Medicine Bow Landscape Vegetation Analysis Project (LaVA)...Medicine Bow Landscape Vegetation...

MEDICINE BOW LANDSCAPE VEGETATION ANALYSIS of 112

Reviewing Officer’s Response to Eligible Objections

Medicine Bow Landscape Vegetation

Analysis Project (LaVA)


June 10, 2020

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Region



Contents

Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ 2

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 3

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ................................................................................................... 3

Purpose and Need and Proposed Action .................................................................................................... 11

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) .................................................................................................... 21

National Forest Management Act ............................................................................................................... 26

Public Engagement ..................................................................................................................................... 29

Adaptive Management and Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 36

Inadequate Mitigation .................................................................................................................................. 39

Range of Alternatives .................................................................................................................................. 40

Economics ................................................................................................................................................... 43

Climate Change .......................................................................................................................................... 46

Best Available Science ................................................................................................................................ 49

Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................................... 59

Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................................................. 72

Temporary Roads ....................................................................................................................................... 77

Travel Management Rule ............................................................................................................................ 85

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) ................................................................................................ 86

Recreation ................................................................................................................................................... 90

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) ..................................................................................... 92

Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................. 100

Clean Water Act (CWA) ............................................................................................................................ 102

Soils ........................................................................................................................................................... 104

Cultural and Heritage Resources .............................................................................................................. 109

References Cited ...................................................................................................................................... 110



Introduction

Objection Process Summary: The objection review is conducted at the Regional Forester’s Office

by the delegated Reviewing Officer: Deputy Regional Forester, Jacqueline Buchanan. This

objection process follows Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 218 (36 CFR 218)

regulatory requirements for project level predecisional administrative review. Specifically, the

Medicine Bow Landscape Vegetation Analysis (LaVA) project falls under Subparts A and C,

which include provisions that are explicit to proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects

authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). The objection filing period began

April 10, 2020, and ended May 11, 2020, and the Forest Service received 30 eligible objection

letters.

The objection issues raised a broad range of project design, resource management, and public use

concerns. However, many issues had similarities that warranted consolidation into specific topic

areas. Issues have been grouped into general resource headings with one response provided for

all objectors to facilitate review of and response to the concerns of the objectors. Therefore,

below is the Reviewing Officer’s collective written response to all objections, and it is an

outcome of a deliberative and extensive review of concerns raised by objectors involving

complex regulatory and management issues. Although some issues raised in objections are not

specifically cited in the responses, all objectors’ concerns have been considered.

This review resulted in instructions for Forest Supervisor Russell Bacon, as the responsible

official for the LaVA project. Instructions are mandatory changes that the Reviewing Officer

determined are required to be completed prior to signing of the Record of Decision (ROD). The

instructions provided are summarized in Enclosure 1.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Issue 1

Objectors assert that a supplemental EIS should have been prepared instead of a modified final

EIS:

• Neither NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), nor the Forest Service’s

NEPA regulations define, describe, or envision a “modified” EIS.

• NEPA requires the preparation of a supplemental EIS when there is significant new

information concerning the proposed action or its effects, and therefore the Forest

Service should provide an additional public comment period.

Response

The objectors are correct in that there is no standard in law, regulation, or policy for a “modified”

EIS as different from a draft or final EIS. However, there is also no law, regulation, or policy that

prohibits the Forest Service from describing the EIS this way. After receiving objections in 2019

on the original final EIS and as noted on page 15 of the modified final EIS, the Medicine Bow-

Routt National Forests (Forest) withdrew the final EIS and draft ROD and then made a number

of clarifications to improve these documents and address concerns raised in the 2019 objection

letters. It is therefore logical to give this clarified document a different name to differentiate it

from the original final EIS.



The objectors refer to the CEQ NEPA regulations regarding supplementation and new

information, which state that agencies shall supplement a draft or final EIS when “there are

significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on

the proposed action or its impacts” (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)(ii)). One objector particularly mentions

the Transportation Report, Wildlife Biological Analysis, and Wildlife Biological Evaluation as

containing new information requiring supplementation. Though these documents do include

some new, post-draft EIS information, it is not significant information with bearing on the

modified proposed action or its impacts. The missing appendices added to the Transportation

Report after the draft EIS provide implementation information and best management practices,

but they do not change the analysis of the effects. Regarding the Biological Assessment, the

objector notes that “the substance of the analysis, assumptions, and conclusions appear to be

essentially the same as the 2019 Wildlife Biological Assessment,” which is consistent with the

minor changes described in the section of the modified final EIS discussing wildlife-related

objection issues raised after publication of the original final EIS (modified final EIS, pp. 21-24).

Conclusion

Through my review of the project record, I have determined that the Responsible Official is not

in violation of law, regulation, or policy in deciding to use the adjective “modified” to

distinguish the subject final EIS from the original final EIS. Modifications to simply augment

existing analysis, not to amend conclusions of effects, does not constitute new information

requiring a supplemental EIS under 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)(ii).



Issue 2

Objectors assert that the environmental analysis is inadequate and in violation of NEPA,

because it lacks site-specific information and generally lacks detail about the project.

Specifically, objectors contend that:

• The depth of analysis in the LaVA modified final EIS is more akin to what one would

expect in a forest plan or programmatic EIS.

• The Forest Service improperly postponed the requisite environmental analysis until it

picks the specific sites for treatment under the project.

• The Forest Service’s conditioned-based approach improperly allows the agency to forgo

meaningful public comment on site-specific actions, essentially creating a blank check

for a range of future activities.

