Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI)

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service January 2016 Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) Rock Creek Vegetation and Fuels Healthy Forest Restoration Act Project Minidoka Ranger District, Sawtooth National Forest Cassia and Twin Falls County, Idaho Township 13 S Range 18 E Section 36 Township 14 S Range 18 E Sections 1,2,11,12,13,14,24,45,36 Township 14 S Range 19 E Sections 6,7,18,19,29,30,31,32 Township 15 S Range 18 E Sections 1, 12 Township 15 S Range 19 E Sections 5, 6, 7 For Information Contact: Lyn Snoddy Sawtooth NF Supervisor s Office 2647 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, ID (208) USDA FOREST SERVICE MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.

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 DRAFT DECISION NOTICE And FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT For Rock Creek Vegetation and Fuels Project Sawtooth National Forest Minidoka Ranger District Cassia and Twin Falls County, Idaho The Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Rock Creek Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project are presented here. The Decision Notice documents my decision and rationale. The FONSI presents the reasons that I find this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. The Environmental Assessment (EA) completed for the project is incorporated by reference in this Draft Decision Notice/FONSI. The EA documents the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the proposed action. BACKGROUND The proposed project area is located on the Cassia Division of the Minidoka Ranger District in the Sawtooth National Forest. The project analysis area boundary includes 7,959 acres and is divided between Twin Falls County (4,084 acres) and Cassia County (3,875 acres). Throughout this document it should be noted that the project analysis area is the larger area which includes treatment areas and areas that will remain untreated. Treatment areas are small areas within the project analysis area with proposed treatments such as thinning of dense forest stands. The project area is split between the Fourth Fork Rock Creek Subwatershed of the Upper Rock Creek Watershed and the Upper Goose Creek Subwatershed of the Upper Goose Creek Watershed. The need for this project is to restore forest health and diversity, fire-resistance/fire-resilience, and reduce the wildfire risk to the Rock Creek Recreation Complex, including the likelihood of uncharacteristic wildfire. There is an immediate need to: Reduce ladder fuels that provide vertical and horizontal fuel continuity thereby reducing crown fire risk. Reduce surface fuel load to reduce fire intensity. Reduce the overall horizontal and vertical fuelbed continuity within the Rock Creek Recreational Complex, while increasing the likelihood of firefighter and public safety. Create stand conditions and manage fuel loadings in strategic areas that can be maintained through prescribed burning. Increase canopy base heights and crown spacing to reduce the risk of crown fires. Draft Decision Notice & FONSI - Rock Creek Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project p. 1

4 Create strategic fuel breaks to reduce fuel densities thus providing fire control opportunities. Restore the area to a more desirable vegetative condition consistent with Forest Plan direction. In order to restore desirable forest composition and to mitigate the resulting hazardous fuels build up and address the effects of disease and insect outbreaks, the Minidoka Ranger District of the Sawtooth National Forest prepared an EA in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) and other relevant Federal and state laws and regulations. It discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the no action and two action alternatives. This project qualifies for analysis using the HFRA Title I 102 (a) (1) authority according to guidelines set out in the Act. THE DECISION AND RATIONALE DECISION Based on the analysis in the Rock Creek Fuels and Vegetation Project Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project EA, and comments received from the public, it is my decision to select Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Implementing Alternative 2 (as described in the EA) will result in the following: Restoration of desirable forest composition (both conifer and aspen) and managing for long-term sustainability of these forests; Increased ability to protect high value structures in the event of a wildfire; Reduced potential for uncharacteristically severe wildfire; Reduced conifer encroachment in aspen stands; and Reduced risk of insect and disease epidemics. Specific actions including Project design features and mitigation measures are summarized in the Proposed Action in Chapter 2 of the EA and in Specialist Reports. My decision for the project includes incorporating these measures to preserve and protect resources that may be affected as a result of the Proposed Action. RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION My decision is based on a review of the project record, which includes a thorough analysis of relevant scientific information. Careful examination of applicable laws, regulations, policy, and the Sawtooth National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Sawtooth Forest Plan, Record of Decision, 2012) has informed my decision. I have also considered the numerous comments, supportive and otherwise, submitted regarding the project proposal. Draft Decision Notice & FONSI - Rock Creek Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project p. 2

