Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape. Restoration Project

Transcription

1 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Introduction USDA Forest Service Tres Piedras Ranger District Carson National Forest Rio Arriba County, New Mexico The Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Restoration project area is approximately 160,000 acres within the Tres Piedras Ranger District of the Carson National Forest in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. The project consists of uneven-aged thinning treatments in conjunction with prescribed burning on up to 47,000 acres and prescribed burning only treatments on up to 13,000 acres for a total treatment area of up to 60,000 acres within the larger 160,000-acre project area. Approximately 20 percent of forested acres would be allocated for old growth characteristics. Additionally, the Carson National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) would be amended with a project-specific amendment to bring Forest Plan direction into alignment with the latest Mexican spotted owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012) and to add clarifying language for management guidance for the northern goshawk. Accordingly, this document presents two separate decisions, a decision regarding the landscape restoration project and a decision regarding the project-specific amendment. Refer to the Project-Specific Amendment section of this document for details regarding the project-specific amendment. The project area is located within the central portion of the District, and includes approximately 41 percent of the total District area. The project area is bounded on the east and west by the boundaries of the District. The northern and southern boundaries of the project area correspond to watershed boundaries. Refer to the Modified Proposed Action Map for a depiction of the location and boundaries of the project area. The Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape has been identified as a priority landscape for the Carson National Forest. The landscape, which includes ponderosa pine, mixed-conifer, spruce/fir, piñon/juniper, and aspen woodlands is the focal point of the District because of overstocked forest conditions. In 2013, a collaborative group was formed which proposed the development of a three-year, multi-jurisdictional, multi-partner planning process to assess and prioritize ecological needs within the Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape. The proposed Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Restoration project was submitted for consideration and was granted funding for the environmental analysis through the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program (CFRP) as a frequent-fire restoration project. The CFRP is a program specifically created for the State of New Mexico in 2000 through the Community Forest Restoration Act (Title VI Public Law ) Page 1 of 55

2 which provides funding for planning and implementation projects to occur on public lands through federal grant funding. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared and documents the environmental analysis conducted for the project, including the project-specific amendment. The EA completed for this project is incorporated by reference into this Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact document. The EA can be viewed at the Tres Piedras Ranger District office or online at: Purpose and Need The purpose and need for the modified proposed action has been determined by comparing the desired conditions to the existing conditions. Desired conditions for the proposed project are derived principally from guidelines relating to forest health, function, and resiliency as outlined in the Carson Forest Plan and Restoring composition and structure in southwestern frequent-fire forests: A science-based framework for improving ecosystem resiliency (Reynolds et al. 2013; USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report 310 [GTR- 310]). The GTR-310 report was selected as a key guiding document for desired conditions, as it represents the best currently available science regarding frequent-fire forest structure in the southwestern United States. Currently, frequent-fire forest types within the proposed project area have departed from historic structures and processes which promoted a healthy, resilient forest condition. These conditions are further described in the Desired Condition Compared to Existing Condition section of the EA. Generally, the project purpose is to restore the Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio frequent-fire associated landscape in order to increase forest ecosystem sustainability and resiliency to natural disturbances such as drought and climatic variability, insects, disease, fire and wind. Specifically, this project focuses on forest restoration which includes: Reducing stand densities and reintroducing fire on the landscape Revitalizing meadows and aspen stands Promoting a diverse forest structure for a variety of wildlife species Improving watershed conditions across the landscape The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the activities of the modified proposed action for the Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Restoration project can be implemented in accordance with the most recent guidance relative to management for the Mexican spotted owl and the northern goshawk. In 2012, the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, First Revision was published (USFWS 2012). A project-specific plan amendment is needed because the 1986 Carson National Forest Plan, as amended, includes direction from the former (1995) recovery plan. In order to be consistent with the current recovery plan, the proposed plan amendment would: Update definitions and direction for protected (protected activity centers (PACs)), recovery habitat, and other forest and woodland types. Page 2 of 55

3 Update language and direction related to prescribed cutting and fire treatments in PACs. Add forest structure guidelines for recovery habitat. Add direction for riparian forest habitats. Update survey information. Remove the direction for treating habitat in incremental percentages. Similarly, there is a need for the project activities to be in alignment with the best available science for northern goshawk management, particularly with regard to interspaces. Recent science (Reynolds et al. 2013) has shown that frequent-fire forests were historically characterized by the presence of interspaces of variable sizes and shapes. Interspaces are areas between tree groups which are generally composed of grass-forb-shrub vegetation and may contain scattered individual trees. The Carson National Forest Plan provides guidelines to manage for uneven-aged stand conditions, but does not provide guidelines for the management of interspaces at the finescale. In order to meet restoration objectives there is a need for a project-specific amendment to address the management of habitat for northern goshawk, particularly regarding interspaces. The Forest Plan provides direction for frequent-fire forest types on three levels: management scale, outside goshawk post-fledgling areas, and within goshawk post-fledgling areas. Therefore the project-specific amendment addresses the direction provided on all three levels (see Appendix B). The plan amendment would: Replace Forest Plan standards and guidelines for ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer (including northern goshawk direction) with desired conditions and guidelines. Add a desired condition for the percentage of interspaces within uneven-aged stands to facilitate restoration. Add the desired interspace distance between tree groups. Add a description of how canopy cover would be measured across the landscape. Additional detail regarding the purpose and need for the proposed project, including a comparison of existing conditions to desired conditions, is included in the Purpose and Need section of the EA. The EA for the project also documents the analysis of the alternatives to meet this need. Decision Based upon my review of the alternatives, comments received, and other information included in the project record, I have decided to implement Alternative B, the modified proposed action. Specifically, the following activities are authorized by this decision: Uneven-aged silvicultural system methods in conjunction with broadcast burning and subsequent maintenance burning on up to 47,000 acres. Treatments include: Page 3 of 55

