Record of Decision. Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Project. November 2016

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region November 2016 Record of Decision Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Project National Recreation Area Management Unit, Shasta-Trinity National Forest Shasta County, California

2 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

3 Record of Decision Location The Green-Horse project area, which encompasses 46,356 acres, is located on the northeast side of Shasta Lake, about 20 air miles northeast of Redding, California. See Figure 1 for a map of the project area vicinity. The legal map description of these lands is listed in Table 1 below. The project area includes the Devils Rock Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), Devils Rock-Hosselkus Research Natural Area (RNA), the Madrone Managed Late Successional Area (MLSA), and portions of the Shasta Unit of the Whiskeytown- Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area (NRA). Figure 1. Green-Horse Restoration Project Vicinity Map 1

4 Green-Horse Habitat Restoration Project Table 1. Legal description of the Green-Horse Project Township (MDM*) Range Sections T33N R3W 1-3 T34N R1W 6, 7 T34N R2W 1-12, 15-21, T34N R3W 1, 4-10, T34N R4W 1, 11-14, T35N R1W 6, 7 T35N R2W 3, 4, 8-10, 14, 16, 20-22, 24, T35N R3W 29-33, 36 *MDM = Mount Diablo Meridian Elevation ranges from 1,067 feet at the high water mark of Shasta Lake to 4,325 feet atop Town Mountain. Most of the project area is within the Administratively Withdrawn and Matrix Forest Plan land allocations. Purpose and Need for Action The need for action was determined by comparing existing conditions in the project area with the desired conditions described in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1995) for the Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area (NRA) and Nosoni Management Areas. Based on comparison of the existing and desired condition, there is a need for the following vegetation conditions in the project area: Increased age class diversity, and Reduced stand and brushfield densities and live-to-dead fuel ratios. The Green-Horse project is proposed to respond to the above-described need, as well as to goals and objectives identified for the project area in the Forest Plan, for the following purposes: Protect, enhance, or maintain wildlife habitat quality, including threatened, endangered and Forest Service sensitive species (e.g., bald eagles, northern spotted owl). Trend the area toward historic fire regime conditions. Reduce the risks and consequences of public health and safety concerns related to poor air quality during wildfire events. Protect or maintain scenic values, campgrounds, trails and other recreational values in the project area. The reader is advised to review the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Green-Horse Project December 2015 for complete details on the range of alternatives and environmental consequences. Copies of this document are available at the NRA Management Unit, Shasta Lake Ranger Station office, Redding, CA and the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Supervisor s Office in Redding, CA. These documents and other relevant documentation are also available on the Forest website at: 2

5 Record of Decision Background The following describes the existing conditions of vegetation, wildlife habitat quality, fuels and fire risk in the project area: Currently most of the project area consists of dense, relatively homogeneous forested stands of medium- and small-sized trees. Over 90 percent of forested stands have between 60 and 100 percent overstory canopy cover. Understory vegetation is sparse to nonexistent in these dense stands because most of the site resources are being utilized by the overstory and because little sunlight reaches the forest floor. In contrast, less than two percent of forested stands are opencanopied and have available resources to support an appreciable understory vegetation layer. Approximately 75 percent of the project area has a historic fire return interval (the amount of time between natural fire occurrences) of 20 years or less. In contrast to historic conditions, over 90 percent of the project area has not experienced fire for 60 years or more, primarily due to active fire suppression. More than 75 percent of the project area has "missed" three or more natural fires that would have been expected to occur without active fire suppression. This longer fire return interval has resulted in the accumulation of abnormally dense surface and ladder fuels, increasing the likelihood of high-severity fires that consume large areas of forest. The continued accumulation of unburned fuels increases the risk that future fires will be more difficult to suppress, and will have extreme fire behavior and rapid, uncontrolled growth similar to that of recent wildfires adjacent to the project area. Fire exclusion has resulted in reduced palatability of browse for wildlife. Forage and browse species composition and condition influence the distribution of herbivorous wildlife species and the species for which they are prey. While a future large-scale high-severity fire may increase the availability of browse habitat, it would also likely reduce the occurrence of effective cover for wildlife. Current accumulation of heavy fuels in the form of brush or young pine regeneration and the subsequent risk of high-severity fire threaten the existing large overstory trees that provide critical nesting structure for bald eagles near Shasta Lake. Without these large trees, the habitat surrounding the lake would no longer be suitable for eagle nesting. Future high-severity fire may affect the availability of late-successional habitat for wildlife species. In addition, species associated with late-successional habitat may be displaced in the event of a large-scale disturbance such as high-severity fire. The high fire risk and high fire hazard pose threats to other physical, biological, and social values in the project area (e.g., soil stability, hydrology and air quality, threatened, endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive plant, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species, scenic values, and recreation). Decision and Rationale for the Decision Three alternatives were analyzed in the FEIS, including: Alternative 1, the No-Action alternative; Alternative 2, the revised and preferred alternative; and Alternative 3, the No Forest Plan Amendment alternative. Based on the analysis in the FEIS and associated project record, I have decided to implement Alternative 2 (the preferred alternative/revised proposed action as described in Chapter 2 of the FEIS). I selected this alternative because it best meets the purpose and need for the project, addresses aspects of public concerns and fulfills goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1995). 3

