1 FINAL 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3 FOR THE PROPOSED TOWN OF PAYSON–CRAGIN WATER PIPELINE 4 AND TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT IN GILA COUNTY, ARIZONA 5 6 VOLUME II OF II 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Prepared for 17 18 U.S. Forest Service 19 Tonto National Forest 20 Payson Ranger District 21 1009 East Highway 260 22 Payson, Arizona 85541 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 October 2011 1 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 2 the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 3 status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or 4 because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all 5 prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 6 communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 7 TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to 8 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, 9 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and 10 employee. Environmental Assessment for the Cragin Reservoir Pipeline Contents 1 APPENDICES – VOLUME II 2 3 A. Cumulative Actions 4 B. East Verde River Crossings Construction Detail 5 C. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Criteria for Recreation Classification and Recreation 6 Impacts 7 D. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species List for Gila County, Arizona 8 E. Biological Evaluation, Management Indicator Species and Migratory Bird Treaty Act 9 Reports 10 F. Responses to Public Comments 11 Contents Environmental Assessment for the Cragin Reservoir Pipeline 1 This page intentionally left blank. Environmental Assessment for the Cragin Reservoir Pipeline 1 Appendix A 2 CUMULATIVE ACTIONS 3 October 2011 Environmental Assessment for the Cragin Reservoir Pipeline Appendix A 1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 2 Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA define cumulative impacts as “the 3 impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other 4 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (RFA) regardless of what agency (federal or non- 5 federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor 6 but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). 7 The purpose of the cumulative effects analysis is to ensure that decision-makers consider the full range of 8 consequences of the Proposed Action, alternatives to the Proposed Action, and the No-Action Alternative. 9 Assessing the cumulative effects of the actions begins early in the NEPA process, during the 10 identification of issues. 11 If the actions under each alternative have no direct or indirect effect on a resource, then the cumulative 12 impacts on that resource are not addressed. In any NEPA analysis, it is preferable to quantify the 13 assessment of effects (changes) on each affected resource. This is true for direct, indirect, and cumulative 14 effects. Where possible, the analysis is quantified. Where quantification is not available, a meaningful and 15 qualified judgment of cumulative effects is included to inform the public and the decision-maker. 16 The Forest Service ID Team has developed a list of the relevant cumulative actions that may have 17 applicable effects on resource values and uses of the project area. 18 Projects Considered 19 Past 20 1. Use, maintenance, and realignment of project area roads—FR 32B, FR 32 (Washington Park 21 Road), FR 64 (Control Road), FR 199 (Houston Mesa Road), and West Houston Mesa Road; 22 2. Water Wheel Fire (2009), Rim Fire (2009), Packrat Fire (2002), and Webber Fire (2004); 23 3. Campgrounds on Houston Mesa; 24 4. Shoofly Ruins Interpretive Site; 25 5. Private subdivisions and residences along East Verde River; 26 6. Range allotment (Little Green Valley Complex) and activities (tanks, fences, corrals); 27 7. A historical average of 9,500 af per year of C.C. Cragin (Blue Ridge) Reservoir diversions to the 28 East Verde by Phelps Dodge. Phelps Dodge maintained the powerhouse (including the building, 29 grounds, tail raceway, and associated facilities); 30 8. Vegetation treatments around subdivisions along East Verde River (thinning, fuelbreaks, pile 31 burning, etc.). 32 October 2011 A-1 Appendix A Environmental Assessment for the Cragin Reservoir Pipeline 1 Present 2 1. Recreation improvements (paving, latrines) at First, Second, and Third Crossings and Water 3 Wheel; 4 2. Ongoing operation, maintenance, and necessary improvements to the adjacent Highline National 5 Recreation Trail, the Arizona Trail National Scenic Trail, and Washington Park Trailhead. 6 3. The current (and future) diversions to the East Verde River from C.C. Cragin Reservoir by SRP 7 will be the same as historically—approximately 9,500 af per year on average (minus 3,500 af 8 released into the East Verde River if the current project is authorized); 9 4. Ongoing timber and fuelwood sales. 