P. O. Box 3102 Roanoke, Virginia 24015-1102
Download 119 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Finding
FindingI find that old growth was adequately provided for, and protected in accordance with Regional Guidance. Issue 17. Whether suitability was properly addressed, and analyzed. The appellant contends that, while the DN, on page 8, claims that all lands being harvested in this project are suitable (by Plan Appendix A definition), the map entitled “Lands Suitable for Timber Production by Management Area” shows that some of the cutting units would be in the unsuitable area. The DN, on page 8, states that all areas proposed for harvesting are part of the suitable land base defined by the Plan. The key phrase about these stands is, “Units 1-14 contain white oak, red oak, and hickory, while unit 15 is a white oak stand and unit 16 is a white oak-black oak-yellow pine stand. All stands are classed as upland hardwood stands (EA, pages 7-8). Thus, they meet the final site-specific determination for suitable lands as described on page A-5 of the Forest Plan. A map showing suitability at a broad (planning level) scale cannot possibly show the level of detail described on page A-5 of the Plan. Determinations of suitability must be made site specifically, and was done for this project. In addition, the Forest Plan provides guidance for Management Area 14 lands that are classified as unsuitable for timber production. The Forest Plan states, “[t]he area is classified unsuitable for timber production. However, timber harvests may take place if the harvests achieve wildlife habitat objectives” (p. 3-77). The EA (p. 4) states, “Even-aged regeneration harvest methods are to be used to meet wildlife habitat requirements . . . in MA 14.” FindingI find that suitability was properly addressed, and analyzed. Issue 18. Whether impacts to, and protection of, black bear were adequately addressed. The appellants contend that “[i]ssues of negative impacts to [management indicator species] black bear due to increased disturbance, stress, vulnerability and deaths which the project could foreseeably facilitate should receive a hard look” (Appeal, p. 43). The EA (p. 11) identifies “[t]he proposal may target mature forest tracts over 90-100 years old, which provide important habitat for wildlife like black bears. . . ” as a significant issue. The EA identifies black bear as a management indicator species (pp. 50 and 51) and addresses impacts to black bear in the effects analysis (p. 60). Disclosure of forest age class distribution as it relates to forest structure and mast production (bear habitat components) is provided in the EA (pp. 58 and 59). Additional disclosure of effects to species which utilize mature forest, such as black bear is provided in an analysis of old growth forest in the EA (pp. 37 and 38). Furthermore, the EA (p. 29) discloses that open road density in the project area would not increase, thereby alleviating this potential source of disturbance to black bear. Finding I find that impacts to, and protection of, black bear were adequately addressed. Issue 19. Whether impacts to, and protection of, turkey were adequately addressed. The appellant contends that the Forest Service failed “to [a]dequately consider and protect wild turkeys” (Appeal, p. 45). The EA identifies habitat needs of wild turkey in the in effects analysis for MIS (pp. 51 and 52). Disclosure of forest age class distribution as it relates to forest structure and mast production (turkey habitat components) is provided in the EA (pp. 58 and 59). The EA discusses impacts to wild turkey (p. 62). “Some disturbance during nesting season may occur. . . however this disturbance is expected to be minimal. . .”. “For the project, all action alternatives contribute to providing a range of habitats to support the wild turkey.” Population trends for this species are discussed in the effects analysis as well, “[c]urrent Forest monitoring shows wild turkey populations are increasing on the George Washington and Jefferson NFs (Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Report, Fiscal Year 2001 to 2003, Appendix G page 17-19). . . across both Forests, wildlife habitat management activities would favor an upward trend in turkey populations (EA, p. 62). Furthermore, the EA (p. 29) discloses that open road density in the project area would not increase, thereby alleviating this potential source of disturbance to wild turkey. Finding I find impacts to, and protection of, turkey were adequately addressed. Issue 20. Whether monitoring of water quality was adequate considered. The appellant contends “water quality monitoring information has not been appropriately incorporated into this NEPA analysis” (Appeal, p. 46). The EA states “[a]n analysis of over 500 streams on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests have established the current range of conditions for aquatic macroinvertebrate communities . . . [which] establishes a baseline to evaluate the effectiveness of standards, guidelines, and mitigation measures in preventing changes and impacts to the aquatic community” (EA, pp. 38-39). The Nelse branch site mentioned in the appeal (p. 46) and the EA (p. 39) is part of this Forest-wide monitoring water quality using both chemical analysis of water and analysis of associated aquatic macroinvertebrates (EA, pp. 25, 39). In this case, water quality monitoring is accomplished through forest-wide efforts rather than on a project-by-project basis. There is no requirement for site-specific water quality monitoring for every project. The NEPA regulations state “NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail” (40 CFR 1500.1). The water quality monitoring 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 water quality monitoring does not show a level of adverse cumulative effects that would indicate a need for more in-depth analysis. Finding I find that monitoring of water quality was adequate considered. Issue 21. Whether aesthetic quality was adequately analyzed and protected. The appellant contends that “[i]t is unclear how the project, including modified shelterwood logging, extensive landing construction, roadbuilding and other activities will be consistent with the provisions of NFMA.” (Appeal, p. 46). And “[m]itigation measures and design features for aesthetic quality are lacking” (Appeal, p. 48). The EA, on page 65, discloses that no significant issue related to aesthetics was brought up during scoping. All areas proposed for harvest fall within Management Area (MA) 14 Remote Habitat for Wildlife and MA 17, Timber Production. The Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of MA 14 is partial retention and the VQO of MA 17 is modification. The EA, on page 66, discloses that, in unit 1-14, with the use of the modified shelterwood method of treatment, openings will be softened and baffled with the leave trees and will not call undue attention from a casual observer. The EA references that the Revised Forest Plan standards presented in Table 3-14, pages 3-119 to 3-121 will be used. Appropriate contrast reducing techniques such as shaping and