4 o o Group 1 and/or individual tree selection 2 on up to 10,000 acres, and Combination of intermediate thinning 3, pre-commercial thinning 4, and/or prescribed burning on up to 37,000 acres. Prescribed burning without prior silvicultural treatments on up to 13,000 acres; additional maintenance burning would occur on a 5-20 year rotation for all prescribed burning areas. Allocate approximately 20 percent of forested acres (18,600 acres) for old growth characteristics. Construct approximately 5 to 10 miles of temporary roads. Similarly, I have decided to authorize the proposed project-specific amendment. The projectspecific amendment consists of the following: Amend the Carson National Forest Plan to be in alignment with the management direction provided in the revised Mexican spotted owl Recovery Plan. A project-specific plan amendment is needed because the 1986 Carson National Forest Plan, as amended, includes direction from the former (1995) recovery plan. Amend the Carson National Forest Plan to add clarifying language for the project area for northern goshawk management to: (1) describe desired conditions for the project area managed for northern goshawk; (2) express relative amounts of forest cover, as well as the distribution of that cover, including the interspaces between tree groups; (3) define the relationship between the interspaces and natural openings, such as meadows; (4) clarify that canopy cover is evaluated at the tree group scale within trees greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height. More detailed descriptions of authorized activities follow. A table breaking down the proposed treatments by cover and habitat type is also included as Appendix C to this document, and a more detailed description of proposed treatments is provided as Appendix C to the EA. Treatment methods include, but are not limited to: the use of chainsaws or feller-bunchers to cut trees and distribute slash, rubber tired skidders to move material to landings along Forest Service approved skid trails, and bulldozers to pile or rearrange slash for burning or erosion control. Other specialized equipment may be used to treat the fuels to meet resource objectives. Landings created for treatments would range in size from about ¼ to 1 acre with an average of one landing about every 20 acres. Several products could result from treatments such as biomass, fuelwood, 1 Group Selection- a cutting procedure which creates a new age class by removing trees on groups or patches to allow seedlings to become established in the new opening (Helms 1998). 2 Individual Tree Selection- a cutting procedure where individual trees of all size classes are removed to promote growth and vigor of remaining trees and to provide space for regeneration (Helms 1998). 3 Intermediate Treatment- referred to here as intermediate thinning. The thinning or cutting of trees to improve the composition, structure, condition, health, and growth of remaining trees (Helms 1998). 4 Pre-commercial Thinning- the removal of trees not for immediate financial return but to reduce stocking to concentrate growth on the more desirable trees (Helms 1998). Page 4 of 55

5 posts and poles, and saw timber, which could be sold through personal use and commercial wood product contracts. Fuelwood is an important resource to local communities in the project area. It is anticipated that fuelwood would be made available to the public following treatments. The Forest Service would notify the public of availability of fuelwood and areas available for fuelwood gathering. Fuelwood areas would be accessible from existing roads open to the public and temporary roads used for project implementation may be opened temporarily to facilitate fuelwood gathering. Fuelwood would be made available to the public either through green fuelwood areas identified by the Forest Service, commercial fuelwood areas identified by the Forest Service, or dead and down fuelwood areas identified by the Forest Service. The primary species anticipated to be available for fuelwood gathering would be juniper species, piñon pine, ponderosa pine, Douglasfir, and white fir. Subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and corkbark fir may also be available if they exist in a treatment unit. Aspen and Gambel oak may be available depending on the treatment objectives. Pending funds to do project work, the goal of the Tres Piedras Ranger District would be to supply 500 to 1,000 cords of fuelwood annually for the community of Tres Piedras and surrounding communities. The 500 to 1,000 cords would primarily be from dead and down permits following thinning operations. It is anticipated that fuelwood would be made available over the course of approximately 8 to 10 years during project implementation. Actual fuelwood availability would be dependent on treatment implementation and objectives. Mechanized systems would be limited to slopes less than 40 percent. Slopes greater than 40 percent would be treated via hand logging or tree thinning, including use of chainsaws, and/or prescribed burning. Limiting treatments on slopes greater than 40 percent to treatment with chainsaws and prescribed burning is consistent with Forest Plan direction that provides an exception to no treatments on slopes greater than 40% for treatments by hand (Forest Plan). Note that because the Modified Proposed Action Map is a hypothetical example, specific prescriptions written for site-specific implementation of this concept will not result in identical arrangements. It s important to note that activities are not limited to individual polygons as displayed in the attached map. Rather, they represent our best estimate of existing conditions that warrant specific activities. This estimate will limit implementation to the size and scope as described in the modified proposed action, but the actual location of said activities will occur where deemed appropriate at the time of implementation. All treatments would normally occur outside of spruce/fir, wet mixed-conifer and non-forest types (with the exception of areas where conifer encroachment has occurred) and are cumulatively limited to 60,000 acres of treatment (excluding maintenance treatments). For example, group and/or individual tree selection would occur where forest density, available volume, and slope gradient permit, but won t exceed 10,000 acres. Likewise, although they wouldn t normally be targeted for burning, there s some potential for low levels of fire creep (spread of the fire into areas not targeted for treatment) into adjacent mixedconifer, spruce/fir and non-forest cover types. However, conditions in those areas not targeted for treatment would not be conducive to significant spread or effects in those cover types. Prescribed Burning Prescribed burning refers to deliberately burning wildland fuels in either their natural or a modified state and under specified environmental conditions, which allows the fire to be confined to a predetermined area and produces the fire line intensity and rate of spread required to attain planned resource management objectives (Helms 1998). Broadcast, maintenance, jackpot and pile burning are all types of prescribed burning activity proposed for the project. Ignition sources Page 5 of 55