5 I believe Alternative 2 best meets the purpose and need for action to restore forested vegetation communities and reduce fuel loads to better control wildfire and protect high value infrastructure while adequately addressing key issues that were identified by the IDT and being responsive to public comment and concerns. HOW MY DECISION RESPONDS TO PUBLIC CONCERNS AND THE NEED FOR CHANGE To determine which alternative or combination of treatments best supports the purpose and need for action and the project objectives, I first considered whether the proposed activities would meet the purpose and need for the project and achieve the stated objectives described in the EA. The EA discloses that the objectives would be best achieved under Alternative 2. As stated throughout the EA and specialist report analyses, the treatments proposed under Alternative 2 are to restore forested vegetation communities, protect high value structures, reduce hazardous fuel loads, enhance aspen stands and reduce insect and disease infestations. The reduction in surface fuels would help reduce fire intensity, reduce torching and crowning of trees in the event of a wildfire, and improve firefighter and public safety. Implementation of Alternative 2 would move forested vegetation conditions in the project area toward desired conditions as described in the Sawtooth Forest Plan (Forest Plan Appendix A) and meet the purpose and need for this project. To address public concerns that were brought up during the public scoping process, the IDT developed an intensive list of Required Project Design Features for the Proposed Action to ensure resource issues and concerns raised by the public would be addressed. The IDT reviewed literature that was provided by commenters as the Proposed Action was crafted and refined and project leaders worked directly with commenters to ensure a full and complete understanding of the issues being brought forward. To provide the line officer with a complete understanding of the need for change and a full range of alternatives to compare different treatments and the outcomes of the treatments, the IDT analyzed an alternative that was developed based on public scoping in addition to the No Action Alternative. Based on the analysis that was completed during the EA, there is a need for change to restore forest health conditions and reduce the risk of fire that could result in loss of property and infrastructure. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Alternative 1 No Action Alternative In addition to the selected alternative, I considered two other alternatives in detail; the no-action alternative and Alternative 3 (Limited Mechanical Treatment and No Commercial Timber sales) as described in the EA. This project qualifies for the use of the HFRA, as amended by the 2014 Farm Bill to plan and design the project proposal. Under the HFRA, authorized projects require the Draft Decision Notice & FONSI - Rock Creek Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project p. 3

6 development and analysis of an action and a no-action alternative. The additional alternative, Alternative 3, was analyzed as a result of public scoping comments. Under Alternative 1 (No Action), no fuels reduction, timber sales, or aspen regeneration projects would be implemented. I did not select Alternative 1 (No Action) for the following reasons: 1. Alternative 1 does not meet the purpose and need identified in the EA (p. 4) because it does not: Modify hazardous fuels that could affect wildfire occurrence and behavior; Restore or enhance declining aspen stands and forested vegetation communities; or Protect high value structures within the Rock Creek project area. 2. Alternative 1 would have no active vegetation treatments and would not move the project area toward the desired condition identified in the Forest Plan. Alternative 3 Limited Mechanical Treatment and No Commercial Timber Sales Under Alternative 3 (Limited Mechanical Treatment and No Commercial Timber sales) fuels reduction and aspen regeneration projects would primarily be implemented by hand methods with no commercial timber sales or shaded fuel break. Limited mechanical treatment would occur around high value structures. I did not select Alternative 3 for the following reasons: 1. Alternative 3 mostly, but does not fully meet the purpose and need identified in the EA (p. 4) because: It does not create a strategic fuel break to reduce fuel densities thus providing fire control opportunities. Not implementing the shaded fuel break would increase the risk of losing the Porcupine Spring campground in the event of a wildfire moving south to north. No commercial sales, including post and pole sales and commercial timber sales would be implemented in the areas that are identified as being suited for these activities. This would not be consistent with management outlined in the 2012 Sawtooth Forest Plan (Chapter 3, Management Direction pp.44-46). 2. It does not implement mechanical treatments around high value structures to the extent identified in Alternative 2; rather mechanical treatment would be completed up to 100 feet from the structures and the remaining mechanical treatment area identified in Alternative 2 would be treated using hand treatment methods using chainsaws. This approach would be more time intensive and would require a longer time frame of on the ground work to accomplish the same results. In addition, potential impacts from the use of mechanical equipment have been mitigated through extensive design features. 3. Alternative 3 would impact recreationists for an estimated 60 days as compared to Alternative 2, which is estimated to only impact the recreating public for 30 days. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Draft Decision Notice & FONSI - Rock Creek Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project p. 4

