RECORD OF DECISION VESTAL PROJECT. Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest Custer County, South Dakota.

Transcription

1 VE VESTAL PROJECT RECORD OF DECISION Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest Custer County, South Dakota United States Department of Agriculture June 22, 2012 Forest Service

2 Aerial view of the city of Custer, SD taken September 16, Looking northwest. Aerial view of Crazy Horse Monument taken September 13, Looking southwest. Aerial view of the Vestal project area (northwest) taken September 12, MPB pitch tube, with pitched beetle. Aerial view of the city of Custer, SD taken September 08, Looking north. Custer sign, Custer, SD taken September 08, 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) (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 , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 2

3 Introduction The Vestal project area surrounds the City of Custer, South Dakota, encompassing a large amount of private land. The private, or non-forest Service, lands are concentrated within the city limits, but also occur as scattered parcels throughout the whole project area. There are extensive private dwellings, businesses, and government offices within the project area. These structures also occur throughout the project area. There are many high-use developed recreational sites that occur on private, state, and federal lands within or adjacent to the project area. All visitors to the City of Custer will travel through the Vestal project area. The Hell Canyon Ranger District office and shop, as well as the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor s Office, are also located within the project area. The Vestal project has been completed under the provisions of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). The project qualified for HFRA under Title I, Section 102(a) of the Act, which includes areas that contain or are adjacent to an insect epidemic that poses a risk to forest resources. A forest health evaluation for the project area was completed in March, 2011 and concluded that the Vestal project area is within an expanding mountain pine beetle epidemic (Allen, 2011). This report further describes the situation as rapidly exploding.with a significant increase in tree mortality. This epidemic is occurring on both National Forest and private lands. Based on this report, Craig Bobzien, the Forest Supervisor for the Black Hills National Forest, determined that a mountain pine beetle epidemic is occurring and that the Vestal project meets the criteria in Section 102(a)(4) of HFRA. Location and Management Areas The Vestal project area is located surrounding the City of Custer, South Dakota within Custer County (see Map 1, Appendix A of the Vestal FEIS). The project area includes approximately 43,516 acres; 25,823 (60%) of which are National Forest System lands and 17,693 (40%) which are private lands (including City or County properties). The project area includes all or portions of lands with the following legal descriptions, Black Hills Meridian. Table 1. Vestal Project Area Legal Description Township Range Section 2S 3E 36 2S 4E S 3E 1,12,13,24,25,36 3S 4E All 3S 5E 7-10, 15-22, S 4E 1-3, 12, 13, 24 4S 5E 3-8, 17, 18 Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 3

4 The Vestal project area is located within four distinct management areas (MA) which are identified in the Black Hills National Forest, Forest Plan: MA 5.4 Big Game Winter Range 10,723 acres MA 5.1 Resource Production 10,325 acres MA Limited Motorized Use and Forest Products (Buckhorn Mountain) 4,472 acres MA 8.2 Developed Recreation Complex (Bismarck Lake) 303 acres Purpose and Need for Action The primary purpose for action in the Vestal project area is to reduce the threat to forest resources from the existing MPB (mountain pine beetle) epidemic. This action is needed because there is a rapidly increasing MPB outbreak occurring within the project area, on National Forest and private lands, which is resulting in substantial levels of pine mortality. The MPB are infesting trees across all ownerships. Many landowners have experienced MPB caused mortality on their land and are taking action to reduce the potential for further mortality Existing pine stand conditions across the project area are largely (61%) at high risk for MPB caused mortality. A secondary purpose of this project is to protect local communities and watersheds from largescale, high intensity wildfire. This action is needed because the project area is located within and surrounding the City of Custer, SD and approximately 84% of National Forest lands within the project area have a fire hazard rating of high to very high. This is due to dense stand conditions and dead, dry fuels resulting from MPB caused mortality. Approximately 40% of lands in the project area are privately owned, with an estimated 3,194 private structures. Decision This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision regarding actions I am authorizing under the Vestal project and rationale for my decision. The Vestal project purpose and need provides the basis and scope for the proposed action under direction of the 1997 Revised Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the 2006 Phase II amendment (Forest Plan). Forest Plan direction is summarized in Chapter 1 of the Vestal FEIS. Given the purpose and need for action, I reviewed Forest Plan direction, public comments received on the Vestal Draft EIS, issues identified from those comments, information contained within the project record, and the analysis disclosed in the Final EIS. I base my decision on this review. I have decided to implement Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, with modifications Modifications to Alternative 2 In completing my review of the FEIS and project file and in response to public comments, I determined that some vegetation treatments proposed in Alternative 2 should be deferred or changed and that additional design criteria should be added. Table 2 summarizes the Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 4