6 include aerial and/or hand ignitions. Natural and existing features such as rocky slopes and travel routes may be used as containment lines. There is the potential need to construct fire lines via hand tools or mechanized equipment in order to confine fires to predetermined areas. Prescribed burning will typically follow other activities, but may occur prior to other activities or as the only treatment in certain areas. Maintenance burning would consist of re-burning areas following a previous prescribed burning event. All areas which may be subject to prescribed burning treatments for the project could receive maintenance burn treatments. Maintenance burns would be subject to the same design criteria and mitigation measures as burns conducted for initial treatment. Maintenance burns would be conducted approximately 5 to 20 years following a prior burn and would be conducted indefinitely to maintain desired conditions within treatment areas. The actual time period between burns would be dependent upon conditions present within treatment areas. Maintenance burning could occur when continuity of fine fuels is sufficient to carry a surface fire. Outside of areas with a contiguous herbaceous understory, this commonly requires 15 to 20 years under typical environmental conditions within frequent-fire forests of the Carson National Forest. Where a contiguous herbaceous understory exists, continuity of fine files may be sufficient to carry a surface fire annually, but maintenance burning in those areas would not occur more frequently than every five years. Conifer Removal within Meadows, Riparian Areas, and Aspen Stands Although they are not the primary target treatment areas for the project, conifer species may be cut where they have encroached into existing meadows and riparian areas. Riparian and meadow treatments would use hand tools and mechanized equipment. Treatment in these areas would be determined on a case by case basis, with treatment in riparian areas focused on removal of encroaching conifers in order to maintain a dominance of deciduous tree and shrub communities in riparian areas. As needed, woody material would be retained within riparian areas to provide for fish habitat and stream stabilization and riparian areas would not be designated for public fuelwood gathering. Similarly, in consultation with the district wildlife biologist, large conifers important for wildlife (e.g. nest trees and perch trees) would be identified and retained within riparian areas. Where aspen is in decline or where conifer species have begun encroaching upon aspen stands, treatments would promote aspen growth by cutting conifer or aspen (to stimulate aspen regeneration) species and applying prescribed fire where appropriate. These treatments are largely associated with the silvicultural treatments mentioned above, mostly occurring within the same activity footprint, and the affected area is accounted for in the stated acreage estimates. Treatments within Northern Goshawk Post Fledgling Areas (PFAs), Foraging Areas, and Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Habitat. Uneven-aged management (group and/or individual tree selection) would be used to regenerate fire-tolerant, shade-intolerant species such as ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and Gambel oak in openings up to 2 acres in size within PFAs and up to 4 acres in size outside of PFAs. These treatments would be prioritized in areas that are excessively dense and/or heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe. Tree groups would be maintained by age cohort, generally in groups of (but not limited to) 2 to 70 trees. Desirable dominant and co-dominant ponderosa pine and/or Douglas-fir would be left as single trees or groups throughout the area. Shade-tolerant conifers such as white fir and blue spruce may be regenerated but would be subdominant in abundance. Page 6 of 55

7 Within the treatment units identified for uneven-aged management and intermediate thinning, conifers may be removed from areas dominated by older trees in instances that are potentially harmful to safety and in some cases areas of high dwarf mistletoe infection. The creation of interspaces and the majority of timber harvest activity would be focused in young- to mid-aged forest conditions. Retaining large, old trees and old structures (Kaufmann et al. 2007; e.g., presettlement/heritage trees generally greater than 150 years old, with thick platy bark and deep furrows, flat or dead tops, and large lower branches) is high priority within treatment areas. For additional information regarding design criteria and mitigation measures to be implemented for the project relative to northern goshawk, Mexican spotted owl, and other wildlife species, refer to the Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures document provided as Appendix A. Temporary Roads and Access for Treatments Access to the project area for implementation of treatments will utilize existing public roads and highways, open and administrative use-only Forest System roads and trails, and existing Non- Forest System roads and trails (e.g., user created routes, single tracks, etc.). Additionally, approximately 5 to 10 miles of new temporary roads will be constructed to facilitate access to areas which are currently inaccessible for treatment. Temporary roads are roads intended for administrative use for implementation of project activities. Temporary roads are not generally open to the general public for motorized vehicle use. However, temporary roads may be opened to the general public temporarily for specific purposes, such as short-term fuelwood gathering. Appropriate signage, such as kiosks or other informational signs, may be placed at certain locations to inform the public about the project. Signs may also provide specific information regarding temporary roads and access. Temporary roads will generally be designed to fit to existing topography and avoid sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands, streams, etc.). Temporary roads would be decommissioned following their use for project implementation. Similarly, existing Non-Forest System roads which may be utilized for project implementation would be decommissioned following their use for the project. Decommissioning of Non-Forest System roads would be done in the same manner as for new temporary roads as described in Appendix A. For additional information regarding design criteria and mitigation measures related to temporary roads and transportation, including decommissioning, refer to the Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures document provided as Appendix A. Mitigation and Monitoring Numerous mitigation measures have been developed to minimize the potential impacts of the modified proposed action. Mitigation measures are outlined in detail in Appendix A. Additionally, monitoring to be conducted following implementation of the project is also outlined in Appendix A. Project-Specific Plan Amendment For the purposes of the project-specific amendment, the following definitions apply: 1. A stand is defined as a contiguous area of trees sufficiently uniform in forest type, composition, structure, and age class distribution, growing on a site of sufficiently uniform conditions to be a distinguishable unit. Three classification characteristics are generally used to distinguish forest stands: bio-physical site (soils, aspect, elevations, Page 7 of 55

