Frequently Asked Questions
SNFPA FSEIS & ROD
Implementation Questions and Clarifications
Final SEIS
- Question: What is the meaning of the phrase in the SEIS "covered under existing laws, regulations, etc"? EPA,
Answer: In Appendix A: Standards and Guidelines Alternatives S1 and S2: is a table comparing the Standards and Guidelines for the 2 alternatives. For some of the standards and guidelines included in S1 (designated with an "x"), the S2 column states, "Covered by existing law, regulation, or direction". Keeping with the philosophy to reduce redundancy of management direction, these standards and guidelines were not included in the standards and guidelines for the SEIS ROD 2004. The intent is that Forests will follow the direction under its base authority. An example is in SEIS Volume 1 Appendix A: page 339. The standard and guideline included in S1, "Ensure identified beneficial uses for the water body are adequately protected..." is not included in S2 because it is already included in Forest Service Best Management Practices direction in "Investigating Water quality in Pacific Southwest Region: Best Management Practices Evaluation Program" (USDA-FS, PSW Region 1992).
- Question: What is the relationship between Wildland Urban Intermix acres and Condition Class 2 and 3 acres displayed in Tables 3.1b and c in SEIS Chapter 3?
Answer: Wildland Urban Intermix (WUI) land allocations and condition class by fire regime are two different metrics that are derived differently and serve different purposes. WUI is an administrative designation on the land that carries identifiable desired conditions, management intents and objectives. Condition Class 2 & 3 designations are ecologically based indices of forest condition at the landscape scale. These areas are not mutually exclusive and in fact overlap in many places. The WUI in the ROD was modeled to treat almost the entire ¼ mile Defense Zone and approximately 25 to 30 percent of a 1-¼ mile Threat Zone. Although there are minor differences in WUI definition, both the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) and the SEIS ROD provide for effectively treating fuels with in the WUI and in land classified as Condition Class 2 and 3. All acres treated within the WUI will either contribute to moving the treated areas from Condition Class from 2 and 3 toward 1 or to maintain a treatment area in Condition Class 1.
Record of Decision
Management Intents and Objectives
- Question: What is the meaning the meaning of the phrase "economically efficient treatments" in Table 1 of the ROD? Board of Forestry,
Answer: Economic efficiency requires the greatest returns per dollar spent. More formally, it requires the greatest output of desired goods and services from a given amount of input. Immediately this begs the question of how to define desired goods and services. If you simply say it is acres treated, the economically efficient alternative for managing in an Home Range Core Area (HRCA) might be the same as that in a threat zone. So, obviously you need to consider habitat one of your desired outputs as well.
T&E and Sensitive Species
- Question: What is the relationship between the USFWS recommendations for conserving species in the biological opinions to Appendix D and the standards and guidelines in the ROD? USFWS,
Answer: The Biological Opinion for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Supplemental EIS includes Conservation Recommendations for several species. Many of the recommendations are project -level recommendations that can only be evaluated as individual projects are proposed. As these projects are proposed, they will be evaluated for the effects on listed species. Where effects are determined to occur, consultation with the Service will be initiated and projects may be modified to implement some of the conservation recommendations or other recommendations.
Several species had Conservation Recommendations regarding developing or implementing Recovery Plans. The Forest Service is committed to working with the FWS in developing and implementing Recovery Plans for listed species that occur on National Forest System lands and that are affected by activities funded or permitted by the Forest Service.
There are several Conservation Recommendations that suggest landscape analyses are to be completed and submitted to the FWS for approval. Landscape analyses are not decision documents and do not require approval. When listed species occur in areas evaluated by a landscape analysis, it is expected that completed Recovery Plans will be considered in identifying existing conditions and opportunities.
Several Conservation Recommendations involve livestock grazing in areas occupied by listed species or in potential habitat. These recommendations should be evaluated site specifically at the time of Allotment Management Plan environmental analysis. Several allotments are already governed by management activities in allotment specific Biological Opinions. This site-specific management related to livestock grazing continues unless consultation is re-initiated.
Some Conservation Recommendations involve monitoring of populations or effects to individuals. The ROD directs the Framework Implementation Team to make an assessment of current and proposed adaptive management investments within 6 months of the January 21, 2004 decision. (ROD page 13) Additional monitoring, as provided in the Conservation Recommendations, may be adopted for individual projects or in Forest Plans as they are revised. Results of monitoring will be shared with the FWS as appropriate and as agreed to in Biological Opinions.