5 modifications to vegetation treatments in the selected action, the additional design criteria follows the table. Table 2: Selected Action Modifications to Alternative 2 by Site Location-Site Acres Cover Type Original Treatment Modified Treatment Meadow Pine encroachment No Treatment Meadow Pine encroachment No Treatment Pine Group Shelterwood Sanitation Only Pine Commercial Thin 50 Commercial Thin Pine Commercial Thin 50 Commercial Thin 60 Total 141 acres Note refer to attached map showing location of modified treatments. All other treatments are as shown in maps in Appendix A of the FEIS. Additional Design Criteria included in the Selected Action: Implement sanitation only within 150 feet of private property (site , in T3S, R5E, Section 18) in the following sites: , , , and Where rock outcrops occur within this 150 foot distance, extend sanitation only to the back side of the rock, away from private property. All other treatments and features of Alternative 2, as described in the FEIS, are approved in this decision. Table 3 displays the vegetation treatments in the original Alternative 2 and in the Selected Action (Alternative 2-Modified). Table 3: Comparison of Vegetation Treatment in the Original Alternative 2 and the Selected Action (Alternative 2 Modified) Treatment Alt 2 Selected Action Acres Acres CT- Commercial Thinning 60 BA 3,626 3,712 CT50-Commercial Thinning 50 BA 1,831 1,745 FS Free Selection 1,054 1,054 GSH Group Shelterwood 10,044 10,020 HC Hardwood Conversion HR Hardwood Release OR Overstory Removal 1,255 1,255 PCT Precommercial Thinning PE Pine Encroachment 1,458 1,427 POL Products Other Than Logs Thinning Sani Sanitation *3,655 *3,679 SWSC Shelterwood Seedcut VDT Variable Density Thinning 1,072 1,072 Total Acres 25,449 25,418 *Acres of sanitation presented in this Table represent acres of sanitation treatments where no other treatment is proposed. Sanitation is included as a treatment on the entire project area, for up to 5 years. Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 5

6 Table 4: Comparison of Estimated Volume Output for the Original Alternative 2 and the Selected Action (Alternative 2 Modified) Alternative 2 Selected Action Alt 2 Modified Sawlog volume 85,750 ccf ( mmbf) 85,620 ccf (42.81 mmbf) POL volume 33,054 cunits 33,018 cunits As stated above, all other treatments and features of Alternative 2 as described in the FEIS are included in the selected action, as summarized in Tables 5 and 6 below: Table 5. Fuel Reduction Treatments Fuel Treatment Acres DF Deadfall* 23,693 FB - Fuelbreak 180 RX Prescribed Burning 1,761 *Dead fall is included on all pine sites within the project area. Table 6. Transportation System Changes Miles New road construction 0.1 Closure of system road 0.9 Convert unauthorized to system road 0.6 Two key issues were identified through the public scoping process. The impacts to management indicators identified for these issues are summarized in Table 7 and the figures that follow. Table 7. Vestal Effects to Key Issues Summary Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic Existing Alt 2 Selected Action Alt 2-Modified MPB Risk Rating Low: Acres (%) 9,320 (39%) 20,498 (87%) 20,474 (87%) MPB Risk Rating High: Acres (%) 14,373 (61%) 3,069 (13%) 3,093 (13%) Wildfire and Fire Hazard Existing Alternative 2 Selected Action Alt 2-Modified Fire Hazard Rating- Low: acres (%) 1,777 (7%) 5,887 (23%) 5,887 (23%) Fire Hazard Rating- Moderate: acres (%) 2,307 (9%) 16,685 (65%) 16,661 (65%) Fire Hazard Rating- High: acres (%) 11,125 (43%) 1,563 (6%) 1,563 (6%) Fire Hazard Rating Very High: acres (%) 10,437 (41%) 1,513 (6%) 1,537 (6%) Fuelbreak Construction Acres Natural Fuelbreak Maintenance or - 2,015 1,984 Construction Acres Prescribed Burning Acres - 1,761 1,761 Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 6