8 plant community association, climate, etc.), species composition, structure (density, 1- aged, 2-aged, uneven-aged), and management emphasis (administrative requirements and local management emphasis that will shape structure over time). 2. Interspaces are defined by RMRS-GTR-310 (Reynolds et al. 2013) as areas within a stand that are not currently under the vertical projection of the outermost perimeter of tree canopies (drip-line). They are generally composed of grass-forb-shrub cover but could also be areas with scattered rock or exposed mineral soil. As spaces between trees, tree groups and tree clumps, interspaces contribute to the open canopy character of frequent-fire forests. They often connect with other interspaces and thus are variably shaped and sized. 3. Openings are defined as generally persistent treeless areas having a fairly distinct shape or size, occurring naturally due to differences in soil types as compared to sites that support forests or woodlands. Openings include meadows, grasslands, rock outcroppings, and wetlands. In contrast, created openings result from disturbances like severe fire or windthrow, or management activities implemented to intentionally create space for new tree regeneration. Natural and created openings are not the same as interspaces found in the frequent-fire forests or woodlands. The new project-specific guideline language is provided in the table composing Appendix B. The table presents the new project-specific language in comparative format to the current Forest Plan language. Decision Rationale After thorough review of the EA and the Response to Comments document, I have determined that Alternative B, the modified proposed action, complies with all laws and regulations, including the Carson National Forest Plan (see the Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations section) and meets the project s purpose and need by authorizing treatment activities which will move frequent-fire forests within the project area toward desired conditions. After review of the issues identified by the public and interdisciplinary team, I have determined that the best management practices, mitigation measures, and monitoring respond to public concerns about the project and will minimize the potential adverse impacts of the project. The modified proposed action was selected rather than the no action alternative and alternatives eliminated from detailed study because it best meets the purpose and need for the project in a manner that is consistent with applicable laws, regulation, and policy. Other alternatives would not have met the purpose and need for the project, would have resulted in greater environmental impacts, or would have been infeasible to implement because of costs or other constraints. The modified proposed action provides the opportunity to restore frequent-fire forests within the project area by moving them toward desired conditions. Treatments would focus on restoring historic structure and composition within frequent-fire forests. Restoring historic structure would relate directly to improvements in forest health, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunity, aesthetics, forest products, livestock grazing, soil and watershed condition, and fire regime. Restoration would also improve the resiliency of frequent-fire forests to future disturbances from fire, diseases, and climate change while allowing for the reintroduction of fire into the landscape. The project authorizes treatments which would mimic natural disturbance processes (e.g. surface Page 8 of 55

9 wildfire) which would not occur under the no action alternative. Under the no action alternative, overstocked conditions would persist within frequent-fire forests in the project area and they would continue to have a higher risk for uncharacteristic wildfire which could have significant effects on resources. The modified proposed action allows for treatment of the greatest proportion of the project area, thereby providing the greatest restorative benefit to the project area. Additional information regarding the other alternatives considered and why they weren t suitable is included in the following Other Alternatives Considered section. Similarly, the proposed project-specific amendment complies with applicable laws and regulations and meets the purpose and need for the amendment by bringing desired conditions, standards, and guidelines relative to management of the Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk in line with the best available science. The project-specific amendment allows for the proposed project to implement activities which are in accordance with current guidelines for management of habitat for these species. Without the amendment, treatments would be required to adhere to existing standards and guidelines which would not result in the best management of habitat for these species. Refer to the below Project-Specific Amendment section of this document for additional information regarding the amendment. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, I considered the no action alternative and four alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study (EA, pages 13-35). Alternative A No Action Under the no action alternative, treatments, including thinning and prescribed burning, would not be implemented within the project area. Without implementing the treatments, forest conditions would continue to depart from desired conditions. The risk of uncharacteristic fire severity would continue to increase within the project area. Forest structure would continue to be somewhat homogenous and would continue to be dominated by a single age class. Forests would lack the desired level of diversity in structure, composition, and density. Forest susceptibility to insects and disease (e.g. bark beetles and mistletoe) would continue to increase. Ultimately, the landscape would not be moved toward desired conditions, and as such, the no action alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the project. Original Proposed Action The original proposed project alternative included treatments within spruce/fir and wet mixedconifer forest types. As these forest types are not frequent-fire forests, these areas were removed from treatment. Treating wet mixed-conifer and spruce/fir forests would not align with the purpose and need of the project of restoring frequent-fire forests. Additionally, the original proposed action was limited to 5 miles of new temporary road, but it was determined that this did not provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that areas which would be treated could be accessed for treatment. Recognizing the potential adverse effects which may result from implementation of the original proposed action and to address issues identified from public comments, numerous mitigation measures were developed and included in the modified proposed action. Mitigation measures Page 9 of 55

10 would be implemented as part of the modified proposed action to minimize potential adverse effects to soil, water, wildlife, and other resources. An Alternative that Places a Diameter Cap on Treatments An alternative that would have established a diameter cap for trees to be removed in thinning treatments was considered. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it was determined that this alternative would not ultimately meet the purpose and need for the proposed project. Implementing a diameter cap results in stand structure that becomes even-aged over time. Stands would tend to have older and mid-aged trees without the recruitment of younger trees which are ultimately needed in the long-term to replace older trees. This level of landscape homogeneity lacks biological diversity and results in an unstable ecosystem that is susceptible to large scale disturbances in the mid-to long-term (Triepke et al. 2011; Abella et al. 2006). The purpose and need for this project includes increasing the diversity of stands (in terms of age, structure, and habitat), in order to create a landscape that is less susceptible to broad-scale disturbances, such as high-severity wildfire. Implementing a diameter cap would hinder meeting goals for diversity of age, structure, and habitat. Retaining trees in excess of restoration prescriptions may leave too many ladder fuels (small trees that permit fire to climb into the crowns) to safely re-introduce low-intensity fire. In addition, leaving extra trees comes at a cost of fewer forest openings and less plant diversity. The proposed project intends to leave trees with old characteristics as well as target retention and recruitment of old trees. Imposing diameter caps in managed-density stands, limits the opportunity to restore these structural patterns and to provide for a sustainable distribution and progression of age classes in the landscape. A regional study focused on dry ecosystems in the Southwestern United States, with data derived from Forest Inventory and Analysis, was conducted to contrast the implementation treatments with and without a diameter cap. Based on the results of the study, three underlying differences between the two treatments were: (1) the diminished mid-age tree size class of the diameter limited treatment; (2) the lack of tree frequencies moving from one structural stage to the next in a diameter limited treatment; and (3) accumulation of stocking density in trees greater than 16 inches within the diameter limited treatment, which has a direct consequence on understory viability and advancement into larger tree size classes. (Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) Analysis, Vandendrische 2013-unpublished). Similarly, a separate study conducted near Flagstaff, Arizona, found that treatments imposing a diameter cap left significantly higher tree densities and basal area than stands without a diameter cap (Egan et al. 2014). Accordingly, implementation of a diameter cap on treatment activities would not achieve the desired future conditions of the proposed project. Retaining all trees over, for example, 12 or 16 inch diameter would leave stand densities above management thresholds for insects and disease susceptibility. Additionally, aspen would not be rejuvenated as compared to the modified proposed action alternative. Ultimately, this alternative would not meet Carson Forest Plan direction for uneven-aged stands. An Alternative that Does Not Propose New Roads or Heavy Equipment An alternative that does not construct temporary roads or use large equipment such as bulldozers and/or feller-bunchers was considered and was determined not to meet the purpose and need, and thus was dropped from consideration. In particular, to meet the purpose and need for this project, Page 10 of 55

