P. O. Box 3102 Roanoke, Virginia 24015-1102



Download 119 Kb.
Page2/3
Date31.03.2018
Size119 Kb.
#44034
1   2   3

Finding

I find that the impacts of helicopter logging were properly analyzed.



Issue 7. Whether the economic analysis in the EA was adequate.
The appellant’s contention that the costs of helicopter logging are not accurately determined, and mitigation costs (due to increased law enforcement to protect citizens from an increase in logging truck traffic; increase of road maintenance needs on roads traversed by logging truck traffic; increased city water treatment system filtration needs due to additional sedimentation; and increased flooding emergency response needs) were not exhibited in the economic analysis (Appeal, pp. 13-14).
Also, they state that “the economic analysis only considers timber values, without any mention of recreation, aesthetic or spiritual values. . . that will be impacted by the timber sale”. “The EA ignores the economic impacts of this project on clean water, values provided by standing timber, carbon sequestration, non-motorized recreation, fishing, hunting, visual quality, and other amenity values. . . NEPA specifically requires agencies to consider the. . . cumulative effects of each alternative under consideration (40 CFR 1502.16, 1508.8, and 1508.25). Cumulative effects refers to the direct, indirect impacts of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions” (Appeal, p. 15). Further they state “NEPA documents must adequately discuss or assign value to a wide range of ecosystem services performed by intact forests in proposed project areas. To meet the letter and intend of NFMA, the Forest Service must analyze the market and non-market benefits of unlogged forests in analysis areas. . .” (Appeal, p. 16).
Concerning the appellant’s first issue, the helicopter-yarding costs disclosed in the EA are $70/CCF (EA, p. 64). The appellant claims that this cost is too low and should be more in the range of $150/MBF. Since MBF coverts to about twice the CCF metric, the estimate by the forest is approximately what the appellant contends.
Mitigation measures needed for this project are discussed on pages 17-18 of the EA, where sedimentation is discussed. None of the measures they envision as part of a mitigation action for this project are foreseen (increased logging traffic affecting roads and people; and flooding).
The appellant is concerned about the perceived below-cost timber program nationwide. They believe that the National Forest timber program needs a national EIS addressing the national logging program as a whole from which timber projects should tier to (Appeal, p. 16).
Environmental effects of the project are discussed in pages 19-63 of the EA. No long-term or significant effects on the environment were determined.
The appellant’s economic issue apparently refers to the financial analysis on page 64 of the EA and the fact that non-market values were not estimated by the District Ranger in her analysis. A financial analysis is required as part of FSH 2409.18 which requires that an estimate of discounted costs and revenues of timber projects be displayed for the decision maker so that an understanding of how well revenues cover costs.
An economic analysis, where all resource costs and benefits (whether market or non-market) are displayed, is optional under this FSH 2409.18. Because the District Ranger has concluded that this project will not materially affect recreation or other resources such as water quality, and scenic quality there is no need to perform an economic analysis of these associated resources.
A complete present net value of resource programs is given in the Forest’s EIS during forest planning to satisfy NFMA and 36 CFR 219. Under NEPA and 40 CFR 1500, no economic analysis is required of the decision maker. Impacts to resources affected by the project are required under NEPA and have been discussed in the EA. NFMA does not require an economic analysis at the project level.
A discussion of the national timber program is out of scope of this appeal. It is estimated by the District Ranger that the Toms Branch project will have positive cash flow and, therefore, will not be “below-cost”.
Finding_I_find_that_the_economic_analysis_in_the_EA_was_adequate.__Issue_8.__Whether_soil_watersheds,_and_karst_areas_were_adequately_analyzed_and_protected.'>Finding
I find that the economic analysis in the EA was adequate.
Issue 8. Whether soil watersheds, and karst areas were adequately analyzed and protected.
The appellant contends soils, watersheds, and karst areas were “not adequately analyzed or protected” (Appeal, p. 16). The appellant contends “the FS fails to analyze the impacts of . . . steep slope logging . . . [and t]here is no assurance that soils will be adequately protected” (Appeal, p. 17).
The EA identifies mitigation measures used to protect soil and water resources and ties to the guidelines of the Forest Plan (pp. 17-18). The EA states the project “will follow the Forest-wide common standards . . . [and] . . . will follow Virginia Forestry Best Management Practices” (BMP’s) for water quality (p. 17). The EA states”[t]he Forest has initiated a monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of the standards. The result of this program will be a feedback process to continually adjust standards as needed to improve implementation and effectiveness” (EA, p. 25). The EA addresses impacts to soil, water, and riparian resources (pp. 20-28). Steep slopes are identified and, as noted above, “Forest Plan erosion control standards” and BMPs are in place to protect them (EA, p. 21). The soils analysis specifically addresses impacts to steep slopes, plant nutrients and biotic activity and soil productivity, as well as impacts from compaction (p. 22). The soils analysis, including slope analysis and mitigation, for this project appears to accurately contrast differences in alternatives and is at a level of detail and depth commensurate with the scope of this project, in compliance with NEPA regulations.
Concerning karst, the BE states “[in] addition, this project has been sent to the Virginia Karst Program and to the Virginia Speleological Survey for review for documented sensitive karst features and caves. According to information currently on our files, no documented sensitive or significant karst features occur in the project area” (p. 7).
Finding
I find soil watersheds, and karst areas are adequately analyzed and protected.

