a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...4701 north torrey pines drive ....

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Intermountain Region

October 2012

Environmental Assessment

Mahogany Grove Group Campground Reconstruction Project

Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Clark County, Nevada

For further information, contact:

Frank Leoni, Project Manager Spring Mountains National Recreation Area

4701 North Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89130

Phone: 218-365-7630

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint 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 equal opportunity provider and employer.


Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest i

Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1

Background ...............................................................................................................................................1 Project Location ........................................................................................................................................1

Purpose of and Need for this Project .............................................................................................................1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................1 Need for Action .........................................................................................................................................3

Need to Meet Forest Service Standards and Public Expectations .........................................................3 Need to Safely Accommodate Campground Traffic .............................................................................4 Need to Provide Enhanced Informational and Interpretive Facilities ...................................................4

Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................................5 Decision Framework .................................................................................................................................5 Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................................5

Scoping ..................................................................................................................................................5 Issues .....................................................................................................................................................5

Alternatives ...................................................................................................................................................6 Alternative Development ..........................................................................................................................6 Description of Alternatives .......................................................................................................................6

Alternative 1 – No Action .....................................................................................................................6 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...........................................................................................................6

Design Criteria ..........................................................................................................................................7 Vegetation Management Plan ...................................................................................................................7

Silviculture Treatments .........................................................................................................................8 Planting Guidelines ...............................................................................................................................8

Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................................9 Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................................................13

Soils .........................................................................................................................................................13 Alternative 1 – No Action ...................................................................................................................13 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action .........................................................................................................13

Plants and Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................15 Alternative 1 – No Action ....................................................................................................................15 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ..........................................................................................................16

Recreation ...............................................................................................................................................25 Alternative 1 – No Action ....................................................................................................................25 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ..........................................................................................................26

Heritage Resources .................................................................................................................................30 Alternative 1 – No Action ...................................................................................................................30 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action .........................................................................................................30

Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations ..........................................................31 Climate Change Considerations ..............................................................................................................31 Other Impacts and Considerations ..........................................................................................................31

Public Health and Safety .....................................................................................................................31 Unique Characteristics.........................................................................................................................31 Other Federal, State, or Local Laws or Requirements for Protection of the Environment..................31

Consultation and Coordination ....................................................................................................................32 References ...................................................................................................................................................34 Appendix A – Responses to Public Scoping Comments .............................................................................36 Appendix B – Design Criteria .....................................................................................................................49


ii Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Appendix C – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities ......................................................... 53

List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of environmental effects ........................................................................................... 10 Table 2. Wildlife and plant summary of effects .......................................................................................... 19 Table 3. SMNRA recreation site reconstruction schedule .......................................................................... 29

List of Figures Figure 1. Aerial photo and map of the project location ................................................................................ 2


Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 1

Introduction The Spring Mountains National Recreation Area (SMNRA) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects related to reconstruction of the Mahogany Grove Group Campground. Based on this analysis, a determination will be made whether an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9(a)(1)) is required. This EA complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the regulations established by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Forest Service Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook 1909.15. In this EA, the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives are described.

Background The Mahogany Grove Group Campground was originally developed by the Forest Service as a day-use group picnic area in the early 1960s. The site is now managed as an overnight group camp with four separate cluster camping units and three parking lots. The camping units can accommodate up to 240 individuals; however the parking lots have the capacity for only 40 vehicles. The camp sites and use areas are outdated and deteriorated. The facilities are not accessible to people with disabilities. Many of the larger mountain mahogany and juniper are dead or dying. The campground needs renovation to upgrade the infrastructure to current design standards for health, safety, and accessibility.

Project Location The Mahogany Grove Group Campground is located in the SMNRA on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. It is located approximately 40 miles from Las Vegas, in Clark County, Nevada on State Route (SR) 158 (Deer Creek Highway), approximately 5 miles northwest of the intersection of SR 158 with SR 157 (Kyle Canyon Highway), and approximately 16 miles west of U.S. Interstate 95 (see Figure 1).

Purpose of and Need for this Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to:

1. Reconstruct deteriorating recreation facilities at Mahogany Grove Group Campground to meet current and expected future demand and provide for accessibility, public safety, and a healthy, sustainable forest environment.

2. Safely accommodate traffic along the campground entrance road.

3. Provide facilities that convey information to site visitors and to interpret the unique resources of the SMNRA, including remnants of the historic Civilian Conservation Corps campsite.


2 Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Figure 1. Aerial photo and map of the project location



Need for Action The purpose and need for action is based on the management direction in the SMNRA General Management Plan, which is an amendment to the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Plan (Forest Plan). The project area lies in Management Area 11, Developed Canyons in the SMNRA, which provides dual management direction for the unique ecology and valuable cultural resources found there as well as providing opportunities for public recreation. The General Management Plan mandates protection of the natural environment and cultural resources that serve to enhance the quality of the human environment and the value of the public recreation experience.

The General Management Plan outlines desired conditions in its goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, all of which describe needs specific to the Mahogany Grove Group Campground. Under each of the following identified needs, the existing conditions on the ground are described first, followed by the desired conditions that describe what conditions should exist after implementing the project. The existing conditions of this recreation site demonstrate deficiencies that necessitate change.

Need to Meet Forest Service Standards and Public Expectations The Mahogany Grove Group Campground needs to be renovated to upgrade the facility to meet Forest Service and national accessibility standards, to enhance public safety, to optimize parking and camping capacity, and to manage vegetation within the project area so it becomes a healthy and sustainable component of the surrounding forest environment.

Existing Conditions The campground and facilities have not been improved since they were built in the early 1960s as a group picnicking day use area and later managed them as an overnight group camping area.

Three parking lots are located within the site that provides parking for 40 vehicles. The parking lots serve four separate group units. Two of the group units can accommodate up to 80 people each and the other two units accommodate up to 40 people each. At capacity, the site accommodates approximately 240 Persons at One Time (PAOTs).

The site is currently operated by a concessionaire. Use is by reservation only and the concessionaire opens Mahogany Grove as necessary. The site is closed during the winter.

The existing infrastructure has exceeded its functional lifespan. Site use has compacted and eroded soils, exposed concrete pad edges under tables and grills, and erosion-related safety hazards in many places. Trees roots are exposed near high use areas due to soil compaction and erosion. There are no designated pathways within the recreation site other than user-created trails. Asphalt roads have deteriorated due to edge erosion, cracking, and pothole development and propagation. Campsite furniture and facilities are outdated, deteriorated, and broken in many cases. The furniture does not meet user expectations. The two vault restrooms at the site are too small to meet demand during periods of high use. The vault restrooms are not aesthetically pleasing and repel people from using them due to their old and dilapidated condition. There are numerous dead, dying and broken trees throughout the site that present human health and safety hazards. The existing vegetation, including old-growth mountain mahogany, pinyon pine, and western juniper are a valuable vegetative resource which is stressed by current patterns and intensity of use, as well as by recent storm events that have broken many trees and branches.



The facilities at the site do not meet Forest Service accessibility standards. There are no accessible routes from the parking areas to the campsites or other related facilities within the campground. There are no designated accessible parking spaces.

Desired Conditions The campground and facilities are safe, functional, attractive, and satisfying for public users. Facilities are designed and built to minimize user-caused environmental stress.

The campground has group campsites appropriately sized and distributed to maximize camping opportunities for a variety of group sizes. Picnic tables, grills, and asphalt roads are designed to meet the needs of the user, are built to current engineering standards, and meet accessibility requirements. The restrooms are efficiently and effectively distributed throughout the campground and are properly sized to meet visitor demand.

The parking areas accommodate the maximum expected number of users (175 PAOT) and are logically located to allow easy access to campsites while limiting environmental impact to the greatest extent practical. All facilities are constructed using low maintenance materials. All facilities meet administrative needs and are operationally cost effective to maintain.

The facilities and trails are constructed to Forest Service accessibility standards. An adequate number of parking spaces that meet accessibility standards are appropriately distributed throughout the parking areas.

The vegetation is managed to promote the growth and health of mountain mahogany, pinyon pine, and western juniper tree species.

Need to Safely Accommodate Campground Traffic Vehicle traffic operating on the campground access road needs to be safely accommodated.

Existing Conditions Traffic flow within the campground is a safety concern due to the narrow, one-lane road. There are no highway signs warning motorists about vehicles leaving or entering the highway from the campground. Traffic congestion and inadequate traffic flow are safety concerns during high use periods. Blind corners exist with limited sight distance. Pullouts are infrequent and improperly spaced.

Desired Conditions The road in the campground accommodates two-way traffic. Signs on SR 158 warn motorists of campground-related traffic entering and/or leaving the highway.

Need to Provide Enhanced Informational and Interpretive Facilities Interpretive facilities describing the unique site-specific historic and prehistoric cultural, natural, facility-related, and appropriate SMNRA-related history are needed.

Existing Conditions Currently, there are no informational or educational materials about recreation safety, trails, camping or other area amenities available at the site. There are no facilities on which such materials can be posted.



The historic campsite built by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) is located immediately adjacent to the Mahogany Grove Campground. No interpretive information about the site exists. The site is unprotected from vandals.

Desired Conditions Facilities exist that display interpretive content about the unique site-specific historic and prehistoric cultural, natural, facility-related, and appropriate SMNRA-related history of the area. Facilities exist that inform visitors about recreational safety, camping opportunities, trails, nearby amenities, and campground courtesy and behavior protocols. Facilities exist that interpret the unique resources related to the historic CCC campsite.

Proposed Action Reconstruct the Mahogany Grove Group Campground including removal of all campground-related infrastructure, access roads, fences, and buildings. Reconstruct the entire campground facility to include new access roads, parking areas, utilities, picnic tables, grills, vault toilets, asphalt pads, asphalt trails and accessible restrooms commensurate with need.

The proposed action responds to the three issues identified under the Purpose and Need. Responding to these issues as proposed would create an outcome that enables achievement of the identified desired future conditions. The proposed action also affirmatively responds to the goals and objectives stated in the approved General Management Plan for the SMNRA.

Decision Framework The SMNRA Manager for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest is the deciding official for the Mahogany Grove Group Campground Reconstruction Project. Based on the analysis in this EA, the manager will decide whether or not to reconstruct the Mahogany Grove Group Campground as proposed, or prepare a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

Public Involvement

Scoping The proposal to reconstruct the Mahogany Grove Group Campground was published in the First Quarter (October-December 2011) Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). The scoping period was from September 13, 2011 to October 14, 2011. A scoping notice describing the proposed action was mailed to addresses on the SMNRA mailing list (project planning file). This list includes individuals, organizations, Tribal governments, and other agencies. Agencies and Native American Tribes that received copies of the scoping notice are listed under the section on Consultation and Coordination in this document.

Consultation was initiated with the US Fish and Wildlife Service with an onsite meeting on August 31, 2011 and will continue as necessary throughout the lifespan of the project.

To date, 45 responses to the scoping letter have been received. The scoping letters, a summary of comments, and responses from the SMNRA can be found in Appendix A.

Issues The Forest Service analyzed public comment letters and identified issues. Key issues are those that define potential effects that may be directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Other



issues are identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. A list of issues and reasons regarding their categorization are located in the project record. No key issues were identified for analysis in the EA.

Alternatives This section describes and compares the alternatives considered for the renovation and reconstruction of the Mahogany Grove Group Campground.

Alternative Development NEPA directs the Forest Service to use an interdisciplinary approach that will ensure the integrated use of natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts (Sec. 102 [42 USC § 4332]). The interdisciplinary team developed the Proposed Action based on the purpose and need of the project and in response to existing conditions. Forest Service management objectives are incorporated into alternatives by following standards and guidelines of the SMNRA General Management Plan.

No key issue or unmitigated resource conflicts were identified to warrant development of additional action alternatives. However, a Value Analysis Team did review the initial conceptual site design and made recommendations which were adopted into the current Proposed Action. The recommendations included: reorienting parking into shorter spurs and along contours; reconfiguring and reorienting table units to reduce cut/fill on slopes and reduce the height of rockery walls; adjusting road design for increased safety and stability; using materials to better blend with site; adjusting drainage and culverts; and incorporating interpretative elements to highlight the historic nature of the site. The Value Analysis recommendations are located in the project record.

Description of Alternatives

Alternative 1 – No Action Under the no-action alternative, current facilities, configurations, and use patterns for the recreation site would remain the same. Operations and management of the site would also continue unchanged.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The following actions are proposed:

• Demolish and remove all roads, parking areas, utilities, picnic tables, grills, asphalt pads, toilets, signs, fences, and asphalt trails.

• Construct approximately five group camp units that can accommodate 25-35 PAOTs at each site. • Construct hardened surfaces for picnic tables and grills. • Reconstruct the access roadway within the recreation site to safely accommodate two-way traffic with

turnouts. • Construct an adequate number of restrooms that are effectively and efficiently dispersed throughout

the site. • Construct one shade shelter at a group campsite. • Construct hardened internal trails as necessary.



