Supplemental Information Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Project

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service November 2016 Supplemental Information Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Project Shasta-Trinity National Forest Shasta County, California Prepared by: /s/ John Wood Date:_November 16, 2016 John Wood Fire Management Specialist Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area

2

3 FEIS Supplement and Errata Supplemental Information and Errata to the Final Environmental Impact Statement Supplement to the FEIS The purpose of this section is to supplement the project record for the Green Horse Project to provide minor updates and clarifications related to responses to the Deputy Regional Forester s instructions. A. The amendment to the Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan that is proposed in alternative 2 is a non-significant amendment The Forest Service Manual establishes agency policy to amend the current Land Management Plan at FSM As the amendment that is proposed for this project was initiated before May 9, 2015, this amendment will be approved and analyzed using the provisions of the planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 (the 1982 rule). Forest Service Guidance at FSM establishes four categories of changes to the Land Management Plan that are not significant. The amendment proposed in alternative 2 of the Green Horse Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Project fits within three of the four categories and is therefore not a significant amendment, see below. 1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management; Fire management is listed as a permitted activity under Management Activities for Prescription II and III, Pg and 4-64, LRMP and this amendment would not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management. No goals and objectives are being altered and, in fact, this amendment facilitates Restoring fire to its natural role in the ecosystem when establishing the Desired Future Condition of the landscape. 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 multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management; and Analysis used to build the Fire and Fuels section of the FEIS, states that the Standard for downed woody debris for prescription II, 20 tons of unburned dead/down material per acre and prescription III, 10 tons of unburned dead/down material per acre on slopes less than 40 percent are not capable of being reached on the sites. Fire Management is a permitted practice on both prescriptions and Fuels Reduction and Management is an Emphasized Practice in prescription III and would not cause significant changes in the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management. Again, any changes to the (list management prescriptions affected) would not affect multiple-use goals and objectives but would instead facilitate meeting 3. Minor changes in standard and guidelines. Using survey data the project areas within prescription II and III do not meet the standard outlined in the LRMP. Adopting the recommendation for the Forest Plan amendment would be a minor change to the Standards and Guidelines identified for both of these prescriptions. The change would only be employed during the implementation of the project. The sites do not and have not met the Standard and Guidelines for tons of unburned dead/down per acre through natural processes set in the Management Prescription for Limited Roaded Motorized Recreation and Roaded Recreation. Prescription II sets the standard as maintaining an average of 20 tons of unburned dead/down material per acre and prescription III as 1

4 Green-Horse Habitat Restoration Project 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. 4. Opportunities for additional practices that will contribute to achievement of the management prescription. Condition 4 was not evaluated as a reason for the Forest Plan Amendment. Additionally the forest plan amendment was evaluated under 36 CFR (f), FSH chapter 5 (1992), and FSM Timing: The Forest Plan for the Shasta-Trinity National Forest was signed in April of The amendment would be in place more than two decades since the plan had been signed. According to guidance at FSH ch 5.32(3) (1992), In most cases, the later the change, the less likely it is to be significant for the current forest plan. 2. Locations and Size: 16,602 acres of the Green-Horse project is prescription II approximately 28 percent of the total acres on the Forest. The area where the amendment will be implemented is in an area with limited road access and few developed recreation sites. The majority of people approach the area by boat and generally remain on the lake or near the shore. The proposed treatments would support the objectives of prescription II by maintaining recreation and visual resources and the treatments would reduce the likelihood of a damaging wildfire which would increase the amount or early seral stage vegetation. Prescription III makes up 4.8% percent of the total across the forest or 9,682 acres. This is a very small portion of the overall acreage of prescription III and would not change the character of this prescription. The amendment would only affect those portions of prescriptions II and III that occur within the project area and the character of those prescriptions across the forest as a whole would not change. 3. Goals, Objectives and Outputs: By implementing the treatments prescribed in the Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Project the Goals, Objectives and Outputs are likely to increase. The remoteness of the project area contributes to the amount of use that the project area sees. Although the treatments prescribed in the Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Project will increase the public s use, the marginal increase in the limited amount of use will not have a negative effect on wildlife that occupy or use the area. 4. Management Prescription: The duration of the amendment would be as long as the implementation of the Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Project. The prescription will improve the Management practices emphasized and permitted within both prescription II and III. B. The accuracy of the Fire Interval Pattern (Fire return Interval) was raised in an objection. Clarification of the information used in the objection and regarding the Fire Return Interval is provided. Of the fires listed in the Objection none of them burned within the project boundary. The fires listed in the objection burned near the project area, portions of the fires may have burned within the analysis area and approximately a tenth (0.1) of a percent of the project area has burned within the project boundary during the last 67 years. The cumulative effects boundary for the the wildfire and fuels analysis is the project boundary so those fires that burned within the analysis area do not affect the fire return interval. A 2