7 Public involvement efforts are documented in detail in the EA and in the Project Record. I have summarized the involvement efforts here. The proposal was first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on October 01, 2014 and has been listed continuously since that time. The Forest Service mailed scoping letters on November 20, 2014 to identified interested publics including grazing permittees, several interest groups, interested and affected individuals, and other state and federal agencies for comment on the project as part of the public involvement process. The purpose of that letter was to notify interested and affected individuals of the proposed action and decisions to be made, and to invite any comments or concerns regarding the proposed action. Nine responses were received from that mailing. The Minidoka Ranger District then held a public meeting in Twin Falls at the Sawtooth National Forest Supervisors Office on April 23, Eighteen people attended the meeting and discussed the project with Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) members and the Minidoka District Ranger. One person submitted comments at the public meeting. Based upon comments at the public meeting and a request from several members of the public for a field tour, on June 05, 2015 the Forest Service IDT members, the District Ranger and the Forest Supervisor held a public field tour of the project. Fifteen people attended to discuss the project and alternatives. In addition, comments received outside of the designated scoping period were reviewed and distributed to IDT members and the District Ranger to aid in development and refinement of alternatives and for analysis purposes. Using the comments from Idaho Conservation League, Prairie Falcon Audubon Society, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Shoshone Bannock Tribes, Dick Artley, Jon Marvel, Miriam Austin, High Desert Nordic Association, Idaho Parks and Recreation, Jim Prunty, and Western Watersheds, the IDT developed a list of issues to address (see Issues Section). In addition, the IDT developed Alternative 3 based on scoping comments and concerns from some of the commenters. The Forest Service IDT reviewed all comments to focus analysis and to identify issues that would focus the analysis. A response to comments document was developed as part of the planning process and is available in the project record. TRIBAL CONSULTATION As part of tribal involvement in the project, the Forest Service sent individually addressed transmittal letters to the Shoshone-Bannock, Shoshone-Paiute, & Northwest Band of Shoshone Nation tribes on November 20, The Shoshone-Bannock tribe responded on December 9, 2014 with tribal concerns. Throughout the project, Project leaders ed and discussed the project with technical staff during the development of the Proposed Action. The District Ranger and Project Co-Leads met with the Shoshone-Bannock tribe technical staff at Fort Hall on December 3, As a result of that meeting, the District Ranger agreed to modify heritage design criteria and schedule a pre-implementation field tour with the Tribe prior to project Draft Decision Notice & FONSI - Rock Creek Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project p. 5

8 implementation occurring in the mechanical treatments. On December 10, 2015, the District Ranger met with the Shoshone-Paiute tribe. No concerns regarding the project were expressed that required any modification of the design criteria and it was agreed that the Tribe would also attend the pre-implementation field tour. LEGAL NOTICE On January 7, 2016, a legal notice announcing the 30-day objection period to the EA appeared in the Times News, the newspaper of record for the Responsible Official. The Forest Service mailed copies of the EA to those parties who previously expressed interest in the project. Copies of the EA were also available at the Minidoka Ranger District office and via the Sawtooth National Forest webpage. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that this action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR ); therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. I incorporate, by reference, the EA and project record, in making this determination. I base my findings on the following: 1. Context and Intensity This action occurs on the Minidoka Ranger District and treats a 7,959 acre project area over ten years. Treatments include the use of mechanical thinning, commercial timber sales, a shaded fuel break and prescribed fire. This project is designed to restore desirable forest composition, reduce the existing fuels build-up that could result in uncharacteristically severe wildfires, reduce the potential for loss of high value structures in the event of a wildfire and reduce the impacts of insect and disease outbreaks in forested vegetation communities. The treatments, spread across a 7,959 acre area of the Cassia Division, will leave a relatively diverse and mosaic landscape of different seral stages and vegetation conditions. All practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted. Biological Evaluations (BE) and specialist reports prepared for this project are available in the project record, and unless otherwise noted are available upon request. Impacts associated with the project are discussed in the Environmental Consequences section of the EA or in specialist reports. None of the direct, indirect, or cumulative effects were identified as being significant. Those documents provide the basis for my determinations. After careful consideration of the EA and the project record, it is my finding that the effects of this action are not significant. My finding that the impacts are not significant is not biased by the beneficial impacts described in the analysis. Draft Decision Notice & FONSI - Rock Creek Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project p. 6