11 restoring resiliency in frequent-fire forests, it has been determined that temporary roads will need to be used to access areas for treatment to meet the purpose and need for the project. Without the addition of temporary roads, approximately 2,300 acres would not be accessible for treatment or would require unfeasible skid distances in order to remove materials from the stand. This reduction in treatment area would be contradictory to desired conditions. Eliminating 2,300 acres from treatment represents approximately 23 percent of the proposed mechanical treatment area. The proposed project is intended to restore frequent-fire forests on a landscape scale, based on science documenting historic conditions in frequent fire forests as described in GTR-310 (Reynolds et al. 2013). GTR-310 addresses restoration at multiple scales, including the landscape scale. The landscape scale is composed of multiple stands from 1,000 to more than 10,000 acres. Not treating stands which have been identified as warranting treatment to meet landscape-scale structure and composition would hinder moving the larger landscape toward desired conditions by leaving too many dense, even-aged stands. By treating all of the stands which have been identified for mechanical treatments, the larger landscape area would be able to more fully approximate desired conditions at the landscape scale rather than only meeting desired conditions for mid-scale (stand) and fine-scale landscape components. Further, the mechanical treatments are particularly effective for meeting restoration goals as they are more likely to address current and future stand structure and composition by changing the overstory. Changing the overstory promotes recruitment of desirable shade-intolerant, fireresistant species which more closely resemble the desired conditions within the project area. Modifying the overstory also improves the resiliency of the project area by reducing the potential for spreading crown fire by disrupting the continuity of the crown and reducing canopy bulk density. The stands identified for mechanical treatments represent the stands with the greatest potential for active crown fire. Not treating nearly a quarter of those stands would not meet desired goals for structure and composition for the larger landscape. It also wouldn t meet the purpose of increased resiliency because it would retain a significant proportion of those areas most susceptible to active crown fire. Retaining those stands is particularly problematic because of the effect of contagion, whereby the fire behavior of one stand influences the fire behavior of adjacent stands. Retaining areas with a high risk for high intensity crown fire increases the risk for adjacent stands to experience crown fires. Such effects are contrary to the desire to increase resiliency in the larger frequent-fire landscape of the project area. The use of temporary roads under the modified proposed action would be limited to only those areas where they are necessary to accomplish proposed treatments. Impacts from temporary roads would be minimized by following best management practices and site-specific mitigations for sensitive areas. Furthermore, temporary roads would be closed following their period of use using methods such as earthen berms, natural features (such as rocks, stumps, etc.), road obliteration, and/or locked gates. The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of temporary roads has been analyzed and disclosed in the EA. Additionally, prohibiting use of large equipment would preclude extraction of sawlog and activity fuels, thereby contributing to undesirable fuel loads. Such conditions would not contribute to the purpose and need, but would rather compound existing undesirable conditions. Eliminating the use of heavy equipment would potentially preclude treatment of areas which warrant treatment. Treatment by hand or other methods would be either prohibitively difficult to implement or have limited effectiveness as larger materials could only be arranged rather than being removed. For example, felling mid and overstory trees to benefit forest structure and composition without Page 11 of 55

12 removing said material would be divergent from desirable fuel loading and subsequent fire behavior as those materials would significantly increase surface fuel loading. Similarly, lack of treatment that addresses the mid and overstory component in those areas would perpetuate the status quo of relatively high canopy cover and canopy bulk density, allowing for undesirable crown fire potential. Further, treatment of proposed treatment areas by hand would be prohibitive because of the cost and time required to implement such treatments on the scale associated with the modified proposed action. Accordingly, it has been determined that not using new temporary roads or heavy equipment would not meet the purpose and need for the project by eliminating treatment in areas which have been determined to meet the criteria for treatment. An Alternative that Does Not Include Treatments in the Jawbone and Broke-off Mountain Areas An alternative that does not include treatments in the Jawbone Mountain and Broke-Off Mountain areas was considered. The interdisciplinary team used a process to determine proposed treatment areas based on ecological condition. Current and future stand structure and landscape ecology has been considered, with intent to improve and maintain species-specific habitat where appropriate e.g., Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk habitat guidelines. This process is discussed in this document and described in more detail in the project record. According to available records, these areas have not been subject to significant timber treatments in over 25 years. As such, the Forest Service does not have information indicating that these areas are still recovering from the adverse effects of past timber sales. The Jawbone and Broke-off Mountain areas generally were identified as areas meeting the criteria for and would benefit from the proposed treatments based on their tree density, accessibility, and wildfire hazard. Portions of these areas may be excluded from treatment where conditions do not warrant treatment based on more detailed site-specific analysis during implementation. The primary concern for this area identified by the public was the quality of wildlife habitat available in these areas. Although implementation of treatments may result in short-term temporary disturbances to wildlife in these areas, it is anticipated that implementation of the modified proposed action would generally improve wildlife habitat in these areas and across the project area. Additionally, the Forest Service does not have information indicating that these areas provide better wildlife habitat than other parts of the project area. Refer to the Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants section of the EA for additional details regarding the potential effects of the project on wildlife resources. It has been determined that no action in these areas of the proposed project area would be an arbitrary exclusion and not meet the purpose and need for this project, thus this alternative was dropped from consideration. Public Involvement and Scoping Development of the proposed project has been a collaborative process involving the public and interested parties. The proposed project was formulated through this collaborative process involving multiple meetings. Page 12 of 55