• There is great diversity within the project area, so there should be separate

considerations within the NEPA process on each diverse area.

• The Forest Service’s plans to rely on post-decision implementation checklists to consider

details and site-specific information undermines the purposes of NEPA to ensure

agencies consider and disclose the impacts of their actions before making a decision.

• The Forest Service should consider and learn from the recent federal court decision that

rejected the agency’s attempt to rely on a broad, vague EIS to approve logging and road

building across a vast landscape over the course of more than a decade (Prince of

Wales Decision).

• The Tenth Circuit’s decision in WildEarth Guardians v. Conner (the Tennessee Creek

project) does not absolve the Forest Service of its duty to provide more detailed

information in its analysis of the LaVA project in the modified final EIS.

• In the Tennessee Creek case, the court concluded that despite not specifying the

precise locations within a project area that will be affected, the Forest Service’s “analysis

accounted for the uncertainty about treatment locations by evaluating the Project’s

effects on lynx in a worst-case scenario in which all the mapped lynx habitat…the Forest

Service did not assume a worst-case scenario in assessing impacts of the LaVA project

to Canada lynx and its habitat.

Response

Impacts analysis in an EIS should have a level of detail that is sufficient to support a reasoned

choice among alternatives (40 CFR 1502.1). NEPA does not prescribe a requisite level of detail

or scale. The CEQ NEPA regulations direct that EISs be analytic, rather than encyclopedic (40

CFR 1500.4(b), 1502.2(a)). Data and analyses in an EIS must be commensurate with the

importance of the impact (40 CFR 1502.15), and 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(b)). Therefore, conducting a thorough, sufficient site-specific analysis and taking a

hard look at the effects of a proposed action does not always require hard data. If the data

collected, evaluated and disclosed was adequate to inform the decision maker of the likely (non-

speculative) environmental impacts of the project and allowed the public to reasonably comment

on the significant issues, the hard look test was met (reissued draft ROD, p. 38).



The modified final EIS assumes that the maximum treatment potential will be implemented for

purposes of discussing environmental consequences (MFEIS, p. 111). This assumption helps the

Forest predict a “worst-case-scenario” level of impact, which ensures the direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects of the project were analyzed in a comprehensive and systematic manner.

In addition to assuming maximum treatment potential to ensure adequate analysis of direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects, the Forest decided to lend site specificity to the analysis by

breaking down the project area into 14 accounting units. The accounting units are a way of

subdividing the LaVA project area into subunits to help describe the affected environment,

environmental effects, decision making, and project implementation. Each accounting unit

incorporates a Lynx Analysis Unit (if applicable) and a contiguous group of 7th-level watersheds

(MFEIS, p. 111). Additionally, the modified final EIS is tiered to the Land and Resource

Management Plan (LRMP, also known as a Forest Plan), therefore the accounting units conform

to Management Area standards, guidelines, and associated activity restrictions (MFEIS, p. 384).

Because of this, some objectors contend that this project fits more appropriately as a

programmatic planning document, such as a LRMP. However, LRMPs set forth zoning for what

may happen across the whole forest over its lifetime, but authorize no projects. In contrast, LaVA

authorizes specific actions to accomplish a specific purpose and need on limited acres in a

limited time and responds to a natural event at the scale of that event. The analysis is more

specific than the analysis of a programmatic LRMP. What’s more, each accounting unit within

LaVA is further broken down, with detailed maps, into separate emphasis areas (fuels treatment

and safety emphasis, forest and rangeland resiliency and forest products emphasis, wildlife

emphasis, recreation emphasis, scenic and aspen emphasis, and special area emphasis), or areas

where certain treatments (or lack of treatments) are prioritized over others, or not allowed at all.

The treatment types that may occur and the number of acres on which they may occur are listed

for each emphasis area. The environmental consequences discussion, which is primarily in the

specialist reports, analyzes the impacts of the treatments at a scale that is appropriate for making

a reasoned choice among alternatives, as mentioned, it assumes that all proposed treatments will

be implemented. Therefore, it is not necessary to know the exact tree to be cut in order to

understand the impacts of the modified proposed action.

Utilizing the specific information derived from the accounting units and emphasis areas, the

Forest Service has developed a process that incorporates public and stakeholder input of how

individual treatments will be identified, designed, and implemented. This process, the Adaptive

Implementation and Monitoring Framework (Appendix A of the modified final EIS), includes

mitigation measures, best management practices, decision-triggers, implementation checklists,

and monitoring requirements designed to ensure that treatment activities are consistent with the

modified final EIS and Record of Decision (MEIS, Appendix A ,p. 6). The Framework, is an

essential component of the LaVA Project. It provides the sideboards and constraints for the

design of individual treatments; mechanisms of accountability, tracking, decision-making, and

documentation; and a framework to assure active public engagement throughout the life of the

project (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 6)

The LaVA project is more akin to the Tennessee Creek Vegetation Project than to Prince of

Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project. LaVA, like Tennessee Creek, aims to be responsive to

the changed forest conditions caused by the mountain pine beetle epidemic through

implementing even-aged and uneven aged treatments in predominately lodgepole pine stands.



Whereas the Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project intended to provide a stable level

of forest products to help maintain the expertise and infrastructure of the timber industry. Also,

both the LaVA and Tennessee Creek projects were designed to a level of specificity that allows

for mapped treatment units, estimates of the annual treatment acreages by type of treatment, as

well as 15-year projections. Additionally, both projects were analyzed assuming maximum

treatment potential under the proposed action to ensure adequate analysis of direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects (MFEIS, Table 2, pp. 9-12), including in Lynx Analysis Units.