• Construct adequate parking that optimizes available space and provides a sufficient number of parking stalls to support the designed rate of utilization for the area.

• Replace the existing fence along the highway and extend the fence along the northern boundary of the site.

• Construct infrastructure that supports the display of adequate and appropriate interpretive, safety, and other site-specific information.

• Develop an interpretive trail through the original campground that was constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps.

• Implement a vegetation management plan to promote healthy trees, shrubs, and other native vegetation within the site.

Project Construction All construction would occur within the project boundary. All above grade features (including road, metal gate, parking areas, picnic tables, grills, asphalt pads, wood/metal bollards, wood/metal barriers, chain link fence along highway, wood benches, metal volleyball posts, concrete steps, concrete retaining wall, vault toilets, and large wood signs) would be demolished. Demolished material would be disposed of in a local commercial landfill. Clearing and grubbing would only occur in required locations for new construction including tent pads, barrier structures, locations for site furniture, bathrooms, road realignments and/or widening, fencing, utilities and/or signs when those facilities would be placed in a previously undisturbed area. Recycle asphalt and reuse it on site as appropriate. All clearing and demolition would be completed during the fall or early winter prior to construction beginning as soon as possible in 2013.

Demolition is currently scheduled for the fall or early winter of 2012. Construction would occur over the course of one summer/fall from approximately the third week of July though the end of 2014. The majority of new facilities would be pre-fabricated and may require some staging or onsite assembly. Heavy equipment for use during construction would likely include mini excavator, bobcat, bulldozer, grader, concrete truck, and a small crane for lifting pre-fabricated units into place.

An accelerated construction schedule is anticipated to minimize the overall construction time required to complete the project. An accelerated schedule would involve construction activities occurring between 6:00 AM and midnight, seven days per week. The effects from implementing this construction schedule are included in the analysis.

Design Criteria Design criteria are intended to reduce impacts from all proposed actions during implementation and are considered part of the proposed action. The design criteria for this proposed project were developed by the project team and are located in Appendix B of this document. Additionally, silvicultural treatments, and thinning and planting guidelines are expected to be implemented as directed under the Vegetation Management Plan developed for this project. These treatments and guidelines are summarized below; the full management plan can be found in the project record.

Vegetation Management Plan The Vegetation Management Plan for the Mahogany Grove Campground Reconstruction Project is considered part of the Proposed Action that is analyzed in this EA. The management plan discusses in detail the current condition and makes treatment recommendations. It would serve as a guide during and after project implementation. A brief summary of the vegetation treatments and planting guidelines follow.



Silviculture Treatments Proposed treatments include:

• Overstory and understory vegetation would be removed where new parking facilities would be constructed.

• Thin and prune an additional 0.5 acre of the campground on the inside of the blind hairpin curve of the access road. This would improve user safety by increasing site distance.

• Some trees may be removed or pruned to facilitate construction of tent pads and fence construction.

• While no trees should require treatment during reconstruction of the historic CCC camp trail, it may be necessary to remove some trees to facilitate construction or those identified as hazards.

• Prune and remove snow-damaged branches that are fire or site-distance hazards. Damaged limbs would be pruned, and both pruned and down limbs would be removed.

• Avoid pruning residual junipers and mahogany whenever possible to prevent juniper root rot and sunscald of the mahogany. Where pruning is necessary, prune juniper as close to the bole as possible while avoiding damage to the branch collars, and prune mahogany as low on the bole as possible to avoid sun scald to the bole of the trees.

• Have qualified personnel including a silviculturist, landscape architect, and recreation specialist collectively determine specifically what trees are retained or removed before any hazard tree removal. Any inspection for hazard trees should include the CCC camp.

• Reexamine the overstory and understory vegetation every 10 years.

Planting Guidelines Planting guidelines for visual considerations and revegetation are also contained in the management plan. Generally, sites that would benefit from additional vegetative screening and vegetation with potential to frame background mountain views should be identified at the design stage of the project. Space between sites is an influencing factor when determining the need for additional vegetative screening. Thinning some of the smallest diameter trees and retaining the largest diameter trees within clumps such that the crowns are just touching would maintain forest health and improve visual screening.

After these recreation sites are reconstructed, local vegetation would need rehabilitation or enhancement, especially in heavily disturbed areas. Native plant species eventually reclaim disturbed areas on their own. Reestablishing native species quickly helps deter non-native invasive plants. Vegetation recovery at this site would be hampered by trampling because of the heavy recreation use. Therefore, successful recovery of ground cover and establishment of screening vegetation may require additional protection efforts.

The quickest and most resilient rehabilitation method would be provided by retaining as much of the existing vegetation as possible. Ground disturbance would be limited as much as possible when determining where to place equipment. In areas of heavy disturbance, topsoil would be removed and either deposited directly to another site or stockpiled for later reapplication, preserving the native seed bank.

Planting native shrubs and tree seedlings may also be used as needed to ensure screening between campsites. Within the campsite or picnic area perimeters, planting seedlings quickly establishes plants



desired for future screening and shading. Plants should be from local seed that is gathered following regional seed zone guidelines and collection procedures. It may also be possible to transplant seedlings from the site, but this would be determined on a case by case basis. Planting should be done in the spring following the final tree removals, when both ground temperature and soil moisture content are adequate. To prevent trampling of seedlings, plants would be located 10 - 15 feet away from active use areas, and fencing or other means would be used to funnel traffic away from these sensitive areas, as appropriate. Planting or transplanting vegetation into this type of harsh environment often requires maintenance for the plants to survive. Regular watering should be considered for at least the first dry season until established. Where possible, to help control erosion and speed vegetation recovery, placing screening and ground cover plantings near the main outflow points from the various paved/hardened surfaces, would capture additional runoff moisture and sediment.

Comparison of Alternatives In this section, a summary of the effects related to the implementation of each alternative are presented. Information in Table 1 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.



Table 1. Comparison of environmental effects Resource/Measure Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Soils

Surface disturbance No effect Occurs only within the project boundary. Revegetation would stabilize newly disturbed areas.

Compaction/removal of soil

Continued compaction and trampling in developed areas. Areas of compaction would expand as erosion

expands due to denudation. Erosion rates would increase as concentration of runoff increases due to

denudation and soil compaction.

Construction-related soil compaction within the project boundary. Human trampling confined to use areas, parking areas and

internal trails. Redistribution of soil may occur as a result from grading, leveling, sloping, or other types of excavation. Some soil

transport off-site may occur.

Erosion

Continued and expanded rates of erosion including gullying and sheet wash due to lack of vegetative

ground cover, leaf litter, and other organic matter in the soil.

Stabilize soil throughout site by dispersing runoff and fencing off bluff from recreation use. Improved ground cover throughout site

would lower runoff potential and thus reduce surface erosion.

Plants Threatened, Endangered,

Candidate, or Proposed Species None None

Sensitive, Conservation Agreement, Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,

Management Indicator Species

Given current management activities, trends in species populations would continue

Determinations include: No impact:

Jaeger ivesia (Ivesia jaegeri), Charleston grounddaisy (Townsendia jonesii var. tumulosa), Charleston violet,

May impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability:

Jaeger’s beardtongue (Penstemon thompsoniae spp. Jaegeri), Dicranoweisia moss (Dicranoweisia crispula), Charleston

pinewood lousewort (Pedicularis semibarbata var. charlesonensis)

No Change to the SMNRA, Forest or Region populations from project implementation although individuals or habitat

may be impacted at project level: Blue grama grass (Bouteloua gracilis)

Noxious Weeds Subject to current weed management activities,

noxious weed populations would continue to spread from current locations using existing vectors.

Low Risk for Noxious Weeds. Weeds in Kyle Canyon and Deer Creek Highway, but not in project boundary. Some possible short

term adverse effects due to soil disturbance from construction, but long term vegetative recovery is planned.



Resource/Measure Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Wildlife

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Proposed Species No effect No effect

Sensitive, Conservation Agreement, Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,

Management Indicator Species

Given current management activities, trends in species populations would continue.

Determinations include: No impact:

Mammals: Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis)

Birds: Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus var. anatum),

May impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability:

Mammals:Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), Western small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum),

Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), Silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), Palmer’s

Chipmunk (Neotamias palmeri = Tamias palmeri) Birds: Flammulated owl

(Otus flammeolus), Black-throated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens), Cooper’s hawk

(Accipiter cooperii), Gray flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii), Gray vireo

(Vireo vicinior), Pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), Western bluebird

(Sialia mexicana) Invertebrates: Spring Mountains acastus checkerspot (Chlosyne

acastus robusta), Spring Mountains dark blue butterfly (Euphilotes ancilla purpura and E. ancilla cryptica = E. enoptes

purpurea), Spring Mountains comma skipper (Hesperia Colorado mojavensis = H. comma mojavensis), Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly (Plebejus (Icaricia) icarioides austinorum), Nevada admiral (Limenitus weidemeyerii nevadae), Carole’s silverspot

butterfly (Speyeria carolae = S. zerene carolae), Charleston ant (Lasius nevdensis), Spring mountainsnail (Oreohelix handi)

No Change to the SMNRA, Forest or Region populations from project implementation although individuals or habitat may

be impacted at project level: Mammals: Elk (Cervus Canadensis)



Resource/Measure Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Migratory Birds No effect

Direct harm to chicks and eggs is unlikely as no construction would occur during nesting season. Noise levels and extended construction hours may temporarily displace birds. Temporary

displacement of a few individuals should not have adverse effects on their populations. No long-term reduction of available habitat

for migratory birds. Recreation

Visitor Capacity PAOT would remain at approximately 240 visitors

PAOT would slightly decrease to approximately 175 visitors with flexibility in site configuration to accommodate smaller groups.

Visitors would be displaced to other recreation sites during construction.

Public Safety

Capacity of restroom facilities would remain inadequate. Ongoing safety concern continues related

to congestion due to narrow, one-lane internal campground roads and lack of signs along SR158

warning of vehicles leaving and entering the highway.

Reconstructed facilities would meet sanitation and accessibility guidelines. Traffic flow within the site would be improved by

accommodating two-way traffic with turnouts and placement of appropriate highway signs. Fencing along the steep slope would

also improve public safety.

Visitor Experience Site amenities would remain inadequate. Safety and interpretive information would continue to be limited.

Reconstructed facilities and site amenities, and enhanced interpretive information would enhance the experience for many

visitors. Visual quality may be impacted during construction, but would be improved after implementation. Vegetation would be managed to promote a healthy, attractive, and sustainable forest environment. Extended hours for the construction activities may disrupt people who may be recreating or living adjacent to the construction area.

Facility Administration and Maintenance

Deteriorating facilities would have to be replaced individually. Recreation site capacity would not be

optimized.

Minimize the cost of maintenance and repair in the long term. New facilities are adequate for visitor use levels.

Heritage

Site Impacts Ongoing vandalism would go unchecked and may affect remnants and features through defacement,

disfigurement, or destruction.

No historic properties are located within the project boundary of the campground; there would be no effect from reconstruction of

the campground. Work to restore the four Civilian Conservation Corps camp stoves would help stabilize their decay and preserve them for the future.

Development of the interpretive trail would help educate the public about the Civilian Conservation Corps and the importance

of protecting archeological and historic sites.



Environmental Consequences In this section, we summarize the environmental impacts of the alternatives that are considered in detail in the specialist reports developed for the project. Further information about baseline conditions, analyses, and conclusions about the potential effects are available in the specialist reports for each resource and are located in the project record. These documents are available upon request from the NEPA coordinator at the SMNRA office.

Effects analysis in this section discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and the alternative, as directed by Forest Service NEPA procedures (36 CFR part 220). Analysis of cumulative effects considers the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in combination with effects from the proposed action and alternatives. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that could contribute to cumulative effects are listed in Appendix C.

Soils

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Soils are poor, alkaline, and lack organic matter to sustain desired tree and shrub growth. The arid climate creates drought stress for the woody trees that occupy the site; the mountain mahogany that forests the site is mature.

Poor soil conditions would persist due to ongoing sheetwash that has removed surface soils; and a lack of ground cover, leaf litter and organic matter within the soil. Due primarily to the site’s topographic position and lack of groundcover, the site would remain susceptible to soil erosion from storm runoff in the event of intense summer thunderstorms.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Soil impacts would be primarily due to removal and reconstruction of roadways, parking lots, and facilities. The proposed action would re-develop a total area less than 1.5 acres of the 13 acre Mahogany Grove Group Campground site.

The location of the campground on a degraded rock ridge is a setting prone to generating runoff when intense summer rainfall occurs. This rainfall rate generates runoff on impervious surfaces and can overwhelm natural soil infiltration. Soils within this site have poor soil development and lack topsoil. The confined placement for roads and parking areas leads to runoff generation that would be difficult to mitigate. Erosion from bare impervious soil surfaces during construction would be expected.