Issue 9. Whether adequate surveys and inventory were completed, and whether effects analysis for Indiana bat, Virginia big-eared bat, and Eastern small-footed bat and their habitat was adequate.
The appellant contends that the Forest Service, “[b]y failing to properly consider, provide for, or protect the Indiana bat and other TESLR bats. . . may violate the NFMA

. . . in addition to the ESA” (Appeal, p. 22). Also, “there is no viability analysis for the Indiana bat and other T&E bats for this specific proposal. . .” (Appeal, p. 24). In addition, the appellant contends for the Indiana bat “data on their population status in this project area has not been gathered”, and for the Virginia big-eared bat, “[t]here is no population, monitoring, survey. . . information on the species” (Appeal. p. 25). Furthermore, for the Eastern small-footed bat, “there is no record that any surveys were conducted. . .” and “the BE. . . arbitrarily assumed that there is a lack of suitable habitat for the bat in the project area” (Appeal, p. 26).


Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.4 directs the Forest Service, through the BE process, to “review actions and programs authorized, funded, or carried out by the Forest Service to determine their potential for effect on threatened and endangered species and species proposed for listing”. The FSM allows the Forest Service discretion in the methodology used to determine presence of TES species and identification of suitable habitat. Compliance with NFMA’s viability regulations is achieved through a variety of tools on the GWNF, including the listing of species as TESLR species, the use of MIS, and through the protection and special designations of habitats for other species. By providing for a wide variety of habitats across the forest and by monitoring TESLR and MIS species, the GWNF assures compliance with NFMA’s viability requirements.
The BE/BA tiers to the September 1997 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) consultation associated with the BO issued to the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests which addressed Indiana bat and forest-wide management activities; the BE/BA also tiers to the DN for the Forest Plan Amendment for Management of Indiana bat (p. 9). This USFWS BO states “this biological opinion will remain in effect and will constitute compliance with the ESA’s section 7 consultation requirements for future actions carried out prior to revision of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests’ Land and Resource Management Plans, provided that those actions are carried out in compliance with all of the requirements contained in this biological opinion” (p. 35). The BE/BA determines the project will be in compliance with the BO issued by the USFWS and, therefore, further consultation is not required (p. 9). The BE/BA states “no new information has been identified [and with a finding of] no affect beyond that which is already disclosed in the Biological Assessment on Indiana bats” further consultation is not necessary (p. 10).
The EA (p. 43) addresses Indiana bat population data stating “Forest monitoring shows Indiana bat populations decreased [1960’s through 1980’s then shows] a stable to slow increase during the 1990’s for western Virginia on the George Washington and Jefferson NFs (Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report, Fiscal Year 2001 to 2003, Appendix G page 26)”.
The BE/BA conducted analysis of effects to TES within the project area, considering all 188 TES species currently known, or expected to occur, on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, including Indiana bat, Virginia big-eared bat, and Eastern small-footed bat (pp. 8, 9,15). Using direction in Forest Service Manual Supplement R8-2600-2002-2, the BE/BA documents this analysis, including field surveys for TES species or habitats in the project area (p. 5). The BE used a “step down” process to eliminate species from further analysis and focus on those species that would be affected by proposed project activities (p. 6). Both Virginia big-eared bat and Eastern small-footed bat were determined to lack suitable habitat in the project area and therefore, were eliminated from further analysis (BE/BA, p. 15). The EA identified effects of harvesting on Indiana bat (p. 11).
The DN states “[c]umulatively, this action provides for a forested environment where 64% of all forest types are maintained in an age class of 70 years old or older, 4% higher than the 60% called for in the Forest’s strategy and Biological Opinion (BO). . .” (p. 7). The BE/BA addresses effects of project activities on Indiana bat and its habitat (pp. 8-9). The BE/BA concluded that there would be “no effect [to Indiana bat], beyond that which is already disclosed in the Biological Assessment on Indiana bats dated April 30, 1997 and by the USFWS in the BO of September 16, 1997”, there would be “no effect” on any other federally listed or proposed species, and “no impact” to any sensitive species (pp. 10-11).