6 Green-Horse Habitat Restoration Project The selected alternative is fully described and analyzed, and its impacts disclosed in the FEIS. Please refer to the FEIS for additional information, including discussion of the alternatives analyzed and the environmental consequences. In brief, the selected alternative includes the following activities on 41,836 acres within the project area boundary: Prescribed broadcast burning or underburning would occur on approximately 41,625 1 acres. Hand thinning and pruning of small trees and brush, followed by hand piling and pile burning or underburning, would occur on approximately 88 acres adjacent to private property. Hand thinning and pruning of small trees and brush, followed by hand piling and pile burning, would occur on approximately 35 acres surrounding recreation residences at Campbell Creek. Hand thinning and pruning of small trees and brush, followed by hand piling and pile burning or underburning, would occur on approximately 83 acres surrounding bald eagle nest sites. Approximately 4.61 miles (4 acres) of dozer line would be constructed or reconstructed in order to assist fire managers in safely conducting prescribed fire. Fuels treatments would occur over a period of 7 to 10 years using a resource treatment strategy that would allow managers to adjust treatments over time if they discover new information or changed conditions. The proposed action does not include any commercial timber harvest, new forest system or temporary road construction, existing road reconstruction or project-related road maintenance. This alternative includes a project-level Forest Plan amendment that would allow us to reduce dead and down material requirements in specific areas where current Forest Plan direction conflicts with both the desired fuel levels and the capacity of those areas to meet Forest Plan standards. This amendment would only be applicable to the Green-Horse project for the duration of the treatments, and will amend the Forest Plan to allow retention of an average of 5 to 15 tons of down wood per acre in the areas designated as Management Prescription II (16,602 acres) or III (9,682 acres). Currently, the Forest Plan requires an average of 20 tons per acre of unburned dead/down material for Management Prescription II (Limited Roaded Motorized) (Forest Plan, p. 4-47) and an average of 10 tons of unburned dead/down material per acre on slopes less than 40 percent and where feasible, the same amount on slopes over 40 percent, in Management Prescription III (Roaded Recreation (Forest Plan, p and 4-66). My decision includes the implementation of resource protection measures (design criteria) described in Chapter 2 of the FEIS that are designed to minimize, reduce or eliminate impacts to natural and cultural resources. Approximately 16,168 acres of fuels treatments within inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), 5,378 acres of treatments within the Devil s Rock-Hosselkus Research Natural Area (RNA), and 29,490 acres of treatment in the Shasta Unit of the Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area will be completed. No commercial timber harvest, road construction or road reconstruction is proposed under this alternative. In making my decision, I considered how to best meet the purpose and need of protecting, enhancing, or maintaining wildlife habitat quality, including threatened, endangered and Forest Service sensitive species (e.g., bald eagles), trending the area toward historic fire regime conditions, reducing the risks and consequences of public health and safety concerns related to poor air quality during wildfire events, and 1 The amount of prescribed broadcast burning or underburning originally proposed was 41,637 acres. This amount which was the result of a mapping error has been corrected to 41,625 acres. 4

7 Record of Decision protecting or maintaining scenic values, campgrounds, trails and other recreational values in the project area. I considered public issues and concerns raised during scoping and the DEIS comment period. I considered comments both in support of and in opposition to project actions. My decision to select Alternative 2 is based upon a thorough review of all alternatives, the affected environment and environmental consequences presented in the FEIS and project record. In making my decision I considered project impacts on the human environment and consistency with the Forest Plan as well as goals and objectives of the National Fire Plan, Northwest Forest Plan, and 2011 NSO Recovery Plan. I considered opposing views, uncertainty and risk, and carefully evaluated both the benefits and costs of implementing the selected alternative. I believe the analysis in the FEIS adequately discloses the likely environmental impacts of the project. Negative project-related impacts will be relatively minor and shortterm. Beneficial effects to forest health, wildlife habitat, watershed condition, and fisheries are expected in the long-term. All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted in the design of the selected alternative. I have included all of the project resource protection measures that I believe are necessary to avoid, minimize, or rectify impacts on the resources potentially affected. The analyses disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS identify the methodologies and scientific references which informed this decision. The analysis presented in the FEIS concludes that implementing the selected alternative is expected to meet the purpose and need for this project. The project would protect, enhance or maintain wildlife habitat quality, including threatened, endangered and Forest Service sensitive species (e.g., bald eagles); trend the area toward historic fire regime conditions; reduce the risks and consequences of public health and safety concerns related to poor air quality during wildfire events; and protect or maintain scenic values, campgrounds, trails and other recreational values in the project area. The Green-Horse project is proposed to respond to the above-described need, as well as to goals and objectives identified for the project area in the Forest Plan, for the following purposes: Protect, enhance or maintain wildlife habitat quality, including threatened, endangered and Forest Service sensitive species (e.g., bald eagles, northern spotted owl). Due to current vegetation and fuels conditions, wildlife habitat quality is at risk of degradation from future wildfires. High fuel concentrations surrounding known bald eagle nest sites, if ignited by high-intensity fire, could imperil those sites. In addition, there is an opportunity to increase the diversity of vegetation composition and structure, thereby improving habitat for game and non-game species. Implementing prescribed fire treatments on 41,625 acres under Alternative 2, as opposed to 13,275 acres for Alternative 3, would reduce the risk of wildlife habitat degradation from wildfire in the project area on a larger scale. The fuel condition currently surrounding known and potential bald eagle nest sites would be improved by reducing high concentrations of fuels and by retaining, and enhancing the growth of, large overstory conifers which support, or could support, nesting bald eagles. In particular, these large trees that are juxtaposed along the lake s shorelines are a limited and finite resource that cannot be replaced in a practical timeframe; therefore their retention and enhancement would have substantial beneficial impacts to the eagles that rely on them as nesting structures. Alternative 3 would, therefore, provide less long-term benefit to the eagle population at Shasta Lake than Alternative 2. Additionally, if a high-severity wildfire occurs in the portions of the project area not treated, the large conifers on which eagles depend may sustain extensive mortality. No areas containing eagle nest zones 5

