Rocky Mountain Regional Office

Transcription

1 Forest Service File Code: 1570 Route To: Rocky Mountain Regional Office 740 Simms Street Golden, CO Voice: TDD: Date: June 13, 2013 Subject: To: Recommendation Memorandum Letter for Appeal # for the Black Mesa Vegetation Management Project on the Divide Ranger District Dan Dallas, Appeal Deciding Officer As the designated Appeal Reviewing Officer, this is my recommendation on disposition of the appeal ( ) filed by Carson Forest Watch under regulations at 36 CFR 215. District Ranger Thomas Malecek signed the Record of Decision for the Black Mesa Vegetation Management Project on March 22, 2013, and a legal notice of the decision was published in the newspaper of record on April2, Pursuant to 36 CFR (b), this will constitute my written recommendation concerning disposition of the appeal. APPELLANT A timely appeal was received on April 18, 2013, from Carson Forest Watch. BACKGROUND The project is a vegetation management project that will allow commercial salvage of up to 7,360 acres; WUI fuel treatments on up to 389 acres; and hazard tree removal within 2.0 tree heights from at risk infrastructure as needed. The project was listed on the Forest Schedule ofproposed Actions in March 2011, and a scoping letter was mailed on April 11, The Draft EIS was available in April 2012, with public notice mailed on April 24, 20 12, and a legal notice published in the newspaper of record (Valley Courier) on April27, The comment period on the Draft EIS was 45 days. The Record ofdecision (ROD) was signed on March 22, 2013, and the appeal was dated April3, RELIEF REQUESTED Appellants request the following relief: 1. The Forest Service withdraw decision on the Black Mesa Vegetation Management Project 2. The Forest Service develop an alternative that addresses forest health concerns and protects nearby communities while protecting lynx, other species of concern, soils, and watershed resources adequately. USDA - It's Cool to Be Safe Printed on Recyded Paper 0

2 3. That a full analysis be done on a landscape level that really gives a close look at the cumulative effects of this huge salvage sale upon all forest resources and how it relates to the numerous other recent projects that have disturbed important habitat for rare species found nowhere else in the Region, and the Forest Service has a legal obligation to protect. APPEAL ISSUE la The appellant asserts that the decision to choose Alternative 2, as modified, would displace and threaten the persistence, use and viability of the Canada lynx and critical forest habitat for this species. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) fails to fully analyze the duration and scale of the project. The mitigation measures addressing lynx impacts are inadequate. Discussion: The following documents in the administrative record discuss the effects of the selected alternative upon the Canada lynx: Black Mesa Vegetation Management Project FEIS and Record ofdecision Biological Assessment, T& E Species for the Final EIS Wildlife Report and Effects of Alternatives for the Black Mesa Vegetation Management Project, FEIS Project Biological Opinion, US FWS Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment, Record ofdecision Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, project level consultation must be completed with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Canada lynx. These documents describe how the proposed alternative meets the Objectives and Standards of the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (SRLA, USDA Forest Service 2008). The projected effects are consistent with those in the programmatic biological consultation. These documents describe the direct, indirect and cumulative effects at both the landscape scale (SRLA ROD and Programmatic Biological Opinion, 2008) and project scale (Project Biological Opinion, 20 12). Approximately 1,022 acres of lynx habitat will become unsuitable in the short term within the project area (FEIS pages 3-21 and 3-22). The duration of the project is described in the Record of Decision (ROD) as "several years", meaning that the entire scope of the project will not occur in a single year. Alternative 2 was modified to conserve the highest quality lynx habitat within the project area based on field surveys conducted by the Wildlife Biologist and Biological Technicians on the Divide Ranger District (Gomez 2012,). As stated in the ROD for the Black Mesa Vegetation Management Project (page 6), "active forest management will occur in many stands planned for harvest under the Forest Plan, most of which have been previously harvested and have an existing haul road system along with old, non-system roads, skid trails and landings in place. I have dropped from harvest consideration all or parts of several units on the northeast and west Page 2 of6

3 sides of the analysis area which were identified as having good dense horizontal cover important to lynx and other wildlife and that will leave additional blocks of habitat undisturbed." These modifications will protect the highest quality lynx habitat in the project area from fragmentation and disturbance and conserve existing conifer regeneration. Numerous Project Design Criteria in the FEIS and ROD specific to reducing impacts to Canada lynx that were adopted. These are listed below: Project Design Criteria pertaining to the Canada lynx (FEIS pages 2-7 through 2-11): No north facing slopes will be salvage harvested to avoid possible lynx denning sites and optimum lynx habitat. Harvest activities will not occur between the timeframe of May 1 to July 1 to minimize disturbance to nesting boreal owls, lynx kittens and during elk calving and deer fawning periods unless otherwise consulted with the District Ranger and District Biologist. Effects to understory vegetation and dense horizontal cover will be minimized to benefit snowshoe hare and lynx by identifying skid trail locations away from dense understory and spacing skid trails at least 100 feet apart, allowing for topographic variation and skid trail convergence. Landings will be placed in open areas if available, to protect understory. Patches of trees with dense understory will be retained to increase preservation of intact habitat. Leave large woody debris (10-15 tons per acre in spruce-fir) on harvested sites to retain moisture, trap soil movement, provide microsites for establishment of forbs, grasses, shrubs and trees, and to provide habitat for wildlife. Winter logging is encouraged to limit direct disturbance to the fewest number of wildlife species as possible but will cease by May 1 at which time lynx kittens are being born. These are design criteria adopted by the District Ranger in the ROD to address concerns associated with the impacts to Canada lynx. Conclusion: Based upon my review of the project record, I have determined there was no violation of law, regulation, or policy, and recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue. APPEAL ISSUE lb The appellant asserts the decision will have significant negative impacts on Canada lynx, boreal owls, pine marten and other species of concern. These species are already in decline due to past Page 3 of6