9 2. Public Health and Safety This action will improve public health and safety by reducing fuel loading and allowing fires in the Rock Creek recreation complex to be suppressed with greater efficiency. Increased ability to suppress wildfires after treatment will increase public safety and reductions in fire behavior post treatment would increase firefighter safety during suppression activities. A minor temporary impact may occur to local air quality from the burning of slash and the prescribed fire activities. Burning will be conducted in accordance with State air quality standards and within burning periods approved by the State of Idaho. Warning signs and public announcements will be used to notify recreationists and residents of thinning and burning activities. Trails will be signed or closed to hikers, hunters, and others when equipment is in use and when burning is being conducted. As a result of these mitigations, the impacts to health and safety are successfully reduced. 3. Unique Characteristics of the Area This action will not adversely affect unique characteristics such as historic or cultural resources, wetlands, or ecologically critical areas. My determination is based on the discussion of effects found in the EA, Chapter Three and in specialist reports. There are no parklands, prime lands (forest, farm or range), historic or cultural properties, research natural areas, or wilderness that would be adversely affected by this action. The project area is approximately 7,959 acres, within which there are no special designations. 4. Controversy The activities described in Alternative 2 do not involve effects on the human environment that are likely to be highly controversial (40 CFR ). After a thorough review of relevant scientific literature by myself and my IDT members, I find that while there are opposing opinions regarding Alternative 2, there is no substantiated scientific controversy over the effects themselves. I find the effects on the human environment are not highly uncertain, are unlikely to involve unique or unknown risks and are not likely to be highly controversial and are, therefore, not significant. 5. Uncertainty The action described in my decision will not involve effects that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks (40 CFR ). This action is similar to actions taken on many National Forests in the Intermountain Region. Pertinent scientific literature has been reviewed and incorporated into the analysis process and the technical analyses conducted for determinations on the impacts to the resources are supportable with use of accepted techniques, reliable data and professional judgment. Issues of public concern and possible environmental effects of the selected alternative have been adequately addressed in the analysis of this decision by development of project design features and mitigation measures. Therefore, I conclude that there are no highly uncertain, unique or unknown risks. 6. Precedent Draft Decision Notice & FONSI - Rock Creek Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project p. 7

10 My decision to implement the action included in Alternative 2 does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. This action is consistent with Forest Service direction contained in the 36 CFR Parts 218 and 220. Similar actions have been implemented across National Forest System lands. Any future proposals for fuels reduction on the Sawtooth National Forest will be evaluated through the National Environmental Policy Act process, consistent with current laws and regulations. 7. Cumulative Impacts The decision was evaluated in the context of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The cumulative effects of this action are described in the EA Chapter 3 and in individual specialist reports. Analyzed individually or cumulatively with other activities in the affected area,this action will not reach a level of significance as discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA,. 8. Properties On or Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places I find the action will have no adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic Preservation Office has been consulted with and concurs with the agency s finding of no significant impact (September 30, 2015). I find the action will not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. 9. Endangered or Threatened Species or Their Critical Habitat The action will not adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat (Endangered Species Act of 1973). Biological Assessments and Evaluations of the Rock Creek HFRA Project dated September, 2015, were completed for plants, fish, and wildlife and is located in the project record. It was determined that there would be no effect to any federally listed plants, fish, or wildlife and therefore consultation with the USFWS was not required. 10. Legal Requirements for Environmental Protection The action will not violate Federal, or applicable State and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA. The action is consistent with the Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations National Forest Management Act - Implementing regulations for the National Forest Management Act are found in 36 CFR 219, effective May 9, 2012 (referred to here as the planning rule, 77 FR 68 [ ]). Because the Sawtooth Forest Plan was revised and last amended under NFMA implementing regulations in place prior to May 9, 2012, the transition provisions in 36 CFR (c)(c) apply, under which no obligations remain from any prior planning regulation, except those that are specifically included in the Sawtooth Forest Plan, and none of the Draft Decision Notice & FONSI - Rock Creek Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project p. 8