orienting the opening to blend with the contours and existing vegetation patterns and with existing landscape characteristics will be used. Edges will be shaped and/or feathered where approiate in retention and partial retention “seen areas”. No geometric shapes are used. Finding I find that the proposed action is consistent with NEPA and mitigation measures for aesthetics are disclosed. Issue 22. Whether temporary road construction was properly analyzed and road impacts adequately considered. The appellant contends, “[w]hen proposed road management activities would result in change in access. . . or where there may be adverse effects. . . those decisions must be informed by roads analysis” (Appeal, p. 49). The appellant asserts that a project-scale roads analysis was needed to analyze road impacts, and identify needed and unneeded roads in the project area, however, a roads analysis below the forest-scale is not automatically required. “The responsible official has the discretion and duty to determine whether or not a roads analysis below the forest-scale is needed and the degree of detail that is appropriate and practicable” (FSM 7712.13). When it is determined that a roads analysis below the forest-scale is not needed, the rationale must be documented (FSM 7712.13c). The responsible official has documented the rationale for not conducting a project-scale roads analysis (EA, p. 29). Under this decision, approximately 0.6 miles of temporary roads/skid roads would be constructed for this project. The State of Virginia Best Management Practices for forestry activities will be utilized and project monitoring will be utilized to adhere to Virginia’s non-point source regulations (EA, p. 17). Effects of erosion/sedimentation, soil productivity, water, fisheries/aquatics, and visual resources in the sale area were discussed in the EA (EA, pp. 22, 25-27, 39 and 66). Finding I find that temporary road construction was properly analyzed and road impacts adequately considered. Issue 23. Whether the effects of the project on the spread of invasive species and the resulting use of herbicides was adequately addressed. The appellant contends that “[t]he project analysis should have discussed the potential of spreading noxious weeds into parts of the project area not currently infested in the area” (Appeal, p. 50). The appellant contends that “the FS should be consider[ing] the cumulative effects of subsequent herbicide use and other intensive treatments of noxious weeds at the project level” (Appeal, p. 50). The EA addresses “the risk of invasive plants . . . gaining a foothold in the project area due to timber harvesting and associated activities . . .” (p. 37). The EA states “Tree-of-heaven was documented in one unit . . . ” but that the low number of stems is not expected to become a problem (p. 37). For other invasive plants, the EA states “timber sale contract provisions require the cleaning of [timber] equipment prior to operation on National Forest lands to minimize the likelihood of such spread” (p. 37). Herbicide use is not proposed for this project as no herbicide control of invasive plants is planned; should such action be needed at a later date “herbicide treatment may be analyzed in a future [NEPA] document” (EA, p. 37). Finding I find that the effects of the project on the spread of invasive species and the resulting use of herbicides were adequately addressed Issue 24. Whether cultural resources are adequately protected. The appellant contends that “[c]omplete cultural resources surveys should have been completed which satisfy the terms of the National Historic Preservation Act. . .”(Appeal, p. 50). The DN (p. 6) and EA (pp. 28 and 29) demonstrate that a survey satisfying s.106 was undertaken by archeologist Mark Martin, the SHPO was consulted, and appropriate measures have been established for mitigation should sites be encountered during project execution. In addition, the EA discloses that, “[t]he Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation was scoped for this project and no comments were submitted” (Appendix 3, page 7 – Agency Responses to Scoping Comments). Finding I find cultural resources are adequately protected. Issue 25. Whether there is adequate protection for a special biological area. The appellant contends that “[t]he DN and EA fail to note that a portion of the project area is within the Potts Pond Special Biological Area.” Also,”[h]ow would the natural heritage resources in the SBA (and/or outside of the area, if any exist) be impacted by the project and other activities/events with cumulative impacts?” (Appeal, p. 51). A letter in the project file dated October 8, 2004, from the Commonwealth of Virginia to Annie Downing, District Ranger, states that they (Commonwealth of Virginia) do not anticipate that the proposed project will adversely impact habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic formations. The EA does not identify a Potts Pond Special Biological Area as being in the project area. There is no Forest Service Potts Pond Special Biological Area identified in the Forest Plan. If there is a state Potts Pond Special Biological Area, the Commonwealth of Virginia has stated that there is no anticipated impact. Finding I find that there is not a special biological area to be protected. Issue 26 Whether public participation and comments were adequately considered. The appellant contends that, “[d]ecision makers should thoroughly consider issues raised by the public and should use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to identify environmental effects and values” (Appeal, p. 51). The appellant further contends that, failure to provide us, and the rest of the public, an opportunity to review and comment on the EA has denied proper and lawful participation in the NEPA process. The ability to submit substantive comments as the FS suggest is required in the new appeal regulations, is precluded (Appeal, p. 53). A scoping notice was sent by the District Ranger to interested parties on September 16, 2004, which announced the beginning of the official 30-day comment period for the proposed action. The District Ranger’s letter included a description of the proposed action, directions to the project area and a map of the project area as well as instructions for public participation. A legal notice was published in The Virginian Review on September 18, 2004, which cited 36 CFR 215. The published legal notice contained similar information on the proposed action, project location, and public involvement. This meets our current appeal regulations at 36 CFR 215.5. Responses to comments received were presented in Appendix 3 of the EA and the issues used to formulate alternatives were presented on page 10 of the EA. Finding I find that public participation and comments were adequately considered. RECOMMENDATION After reviewing the project record and considering each issue raised by the appellant, I recommend that 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 be affirmed. /s/ Orlando Sutton ORLANDO SUTTON Appeal Reviewing Officer District Ranger Download 119 Kb. Share with your friends:
|