United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Lusk Creek Canoe/Kayak Launch

Environmental Assessment Hidden Springs Ranger District, Shawnee National Forest, Pope County, Illinois

March 2017

Responsible Official: Tim Pohlman, District Ranger Contact: Heather Carey Shawnee National Forest 602 N. First Street, Vienna, Illinois 62995 Phone: 618-658-2111, Fax: 618-658-1300, Email: hcarey@fs.fed.us

ii

USDA NONDISCRIMINATION STATEMENT

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or

administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin,

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status,

family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or

retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all

bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g.,

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than

English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form,

AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or

write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA

by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email:

program.intake@usda.gov (link sends e-mail).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

i

Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................................ i Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Proposed Project Location .......................................................................................................... 1 Need for Action ............................................................................................................................... 2 Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................... 3 Issues ............................................................................................................................................... 3

Key Issues and Indicators............................................................................................................ 3 Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 4 Design Criteria and Monitoring .................................................................................................. 6 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................. 7

Environmental Effects ..................................................................................................................... 7 Botanical Resources .................................................................................................................... 7 Heritage Resources ..................................................................................................................... 8 Recreation Resources .................................................................................................................. 9 Visual Quality ........................................................................................................................... 10 Watershed Resources ................................................................................................................ 10 Wildlife Resources .................................................................................................................... 14

Finding of No Significant Impact .................................................................................................. 15 Context ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Intensity ..................................................................................................................................... 15

References ..................................................................................................................................... 18

List of Tables

Table 1. Design Criteria for Lusk Creek Canoe/Kayak Launch ...................................................... 6 Table 2. Monitoring for Lusk Creek Canoe/Kayak Launch ............................................................ 7 Table 3. Animal Species Selected for Further Analysis ................................................................ 14

List of Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity map ..................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Proposed Launch Design ................................................................................................. 5

Figure 3. Collapsed bridge abutment armoring the stream bank ................................................... 11 Figures 4 and 5. Uplsope of old bridge abutment, upstream of proposed launch site. .................. 11 Figure 6. Daily gage height for January 2014-January 2015 at the Lusk Creek gaging station. ... 12 Figure 7. Daily gage height for January 2015-January 2016 at the Lusk Creek gaging station. ... 12 Figure 8. Daily gage height for January 2016-January 2017 at the Lusk Creek gaging station. ... 13

Hidden Springs Ranger District, Shawnee National Forest

1

Introduction The USDA Forest Service Shawnee National Forest, in cooperation with the Lusk Creek Conservancy District, is proposing to construct a small canoe/kayak launch on Lusk Creek on the Shawnee National Forest in Pope County, Illinois.

This environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared to determine whether constructing a

developed canoe/kayak launch on Lusk Creek may significantly affect the quality of the human

environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By

preparing this EA, we are complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The

EA will summarize the findings of the team of resource specialists concerning this proposal.

Additional documentation concerning this project, including specialist’s working papers, is filed

in the project record located at the Hidden Springs-Mississippi Bluffs District Office, 602 N. First

Street, Vienna, Illinois, as well as on the Forest’s website: www.fs.usda.gov/Shawnee

Proposed Project Location The project area is located along the west side of County Road 5 (Eddyville Blacktop) near the

bridge over Lusk Creek, approximately two miles southeast of Eddyville, Pope County, Illinois.

The site is located in Section 16 Township 12S Range 6E on the USGS 7.5’ Waltersburg Quadrangle

map.

Lusk Creek Canoe/Kayak Launch Environmental Assessment

2

Figure 1. Vicinity map

Need for Action The purpose of this action is to develop access to Lusk Creek, in order to launch non-motorized

watercraft. There are currently no public developed access points on Lusk Creek upstream from

the State Recreation Area Marina at Golconda, Illinois. Forest visitors have developed a user

created launch and parking area at the proposed site but it is difficult to use and does not consider

Hidden Springs Ranger District, Shawnee National Forest

3

the natural, biological, and cultural resources of the area. Access to Lusk Creek is reached only

via a steep embankment, making the activity of launching non-motorized watercraft difficult and

unsafe. A developed canoe/kayak launch would provide for improved public recreation

opportunities, minimize effects to resources, and improve forest visitor safety.