The new road cross-sectional profile would include a crown to disperse runoff. In particular, the new entrance and parking area for the trail would rely on the natural slope to disperse storm runoff instead of the current main culvert as a runoff conveyance device.

Retaining forest cover throughout the site would disperse rainfall impact and thereby lower runoff generation. Increasing groundcover over the existing levels (using wood chips, stone fragments, coarse down wood, or grass and shrubs) would further lower runoff potential and would armor the soil surface against additional surface erosion. For naturalized areas, a target of 50 percent minimum groundcover



would reduce runoff generation. This threshold is demonstrated by studies on the efficacy of restoration treatments (Grismer et al. 2009) and is used as a general rule. Above 70 percent groundcover is a breakpoint whereby surface erosion becomes negligible (Johansen et al. 2001).

Keeping bare areas to a minimum would limit runoff generation since runoff volume is proportional to contributing area. Bare soil surfaces less than 50 feet across reduce the risk from storm runoff generating during high intensity summer thunderstorms. An online water erosion software called WEPP: Road (USDA 2012) was used to compare sediment produced over various expanses of bare soil. A soil loss tolerance rate of 5 tons/acre/year from the soil survey served as an upper threshold (NRCS 2006). For bare soil expanses less than 50 feet across, runoff on hardened naturalized road surfaces produces less than 6 tons/acre/year which is within the range of tolerable soil loss. The WEPP-Road comparison is a conservative estimate since much of the naturalized areas would have higher infiltration rates and thus generate less runoff. The soil conditions within the recreation site would vary according to pedestrian traffic intensity. Hardened paths and high use areas (e.g., near restrooms and picnic areas) can be prone to generate higher rates of runoff compared to natural surfaces outside the developed site.

Adverse soil disturbance from vegetation management would be slight to none. Disturbance to existing trees would be minimized to the extent possible to conserve shade. Minimizing tree disturbance would supplement protective groundcover with leaf fall, and contribute organic matter to soils within the drip line. This organic matter would decrease erosion potential from torrential rainstorms and increase the productive capacity of the soil to sustain desired vegetation. Higher moisture in soils enables soil nutrient cycling for vegetation uptake. The organic matter also lowers the pH on this alkaline site for more optimal growing conditions.

A fence would be constructed upslope of the eroding bluffs to reduce erosion risk by restricting pedestrian access and associated soil loss due to compaction and trampling of vegetation. Upslope from the fence, potential for generation of erosive storm runoff would be minimized by preserving as much of the tree cover as possible, which would also maximize potential groundcover from leaf fall. Within this upslope area of the fence, groundcover could be enhanced using a variety of means including the application of wood chips, coarse rock, woody debris, and planting grasses.

Drought tolerant vegetation could be re-established if considered feasible, given site-specific soil conditions. The planting would use woody species adapted to the poor site conditions (see Vegetation Management Plan in the project record). Woody vegetation is desirable since roots require a large volume of soil for water and nutrients, and thus are better adapted to this degraded site condition than grasses. Current eroded conditions lack topsoil needed to support grass cover. Topsoil dressing and organic mulch are available at the project site to increase planting success for trees, shrubs, grasses and forbs. Roughly 100 tons of topsoil is cached behind an old culvert adjacent to the site where the old highway was routed.

Picnic table pads are impervious surfaces that can generate sheet wash on the downslope side which scours fine soil particles and removes litter. However, these pads are evenly distributed along the ridge and don’t collectively contribute to storm runoff. The downslope sides of the pads did not show signs of concentrated overland flow.

Cumulative Effects The ongoing concentrated use of this recreation facility for over 70 years led to degraded soil conditions throughout the site. This ongoing use along with the natural poor soil development on this droughty crown ridge led to overall poor growing conditions. The mountain mahogany that forests the site is mature.



Historic soil loss is mostly near the existing campsites, roadways, and picnic table grounds, where much of the topsoil has washed away leaving gravels that armor against further erosion. The active gullying to the campground's east and north sides where the old highway cutslope still exists was aggravated by the recent fuel reduction project in 2010. Additional soil loss is possible from construction activities and planned forest thinning that would remove more vegetation. Though most of the site is already degraded, further removal of vegetation can expand the contributing area for erosive stormflows and reduce the overall footprint for growing vegetation. The highest risk for cumulative contributing soil loss is during active construction. Construction BMPs in addition to the design criteria to lower erosion potential would reduce surface erosion and overall cumulative effects.

Nearby projects include the current Desert View construction, Archery Range rehabilitation project, and trail construction, not only in the campground but along the Deer Creek Highway. The Desert View construction and Archery Range rehabilitation project lie outside the project area defined as the footprint of the campground, and thus do not have a potential to adversely affect soils within the Mahogany Campground area. The reconstruction of the entrance to the Mahogany Grove Campground would improve offsite drainage that could route from the Deer Creek Highway.

Plants and Wildlife This section summarizes impacts to the species listed in Table 2. The list is comprised of threatened, endangered, candidate, proposed, Forest Service regional forester’s (R4) sensitive species (S), SMNRA 1998 Conservation Agreement (CA) species of concern, Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) as well as management indicator species (MIS) listed in the Forest Plan (1996) and Nevada Partners In Flight (PIF) Bird Conservation Plan with potential to occupy or use habitat within the cumulative impact area of the project. Effects to migratory birds that may not be included in the categories above are discussed under each alternative. A discussion of noxious weeds is also provided.

The Biological Assessment and Evaluation (BA/BE), and the specialist reports for botany, noxious weeds, and wildlife contain more detailed descriptions of the regulatory framework; analysis methodology; existing condition; direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to wildlife and plant species and their habitat; consistency with regulatory direction; and the supporting rationale for wildlife and plant species not analyzed in detail.


Direct and Indirect Effects

Listed and Sensitive Species Please see effects summary in Table 2.

Migratory Birds Human disturbance would remain the same and no vegetation would be removed due to construction activities, so no potential habitat would be lost.

Noxious Weeds In the no-action alternative, non-native invasive plants would continue to spread at current rates via animals, wind, and human vectors for transport of weeds.





Listed and Sensitive Species Please see effects summary in Table 2.

Migratory Birds The project area contains nesting and foraging habitat for a wide variety of migratory birds. The demolition and reconstruction of the site may result in temporary disturbance to nesting and foraging birds. The project design features would minimize direct adverse impacts and reduce the short-term indirect impacts as well. Because the proposed action would not increase the project boundary, or remove trees or an abundance of brush, long-term impacts to any species would be unlikely. The project area would not increase the overall recreation activities within the area. Therefore, none of these impacts are expected to be substantial to any species.

Under the proposed action an accelerated construction schedule may be implemented. This would entail construction activities that could extend from 6:00 am to midnight, seven days per week. These extended hours would create additional stress and would likely temporarily displace some migratory birds. However, under the accelerated construction schedule, noise and habitat disturbance would not last as long. Temporary displacement of a few individuals should not have adverse effects on their populations.

Noxious Weeds The proposed action could increase the opportunity for weed establishment through soil disturbance in the short term. Ground vegetation would recover following one growing season on lightly disturbed soil (not down to mineral layer) or areas that are disturbed during winter conditions, but a risk of invasion by weeds is still possible. Areas with more disturbances, especially equipment access routes, and unvegetated areas pose the highest risk for weed invasion as those areas may take a few seasons to recover. Actual weed establishment is associated with the proximity of a weed seed source and disturbed soil, as well as the movement of animals (birds, deer), movement of humans, and mechanical equipment. Reduction of canopy cover (especially below 80 percent) also increases the potential for non-native invasive species to occupy habitat.

Roadsides are a common source where weeds become established and then spread along the road corridor. Road densities in the nearby Kyle Canyon are generally low (less than 2 miles per square mile). This may be part of the reason why the SMNRA and Kyle Canyon in particular is not highly infested with A-C category weeds. Road density in the Mahogany Grove area is lower than the Kyle Canyon density. Most of the non-native invasive species in the SMNRA are roadside weeds.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects related to plant and animal species are evaluated by looking at past, present and foreseeable future activities which could adversely affect them when considered cumulatively over time. When considering cumulative based on past and anticipated future disturbances, the primary sources of change include additional recreation development and use, wildfires, road construction and management, and other major changes to existing conditions. There are multiple ongoing and foreseeable future projects expected to occur within the SMNRA. However, none of them are within the identified cumulative impact area. Past projects within the cumulative impact area were considered under the existing conditions. Cumulative impacts would be limited to past and proposed activities.



Listed and Sensitive Species and Migratory Birds The recently completed wildland urban interface (WUI) fuels reduction project substantially changed the vegetation components within its boundaries. The Mahogany Grove project would add a few acres of changed conditions within the cumulative impact area.

The previous vegetative changes may have impacted the abundance, availability, and composition of prey for one or more bat species. With implementation of this project, the short-term use of artificial lighting to assist with demolition and reconstruction activities during naturally occurring dark hours could cumulatively impact bat foraging success. However, it may be beneficial for some species and negative for others. The minor incremental changes to potential foraging is not believed to be substantial or believed to pose a long-term impact to species viability for any bat species at the meta-population level.

Since the project area is already heavily impacted by human related activities, the changes to vegetation from project implementation should not have a measureable impact on the nesting success or availability of nest sites for any listed bird species within the cumulative impact area. Minor incremental cumulative impacts could be expected for neotropical species utilizing habitat within the cumulative impact area. However, there would be no expectation for any changes at the SMNRA, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, or Region 4 meta-population levels for any species.

The changed vegetation conditions from the WUI project likely reduced the number of existing butterfly host and nectar plants within the area. Implementation of this project may result in incremental short-term reductions of additional host and nectar plants. No habitat loss or gain is expected as the project boundary would remain the same as the existing. These minor cumulative impacts should not have a substantial impact on the Spring Mountains acastus checkerspot butterfly, other sensitive butterfly species, or their habitat.

Other species including the Charleston ant and Spring Mountain snail may have been impacted during the WUI fuels reduction project. Minor short-term incremental cumulative impacts to these species may exist with implementation of this project. However, since this project is located within a previously developed area, impacts would be minor. The cumulative impacts that may result from project implementation would not impact the viability of any of these species within the project area or within the SMNRA.

Cumulative impacts to Jaeger’s beardtongue are likely to be short-term. Large numbers of plants would not be impacted, and this site is generally a highly disturbed area. A reduction of recreation use near the largest occurrence due to vegetation plantings or fencing could reduce impacts from dispersed foot traffic. The Archery Range Restoration, within 500 meters of the project area, will improve the quality of suitable and occupied habitat by closing up to 45 acres to dispersed camping, 4.7 acres of which have been directly impacted over the years. Surveyors observed 7,679+ individuals in Archery Range and noted the population extended beyond the survey boundaries (GBI 2010).

The recent opening of the canopy combined with removal of the snow breakage limbs in the campground and implementation of the vegetation management plan may, in the long run, improve the quality of potential habitat for blue grama grass and Charleston pinewood lousewort in the project area.

Noxious Weeds Cumulatively, there may be a slight short-term increase in the spread of non-native invasive plants due to this intensive proposed disturbance and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable forest actions. Roads are one of the most substantial vectors for spreading weeds. The Spring Mountains are subject to a number of natural and human-caused disturbances. Private land development, roads, water impoundment,



water extraction, introduction of exotic and invasive species, recreation, and other factors have impacted and continue to impact native species and their habitats.

Other Forest Service, interagency and private projects have been implemented, are ongoing, or are planned within the cumulative effects area that have similar timber and road activities. These were considered for their contribution to the spread of non-native invasive plants. Project-specific mitigation measures (and/or project design features) in conjunction with ongoing management on the SMNRA should all contribute to controlling the spread of non-native invasive species across the forest.

Forest Service policies emphasize the prevention of weed establishment and have developed prevention practices such as equipment cleaning provisions in timber sale contracts, avoidance of travel through known weed patches, minimizing soil disturbance, and using weed-free gravel sources. The botany design criteria for all botanical resources and the revegetation plan for the project have established methods to prevent the introduction and spread of noxious weeds and recover the site.



Table 2. Wildlife and plant summary of effects

Species/Status Effects and Determinations

Alt 1 – No Action Alt 2 – Proposed Action

Mammals

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii

pallescens) Status: Sensitive, CA

Human disturbance would remain the same, and no vegetation would be removed due to construction activities, so no potential habitat would be lost. No

known mine/cave roosting sites, riparian areas, water sources, maternal colonies, or hibernacula sites are

known to occur within or near the area of analysis and would not be impacted.