8 Green-Horse Habitat Restoration Project were identified as at risk of active crown (i.e. a loss of overstory canopy) fire during implementation of Alternative 2 prescribed fire. Potential effects to additional wildlife species would be minimized through project design, integrated design features and adherence to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines such as those for snags and large down logs. The action alternatives were designed to improve habitat conditions in part by reversing vegetation trends that have resulted from a history of fire suppression. Fire exclusion has resulted in brush and browse cover that is overgrown and unpalatable to deer and other wildlife. The composition and condition of forage and browse species influence the distribution of herbivorous wildlife species and the species for which they are prey. While a future large-scale highseverity fire may increase the availability of browse habitat, it would also likely reduce the occurrence of effective cover for wildlife. In areas with previous fuels management (i.e. mastication or prescribed fire), browse condition is of higher quality than in untreated areas, where brush has become unpalatable due to decadence. Under the Alternative 1 (no action), a lack of fire within the early seral brush and browse habitats in the project area would continue to reduce the amount of deer browse available in the understory in the form of mast 2, herbaceous growth, and early seral shrubs and browse. Under Alternative 2, an average of 30 to 60 percent of brush and browse cover would be burned in up to two separate prescribed fire applications per treatment area to stimulate new growth. Again, this area is much larger than Alternative 3 thus the benefits are equally larger. The use of well-planned prescribed fire in chaparral to create early successional, high-quality browse in close proximity to cover can provide substantial benefits to deer (Sommer et al. 2007). Trend the area toward historic fire regime conditions. As noted above, the current fire regime in the project area has departed from what occurred historically. Whereas fire return intervals historically averaged from 3 to 40 years, the intervals that are currently occurring have resulted in uncharacteristic accumulations of downed fuels and live ladder fuels. Under these fuel conditions, future wildfires are likely to burn at increased intensities, with increased severity of effects to resources. The severity of fire effects and difficulty of fire suppression in future fires are primarily associated with the total amount of fuel available (Skinner 2002) and environmental hazards to firefighters. As noted above, either action alternative would reduce the total fuel currently available by as much as 63 percent and large diameter fuels alone by as much as 58 percent in the treated areas. Due to the expanded area of application under Alternative 2 (compared to Alternative 3) this reduction in fuels would be greater overall. Reducing fuels that have accumulated since the onset of the suppression era would greatly reduce both the likelihood of crown fire and predicted flame length (a corollary for resistance to control). Under either action alternative, future wildfires within the treated areas would play a role more similar to that of historic conditions than under current conditions. Reduced future fire behavior, fire intensity and the resulting fire severity and resistance to control in the treated areas would be expected. Conducting prescribed fire operations as proposed would begin to restore fire to the ecosystem in a more controlled manner, thus expediting a return to the historic fire regime. The gradual reduction in accumulated fuels would reduce the adverse impacts of future wildfires on resources and the public while promoting the resource benefits of a more natural fire regime. Additional benefits would accrue when considering ongoing and foreseeable actions as described below. 2 Mast is the dry fruit from woody plants. 6

