DECISION DECISION RATIONALE

Transcription

1 DRAFT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT COASTAL CAROLINA RUNWAY 4 OBSTRUCTION REMOVAL U.S. FOREST SERVICE CROATAN NATIONAL FOREST CRAVEN COUNTY, NC DECISION Based upon my review of the 2017 Coastal Carolina Regional Airport Runway 4 Obstruction Removal Environmental Assessment (EA), I have decided to implement Alternative 5, which manages the harvest of merchantable timber in upland areas of the approach to Runway 4 of the Coastal Carolina Airport on national forest system lands of the Croatan National Forest (NF). The selected alternative includes the following treatments: Clearcut with reserves treatment on 111 acres of loblolly and upland pine sites; Selective cutting of obstruction trees on 7.7 acres of isolated upland pine stands; Selective cutting of individual obstruction trees in 96.3 acres of forested wetlands; Improvement of 0.4 miles of existing abandoned roadbed. In wetland areas, obstruction trees and trees that are currently within ten feet of the approach surface will be selectively cleared utilizing Best Management Practices and low-impact techniques, such as hand cutting and the use of low ground pressure equipment. Alternative 5 also includes the use of herbicides for the treatment of non-native invasive plants. Herbicides will be directly applied to target plants using spot treatment at the lowest effective rate. The selected alternative allows for the renewal of the Special Use Permit (SUP) with the Coastal Carolina Airport for maintenance of the approach area for the next 20 years. DECISION RATIONALE In 1968, the City of New Bern and Craven County obtained a Special Use Permit from the U.S. Forest Service for management of land located within the Croatan NF. The most recent permit renewal, covering 187 acres, was executed on January 20, 1993, and expired on December 31, A decision to issue a new SUP is needed to ensure continued public safety of the Coastal Carolina Regional Airport (Airport) by protecting the airspace surfaces for Runway 4-22 from obstructions in accordance with FAA guidelines and the Forest Plan. This proposed action is needed to protect public safety and health and preserve the precision instrument approach to Runway Present, existing, and potential future tree obstructions within the approach surface interfere with the safe operation of commercial and general aviation aircraft. These obstruction trees violate FAA safety regulations, including FAA Advisory Page 1 of 10

2 Circular 150/ A, Airport Design (AC 150/ A and 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Object Affecting Navigable Airspace (14 CFR Part 77). Four alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis because they would result in unacceptable adverse economic impacts or would not be in compliance with federal laws. Three of these alternatives considered using alternate runway paths, one of which considered an alternative airport. These alternatives would result in unacceptable adverse economic impacts to the local community through either reduced operations at the Airport, the closure of the existing Airport, or significant off-airport infrastructure impacts. Two alternatives were considered in detail as part of the 2017 EA. Alternatives 5 and 6 both propose cutting of obstruction trees within the approach path to Runway 4. Under Alternative 6, all existing obstruction trees would be cut and left on site. This alternative was considered in response to concerns raised about the extent of tree clearing in the project study area and the impacts to scenery and wildlife habitat, particularly the effects to the Red-cockaded woodpecker. The extent of tree cutting that would be necessary to eliminate all obstruction trees would result in effects similar to those from a clearcut with reserves operation (Alternative 5). Alternative 6 would result in high fuel loads in the project area as a result of cut trees being left on site. I have selected Alternative 5 because it best meets the purpose and need for improved safety at the Airport and is consistent with Croatan NF Land and Resource Management Plan Standard to Respond first to special use applications relating to public safety, health, and welfare. The project area has consistently been managed under a special use permit with Craven County for the safe operation of the Airport for nearly fifty years. The safe approach of airplanes into the Coastal Carolina Airport is of critical importance and maintaining a clear approach path on Forest Service lands is needed for reissuance of the special use permit. The decision to allow tree removal is also consistent with Goal of the Forest Plan to Manage special uses of Croatan NF land in a manner that protects natural resource values and public health and safety, while meeting land resource management objectives. This project area is within three prescription areas as identified in the Croatan Forest Plan. Approximately 76 percent of the project area is within the management prescription for River Corridors Eligible for Wild and Scenic River Status, 11 percent is within Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Habitat Management, and 14 percent is within Hardwood Cypress Wetland Management. Management of vegetation within the project area will be primarily to meet FAA safety regulations. Tree removal within the corridor of the eligible wild and scenic river will be mitigated to retain the outstandingly remarkable values associated with the eligibility of the river. Within the Hardwood Cypress Wetland and RCW Habitat areas, clearing will be focused on removal of only obstruction trees that interfere with the approach path. Supplemental underplanting of site appropriate native vegetation will be used where natural regeneration is not adequate. To mitigate impacts to scenery along Brice Creek, low growing vegetation shall be retained along the bank of the river to screen views of the clearing as seen from the river. A 50-foot buffer of no clearing will be applied along the bank of Brice Creek in which only trees that are within five to ten feet of the obstruction zone will be selectively removed. Additionally, there will be a 100 foot buffer zone along Brice Creek in which no timbering equipment, staging areas or temporary access trails would be located. Page 2 of 10