The EA states “[e]ach Alternative will follow the Forest-wide common standards stated in the Forest Plan” (p. 17). This includes standards on pages. 3-122 and 3-123 which specifically refer to protection of caves (potential bat habitat). The EA includes mitigation measure 7 designed to promote potential summer roost trees and maternity sites for the Indiana bat (p. 17).


In regard to cave resources (potential bat habitat), the EA states “there are no caves with winter microclimate conditions suitable for Indiana bats in the project area. The area is not within either the primary or secondary cave protection areas surrounding known hibernacula. The nearest cave with Indiana bat use documented is approximately 7 miles southwest in Craig County” (p. 42). The BE/BA states, “[a]ccording to information currently on our files, no documented sensitive or significant karst features occur in the project area” (p. 7) Detailed analysis of cave and karst habitats is not necessary when they do not support TES species or other significant biological or natural resources.
Finding_I_find_that_evaluation_of_habitat_and_impacts_to_Northeastern_bulrush_were_adequately_analyzed.___Issue_14.'>Finding_I_find_that_impacts_to_Allegheny_woodrat_were_adequately_analyzed.___Issue_13.'>Finding_I_find_that_impacts_to_rock_skullcap_were_adequately_analyzed.___Issue_12.__Whether_impacts_to_Allegheny_woodrat_were_adequately_analyzed.'>Finding_I_find_that_population_data_for_MIS,_PETS,_and_LR_was_adequate_and_impacts_were_adequately_considered.____Issue_11.'>Finding
I find that adequate surveys and inventory were completed, and effects analysis for Indiana bat, Virginia big-eared bat, and Eastern small footed bat and their habitat was adequate.