11 requirements of the planning rule applies to projects and activities on the Sawtooth National Forest. The Sawtooth Forest Plan is consistent with NFMA (Sawtooth Forest Plan ROD 2003). Alternative 2, as approved by this decision, based on the EA, is consistent with the Sawtooth Forest Plan goals and objectives, and standards and guidelines. This decision to reduce levels of hazardous fuels in the project area is consistent with the intent of the Sawtooth Forest Plan's long term goals and objectives listed. Alternative 2 is also consistent with the 2015 ROD for Greater Sage-Grouse which amended the 2012 Sawtooth Forest Plan. National Environmental Policy Act - The EA and Decision Notice/FONSI document are in compliance with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR ) for implementing NEPA. Endangered Species Act - This decision is consistent with the Endangered Species Act. A Biological Assessment and Evaluation was completed for threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species. It was determined that there would be no effect to any federally listed plants, fish, or wildlife as a result of the project. Idaho Roadless Rule None of the project area falls within lands that are under the Idaho Roadless Rule. Clean Water Act - The Clean Water Act requires Federal Agencies to comply with all Federal, State, interstate and local requirements, administrative authority, and process and sanctions with respect to the control and abatement of water pollution. This decision is consistent with the Clean Water Act and amendments. No wetlands are involved and therefore no permit is required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No State permit for streambed alteration is required because no streambeds are involved in the project. Nonpoint Source Water Quality Program for the State of Idaho - This decision maintains water quality within the project area and is consistent with the State of Idaho Nonpoint Source Water Quality Program. Executive Order of May 1977 (Wetlands) - This order requires the Forest Service to take action to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. In compliance with this order, Forest Service direction requires that an analysis be completed to determine whether adverse impacts will result. Based on discussions and analysis in the Hydrology Specialist Report concerning wetlands, the decision complies with EO by maintaining and restoring riparian conditions. Executive Order of May 1977 (Floodplains) - This order requires the Forest Service to provide leadership and to take action to (1) minimize adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains and reduce risks of flood loss, (2) minimize impacts of floods on Draft Decision Notice & FONSI - Rock Creek Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project p. 9

12 human safety, health, and welfare, and (3) restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains. Based on discussions in the Hydrology Specialist Report concerning floodplains, the decision complies with EO by maintaining floodplain integrity. Environmental Justice - This decision was assessed to determine whether it would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations, in accordance with Executive Order No impacts to minority or low-income populations were identified during scoping or the effects assessment. Administrative Review- Objection Opportunities and Implementation Objections will be accepted only from those who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project either during scoping or other designated opportunity for public comment in accordance with 36 CFR 218.5(a). Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on new information arising after designated opportunities. Individual members of organizations must have submitted their own comments to meet the requirements of eligibility as an individual, objections received on behalf of an organization are considered as those of the organization only. If an objection is submitted on behalf of a number of individuals or organizations, each individual or organization listed must meet the eligibility requirement of having previously submitted comments on the project ( 218.7). Names and addresses of objectors will become part of the public record. Details on contents and the filing of objections are outlined in the legal notice in Times-News, newspaper of record. Implementation may begin following the signing of this Decision Notice pursuant to 36 CFR Draft Decision Notice & FONSI - Rock Creek Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project p. 10

13 Contact Person For additional information concerning this decision contact: Lyn Snoddy Sawtooth NF Supervisor s Office 2647 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, ID (208) Responsible Official The responsible official is the Minidoka District Ranger. Based on the project record, the EA, and the above, I find that there are no significant impacts, and therefore an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. Loren Poppert Minidoka District Ranger Date Draft Decision Notice & FONSI - Rock Creek Healthy Forests Restoration Act Project p. 11