3 A project-specific Forest Plan amendment is included in this decision which allows for the removal of obstruction trees within the approach path to Runway 4 in order to meet FAA safety regulations and provide for public safety. The project specific amendment replaces standards , , and with the following standards: Allow no tree removal in river segments classified as wild. Allow tree removal in river segments classified as scenic or recreational only where proposed actions do not adversely affect outstandingly remarkable values, or as necessary for public safety in the area adjacent to Brice Creek and within the Special Use Permit area for the Coastal Carolina Airport Maintain supracanopy trees within 300 feet of lakes and rivers. In the area adjacent to Brice Creek and within the Special Use Permit area for the Coastal Carolina Airport, supracanopy trees may be removed when they pose a safety hazard as defined by Federal Aviation Administration safety regulations Meet the scenic integrity objectives for the scenic classes within each management prescription according to scenic integrity objectives table (Table 4.3a), with the exception of the area adjacent to Brice Creek and within the Coastal Carolina Airport Special Use Permit area. The area adjacent to Brice Creek and within the Coastal Carolina Airport Special Use Permit area will be maintained to an SIO of Low to Moderate to allow tree cutting for public safety, health, and welfare. The Coastal Carolina Runway 4 EA documents the environmental analysis and conclusions upon which this decision is based. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This action was originally listed as a proposal on the National Forests in NC Schedule of Proposed Actions in 2013 and updated periodically during the analysis. The public was invited to review and comment on the project through scoping of the proposed action which occurred in October, The EA was shared with the public and posted on the National Forests in NC project webpage in March 2016, and a legal notice for a 30-day comment period was published in the New Bern Sun Journal. In August 2016 a draft decision was released, initiating the 45-day objection period. One objection to the project was received and the 2016 draft decision was withdrawn. In response to the objection, the EA was updated and shared with the public for a 30- day comment period in May The EA lists agencies and people that were consulted on pages 5-2, 6-1, and 6-2. Public comments on the environmental assessment expressed concern over consistency with the Forest Plan and loss of high quality habitat and native biological diversity. The Croatan Forest Plan includes goals to maintain biological diversity as well as for regulating special uses. Goals for maintaining biodiversity include recovery of red-cockaded woodpecker, protection of special interest areas, recovery of rare species and communities, and restoration of old growth. I recognize that issuance of a special use in this area precludes the area from being actively managed for RCW habitat in the future; however, the special use is not inconsistent with how the area has been managed for the last 40+ years to provide a safe approach path to the Airport. Page 3 of 10