No primary roost habitat would be disturbed, No long-term changes to foraging habitat would be expected, Short-term

increase of artificial lighting may change forage composition, abundance, and availability thereby creating potential for

changes to inter- and intra-species competition for the foraging resource during the demolition and reconstruction phases, or

cause avoidance of the project area for foraging and/or roosting. No negative long-term or cumulative impacts are

expected. May impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a

trend to federal listing or loss of viability. Western small-footed myotis

(Myotis ciliolabrum) Status: CA

Same as other bat species. Same as other bat species.

May impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis)

Status: CA, MSHCP Long-legged myotis

(Myotis volans) Status: CA, MSHCP

Silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans)

Status: MSHCP

Palmer’s Chipmunk (Neotamias palmeri = Tamias

palmeri) Status: CA, MIS, MSHCP

Human disturbance would remain the same, and no vegetation would be removed due to construction

activities, so no potential habitat would be lost.

Disturbance and direct impacts to individuals and denning habitat may occur with implementation of this project.

However, no long-term habitat gain or loss is expected. May impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a

trend to federal listing or loss of viability.





Elk (Cervus Canadensis)

Status: MIS



The project would not result in a gain or loss of habitat, nor would it change vulnerability.

No Change to the SMNRA, Forest or Region populations from project implementation although individuals or habitat may be

impacted at project level

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis)

S

The project area is about 1 mile outside the 2010 GIS bighorn sheep distribution (NDOW 2010). Although, bighorn sheep may periodically use the area as a movement corridor, no

suitable habitat exists for breeding, lambing, or other critical activities. Therefore no measureable impacts would be

expected with implementation of this project to bighorn sheep or their habitats.

No Impact. Birds

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus var. anatum)

Status: S, CA, MSHCP



There are no known nest sites within the area of analysis from this project (SMNRA survey records) and project related

activities would not result in any changes to potential foraging successes or failures.

No Impact.

Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus)

Status: S, CA

Same as other bird species.

Low quality roosting and foraging habitat may be temporarily impacted by noise and nocturnal activities associated with the

demolition and reconstruction of this campground. May impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a


Black-throated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens)

PIF

Project design criteria would minimize any potential impact to this species.


Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii)

PIF

The project area contains foraging habitat that may occasionally be used by individual hawks. There are no known nest territories near the project area (SMNRA survey records).

Minor disturbances to individuals may occur as a result of project related activities. No long-term changes to foraging

habitat would be expected. May impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a






Gray flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii)

PIF

Same as other bird species

Project design criteria would minimize any potential impact to this species.


Gray vireo (Vireo vicinior)

PIF Pinyon jay

(Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) PIF

Western bluebird (Sialia mexicana)

PIF Invertebrates

Spring Mountains acastus checkerspot

(Chlosyne acastus robusta) Status: S, CA, MSHCP



The project could result in changes to current host and nectar plant numbers and locations. No adverse long-term changes to

habitat are expected as the project boundary would remain similar to existing. Potential long-term beneficial impacts to habitat by re-seeding with seed mixes that include nectar

plants. May impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a

trend to federal listing or loss of viability. Spring Mountains dark blue butterfly (Euphilotes ancilla purpura and E.

ancilla cryptica = E. enoptes purpurea)

Status: S, CA, MSHCP

Same as other butterfly species. Same as other butterfly species.


Spring Mountains comma skipper (Hesperia Colorado mojavensis = H.

comma mojavensis) Status: CA, MSHCP

Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly

(Plebejus (Icaricia) icarioides austinorum)

Status: CA, MSHCP





Nevada admiral (Limenitus weidemeyerii nevadae)

Status: CA, MSHCP Same as other butterfly species.

Same as other butterfly species. May impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a

trend to federal listing or loss of viability. Carole’s silverspot butterfly

(Speyeria carolae = S. zerene carolae)

Status: CA, MSHCP

Charleston ant (Lasius nevdensis)

Status: CA

Human disturbance would remain the same, and construction activities would occur so no potential

habitat would be lost.

There is potential that if this species occurs within the project area that individuals or habitat could be impacted. Surveys for

this species have not been conducted recently, so current distribution is unknown.


Spring mountainsnail (Oreohelix handi) Status: Future CA

In 2000 several shells and two living individuals were found under boulders within the existing campground. Demolition

and reconstruction activities may result in impacts to individuals and habitat. There are no long-term adverse or

beneficial impacts expected for this species. This project would not increase recreation activities beyond the existing project

boundary, the expected impacts are not believed to be substantial.


Plants

Jaeger ivesia (Ivesia jaegeri) Status: S, CA

Trampling from visitors would continue at current levels and more individuals could be lost due to ongoing use.

Habitat is present for this species in the project area. Plant is found in nearby ravine in the survey area, but not near any

proposed construction activities or trails. No Impact

Jaeger’s beardtongue (Penstemon thompsoniae spp.

Jaegeri) Status: S

There are nine known plants within the project area. About half of the occurrences could be impacted. The largest occurrence would not be impacted. A few occurrences are in areas where current recreation use is high and impacts from rehabilitation

may occur. May impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a






Charleston grounddaisy (Townsendia jonesii var. tumulosa)

Status: S, CA


There is one small occurrence within the project area. It needs to be flagged and avoided when removing fuels from snow damage to shrubs. The occurrence is not located near any

proposed new construction activities in this project. May impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a


Charleston violet (Viola charlestonensis)

Status: S

One large occurrence is present within the project area. It needs to be flagged and avoided when the CCC trail is laid out and constructed. No other activities are proposed for inhabited areas. Charleston violet is one of the species recommended

as a part of restoration to provide butterfly habitat. May impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a


Blue grama grass (Bouteloua gracilis)

Status: MIS

Individual plants could be affected by this project. It is important to note that potential habitat is currently being impacted from the high amount of recreation use of the

existing facilities. The demolition and reconstruction would be expected to have additional short-term impacts to habitat.

Long-term impacts from implementation of this project may improve habitat characteristics in some areas by opening

dense shrub canopies (removal of snow breakage). However, the area of impact from recreation activities is not expected to

decrease or increase as a result of the project, so the long-term habitat conditions for this plant are not expected to

measurably change. There is an abundance of habitat for this species in the SMNRA and the project is not expected to have any implications at the SMNRA or H-TNF, or Region 4 level.

No Change to the SMNRA, Forest or Region populations from project implementation. May impact individuals or habitat.

Dicranoweisia moss (Dicranoweisia crispula)

Status: MSHCP

Habitat is likely affected by kids scrambling on logs and wood collection for campfires.

Past effects of trampling have resulted in fewer individuals and degraded habitat in the project area.


Potential habitat exists within the project area. No surveys for this species have been completed. However, primary habitat (fallen logs) usually doesn’t last long in campgrounds, so the likelihood of this species existing here is low. The area will

continue to be used for recreation purposes. May impact individuals or habitat.





Charleston pinewood lousewort (Pedicularis semibarbata var.

charlesonensis) Status: MSHCP


Habitat and individual plants are found throughout the project area. Demolition, reconstruction, and continued recreation uses will impact individuals and habitat. The project is not

expanding the overall project boundary and future use is not expected to increase to a point that would have larger long-

term impacts to this species. May impact individuals or habitat.



Recreation Effects of the alternatives on recreation are evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively. Measurement indicators include visitor capacity, public safety, visitor experience, and facility administration and maintenance.

The Forest Service uses persons-at-one-time (PAOT) as a measure of designed recreation carrying capacity, particularly for developed sites. National conventions include 5 persons per family picnic/camp unit, 3.5 persons per parking lot stall at a trailhead or visitor center, 1.5 persons per motorcycle parking stall and 40 persons per tour bus parking stall (USDA Forest Service 2011). This analysis considers group campsites that would be designed to accommodate approximately 15-20 PAOT. Visitor capacity was evaluated by comparing the approximate PAOT accommodated by each alternative. The numbers in this analysis are approximate and subject to change based on actual site designs.

Public safety was evaluated by considering the effect each alternative would have on the known safety concerns related to sanitation facilities, traffic flow along the campground entrance road, and accessibility.

The inventoried recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classification for the area of analysis and the definitions of the ROS classifications from the Toiyabe Forest Plan were used to determine if the proposed alternatives would affect the physical, social, and administrative settings within the recreation site, and whether any potential changes to these settings would remain compatible with the desired ROS classification. The analysis describes the potential changes in visitor experience that may result from implementation of the alternatives.

Facility administration and maintenance was evaluated by considering the effect each alternative would have on the known needs of the Forest Service and the concessionaire in operating and maintaining the recreation sites such as repair and maintenance needs and site design.



Visitor Capacity In Alternative 1 – No Action, there would be no site closures for construction and no short term displacement of users. Visitors would continue to have the same opportunities for group camping, by reservation only, that exist currently. The number of PAOTs that the campground could accommodate would remain at approximately 240 in four separate group units, two that may be reserved to accommodate up to 80 people each and two units that accommodate up to 40 people each. The three parking lots with a total capacity of 40 vehicles would remain inadequate for the existing site capacity.

Public Safety Safety issues related to the lack of highway signs on SR 158 warning motorists about vehicles leaving or entering the highway from the recreation site, and congestion due to narrow roads within the recreation sites would persist.

Sanitation would remain a concern in the campground. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2330 recommends providing one toilet for every 35 persons (FSM 2333.51). With the existing site capacity of approximately 240 PAOT, this equates to a need for at least six toilet stalls. The existing restrooms consist of one two-unit and one four-unit vault toilets. Although there are an adequate number of stalls provided for the



estimated visitor use, the existing vault toilets have exceeded their useful lifespan, are unpleasant for visitors to use, and have been damaged by vandalism. Due to the high levels of use, the vaults must be pumped regularly by the concessionaire. The existing vault toilets would remain inadequate to accommodate current and anticipated future use. Inadequate trash receptacles would add to litter and sanitation concerns. Site furniture would continue to deteriorate under this alternative, resulting in a greater disparity between current conditions and the desired conditions listed in the Forest Service Outdoor Accessibility Guidelines. Dilapidated facilities present a potential safety risk to all visitors.

Hazard trees within the site would continue to pose potential safety hazards from tree breakage and falling branches. The down limbs from snow damage contribute to high fuel loads which may increase the risk of fire within the site.

Visitor Experience Visitors would continue to have the recreation opportunities and experiences that are currently available, this would potentially benefit visitors who “like it the way it is” and may not want to see changes made to the sites that they have been visiting for many years. The site amenities would remain inadequate for visitors seeking a more comfortable and accessible camping experience such as sites with level pads, accessible trails, flush toilets, and up-to-date facilities.

Damage to natural resources would continue under the no-action alternative. Inadequate parking, user created trails, and undefined tent camping areas would result in continued loss of natural vegetation that would be increasingly difficult to restore. Such impacts to the natural visual setting would eventually diminish the campground’s desirability as a recreation destination.

Safety and interpretive information would continue to be limited. Without this information, visitors would be uninformed about potential safety concerns and may be less appreciative of the natural resources of the area, potentially continuing the trend of natural resource damage (i.e., user-created trails) occurring within the recreation sites.

Facility Administration and Maintenance The no-action alternative would result in inefficient use of time and money spent on facility administration and maintenance. Deteriorating facilities would have to be replaced individually; which would not be economical due to economies of scale.

The no-action alternative would not meet the need to bring the site up to Forest Service accessibility standards, enhancing public safety, optimizing capacity and managing vegetation at the site for a healthy and sustainable forest environment.



Visitor Capacity In the proposed action, Mahogany Grove Campground would be reconstructed for group camping by reservation only with approximately 5 sites that could accommodate 25-35 PAOT. The area would be designed to accommodate approximately175 PAOT (5 group campsites x 35 people). This would increase the number of group camp units within the project boundary, but would be a 27 percent reduction in the number of PAOT that can currently be accommodated at the site. This would help to accommodate the current and expected future demand for facilitation of medium sized groups of 15-20 people each. The



site design would consider placing two smaller group camp units near each other with the possibility of accommodating larger groups.

During the construction phase of the Proposed Action, the Mahogany Grove Group Campground would be closed from September 2012 through May 2014. There would be a short-term loss of visitor capacity at the site. During the construction phase, visitors would be directed to other campgrounds and picnic sites in Lee and Kyle Canyons. However, many of these sites are already at capacity during the weekends. Since Mahogany Grove is the only campground on the SMNRA that can be reserved for larger groups, it is anticipated that this type of group use would be displaced to other locations outside of the SMNRA during the construction phase. As an alternative, visitors may choose to recreate in dispersed areas in Lee or Kyle Canyon, however, it is likely that visitors would be displaced to other recreation sites either on or off of the National Forest during the construction period.

Temporary closure of Mahogany Grove Campground would result in the loss of four group campsites that can accommodate approximately 240 PAOT for the duration of the 2 year construction phase. This could lead to the displacement of at least 240 visitors per summer weekend and approximately 120 visitors per summer weekday, assuming the sites are at full capacity on weekends and approximately 50 percent capacity on weekdays.