Regarding decision making, the Forest Service NEPA regulations require that the Responsible

Official “complet[e] the environmental document review before making a decision on the

proposal” and “Consider the alternatives analyzed in environmental document(s) before

rendering a decision on the proposal” (36 CFR 220.4(c)(1), (4)). The Responsible Official has

complied with these requirements through preparing an EIS that fulfills NEPA’s twin aims of

informed decision making and meaningful public participation.

Public Engagement Issue #4 and Adaptive Management and Monitoring Issue #1 address

objectors’ concerns related to meaningful public engagement and its consistence with NEPA

requirement. Additionally, see the response to Healthy Forest Restoration Act Issue #1 and pages

9-13 of the modified final EIS, Appendix B for further discussion on site specificity and

programmatic analysis.

Conclusion

The modified final EIS includes sufficient detail, and at a sufficient scale, for the public provide

meaningful feedback and the responsible official to make a reasoned choice between alternatives.

The mapped accounting units and emphasis areas, annual estimates regarding number of acres

receiving specific treatments, and descriptions of impacts of those treatments are all important to

making such a comparison. I find that the LaVA project is consistent with NEPA from a site-

specificity and decision-making standpoint.

Issue 3

Objectors assert, without providing specifics that the Forest Service has consistently violated

the NEPA process, and those violations are the reason for the modified final EIS and reissued

draft ROD.

Response

As described on page 6 of the reissued draft ROD, the reason for the modified final EIS and

reissued draft ROD, wasn’t due to violations with the NEPA process. Instead, the Responsible

Official wanted to be responsive to public concern that was revealed during the 2019 objection

process. This is the exact reason the pre-decision administrative review process exists, for the

Responsible Official to strengthen the analysis, adopt recommendations, and to improve the

decision. Nevertheless, the modified final EIS discloses the Forest Service’s consistency with the

procedural requirements of NEPA under the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) and to fulfill

its twin aims: informed decision making and meaningful public participation. The modified final

EIS describes the purpose and need for action (MFEIS pp. 31-51) and the agency’s preferred

alternative (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) (MFEIS, pp. 59-97). Additionally, Chapter 3 of the modified

final EIS and individual specialist reports disclose the affected environment and the



environmental consequences of the project in terms of its likely direct, indirect, and cumulative

effects on the biological, physical, and social environment. Furthermore, the modified final EIS

explains how the Responsible Official worked with a large number of cooperating agencies and

tribal governments in the planning and analysis of this project (MFEIS, pp. 51-52). The

Responsible Official involved and responded to the public’s concerns in developing and

modifying the proposed action and conducting its analysis in the two iterations of this EIS

(MFEIS, pp. 2-8, 52-57).

Conclusion

Based on my review of the modified final EIS and the associated project record, I find that the

Responsible Official conducted the NEPA process consistent with the procedural requirements of

NEPA.

Issue 4

Objectors assert that the newly released documents provide no substantive additional analyses.

As a result, valid questions and concerns that were raised during public comment and objection

periods are almost entirely unanswered and unaddressed.

Response

In accordance with 36 CFR 218.10(a)(9), the 2019 objection process was cancelled by the

Responsible Official. The objections were set aside and a written response to the issues was no

longer required by the Forest Service. Based on a review of the objection letters and project

record, and through discussions with objectors, the Reviewing Officer decided to provide

recommendations to the Responsible Official to assist with his desire to be responsive to issues

raised. Chapter 1 of the modified final EIS includes Table 1, which outlines the objection issues,

the Reviewing Officer’s recommendations, and the Responsible Official incorporation of those

recommendations.

Outside of the 2019 objection process, the Forest Service is required to assess, consider, and

respond to all substantive comments received (40 CFR 1503.4). The Forest documented

responses to comments received on the draft EIS in Appendix B of the modified final EIS.

Objectors provided one specific example that they contend demonstrates otherwise (Comment 1

on p. 8 of Appendix B, MFEIS).

The response explains why a minimum road system is not identified – because temporary roads

are not considered part of the road system. Also see Travel Management Rule Issue 1.

Similar to the question raised above, there is a previous comment on page 57 of the modified

final EIA, Appendix B – Response to Comments document, that asks the Forest Service to

provide assurances that temporary roads will be decommissioned once they are complete. The

Forest responded that “Decommissioning of temporary roads is tracked by the sale

administration team as part of required inspection documentation” (Appendix B, p. 58). This

topic is again discussed on pages 60-61 of the Appendix B. Additionally, the Forest incorporated

a design feature (DF-RdT-1) that will track and ensure that the rehabilitation of temporary roads

will occur within 3 years after the vegetation management treatments have been completed

(MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 62). The Forest also made a change to the modified proposed action in

response to comments on this issue, capping temporary roads at 75 miles open at any one time,



to ensure that the decommissioning is occurring and current (MFEIS, p. 7). For a summary of

how the Responsible Official responded to public comments, see pages 32-34 in the reissued

draft ROD.

In further review of the project record, there appears to be an incomplete response to comment

801.905 that requests the Forest to decommission existing system roads on page 25 of Appendix

B. The response focuses on the second part of the comment discussing a proposed alternative

with no new roads and does not address road decommissioning.

Conclusion

Through my review of the project record, I have determined that the Responsible Official has

adequately responded to comments raised during the formal public comment period. I am

instructing the Responsible Official to consider and address comment 801.905 in its entirety

prior issuance of the final ROD.