9 Record of Decision Alternative 3 would treat about one-third of the project area, and while future wildfire effects to vegetation are predicted to be similar in the treated areas to Alternative 2, those effects would be similar to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) over most of the project area, which would remain untreated. High to moderate effects to overstory vegetation from wildfire would be less than under the No Action Alternative; however, the result on a landscape scale, as under the No Action Alternative, would be a widespread change from predominantly dense forested vegetation to large open expanses of snags with a developing understory of sprouting shrubs, hardwoods and herbaceous vegetation. Large expanses of standing snags would fall over time and persist as heavy fuel loadings that could support subsequent high severity fire. Reduce the risks and consequences of public health and safety concerns related to poor air quality during wildfire events. Recent fires near the project area include the 2012 Bagley Complex, 2008 SHU Lightning Complex fires, the 2004 Bear fire, the 1999 Jones fire, and the 1992 Fountain fire, among others. The fires listed above, burned near the project area and portions of these fires may have burned within the analysis area. Approximately a tenth (0.1) of a percent of the project area has burned within the last 67 years. Weather conditions, poor access for firefighting forces, rugged terrain, fuel conditions, and many other factors contributed to large fire growth in most of these recent fires. During one or more of these fires, areas of high fire severity experienced soil erosion, loss of wildlife habitat, and degraded visual quality in the Shasta Lake viewshed. In addition, several structures were lost and air quality standards exceeded the California Air Resource Board thresholds. Persistent temperature inversions during times of atmospheric stability also often traps smoke over large areas (as in the 1987, 1999, and 2008 wildfires that adversely affected the Redding area). Under the current fuel conditions, similar poor air quality conditions are likely to occur during future wildfires. The direct effect of implementing Alternative 2 would result in more smoke emissions in the short term than Alternative 3 due to the larger area treated. Periods of visible smoke would likely be of short duration, though, and the longer-term and larger magnitude beneficial effect of reducing the risk of poor air quality as a result of severe wildfire would be greatly increased under this alternative. Additionally, in the event of a large-scale fire, impacts to visual quality from protracted periods of smoke and poor air quality would be short-term and moderate- to- major (FEIS, p. 170). The prevention and mitigation measures under Alternative 2 emphasize prescribed burning coordination and mitigating smoke impacts and also provide for coordination with applicable agencies and affected landowners and compliance with air quality laws (Forest Plan, 1, pp and 4-14). A smoke management plan would be developed in accordance with Shasta County Air Quality Management District (AQMD) direction and submitted to the AQMD prior to implementation. Prescribed burning would be avoided during periods of high public use or mitigated through smoke management procedures that would minimize impacts to areas of high public use. Protect or maintain scenic values, campgrounds, trails and other recreational values in the project area. The current fuels conditions elevate the risk that future wildfires, which are likely to burn at increasingly high intensities, could cause widespread changes to scenic values and imperil recreational facilities such as campgrounds, trails, trailheads, and recreational residences. In addition, the current fuels conditions increase the risk that human-caused ignitions could escape initial attack and become widespread, high-intensity wildfires. Perpetuation of the current high fuel loads increases the risk of protracted periods of smoke disturbance as well as noise disturbance and area closures for public safety during fire suppression efforts. Forest visitors may also change their use patterns in response to a large wildfire event. Repeat visitors may seek alternative recreation sites outside the project area resulting in 7

10 Green-Horse Habitat Restoration Project long-term reductions in recreation use. Recreational use in areas with high fire risk increases the likelihood of human-caused ignitions. The effects on recreation settings of a major wildfire in the shortand long-term are considered to be adverse. In the aftermath of a large high-severity fire, the project area would likely not meet current Forest Plan Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class requirements, and may not for many decades, due to the unnatural scenic character and to the adverse impacts to recreation facilities (e.g. trails and campgrounds) and other related resources (e.g. roads, trailheads, etc.) resulting from a fire outside the historic range of variability. Alternative 2 would maintain or encourage ecological characteristics, such as large trees, open forest structure and reduced understory vegetation and downed material, over much of the project area. These characteristics have been shown to be favored by forest recreationists (Gobster 1994) and considered scenically beautiful. This would enhance the recreation experience in the long term, particularly with respect to nature encounters (e.g. increased opportunities to observe wildlife) and enjoyment of latesuccessional forest characteristics such as large trees. Additionally, prescribed fire would increase the quality of browse in the project area for species such as deer, which would benefit hunting experiences. Because areas burned using prescribed fire resemble areas burned under a historical fire regime, effects of the prescribed fire would be difficult to distinguish from those of naturally occurring fire. Public access to developed recreation sites, roads, trails, and dispersed recreation opportunities within the Green-Horse Project would be temporarily and intermittently prohibited during project implementation, resulting in short-term user displacement and dissatisfaction. Scheduling of prescribed fire treatments may overlap with peak hunting season (late September to early November). All sections of the project area would not be closed at the same time; however, the proposed action would be implemented in stages over the course of the project s duration. No currently open or available facilities are proposed for closing, nor are other changes to site status as a result of this alternative, so overall opportunity is unaffected. Application of the recreation project design features described in the FEIS would minimize damage to developed recreation sites and trails, as well as reduce the potential for unwanted motorized access. Project design features would also minimize disturbance to recreationists. Smoke from prescribed fire operations is likely to be the largest impact to recreation activities however air quality restrictions and the application of smoke management principles (design features AIR-1 and AIR-2) would reduce these effects. Periods of visible smoke would likely be of short duration but could have moderate effects to visitor use in portions of the Shasta Lake area. Overall reduction in Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) is not predicted to occur under Alternative 2, given the size of the viewshed and the nature of effects produced by prescribed fire as evidenced by similar projects around Shasta Lake. The removal of some of the dense understory through prescribed burning would allow visitors to see further into the forest, allowing for more varied foreground and middleground views. Approximately 4.61 miles of dozer line would be constructed, but this would occur in areas with significant canopy cover and would not be visible from the lake. The dozer lines would be constructed to reduce their visibility from roads. Furthermore, temporary reductions in VQOs and related Scenic Integrity Levels may occur for a short period of time under Alterative 2 but would likely improve considerably over the long term. Hand thinning, pruning, piling, and pile burning would be limited to areas adjacent to private property boundaries, recreation residence tracts, and around bald eagle nest sites. A temporary reduction in the immediate foreground at the site would occur because of the existence of piled material and small, low-cut stumps. After the debris is removed (through pile burning), visual quality would be expected to increase due to the reduction in understory vegetation and improved viewing distances, as suggested by Ryan and others (2005). The proposed hand treatments would be conducted 8

