Objection North Elk Ridge Forest Health Project

Transcription

1 Objection North Elk Ridge Forest Health Project USDA Forest Service - Intermountain Region Manti-La Sal National Forest Moab/Monticello Ranger District Allen Rowley, Forest Supervisor Objection Review Officer Intermountain Region US Forest Service th Street Ogden, Utah Dear Supervisor Rowley, Grand Canyon Trust, Utah Chapter of Sierra Club, and WildEarth Guardians submit the following Objection to the North Elk Ridge Forest Health Project Environmental Assessment and draft Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impacts. This objection is based on Forest Service failure to either analyze or correctly analyze the Scoping Comments and Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative we submitted for analysis November 4, 2012 and Revision submitted with Forest Service approval on March 27, This objection is submitted pursuant to 36 C.F.R As required by 36 C.F.R (d). Objectors provide the following required information with this Objection: 1. The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the objectors are listed below. 2. In addition to the electronic signatures below, verification of authorship is available upon request. 3. The lead objector is Grand Canyon Trust. 4. The proposed project being objected to is the North Elk Ridge Forest Health Project, including its Environmental Assessment and draft Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impacts. The project will be implemented on the Moab/Monticello Ranger District of the Manti-La Sal National Forest. The Responsible Official is District Ranger Michael Diem. 5. A description of the aspects of the proposed project being objected to is included below. 6. All issues addressed in this objection relate to comments made during the designated comment periods for this project.

2 2 The deadline for objections to the Elk Ridge Forest Health Project is September 15, The legal notice announcing the availability of the Environmental Assessment and draft Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impacts was published on July 30, Because the final day of the 45-day comment period fell on a weekend, the comment period was extended to the next Federal working day. 36 C.F.R (a). We are concerned about important aspects of the proposed action and supporting environmental analysis that we believe constitute failures to meet duties imposed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing rules and agency policy. Despite the lack of analysis or incorrect analysis that we detail below, we would like to thank the Forest Service for presenting the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative as a stand-alone alternative to be analyzed on a complete basis, and for the repeated field trips the District conducted with a diversity of stakeholders in preparation of alternatives for the Environmental Assessment (EA) Issues: A. Elements of Alternative C, Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative, which were not analyzed in the EA 1) Ponderosa pine cutting size limit: The environmental consequences of 16 DBH rather than >18 DBH as a cutting size limit 2) Use of quantitative aspen browse triggers for adaptive management: The consequences of selecting quantitative aspen browse measurements and triggers for management rather than qualitative hedging 3) Delaying a decision on felling of overstory aspen until a three-year experiment (conifer removal and felling vs. no felling of overstory aspen) has been completed: Consequences for structural diversity in an aspen clone. B. Elements of Alternative C, Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative, which were incorrectly analyzed in the Forest Vegetation Specialist Report/USDA Forest Service 2014c (2014c): 1) Incorrect analysis of aspen overstory removal in thinned seral aspen stands 2) Incorrect analysis of conifer removal in seral aspen stands Issues in Detail: A. Elements of Alternative C, Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative, which were not analyzed in the Environmental Assessment (EA):

3 3 1) Ponderosa pine size classification: Difference between 16 DBH (Alternative C) and 18 DBH (Proposed Action, with modifications) not analyzed in EA By not analyzing the shading differences between leaving all trees 16 or greater versus all trees >18, it is unclear which proposal would trend toward more old growth ponderosa pine, one project goal, at what cost to aspen shading which could negatively impact aspen vigor or recruitment (another project goal). This constitutes failure to meet duties under NEPA, including the agency s duty to take a hard look at the differing effects of the proposed action relative to alternatives studied in detail. The EA should have studied differing effects/outcomes of a 16 DBH cap on girdling contrasted to the proposed action s 18 DBH cap. Furthermore, this issue constitutes failure to meet duties rooted in the NFMA as well as the LRMP (as amended) based on concerns stemming from the lack of late seral ponderosa pine forest structure across the affected area. More specifically, a 16 cap on girdling live ponderosa may be shown to result in a larger cohort of live ponderosa in the area (relative to the 18 cap) growing into late seral size classes for which the area is admittedly deficient. When contrasted to the 16 DBH cap, the proposed action s 18 DBH cap, we believe, would be shown to retard, block, and/or delay attainment of minimum standards (representation) of/for late successional forest. In this regard, this constitutes failures to meet habitat, diversity, and population viability duties imposed by the NFMA, the LRMP (as amended since 1999), and USFS NFMA and Sensitive species policies. 2) Use of quantitative aspen browse triggers for adaptive management By not analyzing the differences between using qualitative assessment (Alternative B, Proposed Action) versus quantitative triggers (Alternative C) to see if aspen regeneration is trending towards desired stocking (> 500 ramets/acre), the benefits/downsides of using quantitative measurements, limits, and triggers have not been considered. This is of particular importance, as the Fishlake NF is planning to use these particular quantitative measurements of aspen sprout leaders, browse limits, and triggers for adaptive management throughout Monroe Mountain for aspen restoration monitoring, and there would be a benefit in having a second site/forest applying the same approach for comparison. As well, the Utah Wildlife Board has approved the process of using these quantitative measurements, limits, and triggers (including potential reduction in numbers of elk) on Monroe Mountain in relation to elk browsing, and there would be likelihood that they would thus accept this same process on North Elk Ridge.

