for the el rito canyon landscape restoration...

Draft

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impactfor the

El Rito Canyon Landscape Restoration Project

USDA Forest Service

El Rito Ranger DistrictCarson National Forest

Rio Arriba County, New Mexico

Introduction

The El Rito Canyon Landscape Restoration Project (ERCLRP) is located on the El Rito and CanjilonRanger Districts ofthe Carson National Forest and surrounds the community of El Rito, New Mexico.The proposed project area is approximately 62,000 acres and is located primarily in the El Rito Creekand Rio Vallecitos 5th Code watersheds, with small portions of the project area lying within the ElRito-Rio Chama and Rio Ojo Caliente 5th code watersheds. There are multiple parcels of private landlocated throughout the analysis area totaling approximately 5,800 acres. Forest Roads 559, 137,20,44, and 106 provide primary access to the analysis area. A map ofthe project area and vicinity isprovided in Figure 1.

The El Rito Ranger District, Carson National Forest personnel completed the EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) for the El Rito Canyon Landscape Restoration project. The purpose of this project isto move conditions within El Rito Canyon toward desired conditions described in the Carson NationalForest Plan, specifically: the need to address Forest Plan goals ofthe forest being "biologically richdue to the very diverse vegetation. This provides the habitat for the diverse wildlife and fishes. Thevarious vegetation conditions are well distributed and evenly mixed to assure a continuedbiodiversity" (Forest Plan, Forest-wide Prescriptions, Wildlife, ), and having "clean, clear andsustained water flows through streams and into the rivers" (Forest Plan, Forest-wide Prescriptions,Watershed, Page 1). The Forest Plan also identifies the need to improve wildlife habitat throughcommercial and personal-use wood products, reduce insect and disease problems, and improve timbergrowth (Forest Plan, Issues, page 4), and the need to use fire "to protect, maintain, and enhanceresources and, as closely as possible, be allowed to function in its natural ecological role" (Forest Plan,Forest-Wide Prescriptions, Fire, Page 1).

The Forest Service needs to improve conditions within the El Rito Canyon project areathat aretrending away from desired conditions. These conditions include (1) declining availability of personal-use wood products; (2) declining forest health; (3) declining quality ofwildlife habitat; (4) potentialthreats to watershed health; and (5) potential threats to Wildland Urban Interface infrastructure. TheEA analyzes three alternatives to meet this need.


Figure 1. El Rito Canyon Landscape Restoration Project Vicinity Map.

Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Carson National Forest

El Rito Ranger DistrictEl Rito Canyon Landscape Restoration Project

Site Location

I

fs\ S3*1 y

Aibuqu.rqu.

JEW MEXICO

A^

N

A

Figure 2. El Rito Canyon Landscape Restoration Project Site Location Map.

Decision and Reasons for the Decision

Based upon my review of all alternatives, I have decided to implement the Proposed ActionAlternative which will treat primarily ponderosa pine, pinon-juniper, mixed conifer and aspen standson National Forest System (NFS) lands within the project area with thinning, mechanical treatments,


and prescribed burning, within the El Rito Ranger District of theCarson National Forest, in responseto the purpose and need for action. The Proposed Action includes:

• Thinning treatments via uneven-aged management strategies including:o Group selection treatments to establish regeneration openings where natural

regeneration is lacking and to create uneven-aged structure with all ageandsizeclasses represented.

o Single(individual) tree selection treatments to reduce tree densities andto createand/ormaintainuneven-aged structure and improve health and vigor ofresidual treesof all age classes and sizes.

o Stand improvementthinning, primarily trees less than 12" dbh, to reduce tree densitiesand competition and improve growth of residual trees.

• Within aspen stands, remove conifers and establish patchcuts to promote habitatdiversity andmaintain or improve aspen composition within the project area.

• Mechanically treat (thin) areaswith high concentrations of ladder fuels.

• Create fuel breaks along major NFS roads, WUI areas and infrastructure within the analysis areato break up fuel continuity.

• Cut encroaching conifers from grasslands and meadows and use prescribed fire to maintain openconditions.

• Lop and scatter, pile, chip, masticate, and use prescribed fire to reduce activity fuel and naturalfuel accumulations.

• Maintain resulting tree densities in forested stands through prescribed burning in order to safely

allow the reintroduction ofnaturally recurring fire back into fire adapted ecosystems.

• Improve riparianand fisheries habitat through the re-establishment and planting of riparianvegetation and placement of instream structures.