Public Safety The new site design would improve traffic flow along the campground entrance road. The roadway within the recreation site would accommodate two-way traffic with turnouts. Appropriate highway signage would be requested for SR 158 warning motorists of traffic leaving and entering the highway. This would improve the safety of visitors to the campground as well as those traveling on SR 158.

Restroom capacity would be improved with the installation of three double vault toilets that would accommodate approximately 210 PAOT (35 PAOT x 6 toilet stalls). The new vault toilets would adequately accommodate the designed site capacity of approximately 175 PAOT. Sanitation would be further improved by placing animal resistant garbage cans and recycling containers at appropriate locations within the campground to promote recycling and reduce trash and litter.

All infrastructures would be completely replaced; the reconstructed facilities would meet national standards and Forest Service accessibility guidelines. This would reduce the tripping hazard that currently exists on the broken asphalt and uneven surfaces along walkways and within sites, and make the sites more useable by visitors of all abilities.

Active vegetation management would promote healthy tree and shrub vegetation, through actions such as removal of down limbs from snow damage and assessment of hazard trees. This would reduce hazards within the recreation sites from tree breakage and falling branches. Ongoing assessment and treatment of hazard trees would be conducted by Forest Service personnel.

The existing chain-link fence along the highway would be replaced and extended along the northern edge of the site. The fence would enhance visitor safety by providing a physical barrier to foot traffic near the steep slope. The new fence would use colors and materials such as wood and black wire that blend into the background better than the existing bright green fence. This would reduce visual impacts associated with the fence. The vegetation management plan (Lowell et al. 2012) recommends seeding along the new fence line to help reduce sediment runoff and stabilize the slope.

During the construction phase of the project, the recreation site would be closed, to protect visitors from the hazards of construction equipment and operations.



Visitor Experience The reconstructed facilities and site amenities (e.g., new site furniture) should enhance the experience for many visitors. All new facilities would comply with the SMNRA Built Environment Image Guidelines and Forest Service Built Environment Design Criteria, which ensures that facility development compliments the natural surroundings. However, in providing new facilities, there is a potential to impact the experience of visitors who “like it the way it is” and may not want to see changes made to the sites that they have been visiting for many years.

The proposed action includes development and implementation of an environmental education theme and infrastructure. This presents an opportunity to better disseminate safety and interpretation information. Ideally, this would not only provide for a more enriching visitor experience, but also promote better visitor stewardship of the land in the long-term.

The addition of an interpretive trail through the original, historic Civilian Conservation Corps-built campground, adjacent to the developed group campground would provide additional hiking and educational opportunities for visitors to the campground. A trailhead would be constructed near the entrance of the campground to provide access to the interpretive trail for others who are visiting the SMNRA. There is a potential for increased vandalism due to a trail and interpretive information drawing attention to the historic structures; however, the goal of interpretation is to provide information to foster understanding and appreciation of the resource, which in turn promotes protection of the resource (Ham 2009).

Reconstruction would be limited to the project boundary and would remain within the Roaded Natural ROS classification that is characterized by a predominantly natural environment with evidence of moderate permanent alternate resources and resource utilization. Opportunities would exist for both social interaction and moderate isolation from sights and sounds of man (USDA Forest Service 1986).

During the construction phase, visual quality may be impacted. During this time, the vegetation management plan would be implemented. Much of the picnic area has already been treated by pruning the existing vegetation to approximately 5 feet in height. This was done as part of the ongoing fuel reduction projects in the SMNRA. During project implementation, downed limbs from existing snow damage would also be treated to reduce fuel loading. During construction, efforts would be made to retain as much existing vegetation as possible by avoiding physical disturbance and identifying and retaining individual trees and shrubs that are important for current and future screening and shade. The vegetation treatments may also be evident in the short term, but in the long-term, would increase the aesthetic appeal by promoting healthier vegetation and reducing effects of future fire events. Implementing the vegetation management plan complements fuel reduction projects that are currently taking place or proposed in the SMNRA. Planting or transplanting vegetation would be implemented, as needed, following construction. After implementation, the visual quality of the natural landscape and built infrastructure would be improved.

Facility Administration and Maintenance The proposed action would replace all of the roads, utilities, restrooms, and other infrastructure of the recreation site, which would minimize the cost of maintenance and repair in the long term. The improved restrooms and water systems would meet standards and conserve water.

The site would be properly designed for overnight group camping use including level tent pads, hardened surfaces for picnic tables, grills, and fire rings, and hardened trails between site amenities. This would help to prevent unnecessary damage to the natural vegetation.



Management options would be improved through appropriate placement of group camp units, more parking spaces commensurate with the site capacity, design of recreation site loop roads, clear designation of camp units, and updated facilities to meet the needs of modern visitors. This would enhance the ability of the concessionaire to effectively and efficiently manage the recreation opportunities and optimize capacity of the recreation site. The long-term benefits to the concessionaire would help to alleviate some of the short-term impacts due to site closure during the construction period.

Cumulative Effects In the short term, multiple recreation site reconstruction projects in the SMNRA would cumulatively impact the availability of both day use and overnight recreation opportunities due to temporary site closures. The reconstruction period for all of these projects is anticipated to extend from Fall 2012 through May 2014. During this time, visitors would likely be displaced to other dispersed or developed sites either on or off of the National Forest. Table 3, below shows the anticipated construction schedule, the number of sites that would be temporarily closed, and the approximate PAOT that may be displaced.

Table 3. SMNRA recreation site reconstruction schedule

Facility Construction Period Sites Temporarily Closed

PAOTs Temporarily Displaced

Cathedral Rock Picnic Area Sep. 2011 – Dec. 2013 74 single 370 Kyle Campground Jul. 2012 – Dec. 2013 19 single/6 double 155

Mahogany Grove Group Campground Mar. 2013—Nov. 2013 4 group 240 Foxtail Group Picnic Area Mar. 2013 – Nov. 2014 3 group 260 McWilliams and Dolomite

Campgrounds Mar. 2013 – Nov.2014 62 single/9 double 400

Old Mill Picnic Area Mar. 2013 – Nov. 2014 61 single/13 double 435

The reconstruction of Mahogany Grove would increase the number of group camp units within the footprint of the existing campground, but would reduce the number of PAOT from 240 to 175 (a 27 percent reduction) that can currently be accommodated at the site. This would add to the overall reduction of overnight camping opportunities in the SMNRA when considered cumulatively with the proposed reduction of individual overnight camp sites in Lee Canyon (specifically at Old Mill). However, since Mahogany Grove provides group camping by reservation only, and camping in Lee Canyon is primarily individual overnight campsites, the cumulative reduction would affect different visitor groups seeking different overnight camping experiences. A portion of the lost overnight camping opportunities would be accommodated by improved recreation site design and additional recreation site development elsewhere in the SMNRA (Kyle, and McWilliams and Dolomite Campgrounds). Although overnight camping opportunity would be reduced at Mahogany Grove and Old Mill, cumulatively, the six recreation site reconstruction projects proposed or currently in progress throughout the SMNRA would better accommodate the increasing demand and changing visitor demographics of visitors to the SMNRA.

Increasing demand would be accommodated by site design that would improve traffic flow, increase available parking, meet the needs of visitors with disabilities, and optimize capacity of the recreation sites. The re-designed group campsites would help accommodate the current and expected future demand for facilitation of medium sized groups of 15-20 people each. The changing demographics of SMNRA recreation users would better accommodated by providing for recreation opportunities that are in high demand, such as day-use areas, group sites, and opportunities for children and extended families such as



activity and play areas, environmental education, and snow play areas (Pricewaterhouse Coopers 2008 and White et al. 2010).

In the long term, the Mahogany Grove Group Campground reconstruction project, when combined with the beneficial effects of the other SMNRA recreation site reconstruction projects would: optimize visitor capacity of the limited recreation resources; enhance visitor safety through upgraded sanitation facilities, improved traffic flow and parking, and improved site accessibility; enhance the visitor experience by providing safety and interpretive information; and improve facility administration and maintenance through site design. Implementation of the various Forest Service projects would cumulatively increase the management presence throughout the SMNRA. It is anticipated that this would enhance the visitor experience for a majority of visitors and address many of the current management concerns.

Heritage Resources Effects to heritage resources consist of qualitative determinations as to whether historic features and recorded sites are preserved and protected.


Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct effects to heritage resources if no reconstruction or maintenance activities occurred. Ongoing vandalism would go unchecked and may affect known and unknown sites in the project area and nearby areas through defacement, disfigurement, or destruction.


Direct and Indirect Effects The area of potential effect around both the group camp ground and the historic Civilian Conservation Corps campground has been surveyed numerous times and a determination of no effect, with concurrence from the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, was made in 1996 with the Mahogany Grove Group Use Area Proposed Rehabilitation Project. The no effect decision was based on the fact that no historic properties are located within the project boundary of the current group campground.

The current reconstruction project for the group campground would also not affect the historic campground down in the wash to the southeast of the current group campground. While the work to restore the four camp stoves would have an effect on them, restoring them would also help to stabilize their decay and preserve them for the future. The ground work would be limited to creating the interpretive trail on the existing roadbed, clearing vegetation from the four camping sites, clearing vegetation and soil away from the earthen bridge over the Civilian Conservation Corps culvert and installing the reconstructed food boxes into the ground at the four restored campsites and the interpretive panels along the trail. The character of the area would be retained and preserved. The historic campground is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and a National Register Nomination form will be completed as part of the restoration project.

The development of the historic trail would help to educate the general public about the Civilian Conservation Corp and the importance of protecting archeological and historic sites. Archaeologists would be present during all stages of the restoration and would record the restoration process by developing step by step documentation of all the work with photographs, maps, drawings and videos. A National Register Nomination will also be completed and submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office. However, should new features or artifacts be uncovered during the reconstruction of the group



campground work would stop in the area until the discovery can be evaluated by the District Archaeologist.

Cumulative Effects Because there would be no direct or indirect effects, no cumulative effects have been identified.

Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations All projects involving federal actions must comply with Executive Order 12868, issued February 11, 1994, which directs federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations to the greatest extend practicable and permitted by law.

There would be no disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects that would fall on low-income, minority populations, American Indian tribes, women, or affect the civil rights of any United States citizen. The campground facilities would be available to the public, with reservations, except when the site is closed during the winter. The physical effects to surface resources from ground disturbance would be localized to the area within the project boundary.

Climate Change Considerations The Forest Service has identified climate change as one of its top priorities and has issued guidance to include climate change considerations in project planning and NEPA documents. Project construction would increase project area Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions over the existing condition only for the short-term and would not be a continuous new source of GHGs. The project would not impede the state of Nevada’s ability to meet its 2020 GHG emission reduction goal. The heavy equipment used for the demolition and construction proposed for this project would be operated by commercial contractors; heavy equipment would be licensed to comply with state air quality standards. The small scope of this project does not make it possible to quantify or qualify the direct or indirect effects from heavy equipment emissions, nor establish a cause-effect relationship between this single project and global climate change.

Other Impacts and Considerations

Public Health and Safety An analysis of impacts to public health and safety are included in the Recreation section under Environmental Consequences.

Unique Characteristics The project area is not located in or near park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, or wild and scenic river corridors. The project area is not located in an ecologically critical area, although in the project area there are sensitive species, species of concern as listed in the Conservation Agreement between federal and state agencies, including the Forest Service, and covered species as listed in the Clark County MSHCP. The use is compatible with federal law that designated the National Recreation Area.

Other Federal, State, or Local Laws or Requirements for Protection of the Environment The project would be in compliance with the goals and objectives of the SMNRA Conservation Agreement and Clark County MSHCP. The Conservation Agreement and its species of concern are incorporated in the MSHCP as an appendix. The project is consistent with Forest Plan standard for soil



loss and impacts to wildlife and plant species as outlined in the Forest Plan and the General Management Plan for the SMNRA.

This project is proposed to make progress toward goals and objectives embodied by the Forest Plan and the General Management Plan for the SMNRA. The Forest Plan was developed under authority of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 and its implementing regulations. The Forest Plan was amended to include the SMNRA Management Plan, which supplements Forest-wide standards and guidelines found in the Forest Plan.

Resource protection measures have been included in the project design criteria (Appendix B) and disclosed in the effects analysis. The project occurs on land suitable for recreational activities. The proposed action accomplishes multiple-use resource goals providing access to an historic site and group recreation sites for day use and overnight camping.

