Draft Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact For The Mammoth Lakes Basin Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project

Transcription

1 Draft Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact For The Mammoth Lakes Basin Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project USDA Forest Service Mammoth Ranger District, Inyo National Forest Mono County, California Introduction The Mammoth Lakes Basin (hereafter referred to as Lakes Basin) is a very high use recreation area.3 miles Southwest of Mammoth Lakes, CA in Mono County, on the Mammoth Ranger District of the Inyo National Forest. The project falls under the provisions of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), because it is within the WUI for Mammoth Lakes, and resides within condition class 3 lands in the municipal watershed of Mammoth Lakes. Numerous developed infrastructure features including: recreation residences, resorts, lodges, stores, trailheads, campgrounds, a pack station, and a water treatment facility are located within the Lakes Basin. The town of Mammoth Lakes has a tourism driven economy, and the Lakes Basin is a vital component of the local area functioning as a tourist destination as well as supplying all the surface water to the Town. Current forest conditions in the Lakes Basin are dense with continuous horizontal and vertical fuels profiles. Under sever fire weather conditions it is likely that forest in the Lakes Basin would burn as high severity stand replacing active crown fire resulting in loss of property, loss of hydrologic function, high tree mortality, and potentially loss of life. The purpose of the Mammoth Lakes Basin Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project is to reduce standing and surface fuel loads to reduce fire severity and create defensible space around developed infrastructure within the wildland-urban interface (WUI) in the Lakes Basin. Treatments are needed to preserve the economic, hydrologic, and ecological function of the Lakes Basin. High severity fire in the Lakes Basin would likely decrease tourism to the area, increase the risk of flooding, sedimentation, and reduce the Town s potable water supply, and result in high mortality rates of trees in the forest. In addition, it is likely property would be damaged or destroyed, and that human lives would be endangered. The environmental assessment (EA) documents the analysis of two alternatives to meet this need. Proposed Decision Based upon my review of the Mammoth Lakes Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project EA, it is my proposed decision to implement Alternative 2, (Proposed Action) which will reduce hazardous fuels on 661 acres within WUI in the Mammoth Lakes Basin. The project would include hand and mechanical thinning of standing and surface fuels of select trees up to 30 inches in diameter. Larger diameter trees may be sold commercially or to the public for fuelwood. Residual activity fuels created by treatments will be disposed of through chipping, piling and burning, and or removal from the project area. In general, treatments in and around developed infrastructure including: recreation residences, resorts, lodges, campgrounds, and pack stations will thin select trees less than 12 inches in diameter and less. Treatments

2 to areas outside the immediate vicinity of infrastructure and near roads will thin select trees less than 24 or 30 inches in diameter. Proposed treatment areas would be accessed via existing roads. No new roads would be constructed for this project. Decking areas and or landings may be created as long as they comply with resource protection measures. Bridges may also be constructed across Mammoth Creek near the Cold Springs Campground to facilitate fuels removal as long as they comply with resource protection measures. The proposed fuels reduction project would be expected to last three to five years, with initial work estimated to commence during the summer of Decision Rationale The proposed action will meet the stated purpose and need (EA pg. 6) of this project because it will: Reduce tree densities using a variable density thinning strategy Reduce surface fuel loads Decrease potential wildfire severity Create defensible space around egress routes, and infrastructure Promote large diameter, old growth forest structure which is generally more resilient to wildfire While considering the proposed alternatives, safety was the top priority, followed by protection of property, and maintenance of a functional watershed for the town of Mammoth Lakes. When the full suite of treatments is completed, surface fire will be less likely to transition into a crown fire, because canopy base heights will be higher, and surface fuel loads will be reduced. If a crown fire was to occur, the variable density thinning strategy would reduce the likelihood of it being an active crown fire due to gaps created between trees canopies. In general, wildfire severity should be lower due to the reduction in standing and surface fuel loads, and heterogeneous conditions. Defensive space around infrastructure will be created, and forests around egress routes will be thinned creating safer conditions for wildland firefighters and members of the public in the Lakes Basin in the event of a wildfire. Reduced risk of high severity wildfire also preserves hydrological function which will maintain the Town s potable water supply. Alternative 2 contains design features meant to: Protect sensitive plants and animals Prevent introduction or spread of invasive plants Protect cultural resources Protect soils and water quality Create greater landscape diversity Restore aspen and wet meadow habitat (EA pg ). The Lakes Basin Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the environmental analysis and conclusions upon which this decision is based and is hereby incorporated by reference. Other Alternatives Considered No Action Under the No Action Alternative, no fuels treatments would occur. Current dense stand conditions would be allowed to persist in the Lakes Basin and develop over time. Potential wildfires would continue to