Thinning and mechanical treatments will be accomplished through timber sales, stewardshipcontracting opportunities, designation of personal use fuelwood blocks, commercial fuelwood blocksand mixed forest products removal including latillas, vigas and posts. Thinning and mechanicaltreatments may be accomplished through service contracts, in-house thinning, Collaborative ForestRestoration Program (CFRP) grants, timber sales, stewardship contracts, and other potential grants andnon-agency funding sources involving partnerships and collaborators.

Prescribed fire will be accomplished through broadcastburning, pile burning and jackpot burningutilizing hand ignitions and/or aerial (helicopter) ignitions. The method of prescribed fire used willdepend on forest type, receptive fuel bed, surface and vertical fuel loads, proximity to private land andother WUI infrastructure and proximity to heritage resources.

To improve habitat for wildlife, snags and living snags will be maintained, where possible, duringthinning activities.

In addition to requiring project implementation to follow Forest Plan standards and guidelines, theSouthwest Region's Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook of Best Management Practicesfor Watershed Management and Forest Service policies would be applied.

Monitoring ofthe project would be conducted in accordance with Forest Plan requirements.


Other Alternatives Considered

In addition to the selected alternative, I considered two other alternatives. A comparison of thesealternatives can be found in the EA on pages 5-7.

No Action

The no action alternative is used as a baseline when analyzing the effects of the proposed actionalternative. This alternative would not beaddressed in the purpose and need, treat the landscapemechanically or through burning, or move the landscape towards desired conditions.

Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Detailed StudyDiameter Cap- A diameter cap would not achieve the desired future conditions of the El Rito CanyonLandscape Restoration Project environmental analysis. Retaining all trees over the request 12 or 16inch diameter would leave stand densities above management thresholds for insects and diseasesusceptibility. Stands would also be at risk of increased crown fire potential.

Having an alternative that only considers thinning trees less than 12 or 16 inches diameter along forestroads would not begin to move the landscape on the trajectory of restoration for the following reasons:

• Residual stand densities would be left too high which would leave stands in an insect, diseaseand crown fire susceptible condition.

• Aspen would not be rejuvenated due to large conifers left in place.

• This treatment would not begin to move stands toward a desired future condition of landscaperesilience and improved watershed function.

This alternative would not meet Forest Plan direction for uneven aged stands by having a diametercap. A study done near Flagstaff, Arizona, found that treatments imposing a diameter cap leftsignificantly higher tree densities and basal area than stands without a diameter cap (Egan et al, 2014).

Public Involvement and ScopingPublic meetings were held on December 15, 2011 and February 23, 2012 to solicit public input indesigning the proposed action. The proposed project was first listed on the Carson National Forest'sSchedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on October 1, 2012 under the name "Lower El Rito WUI". TheSOPA is distributed to individuals, groups, state and local agencies, and Native American tribes, withties to the Carson National Forest (CNF). The SOPA can also be accessed on the Carson NationalForest Website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/carson. A detailed project proposal was provided toindividuals, groups, and agency representatives, for comment during scoping in August 2012. Ninecomment letters were received. An updated detailed project proposal was provided to individuals,groups, and agency representatives, for comment on August 1, 2013. Four comment letters werereceived. A Preliminary Environmental Assessment was provided to individuals, groups, and agencyrepresentatives, for comment on October 23, 2014. Four comment letters were received.

Finding of No Significant ImpactThe significance of environmental impacts is considered in terms of context and intensity. This meansthat the significance of an action is analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human andnational), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with thesetting of the proposed action. In the case of a site-specific action, significance usually depends uponthe effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Intensity refers to the severity or degree ifimpact (40 CFR 1508.27).


A summary of howthe Proposed Action Alternative addresses the 10 significant factors identified in40 CFR 1508.27(b) can be found in the Environmental Assessment pages 75-77. The best availablescience was considered in the determinations made in these findings, including methods of datacollection, analysis, causeandeffects analysis, andmeansto mitigateadverse effects.

Conclusion

After considering the environmental effects described in the EA and specialist reports, I havedetermined that the Proposed Action Alternativewill not have significanteffects on the quality of thehuman environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, anenvironmental impact statement will not be prepared.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

This decision to treat primarily ponderosa pine, pinon-juniper, mixed conifer and aspen stands on NFSlands within the project areawith thinning, mechanical treatments, and prescribed burning isconsistent with the intent ofthe Forest Plan's long term goals and objectives. The project was designedin conformance with land and resource management plan standards and incorporates appropriate landand resource management plan guidelines.

Administrative Review and Objection RightsThe ECLRP is an activity implementing a land management plan and not authorized under the HealthyForest Restoration Act (HFRA) and is subject to the Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process(Objection Process) pursuant to 36 CFR 218, subparts A and B.