10 Future 11 1. TNF Travel Management Plan Revision; 12 2. Future connections to the Cragin pipeline by other Northern Gila County communities; 13 3. SRP maintenance and operation of the C.C. Cragin powerhouse (including the building, grounds, 14 tailrace way, and associated facilities); 15 4. Future large-scale development in the Town at the current Forest Service administrative site 16 (Arizona State University Millennium Campus; proposed solar manufacturing facility). A-2 October 2011 Environmental Assessment for the Cragin Reservoir Pipeline 1 Appendix B 2 EAST VERDE RIVER CROSSINGS CONSTRUCTION DETAIL October 2011 Environmental Assessment for the Cragin Reservoir Pipeline Appendix B 1 October 2011 B-1 Appendix B Environmental Assessment for the Cragin Reservoir Pipeline 1 B-2 October 2011 Environmental Assessment for the Cragin Reservoir Pipeline Appendix B 1 October 2011 B-3 Appendix B Environmental Assessment for the Cragin Reservoir Pipeline 1 B-4 October 2011 Environmental Assessment for the Cragin Reservoir Pipeline 1 Appendix C 2 RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM 3 CRITERIA FOR RECREATION CLASSIFICATION AND RECREATION IMPACTS 4 October 2011 Environmental Assessment for the Cragin Reservoir Pipeline Appendix C 1 The following tables describe the recreation setting character conditions required to produce recreation 2 opportunities and facilitate the attainment of both recreation experiences and beneficial outcomes. 3 The ROS offers a framework for understanding the relationships and interactions the public may 4 experience with a particular area of public land. The ROS setting framework was developed by the 5 U.S. Department of Agriculture in Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, 6 Management, and Research (General Technical Report PNW-98, December 1979). 7 This characterization of settings is used for both describing existing setting character (see Chapter 3) 8 and describing impacts to recreation (see Chapter 3). Indicators and standards for monitoring setting 9 conditions would be derived and/or developed from the a. through i. components in the following table 10 (Table C.1). 11 Table C.1. Semi-primitive Semi-primitive Primitive Roaded Natural Rural Urban Non-motorized Motorized Physical – Resources and Facilities: Character of the Natural Landscape a. Remoteness >3 miles from any >½ mile from any On or near 4WD On or near On or near primary On or near primary road. kind of road, but not roads, but at least improved country highways, but still highways, municipal as far as 3 miles, ½ mile from all roads, but at least within a rural area. streets, and roads and no road is in improved roads, ½ mile from all within towns or sight. although they may highways. cities. not be in sight. b. Naturalness Undisturbed Naturally appearing Naturally appearing Landscape partially Natural landscape Urbanized natural landscape having landscape except modified by roads, substantially development landscape. modifications not for obvious primitive utility lines, etc., but modified by dominates this readily noticeable. roads. none overpower agriculture or landscape. natural landscape industrial features. development. c. Facilities None. Some primitive trails Maintained and Improved yet Modern facilities Elaborate, full- made of natural marked trails, modest rustic such as service facilities materials such as simple trailhead facilities such as campgrounds, such as laundry, log bridges and developments, campgrounds, group shelters, boat groceries, and carved wooden improved signs, and restrooms, trails, launches, and bookstores. signs. very basic toilets. and interpretive occasional exhibits. signs. Social – Visitor Use and Users: Character of Recreation and Tourism Use d. Group Size Fewer than or 4 to 6 people per 7 to 12 people per 13 to 25 people per 26 to 50 people per Greater than 50 equal to 3 people group. group. group. group. people per group. per group. 12 13 14 15 16 October 2011 C-1 Appendix C Environmental Assessment for the Cragin Reservoir Pipeline 1 Table C.1. (Continued) Semi-primitive Semi-primitive Primitive Roaded Natural Rural Urban Non-motorized Motorized Social – Visitor Use and Users: Character of Recreation and Tourism Use, Continued e. Contacts (with other users/user groups) Fewer than 3 3 to 6 encounters 7 to 14 encounters 15 to 29 encounters People seem to be Other people encounters per day per day off travel per day off travel per day off travel everywhere, but consistently in view. at campsites and routes (e.g., routes (e.g., staging routes (e.g., human contact is fewer than 6 campsites) and 7- areas) and 15 to 29 campgrounds) and intermittent. encounters per day 15 encounters per encounters per day 30 or more on travel routes.