11 Record of Decision outside of peak visitor season (design feature REC-2), so the resulting disturbance would have only minor effects to visitors visual experience. Alternative 3, which treats fewer acres than Alternative 2, would have less of a beneficial effect to scenery. Only a handful of developed sites would likely be affected (Chirpchatter Campground, Madrone Campground, and Arbuckle Campground) and while the effects in the treated areas are the same as disclosed for Alternative 2, in areas that remain untreated the effects would resemble those disclosed under the No Action alternative which would not meet the purpose and need. Public Involvement, Issues, and Alternatives Considered This project first appeared on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest s schedule of proposed actions on July1, 2009 and has continued to be listed since that time. The project has also been listed on the Forest website. On May 25, 2011, we mailed a scoping document describing the proposed action and seeking public comments to 78 individuals, Tribes, organizations, businesses, and agencies. Our notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register on May 27, We requested comments be received by June 30, We received 8 comments during this scoping period. Using the comments we received, the project interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address, and two significant issues were identified. Appendix D of the FEIS describes the content analysis of scoping comments as well as the public participation plan for the project. Significant issues identified included: Issue 1: Fire Risk and Fire Hazard - This issue was raised during scoping by residents of the Campbell Creek recreation tracts. Citing concern for future fire behavior, the commenters requested additional fuels treatment surrounding their recreation residences at Campbell Creek. Consideration of this issue led the interdisciplinary team to slightly modify the proposed action; the minor revision is described in Chapter 2. Issue 2: Dead and Down Material - Several commenters expressed concern that implementation of the proposed Forest Plan amendment to deviate from Forest Plan standards for dead and down material in two Forest Plan management prescriptions would adversely affect resources dependent on this important ecosystem component. Most of the comments focused on the impacts on snag retention and coarse woody debris which, along with fine organic matter and smaller diameter materials, comprise the dead and down material for which the Forest Plan amendment was proposed. Consideration of Issue 2 led the interdisciplinary team to develop Alternative 3. This alternative (no Forest Plan amendment) proposed to treat approximately 13,275 acres of vegetation. Under this alternative, no treatments would occur in Management Prescriptions for Limited Motorized Recreation or Roaded Motorized Recreation. Subsequently, no dozer fireline construction would occur under this alternative because the areas where dozer lines were proposed in Alternative 2 would not be treated in Alternative 3. Following alternative development and interdisciplinary analysis, the Notice of Availability for the Green- Horse Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2014 and the legal notice for comment was published in the Redding Record Searchlight (the official newspaper of record) November 6, The DEIS was posted to the Forest Service website on October 31st, The Draft EIS was mailed to everyone on the project mailing list who requested a paper copy on November 5th, A list of recipients is included in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS was available at the Shasta Lake 9

12 Green-Horse Habitat Restoration Project Ranger Station and upon request during the comment period. The 45-day comment period for the DEIS ended on December 22, Timely comments were received from three government agencies, one private citizen, and one organization. A summary of comments received on the DEIS and Forest Service responses are found in Appendix F of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the Selected Alternative, I considered two additional alternatives in detail and two alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study. A more detailed comparison of the alternatives can be found in Chapter 2 in the FEIS. Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 1 is the no action alternative in the EIS. Under this alternative, no fuel treatment activities would occur in the project area, which would not meet the purpose and need. Alternative 3 No Forest Plan Amendment Alternative 3 (No Forest Plan Amendment) addresses issues that were raised during the scoping period related to the proposed Forest Plan amendment (which would allow for levels of dead and down material below current Forest Plan standards for Management Prescriptions II [Limited Roaded Motorized Recreation] and III [Roaded Motorized Recreation]). This alternative maintains the current Forest Plan standards for dead and down material in those two prescriptions. Because of the constraints of the Forest Plan standards for the two management prescriptions on fuels reduction, this alternative would treat only about one-third of NFS lands within the project area. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR ). Public comments received in response to the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Consideration of one issue resulted in a minor revision of the proposed action, so that full analysis of the original proposed action was deemed unnecessary. Another issue prompted consideration of an alternative that was determined to contain a component that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. This alternative was also considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below. Original Proposed Action The proposed action we sent to the public for comments during the scoping period included 41,816 acres of fuels treatments identical to treatments proposed under Alternative 2 (see above). With the addition of only 20 acres of hand thinning, pruning, piling and pile burning to Alternative 2, the difference in effects between the original proposed action and Alternative 2 (the revised proposed action) would not be measurable for any resources other than the recreation residences. Full consideration of the original proposed action would, therefore, be redundant. 10