Issue 10. Whether population data for MIS, PETS, and LR is adequate, and whether impacts were adequately considered.
The appellant contends that, “the BE and EA show that the Forest has no overall population data for the vast majority of MIS and PETSLR species” and “[a]llowing impacts to habitats and individuals of MIS and PETSLR species without knowing the overall forest populations is not NFMA compliance” (Appeal, p. 27).
With regard to inventories for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species, current direction for project-level inventory of these species is found in the Southern Region Supplement to the Forest Service Manual 2672.43 (Supplement No.: R8-2600-2002-2). This supplement directs National Forest staffs to conduct project-level inventory where results of such inventory are needed and meaningful to protecting viability of PETS species. Following this guidance, the BE lists all PETS species for the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, and uses a step down approach for eliminating those not potentially affected based on lack of habitat conditions or probable range occurring within the project area (pp. 5 & 6). Field surveys were conducted on July 21, 23, 25, 26, August 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, and 27, 2003, to determine the presence or absence of TES species and/or habitats (BE, p. 5). Other than butternut, rock skullcap and potential habitat for Indiana bat and James spinymussel, no TES species were found, nor were other habitats observed in the project area that would likely support TES species (BE, p. 6). The BE identified that for butternut and rock skullcap, “this project may impact some individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability’” (BE, p. 10). Determinations of effect for Indiana bat and James spinymussel were respectively “no affect, beyond that which is already disclosed in the NA on Indiana bats…and by the USFWS in the BO. . .” and “not likely to adversely affect” (BE, pp. 10, 11).
The EA addresses the effects of project alternatives on locally rare species that could possibly occur in the project area or have habitat which could support them in the project area. Only two locally rare species were identified by the District as meeting this criteria – Coopers Hawk and Cerulean Warbler (EA, p. 40). The District considered personal knowledge and published literature regarding habitat use and needs for these species as well as response to forest management activities and determined, “[a]ll proposed Toms Branch actions should not cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability” for both species (EA, pp. 40, 41). In addition, the EA discloses “[i]mplementation of any alternative would have no significant effect on TESLR species as indicated in the BE and LR analysis (p. 44).
Concerning MIS population data, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations require that “[p]opulation trends of the management indicator species will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined” (36 CFR 219.19(a)(6)). The purpose of this regulation is to require monitoring of the programmatic effects of implementing Forest Plans. Therefore, for most MIS, population monitoring and evaluation is accomplished through forest-wide efforts rather than on a project-by-project basis. In addition, from both practical and scientific standpoints, monitoring of populations that are distributed across a National Forest is best approached at that broader scale. There is no requirement for site-specific population data for every project.
The EA selected fifteen MIS represented in the project area from the twenty-three Forest level terrestrial and aquatic MIS (p. 50). This analysis uses site-specific information on MIS habitats to predict effects on MIS from the alternatives considered (EA, pp. 32-38, 56, 58-60). Information on forest-level population trends is discussed in the analysis to put project-level effects into the context of programmatic effects to overall populations (EA, pp. 60-63). These forest-level trends are determined through inventories or population monitoring conducted at the Forest level. The EA references Appendix G of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Years 2001-2003 for further information on population and habitat data for MIS (p. 60).
The MIS analysis for this project appears to accurately contrast differences in alternatives and is at a level of detail and depth commensurate with the scope of this project, in compliance with NEPA regulations. Results of forest-wide population monitoring do not show a level of adverse cumulative effects that would indicate a need for more in-depth analysis.
Finding
I find that population data for MIS, PETS, and LR was adequate and impacts were adequately considered.


Issue 11. Whether impacts to rock skullcap were adequately analyzed.
The appellant contends that, “[t]he FS has not completely and properly inventoried the project area for. . . rock skullcap” and [t]he FS has not adequately disclosed impacts to rock skullcap in compliance with NEPA” (Appeal, p. 36). Also in relation to where rock skullcap was found growing in the project area, “[t]he FS. . . misleadingly states. . . there will be no impact because the plant lives in and among large rocks/boulders where it is usually moist. . . these areas will be protected from use by heavy machinery during harvest as stated in the Forest Plan, Standard 234 and thus have no impact on the rock skullcap.” Furthermore, “[s]tandard 234 does not specifically apply. . . [i]t applies to springs and permanent seeps” (Appeal, p. 37).
The EA and BE address impacts to rock skullcap (pp. 43-44 and pp. 7-8, respectively). The BE states “[a] number of proposed cutting units were observed with this plant during field surveys. In all probability, the plant occurs elsewhere on the mid and upper north facing slopes adjacent to proposed activity areas that are not being considered for harvest. It is likely that individuals of this species may have been inadvertently missed during field surveys and field work” (p. 8). The BE (p. 10) states “[r]ock skullcap occurrences in and among large rocks/boulders will be protected from the use of heavy machinery during timber harvest, as stated in the Forest Plan, Standard 234”. It appears that the BE (p. 10) and EA (p. 44) incorrectly reference “Standard 234” rather than the intended “Standard 243”. The appellant is correct in asserting that Forest Plan Standard 234 does apply to protection of springs and seeps during ground disturbing activities (GWNF Plan, p. 3-148). George Washington NF, Forest Plan Standard 243 states “[i]f it is determined that a project may have adverse effects to individuals of a sensitive species, evaluate whether the overall species’ survival or population viability on the planning unit, are at risk” and “[o]n the Forest it is recognized that individuals of a sensitive species may be affected but the goal is to prevent population trends that would result in Federal listing” (GWNF Plan, p. 3-150). In the Agency Responses to Scoping Comments (EA, Appendix 3, pp. 6 and 7), it is stated, “[t]here are some rocky areas in some units. . . [h]eavy equipment will not be operating in or near these areas with the use of helicopter logging.” This applies to the locations where rock skullcap was found during surveys of the project area. The BE discloses “it is likely that this project may impact some individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability” (p. 10).
Finding
I find that impacts to rock skullcap were adequately analyzed.

