DECISION MEMO SANTA CLARA DIVIDE ROAD HAZARD TREE REMOVAL PROJECT U.S. FOREST SERVICE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BACKGROUND

Transcription

1 DECISION MEMO SANTA CLARA DIVIDE ROAD HAZARD TREE REMOVAL PROJECT U.S. FOREST SERVICE ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST LOS ANGELES AND SANTA CLARA/MOJAVE RIVERS RANGER DISTRICT LOS ANGELES COUNTY BACKGROUND In the fall of 2009, the Station Fire burned approximately 160,000 acres of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel and Santa Clara/Mojave Ranger Districts. Portions of the fire impacted the mixed conifer stands along Forest System Roads 3N17, Santa Clara Divide Road, 3N32 Mendenhall Road, 4N24 Edison Road and two short campground access roads. The fire killed numerous trees along portions of the 3N17, 3N32, and 4N24 road system and within and adjacent to recreation sites in the area. Trees have also continued to die since the fire due to drought and other environmental stresses. Because of the hazard posed by falling trees, 3N17, 3N32, and 4N24 have been intermittently gated and closed since the Station Fire. This has prevented access to Messenger Flat, Lightning Point and Mount Pacifico campgrounds. There is a need to eliminate the known hazards to health and safety, in order to allow safe public and administrative access. Forest Service policies for recreation, roads, engineering, and forest health all identify the danger of falling trees, and place priority on the safety of road and facility users (Report #RO-12-01, Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region). There is a related need to avoid buildup of dead vegetation that may provide fuel for a future wildfire. Dead wood may increase intensity of a wildfire such that Road 3N17 may not provide safe emergency ingress and egress. PROPOSED ACTION The proposed project is to cut down and remove hazard trees within 200 feet from the edges of both sides of the road along approximately miles of forest system roads with 8.92 miles along FS 3N17 - Santa Clara Divide Road, 1.49 miles along FS 4N24 - Edison Road, 0.71 miles along FS 3N32 - Mendenhall Ridge Road, 0.27 miles along FS 3N23AO Deer Springs Spur, and 0.77 miles along FS 3N32BO Lightning Point Campground Road. Hazard trees within the Lightning Point and Messenger Flats Campgrounds will also be cut and removed. See attached map of the project area. Only dead and dying trees, defined using the Forest Service Region 5 Hazard Tree Guidelines, will be felled and removed. Approximately acres will be treated by cutting and removal of approximately 1,740 trees or roughly 3 trees per acre. To reduce fuel loading logs and other wood material will be moved to landings or wide areas along the roads large enough where merchantable material will be decked and later sold to wood Decision Memo Page 1 of 6

2 processing facilities. Any limbs or other wood material less than 6 inches in diameter and 10 feet in length will be chipped on site for mulch cover. Skid trails created to remove logs will be restored using water bars and spreading wood chips or slash to reduce potential erosion. No new roads will be constructed, and there are sufficient turnouts and other flat areas within 200 feet of the road corridors to serve as log landings. DECISION I have decided to implement the proposed action as described above within the project area shown on Attachment A attached and made part of this decision document. This action is categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA). The applicable category of actions is identified in agency procedures as Categorical Exclusion (4): Repair and maintenance of roads, trails, and landline boundaries. This category of action(s) is applicable because Forest Service Engineering policy states that Road maintenance includes removing danger trees that threaten the safe use of the transportation system. (Forest Service handbook , Section 41.6) I find that there are no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS. I took into account resource conditions identified in agency procedures that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances might exist: Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat It is my determination that implementation of the Project will not affect any federally listed plant or wildlife species or their critical habitat. For Forest Service Sensitive Species It is my determination the Project may affect individuals but is unlikely to result in a significant trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds There are no floodplains or wetlands within or adjacent to the project area. The project does occur within a municipal watershed as defined in Forest Service Manual : A watershed that serves a public water system as defined in the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 300f, et seq.). Only 1,240 feet of mapped intermittent drainages occur in the project area. None of these drainages contain any standing water. They are all at or near the upper reaches of the mapped drainages. Design features have been applied to protect water quality within municipal watersheds. Congressionally designated areas such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas There are no wilderness, wilderness study areas or national recreation areas within or adjacent to the project area. Inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas There are no inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas within or adjacent to the project area. Research natural areas There are no research natural areas within or adjacent to the project area. Decision Memo Page 2 of 6

3 American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites Scheduled meetings and correspondence with the Native American community on general Forest Issues and mutual concerns have not identified any American Indian or Alaska Native religious or cultural sites of concern within the project area. Native American individuals, groups and Tribes were also notified as part of the scoping process. Updates on the project will be included in future meetings between the Forest and interested members of the Native American community. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas Standard protection measures for known archaeological sites, historic properties, or areas will be implemented according to the resource protection measures outlined in Appendix E of the Programmatic Agreement Among the USFS Forest Service Region 5, Pacific Southwest Region, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the national Historic Preservation Act for Undertakings on the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (2013). Historic property boundaries will be delineated before project implementation and the felling of hazard trees within historic property boundaries will be done under the specific conditions as outlined in the Programmatic Agreement in Appendix E Section 2.2a and monitored by Heritage staff. By applying standard protection measures as outlined in the Programmatic Agreement, no adverse effects to historic properties are anticipated. In the event that new heritage resources are observed during project implementation, operations in the vicinity will cease immediately and the Heritage Program Manager will be contacted to recommend as appropriate course of action. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This action was originally listed as a proposal on the Angeles National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions, and posted to the Angeles projects website at /angeles/landmanagement/projects, on August 2, A description of the proposed action and maps of the project area were provided. A letter announcing the pending start of the official comment period was mailed to a list of 153 interested parties and individuals on December 19, This list included local recreational and environmental groups, individuals who have volunteered or regularly coordinate with District Offices, special use permit holders, elected federal, state and local representatives, and Native American interest groups. On December 21, 2013, a legal notice was published in the Los Angeles Times, announcing the start of an official 30 day comment period pursuant to 36 CFR 215, and in accordance with instructions from the Washington Office for implementing a 2012 court ruling. The website was updated with a copy of the legal notice and the scoping letter. A total of 10 comments were received. The Los Angeles County Fire and Sheriff s Departments, Sullivan Logging Company Inc., California Forestry Association, and a representative of State Senator Carol Liu s office indicated their support for the project or stated they had no concerns. One letter from Southern California Edison indicated that the project overlaps with areas they are currently authorized to use for powerline construction, and that there should be coordination on schedules, road use, and other activities that fall within their approved area. Decision Memo Page 3 of 6

