Gilbert Zepeda, Deputy Forest Supervisor

Transcription

1

2 Forest Service Prescott National Forest 344 South Cortez Prescott, AZ Phone: (928) Fax: (928) TTY: (928) File Code: 1570/2710 Date: November 26, 2012 Route To: Subject: ARO, Appeal # A215, Taos Ski Valley Master Development Plan - Phase One Projects, Carson NF To: Gilbert Zepeda, Deputy Forest Supervisor This is my recommendation on the disposition of the appeal filed by Joanie Berde of Carson Forest Watch regarding the Record of Decision (ROD) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Taos Ski Valley s 2010 Master Development Plan Phase One Projects on the Questa Ranger District, Carson National Forest. BACKGROUND Implementation of the Selected Alternative (Alternative 2) amends Taos Ski Valley s Special Use Permit to authorize the following activities: Construction of two new lifts (Main Street and Ridge). Thinning in the Wild West (31.6 acres) and Minnesota Glades (40.3 acres). Replace Lifts 4 (Kachina), 5 (High Five), and 7 (Maxie s). Develop a Snowtubing Center on Strawberry Hill near Lift 3. Develop an Adventure Center for snowshoeing near the Little Maintenance Facility. Develop a lift-served Mountain Bike Trail between the top of Lift 1 and the base area. Create a new East Guest drop-off Area on Thunderbird Road. Reconfigure the eastern portion of Taos Ski Valley s day parking lots. Acting Forest Supervisor Diana Trujillo published the legal notice of her decision regarding Taos Ski Valley s 2010 Master Development Plan Phase One Projects on September 6, The Forest Supervisor is identified as the Responsible Official, whose decision is subject to administrative review under the 36 CFR 215 appeal regulations. Three appeals were filed as follows: Appeal # A215 filed by Joanie Berde on behalf of Carson Forest Watch on October 2, Appeal # A215 filed Patrick Grace on October 19, Appeal # A215 filed by Emily Sadow on October 19, Pursuant to 36 CFR , an attempt was made to seek informal resolution of the appeals. The record indicates that the Forest Supervisor was able to resolve the issues raised by Mr. Grace and America's Working Forests - Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper

3 Ms. Sadow and their appeals were subsequently dismissed. No resolution was reached with Ms. Berde. Review and Findings My review was conducted in accordance with 36 CFR to ensure that the analysis and decision are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and orders. The appeal record, including the appellant s issues and request for relief has been thoroughly reviewed. Although I may not have listed each specific issue, I have considered all the issues raised in the appeal and believe they are adequately addressed in the attached technical review and findings document. Having reviewed the EIS, ROD, and the project record file, as required by 36 CFR (b), I conclude the following: 1) The decision clearly describes the actions to be taken in sufficient detail that the reader can easily understand what will occur as a result of the decision. 2) The selected alternative should accomplish the purpose and need established. The purpose and need stated in the EIS reflect consistency with direction in the Forest Plan for the Carson National Forest. 3) The decision is consistent with policy, direction, and supporting evidence. The record contains documentation regarding resource conditions and the Responsible Official s decision documents are based on the record and reflect a reasonable conclusion. 4) The record reflects that the Responsible Official provided ample opportunity for public participation during the analysis and decision making process. The Responsible Official s efforts enabled interested publics the opportunity to comment and be involved in the sitespecific proposal. After considering the claims made by the appellant and reviewing the record, I found that the Responsible Official conducted a proper and public NEPA process that resulted in a decision that is consistent with the Carson National Forest Plan. I found no violations of law, regulations, or Forest Service policy. Recommendation I recommend that the Responsible Official s decisions relating to this appeal be affirmed with respect to all of the appellant s contentions. /s/ Betty A. Mathews BETTY A. MATHEWS Forest Supervisor cc: Margaret Van Gilder

4 Review and Findings Carson Forest Watch, Joanie Berde Appeal # A215 Taos Ski Valley s 2010 Master Development Plan Phase One Projects Questa Ranger District, Carson National Forest Service ISSUE 1: The Record of Decision (ROD) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Contention 1a: The appellant contends that the ROD and FEIS fail to adequately address the cumulative effects of past development at Taos Ski Valley and adjacent areas, combined with current and future projected uses of this part of the Carson National Forest. Specifically, the appellant asserts that Phase 1 of the Taos Ski Valley Master Development Plan combined with Phase 2 and Phase 3 will threaten the persistence of white-tailed ptarmigan, pine marten, boreal owl, and Canada lynx [Appeal, pp. 2-3]. Response: Effects to high-elevation sensitive wildlife, including ptarmigan, marten, boreal owl, and lynx (as well as pika and snowshoe hare) are analyzed in the Biological Evaluation (BE) [PR 83, pp , 31-41, 47-50]. Cumulative effects, including past development, are specifically discussed on pages , and the amount of habitat affected within the project area compared to the amount outside the project area, especially given the amount of habitat in wilderness reserves, is so small that the cumulative effects are negligible. The information in the BE, as well as a list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, is summarized in the EIS [PR 64, pp , , ; Appendix B, pp ]. Finding: Cumulative effects of the project were adequately considered in compliance with NEPA. Contention 1b: The appellant contends that the ROD and FEIS fail to address that accelerating climate change and warming temperatures already documented throughout the Rocky Mountains are causing a loss of habitat for several high elevation species such as white-tailed ptarmigan, boreal owl, pika, pine marten, Canada lynx, snowshoe hare, and other species. The appellant concludes that the cumulative effects analysis should have looked carefully at climate change impacts on these species [Appeal, pp. 3-4]. Response: Effects to wildlife are discussed in contention 1a, above. The appellant raised the issue of climate change and its effect to high-elevation species in their comments on the Draft EIS; these comments were addressed in the Final EIS [PR 94, p. 266]. In addition, the effect of the project on greenhouse gas emissions was considered in the EIS [PR 94, pp ] and the forest responded to numerous public concerns on climate change [PR 94, pp , 254, 266]. 1

5 Finding: The effects of climate change was adequately considered and disclosed in compliance with NEPA. ISSUE 2: The ROD and FEIS violate the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Contention: The appellant contends that the decision fails to insure viable populations of species in the project area [Appeal, pp. 4-5]. Response: Forest Service policy (Forest Service Manual 2670) requires that projects consider effects to listed and sensitive species. Effects to sensitive wildlife are analyzed in the Biological Evaluation (BE) [PR 83] and the Biological Assessment [PR 82]. The information in the BE is summarized in the EIS [PR 64, pp ]. Finding: The project complies with the Forest Service policy regarding listed and sensitive wildlife species. 2