Issue 5

Objectors assert that the Forest Service failed to sufficiently analyze cumulative impacts, and

instead overly rely on the modified final EIS, Appendix A – Adaptive Implementation and

Monitoring Framework.

Response

The CEQ’s implementing regulations for NEPA define cumulative effects as “the impact on the

environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-

Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). As described on page 38 of

the reissued draft ROD, cumulative effects provide decision makers with a detailed accounting of

the likely environmental effects of a proposed action prior to its adoption and informs the public

of, and allows comment on, such effects. The individual specialist reports discuss cumulative

effects and the modified final EIS’s “Summary of Cumulative Effects,” on pages 173-175,

appropriately lists the past, other present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that should

were considered in the analysis of cumulative effects. The cumulative effects analysis for several

resource areas did not explicitly identify which of the listed projects would contribute

measurable impacts of the same type, in the same location, at the same time period as the effects

of the action being analyzed.

Conclusion

Based on my review of the EIS, I find that cumulative effects were analyzed within individual

specialist reports. However, to provide better clarity and disclosure, I am instructing the

Responsible Official to review the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities and ensure

these activities are considered and addressed as part of the cumulative effects analysis.



Issue 6

Objectors assert that the changes between the draft EIS and final EIS and again between the

final EIS and modified final EIS precluded their opportunity to provide meaningful comments,

because the Forest Service did not demonstrate a “logical outgrowth” from what was initially

proposed as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Furthermore, objectors contend that

the Forest Service substituted at the last moment one set of data and analysis where previously

there had been none, thereby deprived the public of the notice and opportunity to comment

guaranteed by NEPA.

Response

Objectors are contending that the Forest made changes to the final EIS that were so significant

that they require an opportunity for the public to provide comment on the new material. In such

cases, the CEQ NEPA regulations instruct preparation of a supplemental EIS, which must be

circulated in the same fashion as a draft and final EIS (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4)). A supplemental

EIS, including an additional opportunity for public comment, is required when (1) agencies make

substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns, or (2)

there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and

bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)(i),(ii)).

The purpose of public involvement in NEPA is for agencies to make changes in response to

public comment. See State of California v. Block:

The main policy reason for soliciting public comment is to use public input in assessing a

decision's environmental impact. To effectuate this purpose, agencies must have some

flexibility to modify alternatives canvassed in the draft EIS to reflect public input. If an

agency must file a supplemental draft EIS every time any modifications occur, agencies

as a practical matter may become hostile to modifying the alternatives to be responsive to

earlier public comment. Moreover, requiring agencies to repeat the public comment

process when only minor modifications are made promises to prolong endlessly the NEPA

review process.

(690 F.2d 753, 771 (1982); internal cites omitted.) Four of the five options in the CEQ NEPA

regulations for responding to comments revolve around making changes to the document: (1)

Modify alternatives including the proposed action; (2) Develop and evaluate alternatives not

previously given serious consideration by the agency; (3) Supplement, improve, or modify its

analyses; (4) Make factual corrections; and (5) Explain why the comments do not warrant further

agency response, citing the sources, authorities, or reasons which support the agency's position

and, if appropriate, indicate those circumstances which would trigger agency reappraisal or

further response (40 CFR 1503.4). These five options make it evident that the entire purpose of

the NEPA public involvement process is to allow the decision maker to introduce changes that

are responsive to public comment. The logical outgrowth test is not directly applicable because

the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act only apply to rule

making, not project-level decisions. Nonetheless, the LaVA project’s iterative process and

changes from final EIS to the modified final EIS are summarized in Table 1 (pp. 3-6) and pages

61-69 of the modified final EIS. Additionally, the Responsible Official offered several

opportunities for public involvement, including not just scoping, public comment on the draft

EIS, and objections on the original final EIS, but also objections on the modified final EIS. It is



not only reasonable but an appropriate application of NEPA that the proposed project and

analysis have changed since the draft was issued.

Also see response to Public Engagement Issue 6.

Conclusion

The agency is entitled to combine its NEPA and objection processes in a way that advances the

goals of both by providing opportunities to engage the public in a focused way and allows the

agency to make changes responsive to that engagement. I find that the Responsible Official has

provided adequate opportunity for public involvement and did not violate the Administrative

Procedure Act or CEQ NEPA regulations by choosing to not prepare a supplemental EIS.

Also see conclusion for Public Engagement Issue 6.

Purpose and Need and Proposed Action

Issue 1

Objectors asserts that the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 is being used as an excuse

to conduct logging operations, and as HFRA mandates, the Forest Service should be

cooperating with forest ecologists from universities. The local forest ecologists oppose LaVA

and have stated many times that the beetle infestation on the Medicine Bow National Forest has

ended.

Response

The purpose and need of the LaVA project are consistent with the 2003 HFRA as amended by the

Farm Bill of 2014. See response to HFRA Issue 1.

Section 602 of HFRA (PUBLIC LAW 113–79—FEB. 7, 2014) defines designated treatment

areas as areas of “declining forest health”. This definition includes a forest that is experiencing

(1) substantially increased tree mortality due to insect or disease infestation; or (2) dieback due

to infestation or defoliation by insects or disease. An insect epidemic that has returned to

endemic levels but has caused increased tree mortality or dieback may qualify as a designated

treatment area under HFRA authority. The LaVA project area is within an expanded insect and

disease treatment area. This designation was approved on March 22, 2017 by the U.S. Forest

Service Washington Office.