4 Additionally, special uses will be managed in a manner that protects natural resource values and public health and safety, while meeting land and resource management objectives. The primary purpose and need for this project is to improve safety in the Runway 4 approach path to the Coastal Carolina Airport. Cutting of obstruction trees within the eligible Wild and Scenic River Corridor, the Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management Area, and the Hardwood Cypress Wetland Management is allowed in order to meet public health and safety goals, and is consistent with the goal for regulating special uses. While there will be some loss of habitat and cutting of older-aged trees the area will be managed to promote native regeneration and a diverse understory that will provide habitat for a diversity of wildlife species. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR ). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my findings on the following: CONTEXT For the proposed action and alternatives, the context of the environmental effects is based on the analysis of the biological, physical, and social conditions as presented in the EA. Land use in the vicinity of the Airport is comprised of commercial development to the north and northeast along U.S. Route 70, with residential development to the west and north along Brice Creek and the Trent and Neuse Rivers. Craven County s Creekside Park sports complex is located to the east along with residential subdivisions. The Croatan NF is southwest of the Airport, adjacent to Brice Creek. INTENSITY Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project record. The effects of this project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to concerns and issues raised by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR (b). 1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered (EA, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences). Consideration of the intensity of environmental effects is not biased by beneficial effects of the action. 2. This project will result in actions that increase public safety at the Coastal Carolina Regional Airport by clearing the approach path for aircraft utilizing Runway 4 of the Airport. There will be no significant effects on public health and safety from implementing this project. Page 4 of 10

5 3. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area, because there are no park lands, prime farmlands, designated wild and scenic rivers or ecologically critical areas in the project area. Tree removal along Brice Creek, which is an eligible wild and scenic river, will not impact the eligibility of the river. The airport and runway clearing were in existence and taken into consideration when the river was first considered for eligibility, therefore, currently proposed actions would not create a notable change in scenic or recreational conditions from those occurring at that time. Eligibility of the river would not be compromised by this action. 4. Jurisdictional wetlands are located within the project area; however, impacts to wetlands would be avoided when possible and minimized through the use of low-impact clearing techniques. Temporary wetland crossings would be removed immediately after completion of tree removal and the areas would be restored to normal wetland function. No National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed, or NRHP- eligible properties would be impacted by the proposed action. 5. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial because there is no scientific controversy over the impacts of the project. Chapter 4 of the EA provides the scientific and analytical basis for the determination of effects to the physical, biological and social environment. The Agency has considerable experience with actions like the one proposed. The analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. 6. The National Forests in North Carolina has considerable experience with the types of activities to be implemented. The issuance of the Special Use Permit would allow for management of the area that has been ongoing as part of the previous Special Use Permit with Craven County. The effects analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. 7. The actions in this decision are not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects and do not represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. Future decisions will require review under the National Environmental Policy Act including public notification. 8. There are no significant adverse cumulative effects between this project and other past, present and reasonable foreseeable actions (see EA Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, pages 4-38 to 4-60). 9. The action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, because none were located in the project area. Phase I archaeological surveys of the Area of Potential Effect for the Proposed Action were conducted and resulted in identification of 12 sites, all of which were recommended Not Eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (Appendix D). In letters dated February 23, 2012, and December 5, 2013, the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with the results of the archaeological surveys (Appendix D). Page 5 of 10

6 10. The February 2016 Biological Assessment concluded that: a) Due to the presence of suitable habitat, this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect sensitive joint-vetch. The species was searched for in the project area during the botanical field review but no individuals were noted in the potentially suitable habitat. No suitable habitat or occurrences of rough-leaved loosestrife or the leatherback sea turtle were identified during field surveys, therefore, this project will have no effect on these species. b) Habitat for the West Indian manatee is present within the project area; however, no manatees were located during field surveys for this project. The presence of manatees within the project area waters during the proposed work is low, but cannot be completely discounted. For that reason the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the West Indian manatee. c) No red-cockaded woodpeckers were observed during survey for this project and the foraging habitat that would be impacted by this project is greater than a half mile from the nearest known cluster of woodpeckers. Therefore, this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker. d) The Key to the Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule for Federal Actions that May Affect Northern Long-Eared Bats results in the determination of an Incidental Take for the Northern Long-Eared Bat. Therefore, this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat. e) The removal of trees in the vicinity of Brice Creek could temporarily displace individual alligators but this impact would be temporary and minimal. The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect American alligators. The American alligator is currently listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the American crocodile, which is restricted to extreme southern Florida and the Caribbean. f) This project may disturb nesting bald eagles, which is a federally protected species under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. An active bald eagle nest was located within the study area during field surveys that were conducted in 2009; however bald eagles have not been formally documented in this area since If eagles are seen to be nesting in the project area again, a bald eagle take permit will be requested from the US Fish and Wildlife Service prior to project implementation. Suitable habitat for the bald eagle exists in areas adjacent to the project study area. 11. The action will not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment, including the Coastal Area Management Act. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA (see EA pages 3-6 to 3-8). With the project-specific plan amendment associated with this action, this project is consistent with the 2002 Croatan NF Land and Resource Management Plan. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS This decision, with its accompanying project-specific plan amendment, is consistent with the Croatan NF Forest Plan. The project was designed in conformance with the land management Page 6 of 10