Public Involvement Public scoping for this project began on July 24, 2016, for a 30 day period. Notice of the project

was advertised in The Southern Illinoisan newspaper, as well as the Shawnee National Forest’s

Schedule of Proposed Actions. Interested persons were directed to more information on the Forest

website: www.fs.usda.gov/projects/shawnee/landmanagement/projects for public review and

comment. In addition, a scoping letter concerning the project was mailed to all private individuals

and state and municipal entities owning land adjacent to Lusk Creek, downstream from the

proposed launch site. The Forest Service consulted with the Illinois Department of Natural

Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, and worked closely with the Lusk Creek Conservancy District

throughout the planning phase of this project. Two comments were received concerning the

proposed action and are included in the project file.

Issues Issues are points of debate, disagreement, or dispute about the environmental effects of a

proposed action. Following our scoping of the public and other agencies, the interdisciplinary

team identified issues related to the proposal and divided them into two groups, key and non-key.

Key issues are those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action or

alternatives. The content and issues analysis was reviewed and approved by the responsible

official.

Key Issues and Indicators The construction of a canoe/kayak launch on the east bank of Lusk Creek may have effects upon

a designated natural area, including impacts to soil, water, plants, and wildlife.

Soil and Water Quality Indicator: We will discuss the predicted amount of soil erosion

that will result from construction activities.

Plant Community Indicator: We will discuss the response of the plant community in

terms of potential effects to native and non-native plant species.

Wildlife Community Indicator: We will discuss the response of Regional Forester’s

Sensitive Species and species with viability evaluation in terms of potential changes in

the habitat resultant from project activities.

Alternatives NEPA requires that, at a minimum, two alternatives be considered: the Proposed Action and No

Action. Alternatives beyond these two are driven by public input during project scoping. Of the

public comments received, none identified issues that would have formed the substance of a third

Lusk Creek Canoe/Kayak Launch Environmental Assessment

4

alternative. Therefore, the interdisciplinary team or resource specialists considered only the

Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives.

Proposed Action The Shawnee National Forest, in cooperation with the Lusk Creek Conservancy District, proposes

to construct a developed canoe/kayak launch on Lusk Creek. Site development includes the

construction of a single lane road that initially follows an existing two track road and then departs

into a historic road depression that served as the original bridge approach. The single lane with

turnout would lead to a newly constructed loading/unloading zone that would allow users to pick

up/drop off their watercraft and gear. A short gravel access path from the loading/unloading zone

would provide access to a small staging area at the top of the launch, which would be constructed

immediately downstream from the collapsed stone bridge abutment on the east side of the creek.

The launch itself would consist of a ramp that projects downstream from the abutment. Retaining

walls would be constructed for slope retention and to stabilize the structure during times of high

water flow. Recreational development at the site would be minimal and it would be classified as a

day use site. The proposed launch area is intended for loading/unloading watercraft and

entering/exiting the creek only. Camping at the launch would be prohibited and no amenities (e.g.

picnic tables, grills, or toilets) would be provided. In order to deter vandalism and increase public

safety, brushy vegetation between the Eddyville blacktop and the loading/unloading zone and

launch would be removed to provide for better visibility. In addition, a minimal number of small

diameter trees will be removed in order to construct the loading/unloading zone. Parking would

be available at the existing user made parking area that lies within the existing graded/graveled

ROW adjacent to Eddyville blacktop.

Hidden Springs Ranger District, Shawnee National Forest

5

Figure 2. Proposed Launch Design

Lusk Creek Canoe/Kayak Launch Environmental Assessment

6

Design Criteria and Monitoring Design criteria and monitoring have been built into the action alternative so as to meet Forest

Plan standards and guidelines, comply with the Forest Plan Biological Opinion, to protect

biological diversity, and to reduce the potential for adverse effects to aquatic resources.

Table 1. Design Criteria for Lusk Creek Canoe/Kayak Launch

Resource Design Criteria Rationale/Effectiveness

Botanical Ensure that rare plant resources, including state-listed threatened and endangered species, are protected from mechanical or chemical treatments.

Rare plant resources will be protected and habitat enhanced. Known locations of state-listed plant species will be protected by request of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.

Clean all equipment before entering and leaving project sites. Workers should inspect, remove and properly dispose of plant parts found on clothing and equipment before entering or leaving the project area. Minimize soil disturbance to avoid creating favorable conditions that encourage invasive establishment and/or spread.