The description for modified proposed action explains that a variety of vegetation management

activities will be applied including prescribed fire, mechanical, and hand treatment methods

(MFEIS, p. 62) through “A combination of commercial timber sales, service contracts,

stewardship contracts, cooperative authorities, partner capacity, and Forest Service crews would

be used to implement the project.”

Conclusion

I find that the purpose and need is consistent with HFRA. Furthermore, the modified proposed

action includes a variety of vegetation treatments and methods for implementing those treatments

to meet the purpose and need.



Issue 2

Objectors assert that the Forest Service should leave the dead trees in the forest to return

nutrients to the system and provide for wildlife habitat.

Response

The LRMP has requirements for snag retention and recruitment, and for desired level of coarse

woody debris. These requirements for snag retention and recruitment are outlined in the table on

page 189 of the modified final EIS. The standard for post treatment coarse woody debris is

outlined in Table 1-12 of the LRMP (pp. 1-38). Coarse woody debris is defined as any piece(s) of

dead woody material, e.g., dead boles, limbs, and large root masses on the ground or in streams

(LRMP, Appendix G, p. G-4) but Table 1-12 further refines the definition to mean a piece at least

3 inches in diameter and 25 feet long.

Appendix A in the modified final EIS provides further guidance on ensuring that snag and coarse

woody debris requirements are met during implementation. Attachment 4 requires that the

silvicultural prescription for each treatment unit includes directions for handling snags and

coarse woody debris and references LRMP standards and guidelines (MFEIS, Appendix A, p.

74). Attachment 5 provides post treatment standard operating procedures. The timber section

directs that monitoring for snags and coarse woody debris to ensure that standards are being met

should be done (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 78).

Conclusion

I conclude that the Forest has adequately analyzed and provided for the retention and recruitment

of snags and coarse woody debris. Snags and coarse woody debris provide critical habitat for

wildlife and are a critical part of the nutrient cycle along with slash from vegetation management

treatments. The LRMP identified the desired levels of coarse woody debris and snags on the

landscape and the decision does a sufficient job of tying the analysis and implementation of the

project to the LRMP.

Issue 3

Objectors assert that the purpose and need is flawed because understory vegetation is

relatively untouched by the bark beetle epidemic, and age class, structural and vegetative

diversity is already occurring in the absence of treatments.

Response

The purpose and need for this project is described in detail in the modified final EIS on pages 31-

32. Table 3 (p. 32) succinctly summarizes one of the needs as, “To increase age class, structural,

and vegetation diversity across the landscape. Promote forest and rangeland conditions to

improve forage and wildlife habitat. Actively accelerate recovery and regeneration of forest

ecosystems” (MFEIS, p.32). The LRMP direction section of the modified final EIS outlines the

goals from the LRMP and identifies how the purpose and need meets two of the goals (MFEIS,

pp. 32-33). Tables 7, 8, and 9 show the current and desired condition of structural stages across

the project area. These tables help to demonstrate the need for the modified proposed action

(MFEIS, pp. 46-48). This being said, the necessity to increase age class, structural, and

vegetation diversity across the landscape isn’t the only need. There is need to treat hazardous



fuels and create defensible space, mitigate potential impacts to infrastructure and municipal

water supplies, restore priority areas of wildlife habitat, mitigate hazard trees, and to provide

commercial forest products to local industries. Not treating the stands, as the objectors allude,

will not meet the purpose and need for the project. See Appendix B, the response to comment #2

under 801.01(p. 5), and the response to comment #1 under 821.02 (109-110) for additional

discussion.

Conclusion

I conclude that the analysis demonstrates the need for the proposed treatments. The forested

areas within the project are outside of the desired condition for age class and structural stage and

the modified proposed action would help to better align the current and desired condition. This is

in alignment with LRMP direction. Though individual stands or cover types might be close to the

desired condition the larger landscape is not meeting the objectives of LRMP management

direction. Moreover, the modified proposed action would additionally meet the whole purpose

and need, not just the purpose of enhancing forest and rangeland resiliency to future insect and

disease infestations.

Issue 4

Objectors assert that there is not a sufficient timber value and market to meet the purpose and

need. Therefore, a periodic market analysis should be performed before advertising new

projects to prevent loggers from high grading the stands, defaulting on the contract, and

consequently leaving the stands in an unacceptable condition.

Response

A breakdown of the economic impact of the timber industry in the State of Wyoming can be

found in the Social and Economic Report. Under the modified proposed action, timber harvest is

estimated at approximately 325,000 ccf per year for the first 6.5 years and 190,000 ccf per year

for the latter 8.5 years. This is estimated to support approximately 1,585 jobs, $63 million in total

labor income, and $82 million in GDP contributions for the local economy annually for the first

6.5 years and 925 jobs, $37 million in total labor income, and $48 million in GDP contributions

for the latter 8.5 years of project implementation (Social and Economic Report, p. 18-19). There

are industry meeting notes in the reference materials of the project record that show there is

interest in the material that would be produced as well as a breakdown of mill capacity in the

area. Furthermore, before forest products can be sold an appraisal must be completed to

determine the value of the timber. The appraisal process is very in depth and accounts for current

timber prices, logging costs, transportation costs, and risk. The Timber pre-treatment section of

Attachment 4 of the modified final EIS, Appendix A lists the timber sale appraisal as one of the

pre-treatment steps to complete (p. 74).

Conclusion

I conclude that the Forest has fully considered the value of timber products that could be

removed through the implementation of this project. The reference materials demonstrate that the

Forest has a good working relationship with the local timber producers and that there is a market

for the forest products generated from this project.