Issue 12. Whether impacts to Allegheny woodrat were adequately analyzed.
The appellant contends that, “[t]he Allegheny woodrat is listed as a Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) species on the GWNF (GWNF Plan L-16)” and “[t]his species has not been properly analyzed or protected” (Appeal, p. 37).
The GWNF Forest Plan (1993) contains out dated information indicating the Allegheny woodrat was a federal candidate species at that time (Appendix L-16). Currently, this species has no federal listing or candidate for listing status and is considered a locally rare species in Virginia. The EA addresses the effects of project alternatives on locally rare species that could possibly occur in the project area or have habitat which could support them in the project area. Only two locally rare species were identified by the District as meeting this criteria – Coopers Hawk and Cerulean Warbler (EA, p. 40). The District considered personal knowledge and published literature regarding habitat use and needs for these species as well as response to forest management activities and determined, “[a]ll proposed Toms Branch actions should not cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability” for both species (EA, pp. 40 and 41). In addition, the District determined “[i]mplementation of any alternative would have no significant effect on TESLR species as indicated in the BE and LR analysis (EA, p. 44).
Finding
I find that impacts to Allegheny woodrat were adequately analyzed.

Issue 13. Whether proper evaluation of habitat and impacts to Northeastern bulrush were adequately analyzed.
Regarding this species, the appellant contends, “impacts must be analyzed and accounted for” (Appeal, p. 37) and “the FS has not inventoried the project area to determine if northeastern bulrush populations or habitat may exist in the area” (Appeal, p. 38).
With regard to inventories for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species, current direction for project-level inventory of these species is found in the Southern Region Supplement to the Forest Service Manual 2672.43 (Supplement No.: R8-2600-2002-2). This supplement directs National Forest staffs to conduct project-level inventory where results of such inventory are needed and meaningful to protecting viability of PETS species. Following this guidance, the BE lists all PETS species for the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, and uses a step down approach for eliminating those not potentially affected based on lack of habitat conditions or probable range occurring within the project area (pp. 5 and 6). Field surveys were conducted on July 21, 23, 25, 26, August 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, and 27, 2003, to determine the presence or absence of TES species and/or habitats (BE, p. 5). Other than butternut, rock skullcap and potential habitat for Indiana bat and James spinymussel, no TES species were found, nor were other habitats observed in the project area that would likely support TES species (BE, p. 6). Northeastern bulrush was eliminated from further consideration as part of this step down approach because the BE determined that there was lack of suitable habitat for this species in the project area (Appendix A, p. 18).

Finding
I find that evaluation of habitat and impacts to Northeastern bulrush were adequately analyzed.

Issue 14. Whether the EA fully and fairly considered impacts to salamanders.
The appellant contends that “the agency has not sufficiently examined and considered the potential impacts upon salamanders” (Appeal, p. 38).
The BE is designed to address proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive (PETS) species (FSM 2670.31 and 2670.32). Effects to locally rare species may be addressed in the EA where project scoping indicates there are issues associated with the project.
The BE addresses threatened, endangered, or sensitive salamanders (Appendix A, p. 15). These included Peaks of Otter salamander, Cow Knob salamander, Shenandoah salamander and Weller’s salamander. These species were eliminated from further consideration in the BE through the step down process used to analyze PETS species because it was determined that the project is located out of known ranges for these species. Locally rare species are addressed in the EA but no locally rare salamanders were identified as occurring in the project area (pp. 40, 41 and 44). In addition the EA disclosed, “[i]mplementation of any alternative would have no significant effect on TESLR species as indicated in the BE and LR analysis (p. 44).
Finding
I find the EA fully and fairly considers impacts to salamanders.