7 MPB Risk Existing Condition Low High MPB Risk Selected Action Figure 1 Existing MPB Risk Low High Figure 2 Selected Action MPB Risk Existing Fire Hazard Rating Selected Action- Fire Hazard Rating Acres Existing Conditions Low Moderate High Very High Acres Alternative 2 Low Moderate High Very High Figure 3 Existing Fire Hazard Figure 4 Selected Action Fire Hazard Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 7

8 Rationale for Selected Action Two alternatives including No Action (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), were analyzed in detail in the Vestal project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). A comparison of these alternatives and a summary of their effects to mountain pine beetle risk and fire hazard can be found on pages in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. Eleven additional alternatives were considered but, not in detail. These alternatives and the reasons why they were not considered in detail are briefly discussed on pages of the FEIS. In deciding which alternative to select for this project, I first considered whether active management is appropriate in this project area, at this time. After reviewing all materials related to this project, including the FEIS, specialist reports and supporting documents, public input, Forest Plan direction and personal field visits, I believe there is an overwhelming need for action in this project area. The predicted impact of the No Action alternative on the Vestal project area landscape is not acceptable to me, nor do I believe it would be acceptable to the majority of the public who live, recreate or conduct business in this project area. I feel that the mountain pine beetle caused mortality occurring across this landscape is historically significant. The values at risk include: further accumulation of hazardous fuels with increased potential for severe large-scale wildfires the threat to the many values at risk, exemplified by the nearly 3,200 structures in the project area major changes in scenery and alteration of wildlife habitat These impacts will occur on both public and private lands and are highly significant. For these reasons, I have concluded that active management is the best course of action in this project area and therefore, I reject the No Action alternative. The next consideration I had in making my decision was whether the proposed action as originally designed, would best meet the purpose and need for this project, and also be responsive to public input. First, I would like to emphasize that I am very familiar with this particular project area. I see the Vestal landscape every day, since I live in the Custer area. The majority of the Interdisciplinary team which conducted the analysis on this project also lives within the Vestal project boundary. We all work, recreate and conduct business here. This landscape is important to me both personally and professionally, just as it is to the many private residents, business owners, recreationists, local government agencies and others. I am aware of the tremendous values at risk which occur within and adjacent to this project area. These values are not only on National Forest lands, but on private lands as well. The City of Custer, Custer County, SD State Forest Service and many private landowners have been quickly mobilizing in response to this epidemic. I know the decision I make on this project will impact this landscape for decades to come. This is not a decision I take lightly. Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 8

9 The majority of residents who have provided input on the project are very anxious for implementation to begin. I actually receive inquiries on nearly a daily basis asking, when is this project going to start! However, there are also some landowners, and others, who have expressed concerns that the proposed action is too aggressive and reduces stand density more than necessary to reduce mountain pine beetle mortality. Some residents are concerned that the changes in scenery resulting from vegetation treatments will negatively impact their enjoyment of this area of the Black Hills National Forest. Still others express concern that additional treatment should be included to further reduce mountain pine beetle risk in this area. Alternative 2, as originally proposed, is an aggressive approach to reducing mountain pine beetle mortality on a landscape level. The March, 2011 Forest Health report describes the mountain pine beetle epidemic here as rapidly exploding and therefore, I believe an aggressive approach is warranted. Alternative 2 also substantially reduces fire hazard on this landscape which contains such incredible values at risk. At this time in the western United States, there are tens of thousands of acres burning in several large wildfires. The loss of homes and structures from these fires already total in the hundreds with many more being threatened. These events remind me of what could happen here in Custer, and solidifies the need and urgency to implement the Vestal project. Rationale for Modifying Alternative 2 I identified my preferred alternative when the FEIS was distributed at the start of the objection period, as Alternative 2 modified. These modifications were directly in response to input received from landowners within the project area and are within sites adjacent to their private lands. I made further modifications to Alternative 2 following the objection period, during which we received 3 objections to the Vestal project. One of those objections was ultimately withdrawn in response to the additional modifications (see Administrative Review section below). Specifically, modifications include changes to vegetation treatment as noted in Table 2 earlier in this ROD, and the new design criteria that follows Table 2. I feel these changes are responsive to localized specific landowner concerns and do not significantly affect the overall achievement of the purpose and need for this project. Public Involvement Public involvement on the Vestal project has included the following mailings, notifications, meetings, presentations and news releases: A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on April 22, The NOI requested public comment on the proposal and included the date and place of the scheduled public meeting. Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 9

