P. O. Box 3102 Roanoke, Virginia 24015-1102
Download 119 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- BACKGROUND
- CONCLUSION
Virginia Forest Watch/Sherman Bamford (Appeal 05-08-08-0019)
Virginia Forest Watch CERTIFIED MAIL – R.R.R. ATTN: Mr. Sherman Bamford P.O. Box 3102 Roanoke, Virginia 24015-1102
decision for the Toms Branch Project on the James River Ranger District of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Dear Mr. Bamford: According to the authority granted me by 36 CFR 215, this letter contains my appeal decision on your appeal of the decision for the Toms Branch Project on the James River Ranger District of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. BACKGROUNDOn March 7, 2005, District Ranger Downing signed the Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) for this project; the legal notice of the decision was published on March 10, 2005. It has been verified that you provided 30-day comments for the proposed action thereby meeting 36 CFR 215.13, regulatory requirements for eligibility to file an appeal on this project. Therefore, the timely appeal was accepted on April 26, 2005. The District Ranger advised us that you participated in an informal disposition meeting via conference call on May 11, 2005. However, as no resolution was reached, we continued with our review. RECOMMENDATION OF APPEAL REVIEWING OFFICER (ARO) I received the ARO's recommendation that the District Ranger’s decision be affirmed. The ARO’s recommendation is based on your issues and a review of the project record. A copy of that ARO recommendation is enclosed. RELIEF REQUESTED Your appeal requests that the decision be withdrawn. CONCLUSIONMy review of your appeal was conducted pursuant to, and in accordance with, 36 CFR 215.18 to ensure the analysis and decision are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policy and orders. I have reviewed the appeal record and the ARO's recommendation, which includes a discussion of the issues raised in your appeal. Based on my review, I conclude that the issues raised in the appeal of the decision for the Toms Branch Project, have been adequately addressed by the District Ranger in the EA and DN. I find that the environmental effects disclosure in the EA is appropriate and adequate for this project and supports the decision. Therefore, I am affirming the District Ranger’s March 7, 2005, decision. This constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture. Sincerely, /s/ John Bellemore (for)
Appeal Deciding Officer Acting Forest Supervisor Enclosure
This letter constitutes my recommendation for the subject appeal filed by Virginia Forest Watch, represented by Sherman Bamford, against District Ranger Annie Downing’s March 7, 2005, decision for the Toms Branch Project on the James River Ranger District of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. My review is conducted pursuant to 36 CFR 215. To ensure the analysis and decision were in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies and orders, I have reviewed and considered each of the points raised by the appellant and the decision documentation submitted by the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. My recommendation is based upon review of the Appeal and Project File, including but not limited to the scoping letter, public comments, Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) and the Environmental Assessment (EA). ISSUES The issues raised in the appeal that meet the requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 are: Issue 1. Whether Roadless and Unroaded Areas were adequately considered. [Reference item 2, pp. 2-6] Issue 2 Whether an EIS is required. [Reference p. 6, last para. continuing to p. 7] Issue 3. Whether an adequate range of alternatives was considered. [Reference item 3, pp. 7-8] Issue 4. Whether the purpose and need were too narrowly defined. [Reference item 4, p. 8-10] Issue 5. Whether impacts to James spinymussel, green floater, Atlantic pigtoe, yellow lance and other aquatic resources were adequately considered. [Reference item 5, pp. 10-13] Issue 6. Whether the impacts of helicopter logging were properly analyzed. [Reference items 6 and 7, pp. 13-15] Issue 7. Whether the economic analysis in the environmental assessment (EA) was adequate. [Reference item 6, p. 13, last para. Continuing to p. 14; item 8, pp. 15-16] Issue 8. Whether soil watersheds, and karst areas were adequately analyzed and protected. [Reference item 9, pp. 16-22] 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. [Reference items 10, pp. 22-26] Issue 10. Whether population data for management indicator species (MIS), proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive (PETS), and locally rare (LR) is adequate, and whether impacts were adequately considered. [Reference item 11, pp. 26-36] Issue 11. Whether impacts to rock skullcap were adequately analyzed. [Reference item 12, pp, 36-37] Issue 12. Whether impacts to Allegheny woodrat were adequately analyzed. [Reference item 13, p. 37] Issue 13. Whether proper evaluation of habitat and impacts to Northeastern bulrush were