13 An official scoping period for the project commenced on October 22, 2015, at which time letters providing information regarding the proposed project and seeking public comment were mailed to approximately 134 individuals and groups, including federal and state agencies, municipal offices, interest groups, and tribes and pueblos. After it was brought to the attention of the Forest Service that the initial letters contained an incorrect address for the comment inbox, subsequent letters with the correct address were mailed to the same distribution list on November 2, Thirteen letters were received in response to this initial formal request for comment. Concerns raised during the scoping period were used to identify issues, which were addressed in the EA. The Forest Service modified the original proposed action in response to comments received during scoping and further analysis of the proposed project. The modifications included a reduction in treatment acreages, the mileage of temporary roads, and development of numerous mitigation measures. In addition to the initial scoping for the project, the Forest Service held public meetings regarding the project. A public meeting was held on April 11, 2016 at the District office to provide information regarding and seek feedback on the proposed project, as well as other ongoing prescribed burning activities. In addition to information being presented by the Forest Service, collaborators on the project (Northern Arizona University and the Nature Conservancy) also presented information. Additionally, an information meeting to discuss the proposed project was held with grazing permittees on February 20, In accordance with the Forest Service s Project-Level Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process, a legal notice was published in The Taos News on February 9, 2017 (36 CFR ). A copy of the legal notice and an electronic copy of the preliminary environmental assessment was published to the Carson National Forest s website on February 9, The legal notice provided notification to the public of the opportunity to comment on the Preliminary EA for the project. The Carson National Forest mailed notices of the 30-day comment period to 99 individuals by postal mail and to 1 individual by electronic mail. Eleven letters were submitted during the comment period. Following the 30-day public comment period, the environmental assessment was edited to correct typos and provide clarifying language and organization. Responses to comments received during the 30-day public comment period can be found on the project website: ( Project-Specific Amendment As indicated above, this document includes a decision to authorize a project-specific amendment to the Carson National Forest Plan. This section documents compliance with the regulations for plan amendments. Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR 219 (2012 Planning Rule), a plan may be amended at any time. Plan amendments may be broad or narrow, depending on the need for the change. I have the discretion to determine whether and how to amend the Forest Plan and to determine the scope and scale of any amendment. The potential effects of the project-specific amendment are documented in the EA for the Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Restoration project following Forest Service NEPA Page 13 of 55

14 procedures at 36 CFR Part 220. Because the amendment applies only to the Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Restoration project, it is not considered a significant change to the plan for purposes of the NFMA (36 CFR (b)(3)). Compliance with the Rule s Procedural Provisions As explained below, this amendment complies with the procedural provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR Part (b)) Using the best scientific information to inform the planning process ( 219.3) The project-specific amendment is based on the best available scientific information regarding the northern goshawk and Mexican spotted owl. As described in the Purpose of the Amendment section of this document, the project-specific amendment is intended to ensure that the Rio Tusas- Lower San Antonio Landscape Restoration project activities are in line with the best available science regarding these two species. The project-specific amendment is based on the most recent (2012) recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl. The Forest Service defers to the expertise and authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding management of species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Accordingly, the Forest Service has relied on the latest science and guidance from the USFWS (i.e., the 2012 Recovery Plan) in preparing the project-specific amendment. Similarly, the Forest Service has relied principally on the Rocky Mountain Research Station s General Technical Report 310, Restoring Composition and Structure in Southwestern Frequent- Fire Forests: a science-based framework for improving ecosystem resiliency (GTR-310; Reynolds et al. 2013) for development of components of the project-specific amendment related to the northern goshawk. GTR-310 provides a framework for restoration of frequent-fire forests which incorporates the best available science regarding management of northern goshawks. As such, reliance on GTR-310 represents use of the best available science for management of northern goshawks. Providing opportunities for public participation ( 219.4) and providing public notice ( and (b)(2)) Details regarding public notices and public participation are outlined previously in the Public Involvement and Scoping section of this document. Because this is a project-specific amendment, public participation and notices were conducted with the public process for the Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Restoration project in accordance with 36 CFR (b). The Forest Service has followed the applicable regulations regarding public participation and notices in place at the time of such processes. Format for plan components ( (b)(4) and 219.7(e)) The project-specific amendment modifies and adds desired conditions, standards, and guidelines plan components relative to management of the Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk. The added and modified plan components are set out as required at 36 CFR 219.7(e). The plan amendment process ( ) The project-specific amendment process was conducted concurrently with the planning process for the Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Restoration project. Information regarding this Page 14 of 55