5 FEIS Supplement and Errata review of the Wildland Fire and Fuels report shows clearly that the statements made in the ROD regarding fire history are accurate: 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 fire suppression. The claim in the objection that the information on fire return is not accurate is not substantiated. Effective fire suppression has kept fire from being a natural part of this ecosystem which has led to the existing overgrown condition of the vegetation, its effect on wildlife and the accumulation of hazardous fuels. C. The way in which the Resource Treatment Strategy would allow us to modify treatments was raised in an objection. Below is a clarification of the types of adjustments that could be made to the treatments in order to respond to changed conditions. On page 19 of the FEIS, we state that we might schedule secondary treatment in an area if we determine that the initial treatment did not achieve the desired objective, or we might cancel or modify prescribed fire within an area if a wildfire or other unanticipated natural disturbance occurs. We also state that we would modify a prescribed underburn around newly-discovered bald eagle nest sites to include the hand thinning, pruning, piling and pile burning treatments designed to protect known bald eagle nest sites. 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. 3

6 Green-Horse Habitat Restoration Project Errata to the FEIS Corrections to the FEIS are made as follows and are in red font for typos, missing words, spaces or omissions: Correction 1 Correction to the Approach to Cumulative Effects Analysis FEIS p. 38, fourth paragraph, first sentence: The cumulative effects analysis considers the project area boundary as the furthest extent of effects for all alternatives. Page 38 third paragraph, sentence 4-6 correctly describes the cumulative effects area. Other statements that the project area boundary is the furthest extent of cumulative effects analysis for all alternatives are incorrect (e.g. p. 52, first paragraph first sentence, p. 97, fourth paragraph, third sentence and p. 178, first paragraph, second sentence. Correction 2 Correction to the Name of Table 3-3 FEIS p. 41, add text to Table 3-3 title, Recent large fires surrounding the Green-Horse Project Area add but not Within the Project Area. Correction 3 Correction to Appendix A FEIS p. 207, first paragraph, first sentence should read Table A-1 below lists and describes past, current, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions and events that were considered in cumulative effects analyses as appropriate for each resource affected by the Green-Horse project. Correction 4 Correction to Appendix A on the row that begins SHU Lightning Complex FEIS p. 208, Appendix A, under the Scope Column for the SHU Lightning Complex it states 41,363 total (1,787 acres within project area). It should read 41,363 acres (1,787 acres within analysis area). Correction 5 Correction to use of the term Adaptive Management Strategy FEIS p. 8, paragraph 3, first sentence, p. 48, paragraph 2, first sentence, p.49, paragraph 1, first sentence, p. 90, paragraph 2 second sentence, p. 144, third paragraph, sixth sentence, p. 234, Table D-2, Adaptive Management Strategy row, p. 236 Table D-2, Cumulative Effects row. Adaptive Management Strategy should be replace by Resource Treatment Strategy. Correction 6 Addition of new Design Feature FEIS p. 29, add the following design feature: WILD-6 To protect fisher den sites from disturbance, a limited operating period (LOP) will be implemented from March 15 through June 15 for any fisher den sites. During the LOP, no activities that produce smoke or loud and continuous noise will occur within 0.25 miles of a known active den site. 4