where roads are improved or installed, thus providing access to areas that otherwise were not easily accessible by the public.