Minimizes spread of noxious weeds from one site to the next (USDA-FS 2004). Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices (2001).

Engineering Design and construction must be in accordance with Forest Service design standards

Launch must conform to Forest Service Standards as it is located on Forest Service lands

Watershed Erosion control practices are necessary when work is being done along the stream

To reduce sediment loads into aquatic areas, restore and enhance healthy aquatic habitat conditions and maintain aquatic diversity in Lusk Creek

Best management practices should be followed for road construction to prevent unnecessary compaction and to prevent soil loss and increased discharge into nearby waterways

To protect riparian resources, downstream aquatic resources, and to maintain integrity of riparian filter strips

Gabion baskets and/or other erosion control structures should be used in areas where disturbed soils or where stream banks are susceptible to erosion

To reduce sediment loads into aquatic areas from high water events and to maintain aquatic diversity in Lusk Creek

Add erosion control surfacing to the bed of the launch pathway

To decrease risk of sedimentation during precipitation or high water events

Hidden Springs Ranger District, Shawnee National Forest

7

Resource Design Criteria Rationale/Effectiveness

Wildlife No removal of any potential bat roost tree, dead or alive, between April 1 and September 30 unless non-use has been determined by a biologist

USFWS BO for the Forest Plan, p. 66 – Protection of potential TES bat maternity roost habitat

No instream work upstream of launch site between March 15 and April 15

Minimize potential effects to spawning least brook lamprey

Table 2. Monitoring for Lusk Creek Canoe/Kayak Launch

No Action Alternative In the No Action alternative the launch and accompanying features would not be constructed and

the site will remain in its existing condition. In this alternative users would continue to access

Lusk Creek via the steep embankment and would park their vehicles in the existing graveled area

adjacent to County Road 5 (Eddyville Blacktop).

Environmental Effects This section of the EA summarizes the potential effects of the proposed action and the alternative

for each resource. It will consider the direct and indirect effects of the project as well as how the

project may interact with other actions occurring in the same area (if any).

Botanical Resources The following is a summary of the effects and impacts of project alternatives on botanical

resources. No federally threatened or endangered (T or E) plant species are known to occur within

or adjacent to the project area. No suitable habitat is present for the only federally threatened

plant known to occur on the Forest, Mead’s milkweed (Asclepias meadii). Only one Regional

Forester Sensitive (RFSS or sensitive) plant species, Turk’s-Cap Lily (Lilium superbum), has

been recorded within the proposed project area. None of the five plant species with Viability

Evaluations (SVE) have been recorded within the project area. There are no known State of

Illinois T or E species known to occur at the proposed boat launch site.

Resource Monitoring Description Location and Timing

Botanical Monitor known rare plants to ensure no adverse effects.

Selected locations would be monitored during and after implementation

Heritage Monitor that heritage resources are protected and preserved during and after project implementation

Annual Forest Plan monitoring will assess the thoroughness of inventory methods and protection measures

Lusk Creek Canoe/Kayak Launch Environmental Assessment

8

One Forest natural area is within the project area. The Lusk Creek Zoological Area1 is a bank to

bank natural area located within the project area.

In addition, a number of non-native invasive species have been found within the project area

during past vegetation surveys. Invasive plant infestations within the project area will only be

treated if they are included within the Non-native Invasive Species Management EA (2014).

Individual invasive plant species will not be analyzed for this project.

Proposed Action – All Effects

No T or E plants are known to be present or likely to be present within the proposed project area.

Therefore, there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any T or E plants as a result of

the proposed action. There is one RFSS plant species within the project area, Turk’s-Cap Lily

(Lilium superbum). The proposed action may cause a direct affect to individual plants but is not

likely to result in a loss that causes a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability.

Another direct effect of implementing the proposed action is that there may be an

acceleration of the spread of invasive species within the project area due to the increased

influx of people, equipment, supplies, vehicles, etc. Should this occur, plant infestations

covered under the Non-Native Invasive Species Management EA will be treated according

to the methods outlined in the document.

No Action Alternative – All Effects

There will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on T or E species or RFSS species as a

result of the implementation of a No Action Alternative because the road and launch will not be

constructed and there will be no earth-disturbing activities.