10 A detailed scoping document was mailed to approximately 150 individuals, tribal representatives, groups, government agencies and other interested members of the public. This document also noted the time and place of the public meeting. All scoping documents were posted to the Black Hills National Forest website and Schedule of Proposed Actions. The proposal was discussed at the Custer Rotary Club meeting on April 25, The proposal had been discussed at several of the Custer County Commissioners meetings, as well as at the City of Custer meetings. The proposal was presented as a topic at the Custer Volunteer Fire Department meeting on A News Release was sent to media outlets on April 28, 2011, announcing the Vestal project, requesting comments on the proposal and noting the time and place for the public meeting. Articles appeared in both the Custer Chronicle and the Rapid City Journal. A public meeting was held at the Custer High School on May 11, Two South Dakota State employees participated in this meeting to provide information to private landowners on how to protect their property from MPB and wildfire. The project was presented at the Tribal consultation meeting on June 22, A Notice of Availability of the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on December 30, A legal notice announcing the availability of the DEIS was published in the Rapid City Journal on December 30, 2011, initiating the 45-day comment period. The Forest Service received 55 comment letters, s, etc., during the comment period. All comments and Forest Service responses to those comments are contained in Appendix I of the FEIS. In addition to the specific meetings listed above, the Forest Service has actively worked with the City, County, State and others in an informal manner to address MPB risk and fire hazard in this area. Other information sharing, communication and interaction with interested parties, agencies and individuals has occurred during project planning. The Final EIS and preferred alternative were made available to the public in April of Refer to the Administrative review section below for more information. Environmentally Preferred Alternative(s) Disclosure of one or more environmentally preferable alternatives is required [Section 101 NEPA; 40 CFR (b)]. The environmentally preferable alternative is not necessarily the alternative that will be implemented and it does not have to meet the underlying need for the project. It does, however, have to cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment and best protect, preserve, and enhance historical, cultural and natural resources. For the Vestal project, I have determined that Alternative 2-modified is the environmentally preferred alternative. From a short-term (< 3 years), non-disturbance perspective, the No Action alternative (Alternative 1) meets many of the criteria for being environmentally preferred. In the short term, it would provide more acres of dense mature habitat for wildlife which use this habitat and would Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 10

11 have the least amount of risk of damaging cultural resources. However, it risks long-term negative effects from mountain pine beetle caused tree mortality, including severe wildfire. In the long-term ( 3 years), Alternative 2-modified is the environmentally preferred alternative. Although some activities would generate short-term disturbance related to vegetation management, these activities would also substantially reduce long-term environmental risks such as fire hazard and mountain pine beetle susceptibility. Legal Requirements, Regulation and Policy Another aspect of the process of selecting an alternative is ensuring that the decision actions comply with all legal requirements and policy. The Selected Action meets the following legal requirements: Federal Laws The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended: All surveyed and inventoried cultural sites considered eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places will be buffered and avoided during resource management activities. New sites discovered during operations will be protected. Any identified Traditional Cultural Properties and sacred sites will be protected. The South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was consulted concerning the proposed activities in the Vestal project. In a letter dated March 19, 2012, the South Dakota SHPO concurred with the determination of No Adverse Effect for the proposed undertaking on the non-renewable cultural resources of South Dakota. This letter is in the project file. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969: NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and documentation. The process of preparing the Vestal EIS and ROD was completed in accordance with NEPA. The Endangered Species Act, 1973: There are no threatened, endangered or proposed species within the Vestal project area. Therefore, no consultation with the USFWS was required. The effects of the Vestal project on Region 2 Sensitive Species were analyzed and documented in the Wildlife/Fisheries and Botany Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluations (BA/BEs). Both of these reports are summarized in Appendix G of the FEIS. The determination was made that the proposed activities may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. The Clean Water Act, 1982: The Selected Action will meet and conform to the Clean Water Act. This act establishes a nondegradation policy for all federally proposed projects. The Selected Action is not likely to Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 11