15 process is available in other sections of this document outlining the decision process for the Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Restoration project. I developed the project-specific amendment in response to the need for an amendment to the Forest Plan as outlined in the Purpose and Need section of this document. I provided opportunities for public participation as described in the Public Involvement and Scoping section of this document. I prepared the plan amendment in compliance with NEPA, as an EA was prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the project-specific amendment as well as the Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Restoration project. Applicable plan components and substantive requirements were addressed as described herein. Finally, I have documented my decision regarding the project-specific amendment in this Decision Notice. Objection Opportunity ( through ) The project objection process (36 CFR 218) was used for both the project and this projectspecific amendment as permitted at 36 CFR (b). Refer to the Administrative Review Opportunities section of this document for additional information regarding objection opportunities. Effective Date ( (a)(3)) In accordance with 36 CFR (a)(3), the effective date for the project-specific amendment is governed by 36 CFR 218. Refer to the Implementation section of this document for additional information regarding the effective date. Documenting Compliance with the Rule s Applicable Substantive Provisions The 2012 Planning Rule requires that those substantive rule provisions within 36 CFR through that are directly related to the amendment are applicable to this amendment. The applicable substantive provisions apply only within the scope and scale of the amendment (36 CFR (b)(5)). As explained in the discussion that follows, both the purpose and the effects of the amendment are such that provisions in 36 CFR Diversity of plant and animal communities, are directly related to the amendment. I have applied those provisions within the scope and scale of the amendment. Scope and scale of the amendment The scope and scale of the amendment are defined by the purpose for the amendment as described in the Purpose and Need section of this document. The scope of the project-specific amendment is limited to desired conditions, standards, and guidelines relative to management of habitat for the Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk. Similarly, the scale of the projectspecific amendment is limited to the project area for the Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Restoration project. Accordingly, the amendment does not impact other resource areas or other areas of the Tres Piedras Ranger District. Rule provisions that are directly related to the amendment The 2012 Planning Rule requires that substantive rule provisions ( through ) that are directly related to the amendment must be applied to the amendment. A determination that a rule provision is directly related to the amendment is based on any one or more of the following criteria: Page 15 of 55

16 1. The purpose of the amendment ( (b)(5)(i)); 2. Beneficial effects of the amendment ( (b)(5)(i)); 3. Substantial adverse effects associated with a rule requirement ( (b)(5)(ii)(A)); when an EA or CE is the NEPA documentation for the amendment, there is a rebuttable presumption that there is no substantial adverse effect, and thus no direct relationship between the rule and the amendment based on adverse effects ( (b)(5)(ii)(B)). 4. Substantial lessening of protections for a specific resource or use ( (b)(5)(ii)(A)). 5. Substantial impacts to a species or substantially lessening protections for a species (36 CFR (b)(6). Applying these criteria, I have made the following determination. The purpose of the project-specific amendment is to add and modify desired conditions, standards, and guidelines, in line with the best available science and focused on habitat management for the Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk. Because of this purpose, the directly related provision of the 2012 Planning Rule is 36 CFR 219.9(b), Additional, speciesspecific plan components. Because the amendment scope focuses on only Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk habitat, the directly related rule provisions are applied only for those species. Similarly, because the amendment scale focuses on the Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Restoration project, the directly related rule provisions are applied only to the project area. Having applied those rule provisions, I found that the project-specific amendment would meet those requirements, and therefore no adjustment to the proposed amendment is necessary. Specifically, the project-specific amendment provides species-specific plan components, including standards and guidelines which would help to restore ecological conditions within the project area to contribute to maintaining a viable population of the focal species. Finding of No Significant Impact The following is a summary of the project analysis to determine significance, as defined by Forest Service Handbook _05. Significant as used in NEPA requires consideration of both context and intensity of the expected project effects. Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts (i.e. local regional, worldwide), and over short and long time frames. For site-specific actions, significance usually depends upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Intensity refers to the severity of the expected project impacts and is defined by the 10 points below. Context The Tres Piedras Ranger District encompasses approximately 388,000 acres located in northcentral New Mexico. The project area consists of approximately 160,000 acres within the central portion of the District. Page 16 of 55

17 This project is a site-specific activity which does not make state-wide, regional, national, or international decisions. The project proposes treatments on up to 60,000 acres of the larger project area. Accordingly, treatments would occur on up to approximately 15 percent of the Tres Piedras Ranger District. Prescribed burning treatments would help to reintroduce natural fire regimes to the frequent-fire forests within the project area. Similarly, silvicultural treatments would restore historic composition and structure to frequent-fire forests. Potential adverse effects of the proposed restoration project would be minimized through implementation of mitigation measures outlined in Appendix A. The scope of this decision is limited to the project area and adjacent areas. Thus, the context of this project indicates the effects are limited to the local area and are not significant. Intensity The following factors were considered to evaluate intensity. 1) Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on the balance the effects will be beneficial. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered for the modified proposed action and are disclosed in the EA (Chapter 3, pages ). While the project may result in adverse impacts to resources, these effects have been determined to be negligible or minor. Beneficial effects were not used to minimize the severity of adverse effects in consideration of this project. The proposed project would not result in known significant irreversible commitments or losses of resources. 2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. The selected alternative will not have a significant adverse effect on public health or safety treatments would be implemented in accordance with standard safety measures and procedures, including mitigation measures outlined in Appendix A. Additionally, the proposed project is anticipated to benefit safety by reducing the potential for wildfire of uncharacteristic intensity and severity. 3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. The modified proposed action will not adversely affect unique characteristics of the geographical area. Measures have been incorporated to protect cultural resources (EA, pages and Appendix A). Mitigation measures outlined in Appendix A would also avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands. Although designated wild and scenic rivers do not occur in the project area, water courses which have been determined eligible for listing as wild and scenic rivers are located within the project area. Mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize impacts to eligible rivers. Further, proposed activities would not diminish the outstandingly remarkable values for which they were determined eligible. No other unique or ecologically critical areas (e.g. park lands, prime farmlands, or ecologically critical areas) are present within the project area. 4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. Page 17 of 55