Issue 5

Objectors assert that the proposed vegetation treatments and temporary road construction will

be contrary to the LRMP Management Area 1.2 – Recommended for Wilderness direction of

providing for wilderness characteristics.

Response

The project record documents potential need of treatment within Management Area 1.2 based on

input from the Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities.

No road construction, including temporary roads, is proposed in Management Area 1.2 as

outlined in Table 4 of the modified final EIS (p. 35) and Table 9 of the reissued draft ROD (p.

23)Treatment in Management Area 1.2 may occur on 12,320 acres using a limited suite of tools

(prescribed fire and hand tools). The primary treatment objectives in these areas include, but are

not limited to, protecting the intrinsic values associated with these special areas (reissued draft

ROD, p. 23).

The modified final EIS discusses potential treatment in Special Emphasis Treatment Opportunity

Areas. The primary objectives for treatment in these areas would be to protect the intrinsic values

associated with these special areas. That is, treatments would only be proposed if the mortality

from the beetle epidemics is detracting from purposes for which the areas were designated (for

example, research, botanical values, zoological values). Secondary objectives could include fuels

reduction treatments, wildlife enhancement projects, protection of infrastructure, and protection

of municipal water supplies (MFEIS, p. 81).

Applicable design features and standards and guidelines for Management Area 1.2 are included

in Appendix A of the modified final EIS (Table 14, p. 102 and pp. 110-111).

Also see conclusion for Range of Alternatives Issue 1.

Conclusion

I find that the proposed treatments and associated activities within Management Area 1.2 are

consistent with the LRMP. I instruct the Responsible Official to clarify how treatment in

Management Area 1.2 would preserve wilderness characteristics and thus meet the primary

objective for treatment.



Issue 6

Objectors assert that the purpose and need, and therefore the modified proposed action,

inappropriately conflicts with the purposes of congressionally designated areas. Specifically,

objectors contend:

• That the project fails to include the congressional mandate to maintain or restore the

resource conditions of Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Scenic Trails

• That managing for the purposes for which the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

was established and designated would recognize that when lodgepole pine stands are

located in desired primitive and semi-primitive Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

settings, the Scenery Management System analysis framework is effective. Therefore, a

non-intervention policy would be more appropriate to promote natural processes and

natural rejuvenation.

Response

Wilderness Areas (Management Area 1.13) are not available for treatment (reissued draft ROD,

p. 23).

A full suite of tools may be used on 991 acres, Management Area 3.4 National River System

Scenic River Designated and Eligible. No road construction, including temporary roads, is

authorized (MFEIS, p. 80). The primary objective for treatment in this area is to protect and

perpetuate scenic river corridors. To meet this primary objective, treatments would be designed

to enhance wildlife habitat, promote aspen regeneration, enhance visual quality along scenic

byways by removing hazard trees, and enhance forest and rangeland resiliency to future insect

and disease infestations. Secondary objectives could include fuels reduction treatments,

protection of infrastructure, enhanced access for forest visitors and permittees, and protection of

municipal water supplies (MFEIS, p. 79).

Consideration of the purposes for which the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST)

was established and designated are addressed in the modified final EIS (pp. 341 and 342),

Appendix A (p. 100) ((excerpted from 2003 LRMP) SOC-SCN-S.1, SOC-SCN-S.2, SOC-ROS-

S.1), and Appendix A, Design Features pages 56, 57, and 63. The implementation process relies

public participation in projects. The opportunity to provide input to specific proposals in the

vicinity of the CDNST exists at that time.

See response to HRFA Issue 2 and CDNST Issue 1 in regard to the inclusion of the CDNST in

the project area and in potential treatment areas.

Applicable design features and standards and guidelines for the Management Areas 1.2 and 3.4

are included in Appendix A of the modified final EIS.

The purpose and need is summarized in Table 3 of the modified final EIS (p. 32).

Conclusion

I find that the purpose and need and modified proposed action for the LaVA project is consistent

with the congressionally designated areas. The Responsible Official does not propose any

treatments in Wilderness.



Issue 7

Objectors assert that the modified proposed action would decrease resiliency rather than

increase it. Objectors expressed concern with the amount of even-aged management (including

clearcutting) that is in the modified proposed action and whether the desired condition will or

can be met. Objectors are concerned that healthy parts of the forest will be clearcut and

clearcuts are scientifically contentious, fiscally irresponsible, and ecologically destructive.

Objectors suggest that most clearcut treatment should be done in high mortality areas (>50%)

and should not exceed 40 acres since large clearcuts would repeat the existing problems on the

landscape.

Response

The analysis and modified proposed action are compliant with NEPA, HFRA, the 2003 revised

Medicine Bow LRMP and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations (reissued draft

ROD, p. 3). The Silviculture Specialist Report states compliance with National Forest

Management Act (NFMA) 16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(E) and 16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(F) ensuring that

the clearcut harvesting system is selected only where it is most appropriate and not just for

commercial purposes. The LRMP provides management direction to use the scientifically

defined silviculture systems that meet the management objectives for the landscape or individual

stands of trees within the landscape setting (LRMP, p. 1-35, Standard 2). Tables 1-9 provide

guidance on appropriate silviculture systems by forest cover type (LRMP, p. 1-36) and identifies

clearcut as an appropriate silviculture system for all cover types except Engelmann

spruce/Subalpine fir.

The modified proposed action section of the modified final EIS provides an acreage breakdown

of the three main categories of vegetation management (MFEIS, p. 63). The same section also

gives an annual estimate, in acres or miles, for the activities that could happen under the

modified proposed action (MFEIS, p. 63, Table 15).

