USDA

DRAFT DECISION NOTICEAND

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTRUSSIAN RIVER CAMPGROUND RECONSTRUCTION

U.S. FOREST SERVICESEWARD RANGER DISTRICT

CHUGACH NATIONAL FORESTKENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH, ALASKA

DECISIONBased upon my review of the Russian River Campground Reconstruction EnvironmentalAssessment (EA), I have decided to implement the Proposed Action, which will re-designcampground features as follows:

1) Transportation systemsa) Modify campground loop roads and site spurs to accommodate a variety of camping

vehicles with appropriate width, length, and turning radii.b) Redesign campground entrance/exit points, overflow parking, and the contact

station to efficiently and effectively support fee collection and overflow visitation aswell as providing an adequate queue for those waiting to enter.

c) Stabilize the slope above the entrance road beyond the contact station to protect theroad infrastructure.

d) Provide pedestrian/bike pathway between entrance/overflow parking area topoints of interest along road corridor.

2) Campground facilitiesa) Redesign campground sites and replace toilets to provide universal accessibility.b) Install a bear-proof food locker at each campsite.c) Formalize existing short access trails between sites, loops, parking areas and angler

access trails and ensure they meet accessible standards.dj Redesign campground host site for efficient public interaction and provide physical

separation between administrative facilities and public camping areas.e) Redesign pavilion area for improved functionality in providing visitor education and

interpretive services and construction of one small building for storage of StreamWatch Volunteer program materials.

f) Redesign sewage waste dump station.g) Construct a facility (or design an area for a vendor to provide an opportunity] where

visitors would be able to safely clean and store harvested fish and dispose offishwaste.

— Draft Decision Notice —Page 1 of 9

USDA

3) Trailhead Facilitiesa) Relocate, design, and construct the Russian Lakes Trailhead in a new location along

the Russian River Campground entrance road between the Sterling Highway and thecurrent contact station location and build a new connecting trail from it to theexisting Russian Lakes Trail.

DECISION RATIONALEThe purpose of this project is to reconstruct the Russian River Campground to meet ForestPlan objectives of providing a high quality recreation facility, a safe and efficienttransportation system, and ecologically sensitive infrastructure for the intensive use thatoccurs in the area. The project area encompasses the entire Russian River Campgroundincluding the campground access road and associated facilities along the road [beginningfrom the Sterling Highway (MP 52.8), extending through the campground approximately 2miles and ending at the Grayling parking lot). The project area includes a total of 226 acresas shown on figure 1. The specific objectives of the project are to:

1. Improve year-round pedestrian and vehicular circulation in and around thecampground.

2. Provide visitors with improved opportunities for interpretive and educationalexperiences and universal accessibility to facilities.

3. Improve functionality of trailhead facilities and campground administrativefacilities [host site).

4. Identify a potential location to provide visitors with a means to handle harvestedfish in the campground area.

Providing a safe and accessible recreational experience for a diversity of users at theRussian River is a priority due to the popularity of the site and the resource values at thesite. According to the 2004 Russian River Landscape Assessment, the desired condition ofthe watershed was identified as a balance between level of human use [recreation and useof resources) and acceptable change in the natural resources. Re-engineering of existingfacilities was one of the management strategies recommended to this end. Reconstructingthe Russian River Campground and associated facilities will meet current design standardsand better manage the high level of use that occurs in this area.

The main need for action is the concern for public safety due to the degraded condition ofcampground access road in several sections beyond the contact station, pedestrians andlarge highway vehicles both using a narrow section of road, and traffic flow issues aroundthe entrance/exit roads near the highway. Other reasons for action include the need to: 1)provide universal accessibility to campground facilities for all visitors, 2) update recreationinfrastructure to accommodate modern recreation vehicle sizes, and 3) improve facilitiesfor efficient interactions between visitors and concessionaire administrative staff.

Draft Decision Notice —Page 2 of 9

USDA

The Environmental Assessment provides specific rationale for each component of theproject. During the public process no significant issues were identified. The proposedaction was selected because of the importance of reconstructing the recreation facility toaccommodate the high use that occurs. Selecting the no action alternative would havedelayed critical safety renovations that are necessary for traffic flow. The Russian RiverCampground site is the most highly visited recreation facility on the Seward Ranger Districtand continues to sustain its popularity due to the abundant fish and wildlife resourcesalong with a high quality recreation setting. The proposed action will enhance theexperience of users by redesigning recreation facilities and features to accommodate themodern recreation vehicles and uses of the area.

Funding for this proposal is anticipated to occur in phases. In order to minimize impacts tothe public, project implementation will occur outside of the Russian River Campgroundseason, particularly during the sockeye runs, to the extent possible. Under nocircumstances does the Forest Service anticipate closing the entire Campground. Closuresof specific areas may be necessary but will be avoided to the extent possible during thesummer season.

The Russian River Campground Reconstruction EA documents the environmental analysisand conclusions upon which this decision is based.

FOREST PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVESThe Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RFP) for the Chugach National Forestguides natural resource management activities and establishes management guidelines andstandards for the National Forest. Proposed management activities must be consistent withthe RFP. The campground reconstruction project primarily meets the forest goal ofmaintaining current recreational capacity through the maintenance of existing recreationalfacilities and trails (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-9).