The spread of invasive plant species will stay the same. Due to past land use the majority of

native plant species have been replaced by non-native plant species. The current location is near

a highway and the land on the top of the creek bank has a roadway already in place. These have

served as corridors for the movement of invasive species.

Heritage Resources The primary issue is the preservation and protection of heritage resources and the assurance that

significant heritage resources will not be affected by project implementation. Archaeological sites

are located on and in the ground and are affected by any activity that disturbs the soil. The project

area has been inventoried in the past as part of other projects and re-inventoried using the most

current field methods to ensure that all sites located within the area were recorded. There are two

archaeological sites recorded within or near the project area, a prehistoric lithic scatter and the

remains of a nineteenth century bridge.

The prehistoric lithic scatter has been determined to be potentially eligible for inclusion on the

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). It is located near, but not in, the area of potential

effects. The remains of the nineteenth century stone bridge abutments are not considered to be

eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. The historic bridge over Lusk Creek no longer exists and has

been replaced with a more modern iron bridge located approximately 50 meters upstream. The

1 Zoological areas possess authentic, significant and interesting evidence of the national

heritage as it pertains to fauna. These areas are meaningful because they embrace animals, animal groups, or animal communities that are natural and important due to occurrence, habitat, location, life-history, ecology, environment, rarity, or another feature.

Hidden Springs Ranger District, Shawnee National Forest

9

stone abutment on the east bank of Lusk Creek (the side of the creek that the canoe/kayak launch

will be located on) has collapsed and no longer retains its original form.

Proposed Action – All Effects

There will be no direct effects on heritage resources as a result of the implementation of the

proposed action. The prehistoric lithic scatter is near but not included in the area of potential

effects and will not be impacted by project activities. The remains of the stone bridge abutments

are not considered to be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.

No indirect effects to the prehistoric site located near the project area will result from the

implementation of the proposed action because the planned one-lane access road is located within

the existing two track and nineteenth century bridge access road. These discrete areas are already

highly disturbed.

Because there are no direct or indirect effects to the archaeological resources as a result of the

proposed action, there would be no resulting cumulative effects.

No Action Alternative – All Effects

There will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on heritage resources as a result of the

implementation of a No Action Alternative because the road and launch will not be constructed

and there will be no earth-disturbing activities.

Recreation Resources The general project area is currently being used by the public in order to access Lusk Creek,

although the use is minimal. There are currently no public developed access points on Lusk Creek

upstream of this site. Primary recreational activities include launching watercraft and fishing. The

existing creek access points are opportunistic and can often be difficult due to steep and muddy

banks.

In 1982 a portion of Lusk Creek that includes the project area was designated as a Candidate

Wild and Scenic River under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System created by Congress in

1968 (PL 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). A Wild and Scenic River Evaluation was carried out

on Lusk Creek as part of the 2006 Shawnee National Forest (SNF) Land and Resource

Management Plan. It was determined that the portion of Lusk Creek below the Eddyville

Blacktop, in which the project area is located, receive a Recreational classification as the highest

potential category. This classification criteria allows for some shoreline development and readily

accessible river access points. The proposed action is consistent with this law.

The project lies two miles south of the Lusk Creek Wilderness boundary therefore wilderness

character will not be affected.

Proposed Action – All Effects

A direct effect of providing a developed canoe/kayak access point on the creek is that the public

can launch watercraft easier and more safely. Opportunities exist for short floats of a day or less

to multi-day floats, with Forest Service lands adjacent to Lusk Creek available for overnight

dispersed camping. With the enhanced recreational opportunities provided by implementation of

the project, as well as a growing interest in paddle sports locally, it is expected that public use of

this area will increase.

Lusk Creek Canoe/Kayak Launch Environmental Assessment

10

No Action Alternative – All Effects

The public is currently accessing Lusk Creek in a dispersed fashion within and near the general

project area, therefore there will no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects if no action is taken.