A high proportion of the project area is in Management Areas 5.13 and 5.15. For Management

Area 5.13 the LRMP states that these areas will be intensively managed for wood fiber due to

their accessibility, terrain, and resource conditions (LRMP, p. 2-58). For Management Area 5.15

the LRMP states that these areas can be managed for wood fiber while emphasizing conditions

similar to the Historic Range of Variability (LRMP, p. 2-61). The LRMP sets desired conditions,

standards, and guidelines for each management area, and the Silviculture Specialist Report ties

the modified proposed action to the LRMP (Silviculture Specialist Report, pp. 1-9).

The Silviculture Specialist Report (pp. 32-33) gives further explanation of how proposed

treatment categories would alter stand structure, age class and vegetation diversity. Tables 22, 23,

and 24 of the Silviculture Specialist Report show LaVA project treatment types (i.e., stand

initiation; shelterwood, intermediate or uneven-aged; and other vegetation treatments, shrub and

grassland treatments), silvicultural system for each treatment type, mortality, insect and disease

levels where each treatment could be applied, and other associated silvicultural concerns.

All even-aged treatments, including clearcutting, are proposed for stands with current mortality

levels greater than or equal to 50%. These methods are considered optimum since retention of

residual upper canopy trees is unlikely due to stand deterioration. Two-aged treatments would



retain residual trees however windthrow is a concern in these stands post treatment.

Opportunities for two-aged treatments are very limited in stands with high levels of mortality.

Clearcut harvest method or the end appearance of a clearcut in several treatment types may occur

due to stand conditions from bark beetle mortality. In some stands, potential residual trees would

be damaged by harvest activities or would be likely to become windthrown due to the opening of

the stand. (Silviculture Specialist Report, p. 51).

The exception to this is proposed treatments that are a component of a shelterwood system,

which is also an even-aged system. These treatments would target stands with current mortality

levels of 30 -49%. Conditions in these stands are more conducive to partial retention of the

overstory than stands with mortality levels of 50% or greater. Windthrow is also a concern in

these stands post-treatment.

Exceptions to the 40-acre limit on even-aged openings per the NFMA and the 2003 LRMP

revision are discussed in the LaVA Silviculture Specialist Report:

Areas affected by the bark beetle epidemic are an exception to the 40-acre maximum size. Areas

that are not affected or minimally affected by the bark beetle epidemic will follow the 40-acre

maximum size. (Silviculture Specialist Report, p 2).

Due to the bark beetle epidemics, openings greater than 40 acres may be created, as allowed for

under Silviculture Standard 1b (pp. 1-35) of the LRMP (Silviculture Specialist Report p. 52).

The reissued draft ROD ties this all together in the rational for decision section on page 30

“Resiliency can be achieved by moving forested vegetation toward LRMP desired conditions for

structural stage, age class, and cover type. Treating vegetation to increase resiliency to future

insect and disease epidemics meets the need to promote healthy rangeland conditions because

livestock are unable to access available forage in heavy fuel conditions.” This rational is

supported by the cumulative effect analysis in the Silviculture Specialist Report which states

(Silviculture Specialist Report, p. 47):

The combination of vegetation treatments, bark beetles, and other insects and disease effects

across the project areas will result in a variety of stand structures. Implemented stand initiation

treatments in conjunction with tree mortality will move habitat structural stages from mid and

late seral, HSS3 and 4, to structural stage 1 or 2. This conversion to a more early seral structure

stage will move forest structure closer to the identify Forest Plan 50 year desired conditions.

Implemented intermediate and uneven-aged treatments will create favorable growing conditions

for residual trees which could move stands into larger size classes and develop characteristics of

mid and late serial structural stages. In combination the proposed treatment categories in the

LaVA project will increase structural diversity at the landscape scale and at the stand scale when

uneven-aged treatments are applied. Varying size of treatments from large areas; stands with

high mortality and/or moderate to high insect and disease levels; to small areas; stands with low

mortality and/or low to moderate insect and disease levels; will also increase the structural

diversity of the landscape. By increasing the structural diversity at the stand and landscape scale

resilience to disturbance can be increased (Seidl 2015). The action alternative will be more

effective than the no action alternative at moving the landscape towards the forest plan desired

structural stages.



The Silviculture Specialist Report cites the following publications as support for clearcut

prescriptions:

Alexander, R.R., and Edminster, C.B. 1980. Lodgepole Pine Management in the Central Rocky

Mountains. Journal of Forestry 196. April.

Rhoades, C.C.; Pelz, K.A., Fornwalt, P.J., Wolk, B.H., Cheng, A.S. 2018. Overlapping Bark

Beetle Outbreaks, Salvage Logging and Wildfire Restructure a Lodgepole Pine Ecosystem.

Forest 2018, 9, 101.

Conclusion

I conclude that the MFEIS and DROD sufficiently demonstrate how the proposed action will

increase resiliency at the stand and landscape level and meet the purpose and need. However, to

help provide clearer rational, I am instructing the Responsible Official to include a definition of

resiliency into the project documents. I also conclude that the Forest Service has done a complete

analysis of appropriate harvesting methods for the variety of forest conditions present within the

analysis area. Clearcut prescriptions and harvesting is just one tool that is proposed to meet the

purpose and need of the project. The proposed action is in compliance with policy and regulation

implements management direction from the Forest Plan.

Issue 8

Objectors assert that the modified final EIS fails to demonstrate how vegetation treatments that

are distant from the Wildland-Urban Interface is an effective way to reduce risk to private

property.