3 burn in high severity under severe fire weather conditions resulting in loss of property, damage to the environment, economic loss to the town of Mammoth Lakes, and endangerment of people s lives. I did not select Alternative 1 (No Action) because it did not meet the purpose and need, as no fuels reduction work would occur, leaving public and private lands and infrastructure at high risk of a future catastrophic wildfire. Dense, continuous fuel loads would remain in WUI areas and would contribute to sustained risk of uncharacteristic wildfire impacts on recreation, water quality, wildlife habitat and visual aesthetics. Public Involvement and Scoping The action was initially listed as a proposal on the Inyo Nation Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions since September of 2016 and updated periodically throughout the analysis. Five Eastern Sierra tribes were consulted in September of Public scoping was initiated in late September 2016 with 128 letters sent out to recreation residences, permittees, and other interested parties. A news release regarding the project proposal was published in the Inyo Register on September 27, 2016 and broadcasts were made on the local Sierra Wave radio station. Three public meetings were conducted including one at the Mammoth Ranger Station on October 14, 2016, at the Mammoth Lakes Fire Safe Council at their October meeting, and to the Kutzadika Indian Community in Lee Vining in November of The EA lists agencies and people consulted (EA pg. 54, 55). In response to scoping, comments were received from 18 individuals, agencies, organizations, or permittees. On February 28, 2017 comments were received from two other interested parties. While this was outside the comment period, it was decided to allow the comments and give rights for objection to these two parties because scoping letters had not been sent to them. A number of comments expressed support for the project, but some concerns were brought up. A few common themes included: concern over the intensity of thinning and the diameter cap (30 inch diameter at breast height (DBH)), increases in avalanche risk following thinning, impacts to aesthetics around recreation residences, and the desire for public fuelwood cutting. Three issues were identified and carried forward for analysis from concerns expressed during scoping. In response to these issues, additional design features were incorporated including: reducing the diameter cap in areas in and around developed infrastructure, adopting a variable density thin strategy, and retaining strategic screening areas for avalanche and aesthetic concerns (EA pg , 24-33). Finding of No Significant Impact Significance of environmental impacts must be considered in terms of context and intensity. This means the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human and national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. In the case of a site-specific action, significance usually depends upon effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Intensity refers to severity or degree of impact. (40 CFR ) I have determined this project is not a major Federal action which would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, therefore an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. This determination was made considering the following factors which are summarized from the EA. (1) Beneficial and adverse impacts Mitigations and management requirements designed to reduce the potential for adverse impacts were incorporated into the proposed action as design features (i.e. standards and guidelines outlined in the Inyo National Forest LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1988), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest

4 Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004). These design features would minimize or eliminate potential adverse impacts caused by fuels reduction treatments. All analyses prepared in support of this document considered both beneficial and adverse effects, but all effects determinations were made on the basis of only adverse effects. None of the potential adverse effects for the proposed action would be significant, even when considered separately from beneficial effects which occur in conjunction with those adverse effects (EA pgs ). (2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. Proposed fuels reduction treatments are designed to decrease the intensity of future wildland fires and the risk of crown fire in treated areas. These types of fuels reduction treatments have been documented as effective in decreasing severity of wildfires and modifying fire behavior so that crown fires were not sustained within treated areas during actual wildland fires (EA pgs ). Thus, there would be improved public and firefighter safety, as the treatments are intended to slow the rate of fire spread, reduce fire intensity and modify fire behavior so that crown fire would not be sustained in treated areas. This would increase the chances that fire suppression forces could safely and effectively control wildfire. Smoke and air quality effects have been minimized using design features to ensure dissipation and transport of the smoke away from populated areas, and by design of the burning to comply with GBUAPCD guidelines for daily PM10 emissions.\ (3) Unique Characteristics of the geographic area. There are no parklands, prime farmlands, or wild and scenic rivers within the project area. Two-hundred sixty-three acres of the project area has been designated as critical habitat for Yosemite toad. The proposed action was reviewed by the USFW which concluded that it was unlikely that actions would adversely impact the Yosemite toad if BMPs and S&Gs were followed (EA pgs ). Fuelbreak construction is proposed for 54 acres within the San Joaquin Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). Fuels treatments in the IRA will be conducted by hand crews felling trees <12 inches diameter at breast height (DBH), and no road construction will occur in the IRA. Proposed action in the IRA was reviewed by the Regional Office and approval was granted by the Regional Forester (EA pgs ). A total of 51 cultural resources have been identified within the geographic area of the project. The unique characteristics of these resources will be protected by the application of Standard Protection Measures as outlined in the NHPA Section 106 consultation report (Blythe 2017). (4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The proposed project follows the management direction in the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1988), as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004). Potential adverse effects have been minimized to the point where there are few effects to draw controversy however, public involvement efforts revealed one controversy regarding fuels reduction intensity and potential fire severity, which was discussed in depth under issue 3 (EA pgs ). Based on the analysis of effects by an Interdisciplinary Team of Forest Service employees, there are no significant effects expected to the quality of the human environment from implementing the proposed cation alternative. (5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. Local expertise in implementation of these types of projects minimizes the chance of highly uncertain effects or effects which involve unique or unknown risks. Proposed activities are routine in nature, employing standard practices and protection measures, and their effects are generally well known