4 4 Finally, the proposed monitoring plan (Decision Notice, p. 34) refers to observing whether sprouts are being so heavily hedged that aspen recruitment may not achieve at least 500 recruits (above 6 )/acre. Hedging is a term related to browsing at the edge of large aspen, willow, or other woody vegetation, and has no meaning in relation to an aspen sprout <6. The important thing to measure on sprouts is browse of leaders, because if the leaders of sprouts <6 are repeatedly browsed, the sprout will not recruit above 6 and will not be able to become aspen overstory. 3) Delaying a decision on felling of overstory aspen until a three-year experiment (conifer removal and felling vs. no felling of overstory aspen) has been completed The decision has been to institute felling of overstory aspen after only one year of a three-year experiment has been completed. This is an inadequate time period to accurately measure the difference in the experimental treatments. On a Trust field trip with the Forest Service to Elk Ridge, November 1, 2013, we discussed, and agreed to, the proposed experiment. The Trust felt it was agreed that a three year period after treating and fencing (protecting) would be used to evaluate the difference in ramet production. Thus, the decision whether to remove overstory aspen from seral aspen stands following conifer removal would wait until the experiment was completed. We would not have agreed to the experiment if the decision as to whether to remove overstory aspen would be made after only one full growing season. Furthermore it is important from a Forest Service resource perspective to learn whether adequate stocking rates can be achieved without removing some or all overstory aspen following conifer removal. We anticipate that the treatment of removing overstory aspen will result in more sprouts than the area after one year and perhaps three. This is not the pertinent question. The pertinent question is whether sufficient stocking rates (>500 ramets/acre) can be achieved while retaining the structural diversity of mature and young aspen. B. Elements of Alternative C, Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative, which were incorrectly analyzed in the Forest Vegetation Specialist Report/USDA Forest Service (2014c): 1) Analysis of aspen overstory removal in seral aspen stands after conifer removal The Decision Notice states on page 18 when discussing Alternative C (Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative):

5 5 In the aspen regeneration units (see Figure 3), conifer would be thinned around aspen stands, but aspen would not be cut except on an experimental basis. This is incorrect. The Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative (Alternative C) states that if the experiment (in cutting or not cutting overstory aspen following conifer removal) shows 150% higher regeneration, a plan to remove similar amounts of aspen in other stands can be undertaken if they are protected and quantitative browse thresholds are not exceeded (EA at 22). Failing to acknowledge that the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative would allow for some aspen overstory cutting lead to the determination that Alternative C could result in the loss of rapidly declining stands (EA at 41). 2) Analysis of conifer removal in seral aspen stands The analysis in 2014c states on page 31 in section specifically related to the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative: It does not provide for removal of conifer from within and on the edge of aspen clones by felling or girdling to reduce competition and ingrowth. This is incorrect as the Decision Notice states on page 18 when discussing Alternative C (Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative): In the aspen regeneration units (see Figure 3); conifer would be thinned around aspen stands... Furthermore, conifer would be removed within the stands as the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative proposed and as identified in the Proposed Action, with modifications. Failing to acknowledge that the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative would cut conifer in the same manner as the Proposed Action lead to the determination that Alternative C could result in the loss of rapidly declining stands (Forest Vegetation Specialist Report 2014c at page 31 section ). Proposed Decision Improvements: A. Elements of Alternative C, Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative, which were not analyzed in the Environmental Assessment (EA): 1) Ponderosa pine size classification: Difference between 16 DBH and 18 DBH never analyzed in EA Proposed remedy: Inadequacies under NEPA and NFMA would be resolved by evaluating the aspen shading differences between the two size limits and