Consultation and Coordination The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this environmental assessment:

Interdisciplinary Team Members: • Vince Archer, Soil Scientist • Blaze Baker, Botanist • Tom Hale, IDT Leader • Tim Holden, Wildlife Biologist • Carol Hotchkiss, Natural Resource Planner • Frank Leoni, Project Manager • Tom Lowell, Silviculturist • Eric Moser, Hydrologist • Demetrius Purdie-Williams, GIS Specialist • Jane Schumacher, SMNRA Environmental Coordinator • Judy Suing, Comment Analysis • Kelly Turner, District Archaeologist • Stephanie Valentine, Recreation Specialist • Kristin Whisennand, Editor

Federal, State, and Local Agencies: • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Bureau of Land Management • Nevada State Clearinghouse • Nevada State Historic Preservation Office • Nevada Division of Forestry • Nevada Department of Transportation • Clark County Volunteer Fire Department • Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Tribes: • Cedar Band of Paiutes Indians



• Chemehuevi Indian Tribe • Colorado River Indian Tribes • Indian Peaks Band of Paiute Indians • Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians • Las Vegas Paiute Tribe • Moapa Band of Paiute Indians • Pahrump Paiute Tribe • Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah • Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians



References Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species. 1999. 4 pp.

Great Basin Institute (GBI). 2010. Archery Range: 2010 Botanical Survey Report. Prepared for and on file at the U.S. Forest Service, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Grismer, M.E., C. Schnurrenberger, R. Arst, and M.P. Hogan. 2009. Integrated monitoring and assessement of soil restoration treatments in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Environ. Monit. Assess. 150(1-4): 365-383.

Ham, Sam H. 2009. Journal of Interpretation Research. From Interpretation to Protection: Is There a Theoretical Basis? Volume 14. Number 2.

Johansen, M. P., Hakonson, T. E., and Breshears, D. D. 2001. Post-fire runoff and erosion from rainfall simulation: contrasting forest with shrublands and grasslands. Hydrological Processes , 15: 2953-2965.

Lowell, Tom, Bruce Davidson, Stephanie Valentine. 2012. Old Mill, Dolomite, and McWilliams Recreation Site Vegetation Management Plan. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Humbolt Toiyabe National Forest, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Clark County Area, Nevada. http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov accessed [12/2/2011].

United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1986(a). 1986 ROS Book.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1986. Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Region 4, Toiyabe National Forest. Sparks, NV. pp. IV-40, 41.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Manual Series 2000 National Forest Resource Management Amendment No. 2000-95-5, FSM 2081.03. Noxious Weeds Management.

United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1996. Spring Mountains National Recreation Area General Management Plan.

United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 2006. Visitor Use Report. Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. Region 4. National Visitor Use Monitoring. Data collected CY 2005, FY 2006.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2011. Pacific Southwest Region. Recreation Facility Analysis. Glossary of Terms. Accessed online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rfa/glossary.shtml on 12/7/2011.

United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 2011(b). Humbolt-Toiyabe SMNRA Recreation website. Accessed on 12/7/2011.



USDA Forest Service. 2012. Water Erosion Prediction Project Forest Road Erosion Predictor (WEPP: Road). USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center, Moscow, ID. Available [ONLINE]@ http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/fswepp/wr/wepproad.pl [Mar 15, 2012].

United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. [No date]. Forest Service Manual and Handbooks. USDA Forest Service Headquarters, Washington D.C. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/.United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2011. Forest Service Manual Chapter 2550-Soil Management. R4 Supplement 2500-2011-1. Region 4, Ogden, UT. 14p.

http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/


Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Appendix A – Responses to Public Scoping Comments



Responses to Public Scoping Comments Organized by Category

First Name Last Name Comment Category Response Robert Myers Because of terrain, many areas of our national

forests are inaccessible to individuals with disabilities. There is no reason why drive-in campground and picnic facilities should not be fully accessible. Therefore, addressing these deficits in the current campground is necessary to fulfill the commitments of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

Accessibility We agree. During the reconstruction, infrastructure would be replaced and configured so that it is accessible to individuals with mobility impairments.

Ben Brimhall This is a much-needed set of improvements to the campground. I didn’t notice it in the plan, but more water spigots are needed there.

Amenities Thank you for your support of this project. We would provide water spigots that are commensurate with the capacity of the site.

Jason Roeller The volleyball court is rocky and needs to be leveled and dug out for real use.

Amenities We will consider volleyball and other similar activities as we move through the planning process to determine if it is an appropriate recreation opportunity at this location.

Keith Letus Are hard-surfaced tent areas really needed? Hard-surfaced tent areas in other campsites around the country have always been a turn-off for me. Unless there is a HUGE problem with tents being set up outside of designated camping areas, then I don't see much benefit to designated hard-surfaced tent areas. They visually clutter a campsite, and may be a man-made tripping hazard.

Amenities The surfacing of the tent pads has yet to be decided. However, undefined tent areas are causing unnecessary damage to the natural vegetation. Level tent pads would mitigate damage to the forest environment and provide more comfortable staging areas for tents.

Dan Johnson One of the most important items is a stable, rock free, flat site to pitch a tent. All the other items mentioned sound great- fire pits, BBQ, etc. The icing on the cake, would be more sites with power- the ones at Fletchers View go quick. Thanks.

Amenities The proposal includes construction of tent pads, which we will try to make as level as possible. There is no commercial power in the area for RV hookups or electricity in the restrooms.

Loretta Thrush Shade covers would also be nice, in some places there is just no shade at any time of the day.

Amenities We will consider topography and vegetation in the layout of the campsites as ways of providing shade.



First Name Last Name Comment Category Response Marilyn Oehler Are you going to have volleyball areas? Amenities We will consider volleyball and other similar activities

as we move through the planning process to determine if it is an appropriate recreation opportunity at this location.

William Waldron I know people like to bring their pets along with them what about a large dog area or multiple smaller runs for each site.

Amenities We will consider areas for pets as we move through the planning process to determine if it is an appropriate amenity at this location.

Cindy McAlexander We would love to see restrooms with plumbing, electricity for the trailers, and more fire pits.

Amenities Our proposal does include flush restrooms and firepits. There is no commercial power in the area for RV hookups or electricity in the restrooms.

Jason Roeller The restrooms do need fixed as they always reek. Bathrooms The restrooms would all be replaced during the reconstruction with flush restrooms.

Dave Frohman It seems like a long time to be closed especially during the peak camping season. I can understand the winter weather concerns but with all due respect to the migratory birds, I hardly think the construction in this small area is really going to adversely effect them to any significant degree. These comments also apply to the other campgrounds in the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area that I hear are going to be renovated. Its great to update the campgrounds but try to do it with minimal inconvenience to the primary users, the campers and not the birds who can go wherever they choose throughout the forest.

Closure The Forest Service is required by law (The Migratory Bird Treaty Act) to protect listed birds during their breeding season. During the spring we would conduct surveys to determine if migratory bird nests are in the project area. If none are found, we may be able to begin construction sooner.



First Name Last Name Comment Category Response Roberta Waldron I made the reservation as our annual August outing

(we need to get out of the heat). The club has camped at Mahogany Grove for more that six years in August, and seeing from the information, we will not be able to reserve Mahogany Grove for the next two years. Can you make a suggestion of a campground that could accommodate 30 to 60 campers in the Mt. Charleston area?

Closure Campground space would be limited on the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area during the 2013-2014 seasons. We are doing our best to stagger construction in Kyle and Lee Canyons. Please contact Recreation.gov at 877-444-6777 to ask about availability and for reserving campsites that are close in proximity. If your group is comfortable with camping outside of a designated campground, the forest is open to dispersed camping unless otherwise signed. You can contact Spring Mountain National Recreation Area (SMNRA) Recreation Staff about suitable areas for your group. Please call 702-515-5400 for information.

Robert Nixon How will this project be funded? Cost This project is funded through the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA), which authorizes revenue from the sale of public lands in Southern Nevada to go to specific projects such as hazardous fuel reduction, environmentally sensitive land acquisitions, and capital improvement projects on public lands. Please see the BLM's SNPLMA website for more information: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/snplma.html

Denise Bertram Currently we camp at Mt Charleston 2-3 times a year. We always choose the Fletcher View Campground because of the power hookups and the fire pits. Since we have a large group I always reserve space 10. It can accommodate my large group. We would love other options for camping on the mountain.

Group size While Mahogany Grove Group Campground would not have power hookups due to a lack of commercial power, it would be a wonderful alternative for your group.

Rosenda Rivas My family and I love to camp out at Mahogany Grove. Usually we camp with less than 15 people here because we love that it’s spacious and the privacy.

Group size Topography and vegetation would be considered in the new layout of the campground to help maximize space and privacy between sites.



First Name Last Name Comment Category Response Stacey Reconfiguring the group sites to match typical group

sizes is generally a good idea, but I suggest that you maintain the capacity for a single large group of ~80 people. If you would rather not reduce the number of available smaller group sizes, then perhaps this could be accomplished by co-locating smaller group sites so that they can also function as a single large site. If that is done, then notes should be added to the site information on recreation.gov.

Group size There would be approximately five group sites that would hold 25-35 people. Larger groups could, as you suggest, reserve multiple sites.

Gregory Smith Is there any plans for single track bikes or hiking leaving from mahogany grove?

Hiking We are considering the addition of a short walking trail to historical features near the campground. There are currently no other plans for constructing single track bike or hiking trails from Mahogany Grove. We are currently in the process of constructing the Telephone Canyon Trail system, which is available for mountain bikes starting at Angel Peak Road. The North Loop Trailhead is also close to the campground along Deer Creek Highway.

Jeff Brown One additional feature I would recommend you consider also installing would be a permanent sign which showed major hiking trails within walking distance of this campground.

Hiking We will consider including trail information in our signage plan for the project.

Lori Gish The rest of the proposal looks good, with the exception of the "interpretive trail" People generally don't use these types of "interpretive trials" and they are a waste of tax dollars. If you really want something like that, provide brochures. Much cheaper.

Hiking The interpretive trail provides access and information to a historic site near the campground. It also provides some trail opportunities that do not currently exist immediately adjacent to the campground.

I really like the old time feel of all the camp sites. I don't think any improvements are needed.

No-change This option is considered in our No-Action alternative.



First Name Last Name Comment Category Response Robert Myers Addressing shortages in parking is also important. I

have used group campgrounds in other areas. It is often annoying when those who have reserved an adjoining group site arrive with more cars than the site can accommodate. They often try to poach spaces assigned to other camp sites. The number of people that a site can accommodate should be related to the parking that serves it. Don't advertise that a site holds 80 if it does [not] have parking to support this number.

Parking We would work to provide parking spaces commensurate with the capacity of each campsite, but we do encourage groups to share vehicles whenever possible.

Loretta Thrush Parking is always an issue and so is a safe walk to the vehicles from group campsites.

Parking We would work to provide parking spaces commensurate with the capacity of each campsite. We will also work to design the parking spaces to provide safe access to the campsites.

Stacey One concern I had about the other group sites on the mountain was parking; while we can encourage people not to drive separately, it is difficult [to] manage the number of vehicles used by a large group. As indicated in the proposal, you have also identified this problem and plan to improve the parking situation.

Parking We would work to provide parking spaces commensurate with the capacity of each campsite, but we do encourage groups to share vehicles whenever possible.

William Waldron I would also include a pullout or parking spot for a large vehicle or trailer for each site I would use concrete, metal or synthetic wood tables.

Parking The parking area would accommodate a range of vehicle sizes. Tables within the campground would be designed to withstand the high amount of use they receive.

Jason Roeller I am an avid camper /rv user and have used this site for several over night group outings. We ask that you keep it as an overnight pay site.

Reservations Mahogany Grove Group Campground would continue to be an overnight facility. Reservations can be made at www.recreation.gov or by calling 877-444-6777.

Loretta Thrush I wished that we could have camped at Mahogany, so making Mahogany Grove an overnight group camp option would be fantastic. Will Mahogany Grove be an overnight camp option? (I thought it was day use only).

Reservations Mahogany Grove Group Campground has been and would continue to be an overnight facility. Reservations can be made at www.recreation.gov or by calling 877-444-6777.



First Name Last Name Comment Category Response Rosenda Rivas The restroom were dirty, had a bad smell we

couldn’t even walk by without gagging, and no lights in the restroom at night time.

Restrooms Our proposal includes replacing existing restrooms with flush restrooms. There is no commercial power in the area for electricity in the restrooms, but we will consider lighting options for the restroom buildings.

Mike & Patti Haber I would like to suggest flush toilets and possibly pay showers like those found at Big Bend State Park south of Laughlin NV.

Restrooms Our proposal includes replacing existing restrooms with flush restrooms. We are considering shower facilities.

Loretta Thrush One of the reasons we passed on camping, there were only the vault toilets. And with a group of people flushing toilets make things better. I do hope there will be running water in sinks as well.

Restrooms Our proposal includes replacing existing restrooms with flush restrooms and running water. We are also proposing hydrants and sumps for dishwashing.

Rosenda Rivas You have already addressed these things in your proposal such as the roads being narrow. We had trouble trying to leave the camp ground because of cars coming in. We had to back up all the way to the parking area and let the cars go through before we were able to leave.