- Question: At what stage is the development of the Yosemite Toad grazing effects adaptive management study?
Answer: The Yosemite Toad adaptive management study plan has not yet been developed. The Sierra Nevada Framework Implementation Team is conducting an assessment of the adaptive management questions identified for the selected alternative in Chapter 2 of the SEIS. The Implementation Team understands the time sensitivity of this work to some grazing permittees. (ROD page 13)
- Question: What are the differences between site-specific meadow management plans, an adaptive management study, and Critical Aquatic Refuge designation relative to Yosemite toads?
Answer: Site-specific stock management plans are locally developed by interdisciplinary teams to allow field mangers to manage, based on site conditions and characteristics that cannot be foreseen at a regional scale. These plans are part of on-going grazing program management and require a monitoring plan. These discretionary actions provide local flexibility to capitalize on opportunities to reduce the adverse effect of excluding grazing from occupied Yosemite toad habitat. (ROD page 11)
A cause and effect adaptive management study is a more rigorous approach to learning about the effects of grazing on Yosemite Toad habitat and populations to be developed collaboratively with PSW scientists, affected permittees and local managers. The Implementation Team is conducting an assessment of adaptive management direction in the 2004 ROD and expects to initiate development of the Yosemite Toad Adaptive Management study plan. (ROD page 10 and SEIS page 77)
Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) boundaries may be refined during landscape analysis based on the findings from conservation assessments or verification of the presence and condition of habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive species. Additional CARs may be added by individual national forests. (ROD page 43) The FEIS-ROD, 2001 directed that landscape analysis be completed within 5 years subject to available funding. CARs were given priority for landscape analysis. (FEIS-ROD, 2001 page 13) This direction is not included in the SEIS-ROD, 2004. Landscape analysis is a discretionary action of individual Forests.
- Question: Should species survey protocols be reviewed with the possibility of extending the time/series of projects that would be valid under a given survey?
Answer: The SEIS ROD provides Standards and Guidelines to conduct surveys for various species in compliance with Regional survey protocols including S&G # 33 for California spotted owl, S&G #34 for Northern Goshawk, S&G # 55 for Yosemite Toad, and S&G # 56 for Willow Fly Catcher. Changes to species survey protocols are regional level programmatic policies, developed collaboratively with interagency partners and were not changed in the SNFPA SEIS ROD. This issue will be reviewed at the Regional level.
- Question: How do LOPs and species survey protocols apply to recreation projects?
Answer: LOPs identified in the FSEIS ROD for California spotted owl, northern goshawk, Great gray owl PACs, and Fisher and Marten den sites apply to vegetation treatments. Vegetation treatments are defined on ROD page 71. The ROD is silent on recreation projects and uses and limited operating periods. The intent of the SEIS ROD is that LOP's would not automatically apply to recreational uses. Evaluation at the local level may indicate that an LOP is appropriate. However, other mitigation measures might be more appropriate or mitigation may not be necessary for some recreation uses.
- Question: In S&G 82, what constitutes "documented evidence of disturbance to the nest site from existing recreation"?
Answer: In S&G 82, the "evidence of disturbance to nest site from existing recreation" and related "mitigation measures" will be locally evaluated and determined on a project-by-project basis.
- Question: In S&G 87 and 89, what constitutes "documented evidence of disturbance to the den site from existing recreation"?
Answer: In S&G 87 and 89, the "evidence of disturbance to the den site" and related "mitigation" will be evaluated and locally determined on a project-by-project basis.
- Question: What grazing activity is affected by Willow flycatcher S&Gs, 56 through 62?
Answer: Willow flycatcher S&Gs, 56 through 62, apply to commercial livestock grazing only. They do not apply to private or commercial pack or saddle stock.
Wheeled Vehicles
- Question: What is the relationship between S&G #69, travel management and the Forest's plan to inventory OHV routes, work with publics and eventually make decisions by 2007.