ImplementationIf no objections are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation ofthe decision may occur on,but not before, the fifth business day following the end ofthe objection filing period. When objectionsare filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the reviewing officer has responded in writingto all pending objections, and until all concerns, and instructions identified by the reviewing officer inthe objection response have been addressed.

For further information concerning the El Rito Canyon Landscape Restoration Project, contact SandraJacquez at (575) 581-4554, during normal business hours.

Approved by:

FRANCISCO B. SANCHEZ Date

District RangerEl Rito Ranger DistrictCarson National Forest


Project Record Index

Thesedocuments include meeting notes, technical reports, letters, photos and other documentsgenerated inthe analysis ofthe proposed El RitoCanyon Landscape Restoration Project. They areavailable for reviewatthe El Rito Ranger District, P.O. Box 56, El Rito,NM 87530, and (575) 581-4554.

No. DATE DOCUMENT AUTHOR RECIPIENT

01 86.09

Environmental Impact Statement, Carson Land& Resource Management Plan (LRMP)

USDA Forest Service

(FS) Project File

02 86.09 Carson National Forest Plan as amended USDA FS Project File

03 86.10.31 LRMP Record of Decision USDA FS Project File

04 87.08.01

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the CarsonNational Forest USDA FS Project File

05 90.12.03

Soil & Water Conservation Practices

Handbook (BMPs) USDA FS Project File

06 07.09 CWPP for Rio Arriba County SEC. Inc Project File

07 08.06.01 Upper Chama CWPP

Walsh Environmental

Scientists and

Engineers, LLC Project File

08 09.12.23

Appendix J Standard ConsultationProtocol for Large-Scale Fuels Reduction,Vegetation Treatment, and HabitatImprovement Projects USDA FS Project File

09 10.07.19 IDT Meeting NotesSandra Jacquez, NEPAPlanner Project File


11 11.06.09

Letter: From El Rito Ditch Association

Concerning El Rito Watershed

Lucas Trujillo,President El Rito Ditch

Association Project File

12 11.09 2011 Carson NF MIS Assessment USDA FS Project File

13 11.10.01 Project Initiation LetterDiana Trujillo, DistrictRanger Project File

14 11.10.01 October 2011 Schedule of Proposed Action USDA FS Project File

15 11.12.01 Public Meeting FlyerSandra Jacquez, NEPAPlanner Project File

16 11.12.08 Conversation Record—Horacio Martinez

Sandra Jacquez, NEPAPlanner Project File

17 11.12.15

PowerPoint Presentation Dec. 15th PublicMeeting

Anthony Martinez,DFMO Project File

18 11.12.15 Public Meeting Notes/Sign-inSandra Jacquez, NEPAPlanner Project File

19 12.01.01 January 2012 Schedule of Proposed Action USDA FS Project File


21 12.02.07

Open House Flyer with mailing list and postingsites


22 12.02.23 Open House Sign-In Sheet Sandra Jacquez, NEPA Project File

E\ Rfto Canyon Landscape Restoration Project


Planner

23 12.02.23 Open House Public Comment NotesSandra Jacquez, NEPAPlanner Project File

24 12.02.27 Conversation Record- Steve Archuleta


25 12.04.01 April2012 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

26 12.07.01 July 2012 Scheduleof ProposedActions USDA FS Project File


28 12.08.03

Letter: Public Comment on Project fromCommunity Member

MaryAnn Leberg,Community Member Project File

29 12.08.16

Letter: Scoping Letter Providing Opportunityto Comment on Proposed Action and MailingList

Kelly Garcia, ActingDistrict Ranger Project File

30 12.08.16 Letter: Tribal Consultation and Mailing ListKelly Garcia, ActingDistrict Ranger Project File