Road Thank you for your support of this project. The road would be constructed to accommodate larger vehicles and trailers as much as possible.

Jason Roeller The area itself is beautiful however the tight lower turns make it impossible for large trailers to make it in.

Road The road would be constructed to accommodate two-way traffic. It would also be designed to accommodate larger vehicles and trailers as much as possible.

Larry Lewis Probably a good idea but you should also be looking at upgrading some of the existing campgrounds to better serve the larger/newer RV's and add additional sites. It seems a shame that the closest mountain area to Las Vegas does not have updated and more modern campgrounds to better serve the local population

RV The parking area would accommodate a range of vehicle sizes. Also included in our proposal is to create more campsites that can accommodate mid-sized groups. Vault toilets would be upgraded to flush toilets.



First Name Last Name Comment Category Response Cody Prater [A]s an avid RV camper and hiker my lone

suggestion for improvements in this site would be full hook up RV sites as there are none of these sites currently in the Spring Mts. Park. It obviously is possible due to the close location to housing in the area.

RV There is no commercial power in the Mahogany Grove area for RV hookups or electricity in the restrooms. Campgrounds with RV hook-ups can be found in Kyle Canyon. Please go to www.recreation.gov to book a reservation.

Paul Krein It would be really great if you install a dump station somewhere near campgrounds!

RV The campground is too small to construct a dump station; however, we are considering options for a dump station in a more appropriate location on the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area.

Phillip S. Cascio I see good reason for the suggested improvements to the campground, however, my personal preference would be to upgrade the campground to the level of Fletcher View Campground, including electric hook ups and sites suitable for recreational vehicles.

RV There is no commercial power in the Mahogany Grove area for RV hookups or electricity in the restrooms. The parking area would accommodate a range of vehicle sizes.

Michael Jorgensen We looked at using this site but decided against is because once there are cars in the parking lots there is no way to turn a big RV around. The addition of a turn around would make the site useable for our group.

RV The parking area would accommodate a range of vehicle sizes.

Tammy Sheehan The only thing that is really on my "wish list" is a dump station on either side of the mountain. We usually spend about 7 days on each trip and it sure would be convenient to have the ability to dump our tanks sometime during our visit and at the end of our trip.

RV The campground is too small to construct a dump station; however, we are considering options for a dump station in a more appropriate location on the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area.

Lori Gish I am disappointed to see that there will be no RV hookups installed. At a minimum there should be some of the sites with electrical hookups for smaller RVs such as those at Fletcher View campsite, also on Mt. Charleston.

Rv There is no commercial power in the Mahogany Grove area for RV hookups or electricity in the restrooms.



First Name Last Name Comment Category Response Kenneth Smith Please include educational signage or post the rules;

some people don't know about multiple fire rings or cross cutting trails. Please consider carefully the impact, maintenance, appearance and longevity of hard trails.

Signs We will consider including trail and fire information in our signage plan for the project. Trails constructed would be to Forest Service standard, which consider maintenance, appearance, and longevity of the trail system.

Jason Roeller [I] love the idea of expanding it out , as long as the sites that are there have adequate space in between campground locations. We always choose this site do the distance away from other campers and the pleasure not have a night quiet curfew time.

Size The project proposal would increase the number of campsites within the existing footprint of the campground. Topography and vegetation would be considered in the new layout of the campground to help maximize space and privacy between sites.

Damien The primary problems with these campsites are the distance between them. The sites are so close that the tents or trailers almost touch each other. Please, Please, put some sort of distance between them.

Size Topography and vegetation would be considered in the new layout of the campground to help maximize space and privacy between sites.

Rosenda Rivas While on our camping trip we encounter many cars pulling up to the site around 7pm and later trying to camp out in the area we reserved. We had to tell them it was reserved and at one point one of the persons we talked to got offended and hostile. What should campers who have paid for the area do in situations like this? Who can we call (well we get no service there) or reach out to after 5pm when something like these arises?

Staffing We apologize that you had such an unpleasant experience during your visit to mountain. The camp host at Hilltop Campground is also responsible for providing host services at Mahogany Grove Group Campground. In the future, we would suggest speaking to the camp host at Hilltop Campground if you encounter any problems.

Robert Glass There is firewood available, but they chose to destroy. The penalty needs to be very stiff with removal from the premises also. The CG staff need to be looking for the violators and calling in park rangers to enforce the rules.

Staffing Forest Service staff try to patrol the area as often as possible, but they cannot always catch instances of vandalism or damage to the forest resources. The camp host at Hilltop Campground is also responsible for providing host services at Mahogany Grove Group Campground. We invite you to contact the camp host to report any damage that you see.

Kenneth Smith Good work. Downsizing sites seems like a good idea. Bigger groups can rent two.

Support Thank you for your support of this project.



First Name Last Name Comment Category Response Bruce Genereaux As a user of the campground last year, yes you are

right on the narrowness of the access and old infrastructure. You have my support for your plan.


David Orr I support the renovation project. Support Thank you for your support of this project.

Gregory Smith All of the suggestions are good and I support them. metal stoves attached to the firepit are also good. Also, horse shoe pits are great since all large groups usually bring horse shoes to throw. Without a designated pit, horse shoes tear up the ground .

Support Thank you for your support of this project. Metal stoves attached to the firepit are something we may consider. We will consider horse shoes and other similar activities as we move through the planning process to determine if it is an appropriate recreation opportunity at this location.

Mike Hougen the plan sounds good to me. Support Thank you for your support of this project. Amy Mathewson I think that the proposal looks amazing! Mt.

Charleston is definitely in need of some repair. Let me know if there is anything I can do!

Support Thank you for your support of this project. While we may not have volunteer opportunities associated with this project, we invite you to visit www.getoutdoorsnevada.org to find other opportunities to contribute to the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area.

Robert Glass I have read the project proposal and could not agree more! I hope the project can come up with a method to prevent/discourage people from damaging the living trees and shrubs. I have seen the problem happen at Hilltop CG and am saddened by the disrespect some people have toward the treasured trees in the area.


Ivar Hottentot Thanks for this info on the new potential campsite. My family would love to have another location in that great area to go camping in the future.


Jeff Brown Proposal overall looks good Support Thank you for your support of this project.



First Name Last Name Comment Category Response Mike & Patti Haber Although I have not used this site I did drive threw

and saw the problems sighted and agree with the proposed up grades.


Kirstie McGuinness I like all of the improvements that you are proposing and do not have any suggestions.


This is a great proposal and will improve the facility as well as convenience of the visitors.


Shirley McLees I love the new plans, especially the group sites for 20-40 people and the paved sites for camping and new tables. We will definitely use the new facilities.


Paul Fletcher This plan seems to be right on. We were just there a couple of weeks ago, and there were only about 20 of us. I can’t see any issues with this plan to make more areas designed for less people.


I approve the proposal for Mahogany grove campground.


Ed Cortney I think your renovation ideas would be very beneficial.


Jay Foley This is a great plan and long past due. I fully support plans for small group sites ASAP! Keep the upgrades coming! We will all use them!


Teresa Ringler I have never been to that campground, but it sounds like a great idea to fix it up so people can use it better.


Rod Hall We are in agreement with the proposed actions to improve the Mahogany Grove Campground area. The plan of action appears to be well planned out. Thank you for letting us view this project.




First Name Last Name Comment Category Response Rob Mrowka What is a “CAD survey area”? Survey The project area was surveyed and input into

Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software, for the purpose of creating designs and documenting features that exist on the ground. For this project, we used CAD to create digital layers showing features in the project area such as topography, trees, campsites, and restrooms. These layers will inform our designers as they go through the planning process.

Damien Could you also put a few trees in between the sites as well.

Vegetation Topography and vegetation would be considered in the new layout of the campground to help maximize space and privacy between sites.

Cindy McAlexander The dead brush needs to be cleared away, and there was a "terrible" bee problem this year. We couldn't even cook one evening due to the swarming bees.

Vegetation We will continue to clean up the extensive breakage caused by last winter's snow storms. Unfortunately, there is not much that can be done about bees, since they are an important part of the forest ecosystem.

Nevada State Clearing house

It is hoped that all Federal agencies would include dark sky lighting and other visual resource protection and mitigation as a condition of approval for permanent and temporary applications.

Visual Impacts

There is no commercial power in the Mahogany Grove area, so lighting infrastructure around the roadways and campgrounds would not be included in this project. Lighting solutions developed for the restroom buildings would consider screens or hoods, as necessary, to avoid light pollution in areas other than its intended location.



First Name Last Name Comment Category Response Nevada State Clearing house

Utilize building materials, colors and site placement that are compatible with the natural environment.

Visual Impacts

Campground infrastructure would comply with federal and agency policy, which includes the U.S. Forest Service Built Environment Image Guide, which defines architectural character types unique to the local surroundings to help fit our facilities to the landscape. This guide suggests the use of native colors and materials, building structures that complement the landscape, and minimizing impact on the environment. The guide illustrates the role everyone plays in creating and maintaining a sustainable facility, from project sponsors, line officers, and designers.



Appendix B – Design Criteria

DESIGN CRITERIA POTENTIAL IMPACTS ADDRESSED

Soils

Groundcover: Existing groundcover would be maintained and improved to deter surface erosion and improve soil water retention for desired vegetation. Best placement of supplemental groundcover materials would be onto compacted sites adjacent to developed parking areas and group sites. Supplemental groundcover should not cover areas where foot traffic is expected to occur. Groundcover should target 50 percent coverage or better and bare interspaces should be limited to less than 50 feet in diameter. Groundcover materials could include any of the following:

• Chips processed on site from clean (weed free) wood and leaf litter.

• Stone fragments over 3 inches in diameter. • Coarse down wood over 3 inches in diameter. • Basal vegetation such as grass and shrubs. Favor seasoned mulch

over fresh mulch.

Deter surface erosion and improve soil water retention for desired vegetation.

Sheet-wash: Aprons of suitable-sized gravel would be placed on the down slope of tent, trailer, and picnic table pads. This mitigation would only be applied in areas where the slope below a tent pad is susceptible to sheet-wash erosion due to the slope angle, or if the potential for concentration of runoff, or the risk of damage if erosion propagated downslope is obvious to personnel trained to properly assess the risk.

Dissipate the energy of sheet wash, and allow water to infiltrate into the soil.

Curbs: Do not build curbs or speed bumps on roadways and parking lots.

Avoid concentration and ponding of intercepted rainwater and reduce subsequent erosion.

Culverts: To the extent possible, culverts should be replaced with rolling dips and/or low water crossings. Outlets to all such structures that tend to concentrate runoff would be armored appropriately with rock mulch and/or appropriately sized riprap as per the direction above under “sheet-wash”.

Crossings afford greater cross-sectional area and reduce concentrated flows and subsequent erosion.

Equipment Use and Staging: Equipment would be appropriate for the site and type of construction implemented. Use of equipment would be confined to areas intended for disturbance and unnecessary disturbance would be avoided: unnecessary earthwork would not occur, excavated materials would be properly protected from erosion, and properly trained equipment operators would be employed. Equipment would be maintained in good operating condition, refueling areas would be properly developed, monitored, and equipped with a spill

Minimize soil compaction and disturbance.




prevention and clean-up plan.

Vegetation: Tree and shrub removal near the bluffs above the old road would be minimized. Where appropriate, existing ground cover near highly erosive areas would be maintained and improved by reclaiming the site with native drought tolerant vegetation. Consider transplanting or local nursery stock for replanting. Favor woody plants and avoid grasses where soils are poor and not conducive to grass cover. Woody vegetation includes mountain mahogany, pinyon pine, and rabbitbrush. Where topsoil has organic matter and can support understory vegetation, native perennial grasses and forbs such as penstemon, would be seeded. Consider supplementing soils with nearby topsoil that has accumulated behind the drainage crossing of the old highway. Application would be concentrated around dripline of new plants and existing trees.

Stabilize slopes and disturbed areas.

Plants and Wildlife

Limited Operating Periods for Raptors and Other Migratory Birds: Vegetation removal and gate installation would occur between July 21 and May 19 to avoid bird breeding season (May 20 – July 20). If an exception is requested, it may be granted if a nest search is conducted and substrates (i.e., trees or bushes) upon which nests are found are avoided until nestlings fledge. Appropriate buffers would be designated for any nests located based on the species habitat requirements by an SMNRA wildlife biologist.

Prevent nest abandonment and loss of young for flammulated owl, other migratory birds, and potential direct and indirect impacts to bats.

Building Demolition: All existing structures would be inspected for bat guano prior to demolition. If bat guano is observed and a qualified biologist determines that the buildings are currently in use by bats, then buildings would only be demolished between August 15 and November 15. If demolition must occur outside of these dates, the USFS may proactively exclude bats from structures for up to one year. If these exclusionary structures are maintained and a qualified biologist determines that no sensitive bat species are roosting in the buildings, demolition may proceed after July 20.