4 The California Native Plant Society and two individuals expressed concerns for impacts to Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species: the Mt. Gleason Paintbrush (Castilleja gleasonii), San Gabriel linanthus, (Linanthus concinnus), and San Gabriel Mountains sunflower, Hulsia vestita subsp. Gabrielensis). I have adopted design features to flag and avoid known populations of Mt. Gleason Paintbrush (Castilleja gleasonii), Abrams flowery puncturebract (Acanthoscyphus parishi va. Abramsii), San Gabriel Manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa gabrielensis), Interior manaznita (Arctostaphylos parryana ssp. tumescens), and San Gabriel Mountain sunflower (Hulsea vestita spp. Gabrielensis), San Gabriel Linanthus (Linanthus concinnus) which are located across a narrow range with few known populations outside the project area. Where these species are flagged, hazard trees will be felled but not removed. The other species are more widespread, including populations outside the project area. Another concern was raised that the application of wood chips as a ground cover method to prevent erosion may suppress native plant growth. Application of ground cover is considered a Best Management Practice for protecting soil and watersheds in both Regional and Forest specific guidance. The specification will be for no more than a 2-inch depth of wood chips. The chips would likely be in place no more than two years due to wind and weather. No comments were received that indicated existence of any extraordinary circumstances that may have a significant impact on the human environment. I have considered all comments received. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS Endangered Species Act. A Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment was prepared, and concluded that the project would have no effect on any threatened or endangered species. There is no occupied or designated critical habitat within or adjacent to the project area. National Forest Management Act. This decision is consistent with the Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan (LMP). The project was designed to provide safe use of roads and campgrounds for the public. Safety is the highest priority in managing public recreation, and is critical to meeting LMP Goal 3.1 Provide for Public Use and Natural Resource Protection. Having these opportunities open and available to the public will also take use pressure off of more sensitive areas, another important part of the desired condition from the LMP. Removal of felled trees to limit the amount of ground fuel is also consistent with LMP Goal Reduce the potential for widespread loss of montane conifer forests caused by severe, extensive, stand replacing fires. The project also contributes to LMP Goal 1.1 to limit the loss of life and property, by maintaining safe evacuation routes for public or administrative users of the area. The project has incorporated and is compatible with land use zones, program strategies and tactics, and place based desired conditions from Part 2 of the LMP. LMP Standard S7 applies as the project is entirely within a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Defense Zone, which includes evacuation routes. Standard S8, which states that the community protection needs within the WUI Defense Zone take precedence over requirements of other forest plan direction, including other standards identified in the LMP, is also applicable. Decision Memo Page 4 of 6

5 Clean Air Act. The project is considered a routine maintenance activity of a road, and is therefore considered to be below the de minimus threshold (40 CFR c (2) iv). The project complies with Clean Air Act regulations for determining conformity of general federal actions to state or federal implementation plans (40 CFR Subpart B). Clean Water Act. The project has adopted design features for the protection of water quality, in accordance with Region 5 Forest Service Handbook , Chapter 10. This policy document is designed to ensure compliance with Federal and State water-quality objectives and legal requirements in the most efficient manner. No new roads, trails, or landings will be constructed. The project is in full compliance with the Clean Water Act. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The project requires survey and monitoring by a qualified biologist for activities occurring during the migratory bird nesting season. Where species of concern (including threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species) and other species identified by biologist as being in danger of population decline or habitat loss are confirmed to be nesting, protective buffers will be established to avoid disturbance to nesting birds. Some project activities may be postponed until after nesting season, or until young birds have successfully fledged. The project is consistent with a 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service intended to promote the conservation of migratory birds, as well as LMP, Part 3, Appendix H. National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of a project on any district site, building, structure, or object that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The requirements of Section 6 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 has ben met by following the stipulations and applying standard protection measures included in the Programmatic Agreement Among USFS Forest Service Region 5, Pacific Southwest Region, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Undertakings on the National Forest of the Pacific Southwest Region (2013). No National Register eligible or listed heritage resources will be affected by the project. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) OPPORTUNITIES This project is not subject to administrative review, or appeal. On January 17, 2014, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of Section 431 of that Act directs that legislation establishing the 36 CFR 215 (post-decisional appeals) shall not apply to any project or activity implementing a land and resource management plan that is categorically excluded.under the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]. On February 7, 2014, the President signed into law the Agricultural Act of Section 8006 of the 2014 Farm Bill repealed the Appeals Reform Act. The ARA s implementing regulation was 36 CFR 215. The 2014 Farm Bill also directs that the pre-decisional objection process established in the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2012 shall not be applicable to categorically excluded projects or activities. As a result of these two statutes, the Forest Service will no longer offer notice, comment and Decision Memo Page 5 of 6

6

7

8

9

10

11

12