Visual Quality The project area is located adjacent to a major county road (Eddyville Blacktop). The SNF Land

and Resource Management Plan dictates the Visual Quality Objective (VQO) for the national

forest lands immediately adjacent to this county road as Retention, meaning minimal of the

closest canopy is preferred. Aesthetic concerns that were brought up during scoping and project

planning include the visual effects of increasing site distance by cutting underbrush. This would

be done to reduce the potential for vandalism at the launch site. Because this activity is not

expected to change the Forest canopy it will not adversely affect the VQO of Retention. It is

believed the sensitivity/concern level for landscape aesthetics at this site is low. The scenic

integrity level (state of naturalness) of the site appears moderately altered due to the nearby road,

bridge and existing access to river, therefore the existing condition of the project site is in the

“low” scenic integrity category.

Proposed Action – All Effects

There is currently a two-track dirt access road from the county road to Lusk Creek. Direct effects

to the visual character of the project area include the improvement to a portion of the two-track

dirt access road that leads to Lusk Creek, and the creation of a loading/unloading area to be

constructed adjacent to the road and near the landing site. Natural stone materials will be

incorporated into the design of the launch in order for it to blend into the natural setting.

The improvement of the site as described in the proposed action will not increase the degree of

naturalness of the site but the removal of the underbrush and the improvements to the road,

parking and launch area will create a slightly more “park-like” look which should be aesthetically

pleasing. Overall, aesthetic and scenic features should be maintained or improved with the

implementation of this project.

No Action Alternative – All Effects

There will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on visual quality as a result of the

implementation of a No Action Alternative because the road and launch will not be constructed

and there will be no activities altering the site’s present condition.

Watershed Resources The proposed project is located in silt loam soils. The soil that is adjacent to the creek is

Granstburg silt loam (moderately well drained, loess soils) and the soil along the stream bank is

Sharon silt loam (silty alluvium). The soils become saturated or inundated at times of high flow.

According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey and based on slope measurements and erosion factor

(k), soils adjacent to the stream banks have moderate erosion hazard from unsurfaced trails. If the

off-road/off-trail soils become exposed from disturbance, the NRCS Web Soil Survey rates them

with a slight erosion hazard. The proposed project area is most suitable for paths and trails (rated

“somewhat limited”) compared to the surrounding soils to the project area (rated “very limited”).

Stone from the old bridge appears to be acting as bank armoring, keeping the bank stabilized

(Figure 3). Figures 4 and 5 show the immediately upstream bank of the proposed launch, above

Hidden Springs Ranger District, Shawnee National Forest

11

the armoring. Erosion has occurred, as can be seen in the tree roots and will continue to occur in

high flows without erosion control structures.

Figure 3. Collapsed bridge abutment armoring the stream bank.

Figures 4 and 5. Upslope of old bridge abutment, upstream of proposed launch site.

Though sedimentation is not a primary concern currently in Lusk Creek, erosion control practices

are necessary when work is being done along the stream. Taking necessary steps to reduce

erosion will help keep streams healthier for biota and more aesthetically pleasing for recreation

uses.

A USGS stream gaging site is located at the current bridge upstream from the project area.

Looking at the past 3 years data, multiple storm events through the years caused peak stream

Lusk Creek Canoe/Kayak Launch Environmental Assessment

12

depth to increase above average stream depths (Figures 6-8), in some cases overtopping the banks

and flooding the surrounding soils.

Figure 6. Daily gage height for January 2014-January 2015 at the Lusk Creek gaging station. Average gage height was 3.333 feet.

Figure 7. Daily gage height for January 2015-January 2016 at the Lusk Creek gaging station. Average gage height was 3.436 feet.

Hidden Springs Ranger District, Shawnee National Forest

13

Figure 8. Daily gage height for January 2016-January 2017 at the Lusk Creek gaging station. Average gage height was 3.478 feet.

Proposed Action – All Effects

The direct and indirect effects of installation on air quality are expected to be minimal from

equipment during installation, and insignificant after installation. Constructing a single-lane road

with a turn-around spot for users will create easier access to the launch area. There is an old road

bed that the new, single-lane road can follow, allowing for less excavation than would occur if

there was no road bed. Best management practices should be followed for road construction to

prevent unnecessary compaction and to prevent soil loss and increased discharge into nearby

waterways (USFS 2006; Holzmueller & Deizman 2012). A forested buffer exists between the

single-use road and the stream to help keep sediment and runoff from road construction out of the

stream.