7 plan direction for special uses; and responds first to those special use applications relating to public safety, health, and welfare (Standard ). A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and EA were considered. I determined these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared. This decision is consistent with FAA Safety Regulations and runway clearance requirements for a safe approach path to Runway 4. National Forest Management Act This project includes a project-specific amendment to the Croatan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The amendment was prepared following the 2012 planning rule (36 CFR 219) procedures. An amendment to the 36 CFR 219 procedures and requirements for plan amendments was published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 241, pp ) and are incorporated here. Although the current forest plan was revised under an earlier planning rule, it must comply with the procedural provisions of the 2012 planning rule and meet the directly related substantive requirements in 36 CFR The procedural provisions for amending a land management plan were followed, including: using the best available scientific information to inform the planning process ( 219.3), providing opportunities for public participation ( 219.4), using the applicable format for plan components ( 219.7(e)), the plan amendment process ( ), preparing a decision document ( ), giving public notice ( ), and providing an objection opportunity (subpart B). The 2012 planning rule requires documentation of how the best available scientific information was identified, the basis for that determination and how it was applied to the issues considered (36 CFR 219.3). For this project, there is a need to allow for limited exceptions to the existing plan standards in order to meet FAA safety regulations. These safety requirements include FAA Advisory Circular 150/ A, Airport Design and 14 CFR Part 77, Object Affecting Navigable Airspace. This project-specific forest plan amendment allows for removal of obstruction trees consistent with FAA regulations. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook of Scenery Management was used to determine the appropriate scenic integrity objectives in the area adjacent to an eligible wild and scenic river. This decision includes a determination of whether the proposed amendment is directly related to the substantive requirements (36 CFR through ) of the Forest Service s planning regulation. The substantive requirements address sustainability, diversity of plant and animal communities, multiple use, and timber requirements. A forest plan amendment is directly related to a substantive requirement if it has one or more of the following relationships to a substantive requirement: the purpose of the amendment, there would be a beneficial effect of the amendment, there would be a substantial adverse effect of the amendment, or there would be a substantial lessening of plan protections by the amendment. The recent amendment of the planning rule provides that if a proposed amendment is determined to be directly related to a substantive rule requirement, the responsible official must apply that requirement within the scope and scale of the proposed amendment and, if necessary, make adjustments to the proposed amendment to meet the requirement (36 CFR (b)(5) and (6); 81 FR (Dec. 15, 2016). I have reviewed the scope and scale of this amendment, and identified that the following 36 CFR through requirements are relevant to this project-specific amendment: Page 7 of 10