18 This factor pertains to disagreement between experts in a given field over the potential effects of this proposal. Public concerns and input have been considered throughout the analysis process. Comments received for the project did not provide evidence that effects of the modified proposed action (EA, pages ) have been wrongly predicted. Therefore, effects of the proposed project on are not likely to be controversial. 5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The modified proposed action does not entail activities which pose potential effects that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The Carson National Forest has considerable experience implementing the types of activities proposed for the project. The proposed activities are not new and potential effects of treatments have been widely documented and are analyzed in the EA (Chapter 3, pages ). 6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. This decision is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, nor does it represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. The EA is site-specific and the modified proposed action is compliant with the Forest Plan and other laws and regulations. Future actions not authorized under this decision would be evaluated through the NEPA process and would be assessed based on their own environmental effects and project feasibility. 7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. The project was evaluated with consideration for cumulative effects on the affected resources. The selected alternative would not result in significant cumulative effects as disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA (pages ). 8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant cultural or historical resources. The project would not result in significant adverse effects to cultural or historical resources. Cultural resource surveys would be conducted prior to implementation of the project and where cultural sites are identified, mitigation measures would be implemented to avoid or minimize potentially adverse effects. A finding of no adverse effect to heritage resources was made for the proposed project (EA, Chapter 3; pages 61-62). 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. The proposed project would not result in significant adverse effects to federally listed species or their critical habitats. The potential effects of the proposed project on federally listed species is analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA (pages 62-83) and in the Biological Assessment prepared for the project. A determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect was made for the Mexican spotted owl and the Canada lynx. Consultation with the USFWS is ongoing and will be completed before signing a final decision on the project. Additionally, designated critical habitat Page 18 of 55

19 is not located in the project area. Therefore, the project would not have a significant adverse effect on federally listed threatened and endangered species or their critical habitats. 10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The project would not violate applicable federal, state, or local laws or requirements for protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA (pages ). Conclusion After considering the environmental effects described in the EA and specialist reports, I have determined that Alternative B, the modified 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. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations Preparation of the EA and the modified proposed action comply with applicable regulations, including, but not limited to, the following: National Forest Management Act (NFMA) National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act American Indian Religious Freedom Act Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites Endangered Species Act Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act Clean Water Act Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Clean Air Act Administrative Review Opportunities The Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Restoration project is an activity implementing a land management plan and not authorized under the HFRA and is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B. Legal notice of the opportunity to object to the proposal was published in The Taos News on June 15, Two objections were received from the following: Carson Forest Watch and Mr. Dick Artley. Both objectors were invited to meet regarding their objections. Ms. Joanie Berde from Carson Forest Watch accepted the invitation, but Mr. Dick Artley did not respond to the request to meet. A panel was convened to review the objections and the project file. An objection resolution meeting was held with Ms. Joanie Berde from Carson Forest Watch and Forest Service staff, including Jim Upchurch, Deputy Regional Forester and objection reviewing officer, and James Duran, Forest Supervisor and responsible official for the project. The objection resolution Page 19 of 55

20 meeting resulted in an agreement between Carson Forest Watch and the Forest Service (signed October 4, 2017), whereby Carson Forest Watch agreed to withdraw its objection and the Forest Service agreed to the following: Incorporate language in the EA and DN clarifying that although riparian areas are not the primary target treatment areas for the project, they would be evaluated for treatment on a case-by-case basis. They would be evaluated in consultation with the district biologist to retain larger conifers important for wildlife in riparian areas (e.g. nest trees, perch trees, etc.). Treatments within riparian areas would remove encroaching conifer species in order to maintain the dominance of deciduous tree and shrub communities. The Forest would not designate fuelwood gathering areas in riparian areas. Incorporate language in the EA and DN stating how treatment on slopes greater than 40% is consistent with the Forest Plan and would be conducted through prescribed burning and/or hand logging or tree thinning, and adding a definition for hand logging or tree thinning to the EA. Include measures to avoid erosion. Continue to collaborate with Ms. Berde and Carson Forest Watch. Additionally, on October 11, 2017, Jim Upchurch, Deputy Regional Forester, issued an objection response letter to Mr. Dick Artley which indicated that the project is in compliance with all applicable laws and the Carson National Forest Plan. He further determined that the objector s concerns did not require further discussion with the exception of one point of instruction that was provided to the Forest to address prior to signing a final DN and FONSI. The instruction to the Forest was as follows: Instruction: Add information to clarify why an alternative without new temporary roads would not meet the purpose and need for the project. An errata to the final EA was prepared to provide the clarifying language required in the instructions from the Deputy Regional Forester and as required by the agreement with Carson Forest Watch, as well as additional clarifying language. The errata is available on the project webpage at: This decision is not subject to further pre-decisional administrative review by the Forest Service or U.S. Department of Agriculture (36 CFR (a)). Page 20 of 55

21 USDA z:::::::a Implementation This project may be implemented immediately. For further information concerning this project, contact Patrick Yamnik, NEPA Planner at (505) during normal business hours. Approved by: J~n0~ James D. Duran Forest Supervisor Carson National Forest (Jc,,+ o ¼ -2.o Date Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact - Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Page 21 of55

22 Rio Tusas-Lower San Antonio Landscape Modified Proposed Action Map Project Boundary - 160,000 ac. Old Growth Allocation - 18,600 ac. ± Group &/or Individual Tree Selection 10,000 ac. Prescribed Burn - 13,000 ac. Intermediate Thin, Pre-commercial Thin &/ or Prescribed Burn - 37,000 ac. Surface Ownership 285 USFS OTHER Created by J.Arciniega az o as t r it, R Br R io R io Sa n A s Nu San Antonio Mountain ntonio # io el aje d Agu ap et a,a ca y rro o Lamy Peak # us Ri o T 64 as Tusas Mountain Tres Piedras # Farmington 25 Rio Santa Fe Rancho Las Vegas 40 Albuquerque Clovis Los Portales Lunas Roswell Silver Alamogordo City Hobbs Gallup 111 Red Mesa # s cito i a l le ov Carlsbad R o E l R it 10 Kiowa Mountain # Miles 20