6 6 evaluating the amount of large diameter ponderosa pine remaining for each alternative. This analysis would also provide a correct analysis of Alternative C related to aspen shading by conifer in the Forest Vegetation Specialist Report. We believe this will support a final DN/FONSI with a decision alternative approving the 16 DBH limit, as there would be a larger cohort of live 16+ DBH ponderosa to move into larger diameter size classes while incurring no or functionally negligible differences in conifer suppression of aspen recruitment (compared to the 18 DBH limit). 2) Use of quantitative aspen browse triggers for adaptive management. Failure to analyze this under NEPA would be resolved by including such a monitoring commitment in the EA (and/or a supporting report), and by approval of a final DN/FONSI that selects and requires application of such quantitative aspen browse triggers. Alternative C uses quantitative triggers of aspen browse (Attachment 1 below) to determine if adaptive management is needed to meet desired stocking rates for aspen. This is the same methodology being proposed by the Fishlake National Forest for use on Monroe Mountain to determine if further adaptive management techniques are needed to attain desired stocking rates for aspen. Incorporating an independently verifiable, quantitative method for measuring browse on aspen sprout leaders into the North Elk Ridge project would clearly delineate if and when further adaptive management actions are needed to achieve project success. 3) Delaying a decision on felling of overstory aspen until a three-year experiment (conifer removal and felling vs. no felling of overstory aspen) has been completed. Proposed remedy for failure to analyze this: Wait three years to determine if desired aspen sprouting is being achieved before removing some or all overstory aspen from a seral stand from which conifer has been removed B. Elements of Alternative C, Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative, which were incorrectly analyzed in the Forest Vegetation Specialist Report/USDA Forest Service 2014c (2014c): 1) Analysis of overstory aspen removal in seral aspen stands following conifer removal A decision improvement would involve dropping the 150% comparison between overstory aspen cutting and no overstory aspen cutting and replacing it with a goal of achieving 500 ramets/acre, and measuring progress toward this using the quantitative browse measurements, limits, and triggers for adaptive management.

7 7 Explicitly state an intent to retain overstory aspen wherever there is sufficient sprouting, as this provides for structural diversity, snags, and continued photosynthetic contribution of overstory aspen to clonal sprouting. Overstory aspen trees, even when older or seemingly decadent, do usually continue to contribute to sprouting and support of sprouts in a clone. A single-layer aspen stand is less desirable than a multi-story aspen stand. Include selective aspen overstory removal as an adaptive management option where some aspen overstory removal appears to be needed, rather than just a black-and-white choice between clear felling and no aspen overstory removal. 2) Analysis of conifer removal in seral aspen stands Proposed remedy for the incorrect analysis: Evaluate the aspen shading differences between the two size limits and evaluate the amount of large diameter ponderosa pine remaining for each alternative. This analysis would also provide a correct analysis of Alternative C related to aspen shading by conifer in Forest Vegetation Specialist Report (2014c) There is a clear link from our Scoping Comments and Revision, specific concerns raised in this Objection, and proposed remedies (resolution). We would like to have a meeting with the Objection Reviewing Officer and the Responsible Official and pursue resolution. We look forward to working with the Forest Service to move beyond this objection and implement some decision improvements to restore large diameter ponderosa pine and aspen stands of diverse structure on North Elk Ridge. Sincerely, Lead Objector Mary O Brien Utah Forests Program Director Grand Canyon Trust HC 64 Box 2604 HC 64 Box 2902 Castle Valley, UT Castle Valley, UT Dave Erley Utah Forest Program Associate Grand Canyon Trust (435) (435) maryobrien10@gmail.com dderley@frontiernet.net Wayne Y. Hoskisson Kevin Mueller

8 8 Utah-Southern Rockies Conservation Manager Utah Chapter Sierra Club WildEarth Guardians PO Box South Main St, Ste. 10 Moab UT Salt Lake City, Utah (435)