4 projects, climate change, beetle effects and drought impacts on the spruce-fir ecosystem. The measures to reduce the impacts on these species, including mitigation measures, are inadequate. The appellant stated this is a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. Discussion: The appeal specifically identifies Canada lynx, boreal owls, and pine martens. "Other species of concern" is not a specific listing of species. However; the FEIS considered impacts to over 50 species, including one Threatened or Endangered species, eight sensitive species, five Management Indicator Species (MIS), 12 migratory bird species, and one bird species of concern (FEIS at pages 3-27 through 3-34). The appeal does not provide sufficient specificity to determine which mitigation measures are challenged. Project design criteria related to potential impacts on Canada lynx habitat are discussed in my response to appeal point 1A. The design criteria listed in the FEIS at page 2-7 through 2-11 total over 67, many of which are intended to reduce impacts to wildlife and all are incorporated into the ROD. The effectiveness of the design criteria is discussed in the FEIS at pages 2-8 and Relative to the Canada lynx, the analysis in the FEIS and the ROD recognize the impacts that may occur with respect to the Canada lynx. The exceptions and exemptions from the SRLA that serve as the basis for this ROD are consistent with the standards in the SRLA. Project impacts to the boreal owl and pine marten were identified and disclosed in the FEIS (page 3-27) and in the Wildlife Report and Effects of Alternatives found in the administrative record. Furthermore, the analysis did consider past projects and the current conditions of pine marten and boreal owl habitat resulting from these past actions (FEIS, pages 3-35 and 3-36). Climate change was considered in the FEIS at page NEP A applies to this project in that it requires that impacts of the project are analyzed, and that these impacts are disclosed to the public. NEP A does not require that the Forest Service avoid all impacts to all resources or species. The FEIS demonstrates the "hard look" that NEP A reqmres. Conclusion: Based upon my review of the project record, I have determined there was no violation of law, regulation, or policy, and recommend that the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue. APPEAL ISSUE 1 C The appellant asserts that the cumulative impacts of this project, combined with numerous nearby large-scale salvage projects, were not adequately addressed in the FEIS, and a meaningful analysis was not completed, which is a requirement ofnep A. Discussion: NEPA describes the cumulative impact as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or Page 4 of6

5 person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. For past actions, the FEIS lists past projects that affected the resource in question. The FEIS at page 3-6 discusses how past actions, including both human activities and natural forest succession and influences, created the existing forest conditions. The biological assessment (page 34) shows that the past actions of outfitters/guides and a timber project were considered and included in the LAU's environmental baseline. The 2010 Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation report shows that three past timber sales were monitored and stream protection best management practices were assessed, page 7. Specific to past salvage projects, the Forest Management section (FEIS page 3-12) lists past salvage sales within the analysis area and the effects those past activities had on forest conditions. Concerning effects of those past actions, each section of the FEIS considers that the past actions have affected existing conditions (examples at FEIS page 3-6, page 3-44, and page 3-62). Effects of the present salvage alternatives are specifically disclosed (examples at FEIS pages 3-20 to 3-21, pages 3-13 to 3-16, pages 3-10 to 3-11, and pages 3-64 to 3-67). The FEIS also lists the reasonably foreseeable activities, that when combined with the past and direct/indirect effects of this action, describe the cumulative effects. For example, cumulative effects to Lynx Analysis Units are discussed in the FEIS at page Cumulative effects for forest health are shown in the FEIS at page The watershed section (FEIS page 3-61) lists eight future actions with a narrative paragraph description of the cumulative effects. The soils section (FEIS pages 3-67 to 3-68) lists four future actions with a narrative paragraph description of the cumulative effects. The Cumulative Effects Summary for All Resources (FEIS page ) describes the possible condition of the landscape in the future. The ROD at page 7 shows that the District Ranger considered the cumulative effects. Conclusion: Based upon my review of the project record, I have determined that there was no violation of law, regulation, or policy, and I recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue. APPEAL ISSUE ld The appellant asserts the FEIS violates NEPA by not adequately disclosing the impacts, including the cumulative impacts, of heavy equipment and logging upon the watershed. Discussion: Direct impacts to watersheds considered, among other things, water yield, sediment delivery, area of total soil disturbance (FEIS pages 3-54 to 3-60). Sediment delivery and total soil disturbance are both measures of the impacts of heavy equipment and logging. Impacts to watersheds of concern were specifically disclosed for alternatives 2 and 3. Concerning cumulative effects on watersheds, past activities that have shaped the existing condition are considered on FEIS page Table 3-28, FEIS page 3-60 shows a summary the direct and indirect impacts, and table 3-29 discloses the potential effects from future activities. Page 5 of6

6 Pages 7, 8, and 9 of the ROD show that Ranger Malecek considered project design criteria from the FEIS in Chapter 2, and the project impacts upon the watershed. Conclusion: Based upon my review of the project record, I have determined there was no violation oflaw, regulation or policy. I recommend that the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue. RECOMMENDATION After review of all appeal points and the record, I recommend the Decision of the District Ranger be affirmed. If~ I I /, ',.., "~ ~ MATTJ Columbine District Ranger, San Juan National Forest Appeal Reviewing Officer Page 6 of6