5 The proposed tree removal activities are similar to recent decisions rendered on the Inyo National Forest for other vegetation management projects (June Loop Hazardous Fuels Reduction 2011, Sherwin-Scenic Loop Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project 2013, June Mountain Vegetation Management Plan 2012). In all areas where tree removal and slash burning have been completed for fuels reduction, conditions for tree growth and development, and resilience to wildland fire and insects/diseases are improved. This is consistent with the desired condition described in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004). (6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future action with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration The Lakes Basin Hazardous Fuels Reduction project represents a site-specific project that does not set precedence for future decisions with significant effects or present a decision in principle about future considerations. Any future decisions would require a site-specific analysis to consider all relevant scientific and site-specific information available at that time. These activities are in accordance with the best available science to manage fuels and fire behavior at this time. These types of fuels reduction treatments have been documented as effective in decreasing severity of wildfires and modifying fire behavior so that crown fires were not sustained within treated areas during actual wildland fires (7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. A cumulative effect is the consequence on the environment that results from the incremental effect of the action when added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other actions and regardless of land ownership on which the actions occur. A cumulative effects analysis was completed for each resource area. The resource specialists found there would be no potential for significant adverse cumulative effects with proposed activities for all action alternatives (EA pgs ). (8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources It was determined there would be no effect to cultural resources from implementing this project, and the proposed action does not adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (EA pgs ). (9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of The Yosemite toad, which is currently listed as a threatened species, is present in a wet meadow adjacent to the project area, and 263 acres of the project area has been designated critical habitat. Consultation with USFW (EA pgs ) resulted in a determination of not likely to adversely affect as long as BMPs and S&Gs were followed. No other threatened or endangered species are found in the Lakes Basin. (10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The proposed action would not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The proposed action is consistent with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act

6 (NFMA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Native American Indian Religious Freedom Act. The proposed action is also consistent with the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1988), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2001; USDA Forest Service 2004). Conclusion After considering the environmental effects described in the EA and specialist reports, I have determined that Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) will not have significant effects 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. Predecisional Objection Process The proposed project is subject to the objection process pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218 subpart A. It is not subject to appeal procedures under 36 CFR Part 214. This proposed decision is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subparts A, and C. Objections will only be accepted from those who submitted project-specific written comments during scoping or other designated comment period 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 the designated opportunity to comment. Objections must be submitted within 30 days following the publication of this legal notice in the Inyo Register. The date of this legal notice is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframes provided by any other source. It is the objector s responsibility to ensure evidence of timely receipt (36 CFR 218.9). Written objections must be submitted to: Chris Fischer, Acting Forest Supervisor, 351 Pacu Lane, Suite 200, Bishop, CA 93514, or via facsimile at The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered objections are: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic objections, in common (.doc,.pdf,.rtf,.txt) formats, may be submitted to: objections-pacificsouthwest-inyo@fs.fed.us with Subject: Mammoth Lakes Basin Objection. Objections must include (36 CFR 218.8(d)): 1) name, address and telephone; 2) signature or other verification of authorship; 3) identify a single lead objector when multiple names are listed on an objection; 4) project name, Responsible Official name and title, and name of affected National Forest(s) and/or Ranger District(s); 5) Sufficient narrative description of those aspects of the proposed project objected to, specific issues related to the project, how environmental law, regulation, or policy would be violated, and suggested remedies which would resolve the objection; and, 6) description of the connection between your objections and your prior comments. Incorporate documents by reference only as provided for at 36 CFR 218.8(b). Implementation Date Implementation of the project could occur as early as July, Fuels reduction treatments will be implemented by the Forest Service upon completion of required surveys for cultural, biological, and water resources as described in the EA for Alternative 2. The responsible official may not sign the Decision Notice (DN) until; the reviewing officer has responded to all objections (36 CFR (a)). If no objection is filed, approval of the project (i.e., the signing of the DN) may not occur until the 5 th business day following the close of the objection filing period (36 CFR (c)).

7 Contact For additional information concerning this decision, contact Eric Vane, Project Planner Mammoth Ranger District P.O Box Hwy 203 Mammoth Lakes, CA Or Phone (760) NO SIGNATURE - DRAFT MARGIE B. DEROSE Acting District Ranger