13 Record of Decision Biomassing 3 One commenter, concerned about air quality during prescribed fire operations, recommended that we include biomassing to reduce the amount of fuel burned in prescribed fire. An alternative that includes biomassing was dropped from detailed study after a preliminary analysis indicated the following: 1. Lack of road access would limit the amount of biomassing that could be accomplished from existing roads. In order to substantially reduce the amount of prescribed fire through biomassing, equipment would have to travel off of established roads, which could result in unnecessary adverse impacts to resources of concern (e.g., soils, water quality and wildlife). 2. Most of the vegetation types in the project area do not produce biomass material in sufficient quantity or quality to support a biomassing operation. 3. A preliminary cost analysis indicated that biomassing to reduce fuels could cost as much as $1,200 per acre, compared with a cost of $25-$125 per acre for prescribed fire. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations National Forest Management Act The NFMA requires projects to be consistent with the Forest Plan. My decision to implement prescribed fire, reduce fuel loading, protect and enhance wildlife habitat, scenic integrity, and recreation values is consistent with the intent of the Forest Plan s long-term goals (Forest Plan, pages 4-5, 4-6, 4-16). The project was designed to conform to Forest Plan goals, desired conditions, and standards and guidelines for the following Management Prescriptions: Limited Roaded Motorized Recreation (II), Roaded Recreation (III), Wildlife Habitat Management (VI), Late-Successional Reserve (VII), Commercial Wood Products (VIII), Riparian Reserve (IX), and Special Management Area RNA (X). The National Forest Management Act requires projects to be consistent with minimum specific management requirements as provided in the implementing regulations at 36 CFR and described in the Forest Service Manual a. The project will not result in irreversible damage to soils, slopes or other watershed conditions, detrimental changes in water temperature, or blockages of water courses. The project has long-term beneficial effects to vegetation diversity, wildlife, forage production, water quality and quantity, and visual quality. No measurable deposits of sediment or measurable effects on water conditions or fish habitat will occur. Vegetation removed as by-products of restoration and fuels treatments will constitute a loss of production of individual trees or groups of trees but will not result in a loss of productivity of entire stands of vegetation. Trees are a renewable resource and hand piles and other areas will re-vegetate over time. Functioning of forest habitats will continue. As described in the purpose and need section of the FEIS, management prescriptions were developed to address the need for increased age class diversity of vegetation in the project area and reduced stand and brush field densities and live-to-dead fuel ratios. Additionally the purposes of protecting, enhancing or maintaining wildlife habitat quality, including threatened, endangered and Forest Service sensitive species (e.g., bald eagles); trending the area toward historic fire regime conditions; reducing the risks and consequences of public health and safety concerns related to poor air quality during wildfire events, and 3 In this context, biomassing refers to the idea of removing activity generated material that is less than 10 in diameter from the project area. 11

14 Green-Horse Habitat Restoration Project protecting or maintaining scenic values, campgrounds, trails and other recreational values in the project area would be achieved through implementation of the selected alternative. I find the selected alterative to be consistent with the provisions of the National Forest Management Act. Endangered Species Act I find the Selected Alternative to be consistent with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Analyses of federally-listed species and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed, fulfilling Section 7 of the ESA consultation requirements (19U.S.C (c)). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that the Selected Alternative is in accordance with the ESA and may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the northern spotted owl and will have no effect on its designated critical habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Letter of Concurrence for the Green-Horse Project; January 24, file 08EYRE I-0002). The proposed project activities would not remove or downgrade any NSO nesting/roosting or foraging habitat. The FWS concurred with this determination in a letter of concurrence dated January 24, The Shasta-Trinity National Forest engaged in informal consultation with the FWS. The Biological Assessment was revised when Critical Habitat was re-delineated in 2012, after the final letter of concurrence was issued. The project no longer contained any Critical Habitat, and the FWS was apprised of this revision. No additions to the Letter of Concurrence were deemed necessary as effects to critical habitat were eliminated. Consultation with NOAA Fisheries was not required as the project will not affect listed or proposed fish species or critical habitat as there is no habitat for listed anadromous fish species or designated critical habitat within the project area. See FEIS, Chapter 3, Terrestrial and Amphibian Wildlife and Aquatic Wildlife sections. Clean Water Act Based on the results of the Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis the proposed actions and alternatives would not adversely affect water quality, riparian and aquatic habitats, or fisheries located downstream and outside of the project area (FEIS, Chapter 3, Hydrology, Geology, and Soils section). Implementation of project resource protection measures and Best Management Practices will protect beneficial uses of water (FEIS Appendix B). I find the selected alternative to be consistent with the Clean Water Act. Clean Air Act I find the Selected Alternative to be consistent with the Clean Air Act as discussed in the FEIS (page 23). Project planning and implementation would comply with applicable Federal, State of California, and Shasta County AQMD air quality laws and regulations concerning overall project emissions. A smoke management plan will be developed in accordance with Shasta County AQMD direction and submitted to the AQMD prior to implementation. National Historic Preservation Act The project is in compliance with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (see section titled Cultural Resources, Chapter 3 in the FEIS). Design criteria outlining cultural resource protection measures can be found on page 32 of the FEIS. Environmental Justice The FEIS analysis found that there will be no disproportionate adverse effects on low income or minority populations as a result of implementation of any of the project action alternatives (FEIS p. 167). 12