The gravel access trail from the loading/unloading zone to the staging area will encourage users

to stay on the designated path, allowing vegetative cover in surrounding areas to grow without

disturbance and therefore reducing erosion. During construction it is anticipated that a slight

increase in soil erosion and sedimentation would occur as construction activities temporarily

create bare soil conditions. Disturbed soils should be reseeded with native vegetation and/or

covered in straw to reduce raindrop erosion and to anchor soil in place with plant roots

(Holzmueller & Deizman 2012), and to protect soil and accelerate plant growth (Department of

Environmental Conservation 2016).

The canoe launch itself will be located at the collapsed stone abutment along the stream. Best

management practices for creating and managing watercraft launches should be followed to

minimize impacts to soil and water quality (USFS 2012). Gabion baskets and/or other erosion

control structures should be used in areas where disturbed soils or where stream banks are

susceptible to erosion. The launch area will be under water in some high flow events as USGS

Lusk Creek Canoe/Kayak Launch Environmental Assessment

14

data shows (Figures 6-8). Field observations also show that the area experiences flash flooding.

The launch ramp will be stabilized by retaining walls made from gabion baskets. The launch will

enter the water on the downstream side of the bridge abutment. The stones from the old bridge

provide armoring on the right, with the launch going into a slower flowing, deeper pool for easier

entrance to watercraft. Adding rock or other erosion control measures on the surface of the launch

area pathway will decrease erosion on the surface.

Cumulative watershed effects consider the additive changes for constructing the launch for the

entire watershed. Users would use the established road and launch area, resulting in fewer user-

made access points on the creek. User-made launches may not consider the impacts to water and

soil quality. Less stream bank erosion would be expected from user-made launches once the

project is complete.

No Action Alternative – All Effects

There would be no direct or indirect effect to air quality by not implementing the proposed action.

Because of the lack of access sites at or upstream of this location, the public would continue to

establish user-created launches. User footpaths could encourage less infiltration and preferential

flow, increasing erosion.

Cumulative watershed effects consider the additive changes of the watershed if the proposed

launch is not constructed. Users would continue to use the user-made launch area or find

alternative areas in the watershed, further increasing erosion on banks where launch areas are

created. At the existing use levels, which would be expected to remain the same in the No Action

Alternative, it is not anticipated that effects to watershed and soil resources would be measurable.

Therefore, cumulative effects are not anticipated.

Wildlife Resources There are three primary habitat types that are present at the project location - an old field-

shrub/sapling habitat, a wooded riparian forest area, and the creek. The project area was analyzed

for the potential effects to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. There are no known occurrences of any

federally threatened-endangered, regionally sensitive (TES), or state listed animal species in or

directly adjacent to the project area.

Table 3. Animal Species Selected for Further Analysis. Listing status codes are FE=Federally Endangered, FT=Federally Threatened, RFSS=Regional Forester Sensitive Species, ST=State of Illinois Threatened

Common Name Scientific Name Taxa Status

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis Mammal FE

Gray Bat Myotis grisescens Mammal FE

Northern Long-eared Bat

Myotis septentrionalis Mammal FT

Southeastern Myotis Myotis austroriparius Mammal RFSS

Least Brook Lamprey Lampetra aepyptera Fish RFSS, ST

Proposed Action – All Effects

Although there is small tree removal (<3” dbh) associated with the construction of the access

road, loading/unloading zone, and staging area effects to terrestrial wildlife and/or habitat

associated with this proposed action is considered to be minimal. There will be no direct, indirect,

Hidden Springs Ranger District, Shawnee National Forest

15

or cumulative effects to any of the three bat species as the trees flagged for removal do not meet

the criteria for consideration as suitable bat roost trees.

There is one state-listed TES, least brook lamprey, which is known to occur and spawn in a series

of riffles upstream of the proposed action area. With implementation of this project, higher use of

the area is expected, thereby creating the potential for increased human disturbance to the general

area. The launch itself is located downstream of the spawning riffles in a shallow pool area. This

will reduce the existing disturbance that occurs directly adjacent to the riffles by funneling users

to a designated point of creek entry. Project design and location minimizes and/or eliminates any

direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the least brook lamprey or its habitat.

No Action Alternative – All Effects

There will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to wildlife as the result of the

implementation of a No Action Alternative because current management plans would continue to

guide management of the project area and environmental conditions along Lusk Creek would

remain the same.