Answer: S&G # 69 applies to "designated routes" that have been or will be established through a forest level route designation decision-making process. Jack Blackwell signed an OHV Memorandum of Intent with the State of California that includes a schedule for designating and managing designated routes, trails and areas. Making route designation decisions by 2007 is consistent with the SEIS ROD direction and the MOI schedule. (ROD page 59)
- Question: Can we immediately issue a forest order to close wheeled OHV travel to existing forest roads and trails per SEIS ROD S&G #69?
Answer: The SEIS ROD is a programmatic decision. The ROD does not authorize any specific activity on the Sierra Nevada national forests. Forest orders are federal actions that require site-specific environmental analysis. Site-specific decisions will be made on projects in compliance with NEPA, ESA, and other environmental laws following applicable public involvement and administration appeal procedures. (ROD page 20)
- Question: Are bicycles included in the definition of "wheeled vehicles" in S&G # 69?
Answer: No.
- Question: Can grazing permit holders use OHVs off of designated routes, trails or OHV use areas to conduct permitted activities including livestock movement and/or construction and maintenance of range improvements?
Answer: Grazing permit holders can use OHVs off of designated routes, trails, or OHV use areas to conduct permitted activities, including livestock movement and /or construction and maintenance of range improvements, when OHV use is authorized in allotment management plans or annual operating instructions.
Vegetation Treatments
- Question: Are there "canopy cover retention" or "40% basal area retention" standard and guidelines for the Defense Zone.
Answer: No. However, S&G No. 6 which retains all live conifers 30 inches dbh or larger, does apply to WUI Defense Zone mechanical thinning treatments. (ROD page 50)
- Question: What is the basis of the ROD Standard and Guideline retaining all live conifer 30 inches diameter breast height (dbh) or larger except to meet the needs of operability.
Answer: The California Spotted Owl: A Technical Assessment of its Current Status (CASPO Report) recommends the retention of all live trees 30 inches dbh and larger to ensure timely recruitment of large old trees. The CASPO Report was included by reference in both the FEIS and SEIS. The Regional Forester concluded this was a reasonable limit for large tree retention after personally discussing this issue with interagency partners and leading scientific and academic experts. Large old trees are one of the critical habitat attributes associated with sensitive, old forest dependent species such as Pacific fisher den sites and California spotted owl nesting sites and one that takes the longest time to replace if lost to management activities or high intensity wildfires. The HFRA in Section 102(f) states, "Maximize the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the forest type, to the extent that the large trees promote fire-resilient stands." The ROD is consistent with this section of the HFRA.
Project Consistency with Forest Plans as amended and supplemented.
- Question: Does a project need to be consistent with the S&Gs SNFPA ROD 2001 if it's NEPA document is signed on or after March 1, 2004.
Answer: Projects with NEPA decisions on or after March 1, 2004 are not required to be consistent with the management direction in the SNFPA FEIS ROD 2001; they do need to be consistent with the management direction in the SNFPA FSEIS ROD 2004. (ROD page 24) Projects also are required to be consistent with current management direction contained in applicable laws, regulations and policy contained in the Forest Service directives system. The SEIS ROD 2004 did not include this redundant management direction. An example would be management direction for the use of Best Management Practices.
HFQLG Pilot Project
- Question: Do HFQLG projects meet the collaboration requirements of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) and new Categorical Exclusion categories?
Answer: Yes, projects identified in and consistent with the HFQLG Forest Recovery Act, FEIS and Record of Decision have been collaboratively developed within the context of the HFRA and new Categorical Exclusion categories. Collaboration efforts need to be documented in the appropriate site-specific NEPA document.
- Question: Does the FSEIS for the SNFPA modify or vacate HFQLG Forests obligation to track reductions in Old Forest Habitat? (Plumas, 01/29/2004)
Answer: The monitoring plan for HFQLG should continue as envisioned and defined in the HFQLG FEIS/ROD, including 10% tracking of old growth. Since the Pilot Project is one of several Adaptive Management Experiments underway; it has its own unique questions to be answered. The monitoring identified elsewhere would not be appropriate for the HFQLG pilot project area.
- Question: The SNFPA FSEIS ROD (Section E. pages 66-68) states that the Forests under the HFQLG Forest Recovery Act follow the HFQLGFRA FEIS/ROD with some stated exceptions (i.e. retention of large trees 30" dbh and greater). Is this accurate?