9 9 Attachment 1: 1. Quantitative threshold for browse and adaptive management 1 : The following triggers and thresholds for adaptive management when not met will initiate a change in grazing management a. Use Table 1 and Figure 1 below, adapted from estimation of the maximum browsed aspen allowed that would assure the conservative outcome of at least recruits 2 /acre (i.e. 1,000-1,500 recruits/hectare ; Mueggler 1989, Campbell and Bartos 2001) i. Assumptions for the probability Table 1 and Figure 1 1. Once a shoot (majority of top 6 [150 mm] of leaders) is browsed, the probability of it recruiting into the overstory is extremely low. 2. A conservative minimum of 1,000 saplings 3 acre (2,500 saplings /ha) is needed to regenerate a fully stocked aspen stand. 3. Unbrowsed shoots will reach a relatively safe height (approximately 6 or 1.8 m) in 4-6 years. 4. Shoots occur as a single pulse or cohort (same or similar age) of regeneration (no secondary regeneration). 5. There is no mortality to other causes The level of browsing as defined by the percent of total shoots browsed is constant (from year to year and across spatial variation in shoot density). 7. Browsers show no preference between browsed and un-browsed shoots. ii. The assumptions will not hold in the field but the table and figure provide an initial basis for deriving appropriate thresholds that predict success or failure for aspen recruitment after treatments (mechanical or fire) that result in a range of initial densities. iii. Application of Table 1 or Figure 1 will require a method to select the appropriate number of years (i.e. 4-6) for shoots to attain safe heights. 1 This quantitative threshold proposal is nearly identical to that being developed by the Monroe Mountain Working Group, a consensus collaboration that develops recommendations for restoration of aspen on Monroe Mountain (Richfield RD, Fishlake NF). The North Elk Ridge project offers the opportunity to compare results with Monroe Mountain monitoring results, because nearly all of the North Elk Ridge project is taking place within an allotment that has been grazed only by some trespass cattle over the preceding ten years and will be fenced from cattle grazing in the coming decade. Monroe Mountain, on the other hand, is also a trophy elk unit and is grazed by cattle and sheep and deer. 2 A recruit is defined as an aspen shoot that has successfully reached full canopy height. 3 A sapling is an aspen shoot = 6-12 ( m) height 4 It is true that at high densities (e.g. 20,000 shoots per acre), reductions in stem density through natural thinning will be substantial. This thinning will continue in the sapling stage but this is accounted for as the stand can thin from 1,000 to stems per acre as the stand matures.

10 10 This can be based on site productivity, weather conditions, cumulative experience, etc. Table 1. Suggested annual browse thresholds Years after which 1,000 aspen saplings ( 6 ) tall)/acre will be present 5,000 initial sprouts/ acre 10,000 initial sprouts/ acre 20,000 initial sprouts/ acre 30,000 initial sprouts/ acre 40,000 initial sprouts/ acre % browse % browse % browse % browse % browse Figure 1. Projected maximum browse pressure in relation to initial aspen shoot density and time (years) needed for shoots to reach a safe height. b. Browse threshold detection i. Use two perpendicular belt transects (e.g., 6 x 100 or 2m x 30m) per plot, and include pellet counts for insight into use by types of ungulates. ii. A minimum of one plot per 300 treated acres (120 ha), but a greater number of plots when needed to assess percent browse. iii. The plots should reflect the variability of the post-treatment area, but care should be taken to adequately represent areas of known higher use and/or

11 11 vulnerability, e.g., <30% slope, <30 pre-treatment aspen stems/acre among the conifer. iv. Browse thresholds for a specific treatment are violated (exceeded) when: 1. The average plot browse percentage exceeds the maximum allowable threshold derived from the average plot shoot density ; or 2. At least 40% of the individual plots associated with the treatment exceed the percent browse threshold. 5 v. The above monitoring scheme should be adapted as necessary on the basis of experience using the scheme. c. Browse thresholds for aspen post-treatment i. Browse = browse of a majority of leaders within 6 vertical inches of the tallest leader. ii. More than 20% of sprouts are browsed in stands with less than 5,000 initial post-treatment sprouts/acre. iii. More than 27% of sprouts are browsed in plots with 5,000-10,000 initial post-treatment sprouts/acre iv. More than 36% of sprouts are browsed in plots with 10,000-20,000 initial post-treatment sprouts per acre. v. More than 45% of sprouts are browsed in plots with more than 20,000 initial post-treatment sprouts per acre. vi. The above percent browse thresholds should be adapted as necessary on the basis of observed success in stand recruitment. 2. Adaptive management a. If browse thresholds are exceeded, recommend reduction of wild ungulate populations using antlerless hunts and/or alternate response options annually as needed at levels expected to result in sufficient reduction in browse to avoid surpassing browse thresholds. This would require action by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. b.if a treatment is to occur in an area where traditional elk use is high, and there is an expectation that browse thresholds will be exceeded, recommend a pre-emptive antlerless hunt, and/or suitable alternative response option to occur within the year of the treatment. 5 Both elements of threshold exceedance are important to avoid outliers having determinative influence.