Issue 15. Whether forest fragmentation and effects to forest interior habitat related to birds was adequately addressed.
The appellant contends, “effects of potential fragmentation and loss of forest interior habitat on birds. . . was not fully examined” (Appeal, p. 39).
The EA identifies fragmentation as part of a significant issue (Significant Issue 2, p. 11). The EA considered development of alternatives (see Alternatives 6 and 7, p. 12) to directly respond to concerns related to fragmentation, but the interdisciplinary team determined these alternatives “would not meet the objectives for the. . . project area” and would “not meet the purpose and need of the project” (p. 12). Fragmentation is addressed in multiple sections of the EA, “Recent Actions Affecting the Resource” (pp. 31 and 32), “Tables 3-6 and 3-7, Current Versus Post-Harvest Age Class Distributions for MA14 and MA17” (pp. 36 and 37), “Wildlife/Birds – Existing Conditions” (pp. 45-47), Wildlife/Birds – Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives” (pp. 47-49), “Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 – Charts 5 and 6” (p. 59), displaying current and post harvest forest age classes by alternative, and under the discussion of black bear, pileated woodpecker and ovenbird (as management indicator species) which require remote areas and/or mature forest (pp. 60 and 61).
Additional effects to forest interior birds were disclosed in the analysis of impacts to locally rare species. Two locally rare species with recognized potential habitat in the project area were analyzed. For these species the EA identifies, “proposed actions should not cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability of the Cerulean warbler” and “the proposed. . . actions should not cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability of the Cooper’s hawk” (p. 41). Furthermore, the EA identifies, “[i]mplementation of any alternative would have no significant effect on TESLR species as indicated by the BE and this LR analysis” (p. 44).
Finding
I find that forest fragmentation and effects to forest interior habitat related to birds was adequately addressed.

Issue 16. Whether old growth was adequately provided for, and protected in accordance with Regional Guidance.
The appellant contends that “[t]he planners err in not fully addressing the distribution and linkage of old growth” and “[t]he FS has not examined whether any large, medium or small-sized OG areas exist or should be protected. . .” (Appeal, p. 41).
The chosen alternative for this project will regenerate 236 acres in 16 stands using the modified shelterwood method. Also, this project will release 44 acres, (DN, pages 2 and 3). This project, then, will manage existing vegetation on 6% of the 4,424 acre analysis area.
The review of this issue, and the appellant’s contentions, looked first at Plan consistency, particularly since the George Washington NF Plan Revision was completed before the R8 Guidance document came out. Also, the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) has not been amended, to date, to assimilate the context of the R8 Guidance document. The EA, pages 37-38 discloses the effect of the proposal on old growth by stating, “[n]o effects to old growth will occur as a result of any action alternatives. Alternative 1 would have no effect on old growth in that no action would occur and the forest would continue to age and approach old growth conditions. No stands proposed for treatment met the minimum age to be considered old growth per Revised Plan and Regional Guidance. During the stand examination process, approximately 41 acres in stand 24 of compartment 1558 were identified as old growth, with an estimated age of 168 years. No project activities are proposed in this stand as it contributes to small patches of old growth per the Regional Guidance. The closest cutting unit is over one-quarter of a mile away.”
The citation above shows that the Forest considered Old Growth in the context of the existing Plan, and the R8 Old Growth Guidance. The R8 Old Growth Guidance states, “For those stands that do not meet the operational definitions for old growth (Table 2, page 24) and if they are not part of any old-growth allocation or management direction identified in the forest plan, then there is no old-growth issue associated with the project.”


Download 119 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
high number
issues raised
proposed action
environmental effects
plan does
economic analysis
expected impacts
guidance contained
known range