Reduce impacts to bat species.

Artificial Lighting: For operations occurring outside of normal daylight hours, artificial lighting would be limited to small arrays of down-shielded lighting and reasonable lighting attached to moving equipment (such as dozers, pavers, trucks, etc.). In addition, no construction or demolition activities would occur from 12:00 am to 06:00 am.

Reduce impacts to bats and other nocturnal species.




Posts: Hollow posts of any material or color, used to mark boundaries at construction sites, would be capped if open-ended. Exposed holes near the top of posts would be closed to prevent raptor talons and birds’ feet from being trapped. Building Construction: Holes, gaps, or hollow spaces in the facilities or structures as small as 0.75-inch in diameter would be closed during construction to prevent bird, bat, and small mammal entry. Escape Structures in Trenches: Construction trenches would be equipped with escape structures with a textured surface for gripping and a slope of less than 45 degrees spaced no greater than 500 linear feet for use by small mammals and reptiles. Escape routes would be installed in all construction trenches for the period the trench remains open. Check trenches, holes, or other confining spaces prior to infilling to ensure entrapment of small mammals and reptiles have not occurred.

Reduce loss of individual birds, bats and other small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles.

Weed Prevention: USFS and Humboldt-Toiyabe NF Weeds Management Best Management Practices (Humboldt-Toiyabe Supplemental FSM 2080) would be employed during construction and reclamation activities. A full list of prevention measures are listed in the Non-Native / Invasive species Report for Plants for this project, and located in the project record. Weed Prevention Monitoring: Post-implementation, the project area would be monitored for 3 years for introduced weeds. Any introduced weeds observed would be treated.

Reduce the potential risk from introduction and spread of weeds. Reduce the risk of alteration and degradation of native habitats.

Erosion Control: USFS Soil and Water Best Management Practices (including FSH 2509.22 Region 4 Amendment No. 1) would be employed during construction and reclamation activities.

Minimize degradation of suitable habitat, soils, and water.

Demolition and Construction Activities Pre-work Meeting: A USFS biologist would be invited to the pre-work meeting with the contractor’s crews to explain the rationale behind all project design criteria. USFS Biologist or Botanist on Site: The project Contracting Officer Representative would notify the USFS biologist or botanist assigned to the project when activities are scheduled to occur. This is to facilitate site flagging or to ensure biologist support for onsite visits during implementation if needed. Construction Boundaries and Trail Layout: The project boundary would be appropriately marked with signs or other suitable measures that adequately designate the boundary as shown on construction drawings. A USFS botanist or trained biologist would assist in locating and avoiding occurrences of these species for trail reroutes. Staging areas: As much as is reasonably practical, temporary equipment staging areas would be located within the project boundary

Ensure successful implementation and evaluation of design criteria for botany and wildlife. Minimize loss of individuals and degradation of suitable habitat for occupied habitat areas. In particular, try to avoid occurrences of Jaeger’s beardtongue and one very small occurrence of Charleston grounddaisy and Charleston violet.




and in previously disturbed areas (e.g., roads, parking). A USFS biologist or botanist would review proposed staging area locations to minimize impacts to natural resources (in particular, an occurrence of Charleston violet).

Avoidance of Sensitive Plants: One occurrence of Charleston violet to be avoided during project implementation.

To prevent or reduce impacts to Charleston violet adjacent to the current campground use area.

Post-construction Restoration Plant Materials: Contractors would follow Forest Service Policy (FSM 2070) and use genetically appropriate native materials for rehabilitation and restoration when possible. Information on R4 Sensitive species and CA Species of Concern would be included in interpretive materials for the area. Revegetation within the project boundary would follow the guidelines in the Vegetation Management Plan. If needed, the use of sterile, non-native grasses would be limited to the most erosive areas. A USFS biologist or botanist would review and advise on the list of species used in revegetation to ensure consistency with USFS policy and SMNRA management objectives.

Reduce long-term loss of individuals, habitat, and plant diversity.

Recreation

Design: Design all new facilities to follow the SMNRA Built Environment Image Guidelines. Maintain visual consistency.

Health and Safety: Provide animal resistant trash containers and recycling containers at appropriate locations throughout the area to promote recycling and reduce trash and litter.

Reduce potential human/animal interactions and on-site litter.

Accessibility: Ensure that all facilities would meet Forest Service accessibility standards to the greatest extent practicable. Provide access.

Heritage

Unanticipated Resources: If unanticipated heritage resources are discovered during project implementation, all work would stop in the vicinity until cleared by the SMNRA district archaeologist or designated professional cultural resources manager.

Reduce loss of unknown heritage resources.



Appendix C – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities

Past Projects Location Project Description Decision Date

Implementation Date

Bristlecone Habitat Protection Project (CE)

Adjacent to Highway 156 in Lee, Deer and Mack's Canyons of the Spring Mountains NRA

Fence up to 1000 meters of the Bristlecone Trail (from the Highway 156 trailhead south) to protect sensitive plant species and their habitat. Install signing to educate public about the resource and the reason for the fence.

11/20/2006 5/24/2007

Lovell Canyon Trails and Trailhead (CE)

Lovell Canyon Construct approximately 12 miles of new trail and one low development trailhead for hikers and equestrians

02/26/07 09/2007

Fuel Reduction to Reduce Wildland Fire Danger adjacent to developed communities (EA)

Kyle, Lee, Lovell and Trout Canyons, Mountain Springs, Cold Creek

USFS proposal to mechanically reduce fuels (vegetation) on 2,900 acres of NFS lands adjacent to communities rated by the Nevada Fire Safe Council as at "high and extreme" risk of wildfire.

12/20/2007 03/2008; completed fall 2010

Sign and Low Frequency Radio

Throughout NRA Implement signage program/information radio station.

No date 02/28/08

Echo View Reservoir Approx. 1,000 feet north of Tr. Canyon Trailhead

300,000 gallon water storage reservoir with 1,900 foot pipeline running along Echo Road to Clark County Echo Well 3

2005 2005

Motorized Trails Designation Project

Throughout NRA Restricts motorized travel to designated FS system roads

6/2/2004 2004

Fletcher View/Kyle RV Improvements

On SR 157, approx. one mile west of intersection with 158 in Kyle Canyon

Replace vault toilet at Fletcher View with 2 flush with showers, update plumbing system; construct new trail between campground and visitor center; restore user defined trails; install interpretive signs

12/12/03 2004

Sawmill Trailhead Project State Route 156 Construct trailhead parking area for equestrian use

2004 2005-2006

Sawmill Loop Trail Project State Route 156 Construct 1.5 miles of new trail named the Sawmill Loop Trail

03/27/2007 2007

Mitigation of safety hazards at abandoned mines sites (CE)

Throughout NRA Develop and implement safety requirements for visitors

10/26/09 2009

Interp. Signs and Displays (CE)

Throughout NRA Install informational/interpretive signage

07/30/08 11/30/09

Resource Protection Devices (CE)

Throughout NRA Design devices to guide people in developed areas

05/01/09 10/01/09

Fencing and Interpretive Signage (Law Enforcement) (CE)

Kyle Canyon Install winter fencing to prevent winter play at Cathedral Rock

09/30/08 11/30/08



Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort Snowmaking System & Parking Improvements (EA)

Lee Canyon Resort proposal to expand snow-making pond to 1.5 million gallons; expand and pave lower parking lot; and control parking lot water discharge.

7/24/2009 2009

Nellis AFB Fiber Optic Line SUP Project (CE)

Hwy 158, Angel Peak Communications Site

Grant a linear ROW SUP for a fiber optic line to increase bandwidth for FAA and Nellis communications

11/04/2009 12/2009

Mt. Potosi Guzzlers SUP Project (CE)

West side of Mt. Potosi

Develop gallinaceous guzzler water sources for small game

01/31/2011 2011

Mt. Springs Radio Tower Site SUP Project (CE)

SW of summit at Mt. Springs pass

Replace an existing radio/microwave tower with a 70-foot tower and equipment shelter

12/03/2010 2011

Lee Canyon Meadow Restoration (CE)

Lee Canyon USFS proposal to improve blue butterfly habitat by addressing meadow and water quality degradation: repair gullies; dissipate water energy at culverts; install footbridges & interpretive signing; control access by wild horses; improve parking.

8/25/2009 2009-2011

Archery Range (CE) Deer Creek Rehabilitate and close dispersed camping areas

09/16/11 2011-2012

Upper Kyle Trailhead Improvement Project (EA)

Kyle Canyon USFS proposal to development trailhead access in the vicinity of Mary Jane Falls, Old Ski Tow, and Trail Canyon Trailheads.

08/22/2011 2011-2012

Present Projects Location Project Description Decision Date

Implementation Date

Desert View Rehabilitation Project (EA)

State Rd. 158 USFS proposal to improve the Desert View Overlook (State Road 158) to provide for traffic safety at the turnout and improved interpretive abilities and viewscapes. Includes construction of off-highway parking lot and ADA accessible trail

05/09/2008 2011-2012

Cathedral Rock Picnic Area Rehabilitation Project (EA)

Section 36, T19S, R56E, MDB&M. At the upper terminus of State Route 157 in the community of Mount Charleston.

USFS proposal to remove the existing Cathedral Rock infrastructure and replace it with new facilities and infrastructure, and convert a portion of the existing picnic area into trailhead parking for adjacent trails.

3/7/2011 2011-2012

Cathedral Rock Trails Project (CE)

Section 36, T19S, R56E, MDB&M. At the upper terminus of State Route 157 in the community of Mount Charleston.

USFS proposal to construct two connector trails from the new trailhead in Cathedral Rock Picnic Area to access the Cathedral Rock and the South Loop Trails, and make trail improvements.

09/15/2011 2011-2012



Middle Kyle Complex (EIS)

Sections 14-17, 21-29, 32, 34-36, T19S, R56E & Sections 18, 19, 30, 31, T19S, R57E MDB&M. Middle Kyle Complex

USFS proposal to construct a recreation complex to provide a variety of recreation and education opportunities in an environmentally sensitive manner. Opportunities could include a visitor center, campgrounds, picnic area, and multiple trail systems; includes reconstruction of Kyle Canyon Campground in lower Kyle Canyon

12/31/2009 2010-2013

Blue Tree Trails (CE) Lee Canyon USFS proposal to designate 44 miles of trail for hiking, equestrian & mountain bike use from the recently constructed Sawmill Trailhead; close & rehabilitate 9 miles of existing user trails/roads & 7 campsites; and convert 1 mile of road to trail.

5/17/2010 2010-2012

Lovell Road - Round 7 (CE)

Lovell Canyon Reconstruction of paved section of road for safety

12/6/2011 2011-2012

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Project

Location Project Description Decision Date

Implementation Date

Dolomite/McWilliams/Old Mill Campgrounds (EA)

Lee Canyon Total renovation of the campgrounds

06/2012 09/01/12

Mahogany Grove (EA) Deer Creek Reconstruct group picnic area 06/2012 09/01/12 Foxtail Group Picnic Area (EA)

Lee Canyon Develop winter play/renovate picnic area

06/2012 09/01/12

Rd 6- Fuel Reduction In The SMNRA (EA)

Throughout NRA Implement the removal of trees and brush for fire protection

2012 2013

Rainbow Mountain and LaMadre Mountain Wilderness Plan (EA)

Rainbow Mountain and LaMadre Mountain Wilderness Areas, Spring Mountains NRA and Red Rock National Conservation Area

USFS proposal to complete Wilderness Planning for Rainbow Mountain and LaMadre Mountain Wildernesses, which are partially located on the Spring Mountains NRA

2012 2012

Mt. Charleston Wilderness Plan (EA)

Mt. Charleston Wilderness Area

USFS proposal to complete wilderness planning for Mt. Charleston,

2012 2012

Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort Avalanche Hazard Reduction (EA)

Lee Canyon Authorize LVSSR to upgrade existing avalanche hazard reduction equipment with a 105 mm howitzer; construct facilities to house the weapon and munitions

05/01/2008 On Hold

Telephone Canyon Trails Project (EA)

Deer Creek Highway

Construct, realign, close, and rehabilitate non-motorized, non-wilderness multiple use trails and provide trailhead parking

04/2012 07/20/2012



LVSSR Ski Lift Replacement (CE)

Lee Canyon Authorize LVSSR to replace existing ski lift.

1/2013 7/2013

LVSSR Master Development Plan (EIS)

Lee Canyon Authorize activities proposed in the Master Development Plan

2014 2014

Mud Springs Fencing Project (CE)

Lee Canyon Construct fence to exclude ungulates around springs and provide alternative water source

7/2013 7/2013

Clark Canyon Rehabilitation Project (CE)

Lovell Canyon Project to improve timber and wildlife habitat

9/2013 7/2013

a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...4701 north torrey pines drive ....

Documents