adequately analyzed. [Reference item 14, pp. 37-38] Issue 14. Whether the EA fully and fairly considered impacts to salamanders. [Reference item 15, p. 38] Issue 15. Whether forest fragmentation and effects to forest interior habitat related to birds was adequately addressed. [Reference item 16, pp. 38-41] Issue 16. Whether old growth was adequately provided for, and protected in accordance with Regional Guidance. [Reference item 17, pp. 41-43] Issue 17. Whether suitability was properly addressed, and analyzed. [Reference item 18, p. 43] Issue 18. Whether impacts to, and protection of, black bear were adequately addressed. [Reference item 19, pp. 43-45] Issue 19. Whether impacts to, and protection of, turkey were adequately addressed. [Reference item 20, pp. 45-46] Issue 20. Whether monitoring of water quality was adequate considered. [Reference item 21, p. 46] Issue 21. Whether aesthetic quality was adequately analyzed and protected. [Reference item 22, pp. 46-49] Issue 22. Whether temporary road construction was properly analyzed and road impacts adequately considered. [Reference item 23, pp. 49-50] Issue 23. Whether the effects of the project on the spread of invasive species and the resulting use of herbicides was adequately addressed. [Reference item 24, p. 50] Issue 24. Whether cultural resources are adequately protected. [Reference item 25, pp. 50-51] Issue 25. Whether there is adequate protection for a special biological area. [Reference item 26, p. 51] Issue 26. Whether public participation and comments were adequately considered. [Reference items 27, 28, pp. 51-56] DISCUSSION OF ISSUES Issue 1. Whether Roadless and unroaded areas were adequately considered. The appellant contends that “[t]he RARE II area should have been properly analyzed and Inventoried (or evaluated for its roadless area characteristics and potential for wilderness.)” (Appeal, p. 3), and “[l]ogging the Toms Branch TS and constructing associated infrastructure inside it will degrade this area’s special recreation, scenic, and ecological values; for example, the roadless/unroaded area will in effect be diminished in size as visitors will have to retreat further and further into the interior in order to escape ‘sights and sounds of civilization’” (Appeal, p. 4). The DN/FONSI states, on page 2, that the proposed action is to construct approximately 0.6 miles of temporary road/skid roads. All temporary roads and landings will be closed and revegetated. The EA, on page 68, discloses that a significant issue on inventorying a portion of the project area came up during scoping. The EA discloses that the area does not currently contain an inventoried roadless area. The EA, on page 68, discloses that the proposed project work will not prevent the previously identified roadless area from meeting the “having less than 20% of the area in 0 -10 age class criteria”. The area will still qualify with this criterion. Finding I find that impacts to roadless and unroaded areas were adequately consideration. Issue 2 Whether an EIS is required. Appellant contends, “[t]he FS failed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for this controversial project” and that “[t]he proposed timber project is a ‘major Federal action’ significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, therefore requiring preparation of an EIS pursuant to NEPA” (Appeal, pp. 6-7). The Responsible Official concluded that, “[t]he actions associated with the harvest of forest stands under Alternative 2 of the Toms Branch Project EA and the associated projects are not major federal actions, individually or cumulatively, and will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed.” (DN/FONSI, p. 6). The FONSI shows that the Responsible Official considered the context and intensity of the expected impacts of the selected alternative as per 40 CFR 1508.27. Finding I find that an EIS is not required. Issue 3. Whether an adequate range of alternatives was considered. The appellant contends that, “NEPA requires the agency to develop a reasonable range of alternatives for a proposed action” and that “[C]ommentors raised concerns about the appropriateness of logging, roadbuilding, landing construction in roadless areas, RARE II areas, Virginia Mountain Treasure area, and adjacent unroaded areas. Alternatives were not considered that avoided these sensitive resources or resolved conflicts” (Appeal, pp. 7-8). The EA considered in detail two action alternatives along with the required no-action alternative (EA, pp. 10-17). Each action alternative addressed the purpose and need to varying degrees. The no-action alternative addressed appellants concerns about harvest related impacts. In addition, several alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study because: they did not meet the purpose and need; were addressed by one of the other alternatives considered in detail; or were not feasible (EA, pp. 11, 12). Finding I find that an adequate range of alternatives was considered. Issue 4. Whether the purpose and need were too narrowly defined. The appellant contends that, “[t]he ‘purpose and needs’ identified for