31 12.08.16 Legal Notice ofOpportunity to Comment Rio Grande Sun Project File

32 12.08.20

Letter: Response to Scoping from Andy R.Lopez

Andy R. Lopez,Community Member Project File

33 12.08.22

Letter: Response to Scoping from CarsonForest Watch

Joanie Berde, CarsonForest Watch Project File

34 12.08.23

Letter: Response to Tribal Consultation fromComanche Nation

Theodore Villicana,Comanche Nation Project File

35 12.08.24

Letter: Response to Scoping from WildEarthGuardians

Bryan Bird, WildEarthGuardians Project File

36 12.08.27

September 11, 2012 Open House Flyer withmailing List and Posting Sites


37 12.09.11 Public Meeting NotesSandra Jacquez, NEPAPlanner Project File

38 12.09.11

Letter: Response to Comment from Center forBiological Diversity

Jay Lininger, Centerfor biological Diversity Project File

39 12.09.12

Letter: Response to Scoping form LasComunidades

John Ussery, LasComunidades Project File

40 12.09.13

Letter: Response to Scoping from CommunityMember

Terence Boyle,Community Member Project File

41 12.09.14

Email: Correspondence Between Greg Millerand Terence Boyle

Greg Miller, ForestSoil Scientist Project File

42 12.10.01 October 2012 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

43 12.10.03 Email: Response to Scoping Dick Artley Project File

44 12.10.09

Letter: Response to Scoping from New MexicoEnvironment Department

Morgan Nelson,NMED Project File

45 13.01.01 January 2013 Schedule ofProposed Actions USDA FS Project File


47 13.04.01 April 2013 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File


49 13.07.01 July 2013 Schedule ofProposed Actions USDAFS Project File




51 13.08.01 Legal Notice ofOpportunity to CommentDiana Trujillo, DistrictRanger Project File

52 13.08.01 Letter: Providing Opportunity to CommentDiana Trujillo, DistrictRanger Project File

53 13.08.07 Comments received regarding El Rito CanyonMaryAnn Leberg,Community Member Project File

54 13.08.29

Letter: Response to 30-day Comments fromLas Cummunidades

John Ussery, LasComunidades Project File


56 13.09.10

Recreation/Lands/Special Uses SpecialistReport

Ray Martinez,Recreation Staff Project File

57 13.09.13

Letter: Response to 30-Day Comment fromCenter for Biological Diversity

Lay Lininger, WildlandEcologist Project File


59 13.10.01

Letter: Response to 30-Day Comment fromNMED

Morgan Nelson,NMED Project File

60 13.12.12 Scoping Comment AnalysisSandra Imler-Jacquez,Acting District Ranger Project File

61 14.01.01 January 2014 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

62 14.01.17 30-day Comment AnalysisSandra Imler-Jacquez,Acting District Ranger Project File


64 14.04.01 April 2014 Schedule ofProposed Actions USDA FS Project File

65 14.05.08

Letter: List of threatened and endangeredspecies that may occur in the proposed projectlocation, and/or may be affected by theproposed project USFWS Project File

66 14.07.01 July 2014 Schedule of Proposed Actions" USDA FS Project File

67 14.07.18 Heritage ReportLowell Evans,Archeologist Project File

68 14.08.04 Fire, Fuels, Air Quality Specialist ReportsJonathan Romero,Fuels Planner Project File


70 14.10.23

Letter: Cover Letter Providing Opportunity toComment on Preliminary EA with Mailing List

Francisco Sanchez,Acting District Ranger Project File

71 14.10.23 Preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA)Francisco Sanchez,Acting District Ranger Project File

72 14.10.23

Legal Notice Providing Opportunity toComment on Preliminary Assessment USDA FS Project File

73 14.10.27 Letter: Response to 30-Day commentBryan Bird, WildEarthGuardians Project File

74 14.11.03 Letter: Response to 30-Day CommentJoanie Berde, CarsonForest Watch Project File

75 14.11.03 Conversation Record Dick Artley Project File

E\ RrtoCanyon Landscape Restoration Project


76 14.11.12 Letter: Response to 30-Day Comment Dick Artley Project File

77 14.11.28 Email: Anatomyof a forest service timber sale Dick Artley Project File

78 14.12.03 Letter: Response to 30-Day CommentMorgan Nelson,NMED Project File

79 14.12.19

Letter: Providing Updated List ofT&E speciesfor Project USFWS Project File

80 15.01.01 January 2015 Schedule of Proposed Action USDAFS Project File

81 15.01.07 Letter of Concurrence from US FWS

Wally Murphy,USFWS Project File

82 15.03.06 Biological EvaluationAlicia Gallegos,Wildlife Biologist Project File

83 15.03.30 Silvicultural/Vegetation ReportGabriel Romero,Silviculturalist Project File

84 15.04.01 April 2015 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

85 15.04.24 Wildlife and Fisheries ReportAlicia Gallegos,Wildlife Biologist Project File

86 15.05.28 Watershed and Soils Specialist ReportSandra Jacquez, NEPAPlanner Project File

87 15.05.28 Social and Economic ReportSandra Jacquez, NEPAPlanner Project File

88 15.05.28 Rangeland Management Report

Estevan Gallegos,Range ManagementSpecialist Project File

89 15.06.16 30-Day Comment Analysis (Preliminary EA)Francisco Sanchez,Acting District Ranger Project File

90 15.06.18

Letter: Cover Letter for Final EA, FONSI, andDraft DN

Francisco Sanchez,District Ranger Project File

91 15.06.18 Final EA and FONSI


92 15.06.18 Draft Decision Notice


93 15.06.18 Legal Notice of ObjectionFrancisco Sanchez,District Ranger Project File

10

for the el rito canyon landscape restoration...

Documents