12 degrade water quality below standards set by the State of South Dakota. This will be accomplished through planning, application and monitoring of Best Management Practices and other design criteria included as part of this project. The Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977: The Selected Action will be implemented to meet the National Ambient Air Quality standards through avoidance of practices that degrade air quality below health and visibility standards. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 1976, which amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974: The Selected Action is in full compliance and consistent with NFMA as summarized below. Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) 2003: The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) was signed by President Bush in The Act contains a variety of provisions to expedite the approval of hazardous fuel reduction and forest health restoration projects on specific types of Federal land that are at risk to wildland fire or insect and disease epidemics. The Vestal project area meets the insect and disease criteria set forth by HFRA in that a mountain pine beetle epidemic is occurring and threatens forest resources on both private and National Forest lands. This determination was made by the Black Hills National Forest, Forest Supervisor refer to Appendix H in the FEIS for a copy of this determination letter. Therefore, the Vestal project was analyzed under the provisions of Title I, Sec 102 (a)(4) of the HFRA. The following demonstrates the Vestal project s consistency with applicable portions of HFRA: The selected action is consistent with the Forest Plan The selected action does not include treatments in designated wilderness, wilderness study areas or other Federal land where timber harvest is prohibited. Collaboration with local governments was conducted through the scoping process and informal meetings. The selected action is on Federal land that includes or is adjacent to an epidemic of disease or insects that pose an imminent risk to a forest resource. The primary purpose of the project is to reduce mountain pine beetle risk. Consistency with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) The 1982 planning rule has been superseded and is no longer in effect., The scope of analysis for a Forest Plan s Management Indicator Species (MIS) is determined by the Forest Plan s management direction, specifically, its standards and guidelines (Forest Plan, Chapter II) and monitoring direction (Forest Plan, Chapter IV). The Forest Plan contains no obligation to conduct project-specific monitoring or surveying for MIS (Phase 2, ROD, pages 8 and 20; Forest Plan as amended, page I-11, objective 238). The Forest Plan establishes monitoring and evaluation requirements that do not require population monitoring for MIS, but rather employ habitat capability relationships (Phase 2 ROD, page 20; Forest Plan as amended, page I-11, objective 238). The Vestal project analyzed the following MIS because habitat for these species Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 12

13 is found in the project area: beaver, white-tailed deer, golden-crowned kinglet, black-backed woodpecker, brown creeper, ruffed grouse, song sparrow, and mountain sucker. Consistency with the Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest Plan) NFMA requires me to ensure that permits, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other activities carried out on the Black Hills National Forest are consistent with the Forest Plan. My decision is consistent with this direction in that: Planned activities will contribute to Forest Plan goals and objectives (FEIS, Chapter 1). The effects of planned activities on MIS are consistent with the Forest Plan (FEIS Chapter 3). Planned activities are consistent with management area direction (FEIS, Chapter 3). Planned activities are consistent with Forest Plan standards (FEIS, Chapter 3). Consistency with Plan Direction Forest Plan Objectives This section contains a brief discussion of how the selected action, Alternative 2 Modified, is responsive to a number of Forest Plan objectives. It is not an exhaustive list, rather it addresses key objectives related to this project. The Selected Action is consistent with direction in the Forest Plan because: It meets objective 103 to maintain or improve long-term stream health. Existing stream condition is discussed on pages of the FEIS. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of Alternative 2 are discussed on pages The effectiveness of BMPs is discussed on pages Design criteria to maintain or improve stream health is listed in Appendix B of the FEIS on pages B-15 through B-25. It is consistent with objective 238a to maintain or enhance habitat for ruffed grouse, beaver, song sparrow, white-tailed deer, and brown creeper. See species specific discussions on pages 80-84, Chapter 3 of the FEIS. It is consistent with objective 238 b to maintain opportunities for black-backed woodpecker. Refer to design criteria in Appendix B and to species discussions in Chapter 3 of the FEIS (pages 81-82). It is consistent with objective 238c to maintain habitat for golden-crowned kinglets. Refer to species discussions in Chapter 3 of the FEIS (page 81). It is consistent with objective 238d to maintain or enhance habitat for mountain sucker. Refer to species discussion in Chapter 3 of the FEIS (pages 84-85). It is consistent with objective 221 to conserve or enhance habitat for R2 sensitive species and species of local concern. Refer to species discussions in Chapter 3 of the FEIS and to the Wildlife/Fish and also the Botany Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluations in the project file, summarized in Appendix G of the FEIS. It is consistent with objective to reduce fire hazard within the WUI (page 119, FEIS). It is consistent with objective to reduce acreage of ponderosa pine at high risk for infestation of mountain pine beetle (page 30, FEIS). It is consistent with management area objectives for structural stages; , , and (pages 45-47, FEIS). Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 13