this project have been extremely narrowed. This has therefore improperly constrained, prejudiced, and restricted the fair development, analysis, and choosing of reasonable alternatives” (Appeal, pp. 8-9). They further contend that the purpose and need is so narrow that it precludes an examination of a reasonable range of alternatives; ‘need’ for the project is not reasonably established. The EA states the purpose as defined by the Forest Plan desired future conditions (EA, pp. 3-6) for Management Areas 14 and 17. The scoping letter dated September 16, 2004, also discussed the desired future condition and defined the project objectives establishing the purpose for the project. The EA discusses need as determined by existing condition treatments warranted to meet the desired future conditions (EA, pp. 3-6). The scoping letter also discussed the difference between the existing conditions and desired future conditions, establishing the need. Finding I find that the purpose and need were defined within the context of the Forest Plan and its implementation. Issue 5. Whether impacts to James spinymussel, green floater, Atlantic pigtoe, yellow lance and other aquatic resources were adequately considered. The appellant contends that “[t]he FS did not fully evaluate the impacts of this project on mussels. . . its activities could adversely affect the viability of downstream populations” (Appeal, p. 11). Also that “[t]he FS has not conducted appropriate pre-project monitoring and inventorying for. . . TESLR mussels” (Appeal, p. 12). Current direction with regard to inventories for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species and how that direction relates to survey and data needs for this project are discussed under Issue 10 below. Only one aquatic PETS species, the James spinymussel, is deemed likely to occur within the area potentially affected by the project; an additional aquatic PETS species, the yellow lance is known to occur downstream of the project area, but at a distance where potential sedimentation from the project would be immeasurable (BE/BA, pp. 6 & Appendix A, p.16). The BE/BA reviews the status of James spinymussel on and near the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, stating it is known to occur “in Potts Creek downstream of the project area” (p. 9). To address concerns regarding sedimentation effects on mussels and fish, “a Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Mussel and Fish Conservation Plan was developed by the Forest. . . with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” (BE/BA, p. 10). The BE identified “[t]he proposed action will follow the Conservation Plan and all appropriate conservation measures will be employed as mitigation. . . into the project” (BE/BA, p. 10). In the effects analysis of Fisheries/Aquatic Biota the EA identified “[l]ittle or no detectable impacts to aquatic biota are expected as a result of the vegetative treatments proposed” (p. 39). In addition, the EA discloses impacts to James spinymussel in the analysis of aquatic MIS species, stating “[t]he Toms Branch proposed vegetative treatments are not expected to decrease the James spinymussel habitat or populations under any alternative” (p. 63). The BE/BA identifies this project as outside of the known range of the green floater, Atlantic pigtoe and all other threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) mussel species for the Forest (Appendix A, p. 16). Finding I find that impacts to James spinymussel, green floater, Atlantic pigtoe, yellow lance and other aquatic resources were adequately considered. Issue 6. Whether the impacts of helicopter logging were properly analyzed. The appellant questions “whether there was adequate Forest Plan analysis of helicopter logging” (Appeal, p. 13), and contends “the size of these landings is not justified. . . nor is the high number of these landings justified” (Appeal, p. 14). The economics of helicopter logging is raised by the appellant also, and that will be evaluated as part of Issue 7 below. First, the Plan does not make site specific decisions about logging methods, and sizes of landings, nor does it make site specific decisions about appropriateness of silvicultural method on a site. The Plan does make recommendations and provide guidance about silvicultural methods in Appendix H (pp. 1-9). The DN for this project, on page 8, made a finding that the prescribed silvicultural treatment of modified shelterwood is appropriate (per NFMA), following the guidance contained in the Plan, Appendix H (p. 5). Second, while the Plan does not specify whether helicopter logging is allowed or not, the proposed action to helicopter log is explained in the EA, on pages 3-8, (Proposed Action, Purpose and Need), and why conventional logging, that includes road building, was not analyzed in detail (EA, p. 11). Finally, the EA discloses the environmental effects of helicopter logging (compared to other alternatives) specifically on pages. 21, 32-34, 37, 42, 44, 58, 60, 64, and 66. Download 119 Kb. Share with your friends:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