Answer: Yes. HFQLG Pilot Project Forests apply land allocations, which are described in the HFQLG Forest Recovery Act ROD and FEIS, with the exception for goshawk territories and marten and fisher habitat management areas with the applicable standards and guidelines in Table 2. (ROD page 67)
- Question: Is monitoring expected through the Administrative Study that has been already started continue or do the HFQLGFRA Forests follow the SNFPA FSEIS/ROD monitoring plan?
Answer: HFQLG Pilot Project Forests follow the monitoring plan for the HFQLG Pilot Project EIS and ROD and monitoring associated with the Plumas and Lassen National Forest Case Study. (ROD page 66)
Sierra Nevada SEIS ROD 2004 and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act
- Question: Is the SNFPA SEIS ROD consistent with the Healthy Forests Restoration Act?
Answer: Yes. The SEIS interdisciplinary team conducted an analysis prior to the January 21, 2004 ROD concluding that the SNFPA SEIS ROD was consistent with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. Consistency of these two documents is addressed in the SEIS ROD page 23.
Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA) and Critical Aquatic Refuges (CAR)
- Question: Do RCA and CAR standards and guidelines apply to just vegetation treatments or all projects within the RCA or CAR boundary?
Answer: RCAs standards and guidelines apply to all projects within their boundaries. Special use permit re-issuance is project. Boundaries may be adjusted at the project level if certain analyses support a change. A local project analysis could find that properly designed, located and maintained trails may be consistent with the Resource Conservation Objectives (RCOs) for the RCA.
- Question: What initiates a landscape analysis?
Answer: Landscape analysis (LA) is a forest plan implementation tool available to local forest managers to look at the relationship of existing and desired conditions of forest plan land allocations and to identify if existing activities or uses are consistent with Forest Plan direction. LAs are used at the discretion of local forest mangers to identify future projects opportunities or needs. LAs are not required prior to individual project analysis or implementation. Any needed changes identified in a LA would be made through a project level planning. LA is a pre-requisite to adjusting RCA boundaries to insure a broader view of the affected resources and uses are considered. The scope and content of a LA is locally determined.
- Question: What does "hydrologic connectivity" mean in RCO #2?
Answer: In RCO #2, "hydrologic connectivity" refers to the ease of movement, or rates of exchange, with which water, energy, nutrients, and organisms pass from one area to another. Human activities such as construction of roads and trails or degradation of stream banks and meadows can alter or disrupt hydrologic connectivity. This disruption can negatively affect nutrient availability to organisms, limit the availability of suitable habitat, change the pattern of streamflow resulting in different hydrologic processes and result in the decline of riparian or aquatic dependent species. A more detailed explanation can be found in SNFPA FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 3.4 - page 201. The scale of landscape analysis to assess the opportunities to restore or maintain hydrologic connectivity need not be a "huge undertaking" and is tied to the scale of the local project being considered.
- Question: What is the relationship of RCO#2 S&Gs 103 and 104 to recreation activities?
Answer: Application of RCOs to project level project planning does not dictate or limit the specific outcomes or mitigations that may be considered to meet the RCO. Moreover, instances of chiseling, trampling and eroding 20% of wilderness lake shorelines are not likely and this S&G is not anticipated to create a significant and widespread impact to ongoing recreational activities.
- Question: What recreation grazing activities are included in the term "season-long grazing" in RCO #5 S&G 120.
Answer: "Season-long grazing" applies to grazing by commercial pack and saddle stock. This S&G does not apply to non-commercial recreational pack and saddle stock.
Monitoring
- Question: What is the oversight strategy for implementing the new standards and guidelines for grazing?
Answer: The 2004-ROD adopts the Monitoring Plan presented in Appendix E of the SNFPA FEIS, which includes implementation monitoring. Additional discussion of the focus and priorities for monitoring are included in the Final SEIS Chapter 2 for the selected alternative. Regional Forester Jack Blackwell directed the Sierra Nevada Framework Implementation Team to review and make recommendations on any monitoring adjustments that might be necessary, given the management direction in the 2004-ROD (ROD page 13). While that 6-month assessment is ongoing, annual monitoring of grazing will be accomplished according to existing allotment management plans and with any new monitoring required under yet-to-be-developed site-specific management plans.