Finding of No Significant Impact As the responsible official, I have evaluated the effects of the project relative to the definition of

significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have reviewed and

considered the EA and documentation included in the project record, and I have determined that

the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As

a result, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. My rationale for this finding is as

follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of significance cited above.

Context For the proposed action and no action alternative the context of the environmental effects is based

on the environmental analysis in this EA. Implementation of the proposed action would allow

forest recreation users a safe, public, developed access point to Lusk Creek that will be designed

and maintained to consider and benefit the natural, biological and cultural resources of the project

area. It will improve and diversify public recreation opportunities on the Shawnee National

Forest. The proposed action involves a limited, focused action in a discrete area of the Forest that

would have no significant short or long term, direct or indirect effects and cumulative effects

would be indiscernible from nearby Forest related and private activities. The no action alternative

would be insignificant to all resources, and would result in little change to the project area.

Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information

from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project record. The effects of this

project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to

concerns and issues raised by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental

effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained

from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and

intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b).

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the

Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

Lusk Creek Canoe/Kayak Launch Environmental Assessment

16

The finding of no significant environmental effects reflects consideration of both the

beneficial and adverse effects of implementing the proposed action. The design criteria

incorporated into this project were specifically created to avoid significant direct, indirect,

and cumulative effects, while at the same time ensuring the benefits of implementation. The

interdisciplinary team found that implementation of the proposed action would result in no

significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the environment.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

The finding of no significant environmental effects is based on the analysis of the proposed

action in the environmental assessment. Implementation of the proposed action will benefit

public health and safety by providing a developed area to access Lusk Creek.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or cultural

resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically

critical areas.

There are no unique characteristics in the geographic area, such as heritage resources,

parklands, prime farmland, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas that

would be significantly affected by the proposed action. Lusk Creek is considered a Candidate

Wild and Scenic River, but the area in which the proposed project is located is classified as

Recreational which allows for some shoreline development and readily accessible river

access points.

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be

highly controversial.

Based on the involvement of Forest Resource specialists, other agencies, and the public, the

anticipated effects of the proposed action on the quality of the human environment are not

highly controversial.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or

involve unique or unknown risks.

Based on the conclusions of the analysis carried out for this project, there is no uncertain

possible effects on the human environment, or unique or unknown risks associated with the

proposed project.

6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant

effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

This action does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent

a decision in principle about a future consideration. The action is consistent with the 2006

Shawnee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively

significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively

significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action

temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

A finding of no significant impact from implementation of the proposed action includes

consideration of its cumulative effects in relationship to other activities, whether conducted by

the Forest Service or others. All known actions associated with the selected alternative that are

likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future have been identified and the direct, indirect,

and cumulative effects disclosed in the EA. Compliance with the project design criteria will

ensure that any direct or indirect effects from this proposal will be minimal to non-existent.

Hidden Springs Ranger District, Shawnee National Forest

17

The minor, incremental effects this project would add to the effects of the past, present, and

future actions are therefore minimal and limited in duration.

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause

loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

Implementation of the project will have no adverse effect on districts, sites, highways,

structures, or objects listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places

because none are present within the project area. Heritage Resources are discussed on page 5.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or

its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The biological evaluation of the of the proposal determined that current or proposed federally

listed, threatened, or endangered species would not likely be adversely affected by this action.

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements

imposed for the protection of the environment.

Implementation of the selected alternative will result in no action that would violate federal,

state, or local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and

regulations were considered in the development of the proposal and analysis. The proposed

action is also consistent with the 2006 Shawnee National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan. Forest Plan.

Lusk Creek Canoe/Kayak Launch Environmental Assessment

18

References Holzmueller, Eric & Paul Deizman et al. 2012 (revision). Forestry Best Management Practices.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2001. Guide to Noxious Weed

Prevention Practices.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2004. National Strategy and

Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2006. Low –Water Crossings:

Geomorphic, Biological, and Engineering Design Considerations. 0625 1808-SDTDC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management

Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest Service Lands Volume 1.

FS-990a. 165 pages.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA, Forest Service – Shawnee National Forest. 2014. Non-

Native Invasive Species Management Environmental Analysis.

Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State. 2016. Stream Crossings:

Guidelines and Best Management Practices.