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTThe Forest Service sent a scoping notice to 88 individuals on June 1, 2012 includingstakeholder group representatives, governmental representatives. In addition, tribalconsultation was completed with the Kenaitze Indian Tribe, Cook Inlet RegionIncorporated, and the State Historic Preservation Office.

The scoping letter with notification of the comment period and map were sent to the MoosePass Messenger and Cooper Landing Crier, and was posted at the Seward, Moose Pass, andCooper Landing Post Offices.

The Forest listed the proposed action in the Schedule of Proposed Actions in September2013. A legal notice of the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Action was publishedin the Anchorage Daily News, the newspaper of record, in Anchorage, Alaska, initiating the30-day comment period on June 2, 2012.

— Draft Decision Notice —Page 3 of 9

USDA

Nine (9) comments were received from interested stakeholders including the campgroundconcessionaire, Alaska Recreation Management, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough.Comments received were summarized and discussed by the interdisciplinary team toensure all comments were considered in the development of this EA. While a majority ofthe comments were consistent with the intent and direction of the proposed action, someconcerns were related to operational aspects and will be taken into consideration duringthe final design and implementation.

This proposed project is subject to a pre-decisional administrative review (objection)process as defined in 36 CFR 218.

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

This decision is consistent with the 2002 Chugach National Forest Revised LandManagement Plan (Forest Plan) and is consistent with the National Forest Management Act(NFMA) and all other applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to:

Endangered Species Act - Biological evaluations were completed for threatened,endangered, proposed, and sensitive plant and animal species. No threatened andendangered plant or animal species would be affected by any of the alternatives becausethere are none in the area.

Bald Eagle Protection Act -Management activities within bald eagle habitat will be inaccordance to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. The MOU outlines the interests and responsibilities of the twoagencies for conserving bald eagles. The mitigation measure of creating a buffer zone islisted as one of the Forest Service's responsibilities.

ANILCA Section 810, Subsistence Evaluation and Finding - There is no documented orreported subsistence use that would be restricted by the action alternative because accessto the area will remain open. For this reason, none of the alternatives are likely to result ina restriction of subsistence use of wildlife, fish, or other foods.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 - Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act requires that all federal undertakings follow the regulations found at 36CFR §800 to identify and protect cultural resources that are within the project area andwhich may be affected by projects. The Chugach National Forest has followed theprocedures in the Second Amended Programmatic Agreement among the USDA ForestService, Alaska Region, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Alaska StateHistoric Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding management of the project area. A findingof "no historic properties affected" has been reached by the Forest Service and has beenreported and concurred with by SHPO.

Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice - Implementation of this project is notanticipated to cause disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effect tominority or low-income populations because the proposed activities are not expected tocause any affects to human health or result in adverse environmental consequences.

— Draft Decision Notice —Page 4 of 9

USDA

Clean Air Act - Implementation of the proposed action will not exceed State of Alaskaambient air quality standards (18 AAC 50).

Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species -The proposed action is in compliance withExecutive Order 13112 and will not contribute to the spread of invasive species onNational Forest System lands.

Executive Order 11988 and 11990 - The Proposed Action will not affect the floodplain orwetlands of the Kenai River because the transportation system, campground facilities, andtrailhead facilities occur outside its active floodplain, and wetlands are not present.

Recreational Fisheries (E.0.12962) - Federal agencies are required, to the extentpermitted by law and where practicable, and in cooperation with States and Tribes, toimprove the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of United Statesaquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities (U.S., 1995). As requiredby this Order, the effects of this action on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries havebeen evaluated and the effects have been documented relative to the purpose of this order.This action is consistent with this order because it will not impact the public's ability torecreationally fish in this area.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act - This project will haveno direct, indirect or cumulative effects to riparian and aquatic habitats as discussed in theFisheries section of the EA.

Forest Plan Direction - The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RFP) for theChugach National Forest guides natural resource management activities and establishesmanagement guidelines and standards for the National Forest. Proposed managementactivities must be consistent with the RFP. Goals and objectives identify the major areas ofemphasis for forest plan implementation. The goals and objectives are described in theRFP, chapter III, pages 3-1 through 3-12 as it relates to the Recreation and Visual Resourcesalong with Special Designation Areas in the project area.

FINDING OF No SIGNIFICANT IMPACTThe significance of environmental impacts must be considered in terms of context andintensity. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contextssuch as society as a whole (human and national), the affected region, the affected interests,and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. In the case of asite-specific action, significance usually depends upon the effects in the locale rather thanin the world as a whole. Intensity refers to the severity or degree of impact. (40 CFR1508.27)

— Draft Decision Notice —Page 5 of 9

USDA

CONTEXTThe significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts and varies with thesetting. The environmental effects of this project are analyzed at varying scales (seespecialists reports in the project record). I have reviewed the cumulative effects of pastmanagement, combined with this project and feel that the context of this decision is limitedto the land in and adjacent to the project area and does not set a local, regional or nationalprecedent.