8 219.8(a)(3) riparian areas, 219.9(b) ecological conditions for at-risk species, 219.8(b)(2)/219.10(b)(1)(i) scenic character, (b)(1)(v) eligible wild and scenic rivers, and (c) timber management (a)(3) Riparian areas The proposed amendment will allow supracanopy trees within 300 feet of rivers to be removed within the Special Use Permit area for the Coastal Carolina Airport when they pose a safety hazard. This action will impact approximately 37 acres of riparian buffer zone. Mitigations in the riparian area includes keeping equipment at least 100 feet away from Brice Creek and maintaining low growing vegetation that has not reached obstruction heights. Since these activities will not have a substantial adverse effect or will not substantially lessen the protections on the riparian resource, the requirement in 36 CFR 219.8(a)(3) is not directly related to this amendment and this provision need not be applied (b) Ecological conditions for at-risk species The proposed amendment will allow for the cutting and removal of all obstruction trees within the Coastal Carolina Airport Special Use Permit Area, including the area adjacent to Brice Creek eligible Wild and Scenic River. This action will impact available habitat for the bald eagle and a permit will be obtained for the removal of the nest tree. There will be no effects of the amendment on other rare species. Since these activities will not have a substantial adverse effect or will not substantially lessen the protections for the at-risk species found in the special use permit area, the requirements in 36 CFR 219.9(b) are not directly related to this amendment and these provisions need not be applied (b)(2)/219.10(b)(1)(i) Scenic character The proposed amendment will allow for the scenic integrity objectives (SIO) within the Coastal Carolina Airport Special Use Permit Area to be maintained at a Low to Moderate SIO. This action will result in cleared areas adjacent to Brice Creek, interspersed with low growing vegetation that will be retained to mitigate impacts to scenery. Additional mitigation includes prohibiting heavy equipment within 100 feet of Brice Creek. By implementing these mitigation measures to address the scenic resource, the requirements in 219.8(b)(2) and (b)(1)(i) to provide for the scenic character of the area will be met and a determination as to whether or not these rule requirements are directly related to this amendment does not need to be made (b)(v) Eligible wild and scenic rivers The proposed amendment will allow for tree removal in river segments classified as scenic or recreational when necessary for public safety in the area adjacent to Brice Creek and within the Coastal Carolina Airport Special Use Permit Area. While there will be direct effects of the proposed amendment on scenery within the Brice Creek eligible WSR, these effects will be short-term in duration and will not affect the recreational use of the river, nor will they affect Brice Creek s outstandingly remarkable values that made it eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation. Since the requirement in (b)(v) is Page 8 of 10

9 to protect the values of rivers that provide the basis for their eligibility, this requirement is being met and a determination as to whether or not this rule requirement is directly related to this amendment does not need to be made (c) Timber harvesting for purposes other than timber production The 2002 Forest Plan identified the River Corridor for Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers and the Hardwood Cypress wetlands as not suitable for timber production. This amendment allows for tree cutting within the Eligible Wild and Scenic River Corridor and the Hardwood Cypress Wetlands solely in response to the need for meeting safety requirements of the FAA. The planning rule requirement at 36 CFR (c) states that timber harvesting on lands identified as not suitable for timber production can be allowed for salvage, sanitation, or public health or safety. Since this requirement is being met, a determination as to whether or not this rule requirement is directly related to this amendment does not need to be made and no further adjustments to this amendment are needed. OBJECTION OPPORTUNITIES This project is subject to the pre-decisional objection pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 218 Subparts A and B. The opportunity to object ends 45 days following the date of publication of the legal notice in The Asheville Citizen Times. The publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection, and those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by another other source. Objections will be accepted only from those who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project during scoping or other designated opportunity for public comment. 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 comment opportunities 218.8(c). The objection must contain the minimum content requirements specified in 218.8(d) and incorporation of documents by reference is permitted only as provided in 218.8(b). It is the objector s responsibility to ensure timely filing of a written objection with the reviewing officer. All objections are available for public inspection during and after the objection process. Written objections, including attachments, must be filed with: Reviewing Officer Ken Arney, Acting Regional Forester, 1720 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30309, (voice), (fax). The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered objections are: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic objections must be submitted in a format such as an message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc,.docx) to objections-southern-regional-office@fs.fed.us. Please state Coastal Carolina Runway 4 Project in the subject line when providing electronic objections, or on the envelope when replying by mail. For further information on this decision, contact Heather Luczak, Project Lead, at Page 9 of 10

10 IMPLEMENTATION DATE As per 36 CFR , if no objection is received within the legal objection period, this decision may be signed and implemented on, but not before, the fifth business day following the close of the objection-filing period. If an objection is filed, this decision cannot be signed or implemented until the reviewing officer has responded in writing to all pending objections. CONTACT For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Heather Luczak, Project Leader, at (828) or Hurston A. Nicholas Forest Supervisor Date The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Page 10 of 10