15 Record of Decision Management Indicator Assemblages The analysis summarized in Chapter 3 of the FEIS, and comprehensively described in Project Level Management Indicator Report indicates that the Green-Horse Project will not result in quantitative changes to management indicator assemblages but only qualitative changes such as reduction in canopy closure and tree density. The project area will continue to provide the same quantity and distribution of each management indicator assemblage habitat post-project. Survey and Manage This decision is consistent with the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. The project is in compliance with the list of Survey and Manage species in the 2001 ROD (Table 1-1, Standards and Guidelines, p ). See FEIS, Chapter 3, pp , 95, and Aquatic Conservation Strategy The selected alternative meets and will not prevent attainment of all nine objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy as discussed in Appendix B of the FEIS. The FEIS analyzed both the project scale and the watershed scale. Because the proposed action and alternatives would not have any negative effects at the project scale it will also have no negative effects at the fifth-field watershed scale. I find the selected alternative complies with the Forest Plan for the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Environmentally Preferred Alternative Implementing regulations for NEPA require agencies to specify the alternative or alternatives which are considered to be environmentally preferable, 40 CFR (b). In addition, Forest Service NEPA policy defines environmentally preferable as: The alternative that will best promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's section 101 (42 United States Code 4321). Ordinarily, the environmentally preferable alternative is that which causes the least harm to the biological and physical environment; it also is the alternative which best protects and preserves historic, cultural, and natural resources. In some situations, there may be more than one environmentally preferable alternative (36 CFR 220.3). Section 101 of the NEPA describes national environmental policy, calling on federal, state and local governments and the public to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony. Section 101 further defines this policy in six broad goals: 1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; 2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; 3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; 4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; 5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life s amenities; and 13

16 Green-Horse Habitat Restoration Project 6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. Based on my review of the material presented in the FEIS, the project record, and this Record of Decision, I believe that the selected alternative best promotes the national environmental policy as expressed in Section 101 of the NEPA and therefore is the environmentally preferred alternative. The selected alternative provides the most benefits with the least adverse impacts, attains the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation of the environment, and balances resource use and protection. The Selected Alternative incorporates resource protection measures and Best Management Practices and that will minimize environmental effects. The actions proposed under the selected alternative are designed to conform to management standards and guidelines and project design criteria outlined in the Forest Plan. The project will restore a mix of early-, mid-, and late-seral age classes, with no one age class representing more than 50 percent of the project area and will reduce the live-to-dead fuel ratio. It will also reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire adversely impacting wildlife habitat, scenic and recreational values, and public health. The selected alternative will promote a diversity of vegetation composition and structure which are favorable conditions related to quality wildlife habitat, scenic values, and additional natural resources. Alternative 3 would treat 28,561 fewer acres than the selected alternative, which would reduce the overall effectiveness of the treatments but would result in improved fuel conditions on a smaller landscape. When combined with ongoing fire suppression, the untreated portions of the project area would likely experience effects similar to those of Alternative 1 (No Action) in a future wildfire event. The selected alternative has been designed to provide the greatest possible benefit to the project area regarding the aforementioned values. The selected alternative would implement 41,625 acres of prescribed fire treatment, 207 acres of hand treatment, and construct or reconstruct 4.61 miles (4 acres) of dozer line to facilitate implementation of prescribed fire. Alternative 1, the project s no action alternative, fails to address existing conditions in the project area, including dense, relatively homogeneous forested stands of medium- and small-sized trees, reduced palatability of browse for wildlife, accumulation of heavy fuels in the form of brush or young pine regeneration, and the subsequent risk of high-severity fire which threatens the existing large overstory trees that provide critical nesting structure for bald eagles near Shasta Lake. Therefore Alternative 1 would not move the project area toward desired conditions as described in the Forest Plan. Implementation Date This project will be implemented on or around December 1, Administrative Review Objection Resolution: Conservation Congress The objection and requested resolution remedy were discussed including and in summary: Purpose and need is flawed and forest plan amendment is arbitrary and capricious in violation of NFMA, Violations of the ESA: Failure to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and failure to establish an environmental baseline, violation of the Northwest Forest Plan, failure to adhere to the Revised Recovery Plan and Forest Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, Forest Plan violations, cumulative impacts are not fully disclosed in violation of NEPA, violation of NFMA and Forest Service Manual direction for sensitive species, inventoried roadless areas and the range of alternatives does not comply with NEPA (Gyant, 2016). 14