14 Consistency with Plan Direction Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines With implementation of all design criteria noted in Appendix B of the FEIS, I have determined that the Selected Action is consistent with all Forest Plan standards and meets all guidelines. Best Available Science My decision is also based upon consideration of best available science. I have reviewed the record and find that it contains a thorough review of relevant scientific information and responsible opposing views, and, where appropriate, acknowledges incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty and risk. Specifically, the extensive literature citations in specialist report show that relevant literature has been reviewed and considered by resource specialists in preparation of the EIS. In addition, the record shows that all literature cited by the public during the comment period has been reviewed and considered by resource specialists on the Vestal Project Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). Each resource specialist has acknowledged their use of the best science available to them in preparation of the EIS. Resource Management Requirements The NFMA directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish certain resource management guidelines included in the agency directives system. I find that the activities in this project decision comply with the NFMA law, as follows: Irreversible resource damage will not occur. The selected action will not cause irreversible resource damage, such as to soil productivity or watershed condition (FEIS, Chapter 3). Adequate restocking is assured (refer to Silviculture report in the project file). No clearcutting is proposed (Chapter 2, FEIS). No created openings will be larger than 40 acres. No timber harvesting will occur on lands classified as unsuitable for timber production (refer to Silviculture report in project file). Culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) requirements are met (refer to Appendix E in the FEIS and also the Silviculture report in the project file). Other State Laws South Dakota State Best Management Practices (BMPs) are incorporated into project design. Administrative Review The analysis for this project was completed under authority of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of Section 105 of the Act specifies that a Special Administrative Review Process be established for authorized projects and that a predecisional review process be utilized. This predecisional review process is contained in 36 CFR 218. A legal notice announcing the availability of the FEIS was published in the Rapid City Journal on April 27, 2012, initiating the 30-day objection period. A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 14

15 FEIS was published in the Federal Register on April 27, Three objections were received during the objection period. One objection ( ) was completely withdrawn. I spoke to objector, Diedre Bainbridge, by phone, on June 11, During this call we discussed potential opportunity to resolve the objection. I agreed to modify the preferred alternative by changing vegetation treatment in site , as noted in Table 2 above, and by adding a new design criteria, which follows Table 2, above. Ms. Bainbridge formally withdrew her objection by letter on June 15, The Objection Reviewing Officer, Craig Bobzien, Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest, acknowledged this withdrawal in a letter to the objector dated June 20, The Objection Reviewing Officer (RO), conducted a review in accordance with 36 CFR 218. A team of resource specialists was assembled to assist with review of the two other objections and analysis in the FEIS and project record. The Reviewing Officer s decision on these objections was documented in letters to objectors, dated June 20, Based on that review, the Reviewing Officer determined that for Objection (Hilding-Prairie Hills Audubon Society), the analysis was sufficient to allow me to move forward in authorizing a decision on this project and no further work was required. However, in his letter responding to Objection (Hanson- John Muir Project), the RO directed that I strengthen the analysis and/or provide more explanation in my Record of Decision, pertaining to four of the points raised in this objection. Specific direction pertaining to these four points, and how they are addressed is summarized below: 1. The District Ranger should acknowledge the information in the scientific literature provided by objector. Briefly explain whether understory thinning is included in the approved action and how that may play a part in accomplishing the purpose and need. The referenced literature was reviewed. Understory thinning is included in the selected action. Table 3 on page 5 of this ROD, shows acres of precommercial thinning (PCT) and Products Other than Logs thinning (POL). In addition, all areas of Overstory Removal (OR) including portions of the Group Shelterwood (GSH) treatments, also include understory thinning. As stated in the literature, specifically Omi and Martinson, 2002; Martinson and Omi, 2003; and Strom and Fule, 2007; understory thinning does impact potential fire behavior. This thinning could contribute toward the secondary purpose of this project, reducing potential for large-scale high intensity wildfire. However, it does not contribute toward meeting the primary purpose of this project, to reduce the threat to forest resources from the existing mountain pine beetle epidemic. 2. The District Ranger should provide clearer citations to tie the selected action to relevant science, as shown by Allen, Schmid and Negron, for the purpose of showing consistency with the direction at 40 CFR In the Black Hills, reducing stand density is a proven method for reducing susceptibility of stands to MPB caused mortality. Recent research continues to emphasize that overall, the lower the residual stand density, the greater the reduction in beetle caused mortality, Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 15