INTENSITY

Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based oninformation from Chapter 3 of the EA and the project record. I have determined that theinterdisciplinary team considered the effects of this project appropriately and thoroughlywith an analysis that is responsive to concerns and issues raised by the public. My findingof no significant impact is based on the intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in40CFR1508.27b.

1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may existeven if the Federal agency believes that, on balance, the effect will bebeneficial. Consideration of the intensity of environmental effects is not biased bybeneficial effects of the action.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. Theproject will improve public health and safety by mitigating existing safety problemsassociated with the unstable road and providing a pedestrian/bike path to segregatemotorized and non-motorized visitors along the access road. No negative effects tohealth and safety are expected from implementation of this project.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic orcultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenicrivers, or ecologically critical areas. This area is known as one of the mostpopular sportfishing destinations in Alaska due to the abundance of sockeye salmonthat exists in the Russian and Kenai rivers. The area is also a part of the SqilantnuArcheological District and contains some of the most significant cultural resourcesfound anywhere in the state. There will be no significant effects on uniquecharacteristics of the area, because mitigation measures will be implemented toavoid affecting such areas. (See EA Appendix A)

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment arelikely to be highly controversial. The effects on the quality of the humanenvironment are not likely to be highly controversial. There is no known crediblescientific controversy over the impacts of the proposed action.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highlyuncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The Agency has considerableexperience with actions like the one proposed. The analysis shows the effects arenot uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risks.

— Draft Decision Notice —Page 6 of 9

USDA

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actionswith significant effects, or represents a decision in principle about a futureconsideration. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actionswith significant effects, because campground reconstruction projects are frequentlyimplemented on National Forest system lands and are routine in nature.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificantbut cumulatively significant impacts. Resource specialists conducted cumulativeeffects analyses using appropriate timeframes and geographic areas (see projectrecord). None of the proposed actions would create significant impact alone orwhen considered cumulatively with other actions.

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways,structures, or objects listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register ofHistoric Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific,cultural, or historical resources. The action will have no significant adverse effecton districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing inthe National Register of Historic Places. The action will also not cause loss ordestruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources becausemitigation measures will be implemented to avoid such resources.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered orthreatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical underthe Endangered Species Act of 1973. The action will not adversely affect anyendangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to becritical under the Endangered Species act of 1973, because no endangered orthreatened species exist in the project area (see Wildlife Specialist Report).

10. Whether the action threatens to violate Federal, State, or local law orrequirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The action willnot violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection of theenvironment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA (see EApages 11-12). .

After considering the effects of the actions analyzed, in terms of context and intensity, Ihave determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of thehuman environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.

OBJECTION OPPORTUNITIESThis decision is subject to administrative review (objection) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218.Individuals or non-federal organizations who submitted timely, specific written commentsduring scoping or any designated opportunity for public comment have standing to fileobjection prior to the deciding official making a decision on this project. Issues raised inobjections must be based on previously submitted timely, specific written commentsregarding the project unless based on new information arising after the designatedcomment opportunities.

— Draft Decision Notice —Page 7 of 9

USDA

A notice of objection must be filed in writing, meet objection content requirements at 36CFR 218.8(d), and incorporation of documents by reference is permitted only as providedfor at 36 CFR 218.8(b), and must be filed with the Reviewing Officer:

Terri Marceron, Forest SupervisorUSDA Forest Service

Chugach National Forest Office161 E. 1st Avenue, Door 8

Anchorage, AK 99501fax: (907) 743-9476

objections-alaska-chugach@fs.fed.us

The Notice of Objection, including attachments, must be filed (regular mail, fax, email,express delivery or messenger service) with the Reviewing Officer at the correct locationwithin 45 calendar days of publication of notice of the opportunity to object in theAnchorage Daily News, the newspaper of record for the Chugach National Forest, SewardRanger District. If the time period expires on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, thetime is extended to the end of the next Federal working day as stated in the notice. Thepublication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the timeto file an objection. Those wishing to object to this decision should not rely upon dates ortimeframe information provided by any other source.

Objections submitted electronically, including attachments, must be in an electronic formatcompatible with Microsoft Word.

Hand delivered objections will be accepted at the Chugach National Forest SupervisorsOffice or the Seward Ranger District Office during normal business hours (8:00 am through4:30 pm) Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

Decision and Implementation

Pursuant to objection regulation found at 36 CFR 218.12, Tom Malecek, District Ranger andthe Deciding Official, may not sign the Decision Notice until the Reviewing Officer hasresponded in writing to all pending objections. If no objections are received, the DecidingOfficial may sign the decision notice five (5) business days after expiration of theopportunity to object. Implementation may begin immediately after the decision notice issigned.

Pursuant Contact

For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Bobbie Jo Skibo, Russian RiverInteragency Coordinator, at 907-288-7739 or bkolodziejski@fs.fed.us

— Draft Decision Notice —Page 8 of 9

USDA

The U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA) prohibits discrimination in all itsprograms and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age,disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parentalstatus, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs,reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from anypublic assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communicationof program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contactUSDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file acomplaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equalopportunity provider and employer.

— Draft Decision NoticePage 9 of 9