17 Record of Decision The Deputy Regional Forester considered the Objector s request to withdraw the draft Record of Decision or to comply with to the following requests as stated below: 1. Develop an alternative that complies with the STNF Forest Plan and Roadless Rule. 2. Perform full protocol surveys in the project are, including areas proposed for any kind of treatment that could affect NSO habitat. Surveys must be done to detect barred owls as well as NSO. 3. Perform surveys for TES species and adhere to the Monitoring Plan in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan for these species. 4. Conduct a valid cumulative effects analysis under NEPA. The Deputy Regional Forester made the determination that the Forest Supervisor s rationale for this project is clear and the reasons for the project are logical and responsive to direction contained in the Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan. The Deputy Regional Forester concluded that he made a reasonable and appropriate effort to resolve the concerns that were brought forward while maintaining a balanced approach to managing the lands and meeting the purpose of the project. (Gyant, 2016). I was instructed by the Deputy Regional Forester to proceed with the issuance of the Record of Decision for this project once the instructions identified in the Objection Review Team s response were addressed. These instructions were addressed by preparation of the document labeled Supplemental Information and Errata to the FEIS and the supplemental wildlife report. A summary of how these instructions were addressed is stated below: Instruction 1a: Clarify the rationale for why the proposed amendment meets the criteria for a nonsignificant Forest Plan amendment. The amendment proposed for this project falls under the 1982 planning rule to establish significance of changes to the Forest Plan (FSM ). Four conditions are listed that independently indicate whether a change is insignificant. Three of the four conditions were met, where each condition indicates an insignificant Forest Plan amendment. They were: 1) Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals for long-term land and resource management. Vegetation Treatment by Burning is a permitted action in prescription II and Fuels reduction and Management is an emphasized practice in Prescription III. 2) Adjustment of Management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the multipleuse goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management. Following the analysis completed for the Green-Horse project it was determined that the sites do not currently meet the unburned dead/down material standards for prescription II and III. 3) Minor changes in standard and guidelines. Prescription II sets the standard as maintaining an average of 20 tons of unburned dead/down material per acre and prescription III as maintaining an average of 10 tons of unburned dead/down material per acre on slopes less than 40 percent. Changing the Standard and Guidelines in prescription II to 5 to 15 tons of unburned dead/down material per acre and prescription III to a range of 5 to 15 tons per acre of unburned dead/down material per acre on slopes less than 40 percent, which more closely meets the naturally occurring unburned dead/down on these sites is a minor change. 15

18 Green-Horse Habitat Restoration Project Further discussion can be found in the document labeled Supplemental Information and Errata to the FEIS Instruction 1c: Clarify the explanation of the Fire Interval Pattern (Fire Return Interval). Since 1949, one wildfire has burned within the project area that grew larger than one acre. The Murphy fire (2008) burned 51.3 acres and accounted for about one tenth of a percent of the project area. More than 90 percent of the project area has missed at least three fire return intervals. The fires cited by the Conservation Congress in their objection occurred outside the project boundary and would not change the need for fuels treatment resulting from the Green Horse Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Project. Further discussion can be found in the document labeled Supplemental Information and Errata to the FEIS Instruction 2b: Clarify the determination that surveys were not conducted due to lack of suitable habitat in both the 2010 and 2012 survey protocols as stated in the LOC. Both the Draft 2010 survey protocol and the current 2012 survey protocol were considered, and both contain nearly identical language that supports the rationale for not conducting project-level NSO surveys for the Green-Horse Project due to the lack of sufficient habitat to support a resident owl or pair of owls (USFWS 2012 page 7). See Supplemental Wildlife Report for additional information (Johnson, 2016). Instruction 6a/6b: Resolve the apparent contradiction regarding the determination of cumulative effects boundaries on page 38 of the FEIS. Show how the proposed projects in Appendix A were considered in the cumulative effects analysis for each resource area. Review the specialist reports and consider whether it would be appropriate to include any additional cumulative effects analysis in Chapter 3 from these reports. The errata for the FEIS contains a correction to the cumulative effects boundary. See the document labeled Supplemental Information and Errata to the FEIS Instruction 6e: Clarify in the FEIS resource strategy (pg. 19) if other kinds of potential adjustment could be made to respond to results or changed conditions. Other than the types of adjustments listed on pg. 19, the only additional modifications to treatments that would be allowed would be those already stated in the Design Features Common to Both Action Alternatives section on pages of the FEIS. See the document labeled Supplemental Information and Errata to the FEIS. Instruction 7b: Consider implementing the Fisher Den LOP (2004 Sierra Nevada Framework ROD, pg. 61) where appropriate. No fisher den sites are located within the project boundary. A design feature was added to the proposed alternative and all action alternatives in the event that a fisher den is discovered during implementation of the Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and Improvement Project. This new design feature is listed in the document labeled Supplemental Information and Errata to the FEIS 16

19