16 in even and uneven aged stands (Schmid, J.M.; Mata, S.A.; Kessler, R.R.; Popp, J.B The influence of partial cutting on mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality in Black Hills ponderosa pine stands. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-68 Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 19 p. and Negron et al. 2008, Susceptibility of ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa (Dougl. ex Laws.), to mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, attack in uneven-aged stands in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 254: ) Forest Health reports for the Vestal project have documented conditions within this area over several years. The beetle populations are very high and rapidly increasing (Allen, 2008; Allen, 2011; Allen, 2011b; Allen, 2011c). Recommendations contained within these reports include implementation of both prevention and suppression treatments. The Selected Action would reduce stand density across the Vestal project landscape as a prevention treatment and also includes suppression actions as sanitation. These actions will meet the primary purpose and need for action, to reduce the threat to forest resources from the existing mountain pine beetle epidemic. 3. An explanation of the logic used to determine the amount of stands with an average tree size of very large, should be provided. An addendum to the Vestal Silviculture Report has been prepared and is available in the project file. This addendum documents the assumptions, science and logic used to project acres and percentages of pine stands with an average tree size of very large, for both alternatives considered in detail. 4. The District Ranger should clearly explain in the Record of Decision how alternative effects, with respect to mountain pine beetle risk and fire hazard, relate to and accomplish the purpose and need for the Vestal project. The primary purpose for action in the Vestal project is to reduce the threat to forest resources from the existing MPB epidemic. The threat is directly related to the potential for tree mortality resulting from this epidemic. Reducing MPB risk and removing infested trees through sanitation actions will reduce the potential for MPB caused tree mortality on this landscape and meet the primary purpose for action. A secondary purpose of this project is to protect local communities and watersheds from large-scale, high intensity wildfire. Fire hazard is a measure of potential fire behavior and severity, based on the existing fuel complex. Actions to reduce MPB risk, also reduce fire hazard. Additional treatments are included in the selected action to further reduce potential for high severity wildfire; prescribed burning, fuelbreak construction and deadfall (refer to Table 5). These actions respond to the secondary purpose and need for action because it responds to protecting communities and watersheds by reducing the potential for severe fire in this area. Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 16

17 Implementation Implementation of activities under the selected action will occur based on this Record of Decision. Acreages and locations are approximate and may vary during implementation depending on site specific conditions. Once this decision is signed, implementation of the Vestal Project Selected Action can begin immediately pursuant to regulations at 36 CFR Contact Person For additional information concerning this decision, contact Kelly Honors, Project Leader at (605) , or Ed Fischer, Forest Environmental Coordinator at (605) District Ranger Hell Canyon Ranger District Black Hills National Forest r b. U k-rc.- " 222()(L I Date Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 17

18 SD 89 US-16 US US-16A CTY A G CTY B 407.1F 412.1C 586.1B 412.1A 586.1A 407.1A 396.1A 344.1S U C 362.1A 780.1A 396.1D 407.1B PD P CTY B 396.1M 344.1N U E 344.1F 412.1B U D 407.1C P N T. 3S. T, 4E, R. 5E ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFICATION DEFER-FS DEFER-PVT LAKE Commercial Thin Commercial Thin 50 BA Free Selection Group Shelterwood Shelterwood Seedcut Overstory Removal Sanitation Variable Density Thinning Hardwood Conversion Hardwood Release Pine Encroachment PreCommercial Thin Products Other than Logs (POL) Roads Location Structures Modification Area µ T, 5S Miles