Response

The scope of the purpose and need for the LaVA project goes beyond the protection of private

property in the Wildland-Urban Interface. Vegetation management treatments designed to

achieve this goal are just one of several categories of proposed treatments. Treatments would

occur on a range of land classes, management areas, and vegetation cover types and conditions.

Two of the six purpose and need statements that address the “gap” between existing and desired

conditions would likely have a Wildland-Urban Interface emphasis (MFEIS p. 31):

• Heavy fuel loads have accumulated in conifer stands and around critical infrastructure. This

situation conflicts with LRMP goals and objectives that require reducing the threat of

wildfire damage to communities and reducing fuel loadings in the interface next to homes,

cabins, and other structures (LRMP subgoal 1.c, objective 2, pp. 1-5).

• Overhead hazard trees caused by the bark beetle epidemics decrease public and employee

safety and increase the risk to firefighters in Wildland-Urban Interface areas. There is a need

to remove hazardous trees in these and other critical areas.

Authorized HFRA project areas are not limited to the Wildland-Urban Interface. Section 602 of

the 2014 Farm Bill amends HFRA (Designation of Treatment Areas) to define eligible areas as

forests that are experiencing decline forest health. This is a broad definition. The amended scale

of potential project areas is intended to be landscape level. The building blocks for landscape

scale project areas are sixth level hydrologic units. Sixth level hydrologic units (a.k.a. 12-digit

subwatersheds per U.S. Geological Survey coding protocol) average 40 square miles in size,



ranging from 10,000−40,000 acres. Areas designated as Wildland-Urban Interface are typically,

but not exclusively, smaller components of eligible HFRA project area subwatersheds.

Conclusion

I find that the vegetation treatments in the modified proposed action are designed to reduce risk

to private property are only one of numerous categories of treatments that would be planned and

implemented to achieve multiple purpose and need goals. The scale of authorized HFRA projects

is not restricted to the Wildland-Urban Interface nor are project goals restricted to the protection

of private property at risk to wildfire.

Issue 9

Objectors assert that the modified proposed action is not compliant with Sheep Mountain

Federal Game Refuge management. Objectors request a change in management prescription

for approximately 3,000 acres.

Response

The modified final EIS does not allow for commercial activities within the Sheep Mountain

Federal Game Refuge. Noncommercial activities may be considered only if they improve

wildlife habitat, as directed by the LRMP (MFEIS, p. 7). Specific LRMP components for

Management Areas 3.54, 3.58, and 5.41 are included in Appendix A (pp. 104-105) of the

modified final EIS to assure compliance during planning and layout of individual projects.

Approximately 17,615 acres of the Sheep Mountain Federal Game Refuge are in designated

inventoried roadless areas. Of these, vegetation treatments are proposed on up to 7,085 acres

under exception 294.13(b)(1)(ii). See response to Roadless Issue 2 regarding appropriate use of

exceptions in inventoried roadless areas.

Conclusion

I have determined that the proposed action is consistent with management of the Sheep Mountain

Federal Game Refuge in the LRMP. Changing management prescriptions is beyond the scope of

the LaVA project.


Issue 10

Objector suggests that the modified proposed action fails to prioritize the protection of Wildland-

Urban Interface areas.

Response

The development of treatment priorities is described in the modified final EIS, Appendix A: The

LaVA Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring Framework. This adaptive implementation and

monitoring framework is summarized in the modified final EIS (pp. 90-96). The summary

“outlines a five-phase process for identifying, refining, implementing, and monitoring individual

vegetative treatments on the Snowy and Sierra Madre Mountain Ranges, as authorized by the

project decision.”



The Forest Service and cooperating agencies would designate large focus areas (watersheds or

communities at risk) to prioritize the concentration of limited resources based on Forest Service

5-year plans and the LaVA reissued draft ROD. Within these Focus areas, individual treatments

would be identified based on feedback from the public and cooperating agencies (MFEIS,

Appendix A, p. 11). Prevailing winds, predicted wildfire flow paths, values at risk would all be

topics open to consideration during the development of priorities per focus areas and individual

treatments.

Conclusion

I find that Appendix A – The Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring Framework provides a

robust process to priority treatments including Wildland-Urban Interface areas and other

treatment prioritization concerns such as prevailing winds.

Issue 11

Objector asserts that the Forest Service failed to consider other actions to meet the purpose

and need. The objector gives examples of managing wildfires for benefit, planting

drought/climate resilient species, and creating and or maintaining permanent fuel breaks. The

objector further mentions some wildfire response strategies that should be addressed.

Response

The purpose and need for this project is described in detail in the modified final EIS on pages 31-

32. The purpose and need must be met within the bounds of LRMP direction in regard to goals

and objectives, standards and guidelines, and management area direction. The modified final EIS

gives direction and assurance that proposed action is in concurrence with the LRMP on pages 32-

37 and in the Legal and Regulatory Compliance section (MFEIS, p. 384).

To address fuel accumulation and wildfire response the proposed action was developed in

collaboration with local counties. Community Wildfire Protection Plans were utilized to identify

Wildland-Urban Interface areas in developing the proposed action (MFEIS, p. 420).

The Wildfire and Fuels Report references LRMP standards to address wildfire response (Wildfire

and Fuels Report, p. 2). This standard is based on Region guidance provided in “Review and

Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (January 2001).”

Artificial regeneration in compliance with the National Forest Management Act is addressed on

page 386 of the modified final EIS.

Conclusion

I conclude that the Forest considered an appropriate level of actions in the proposed action to

meet the purpose and need of the project. Firefighting strategies, while an important part of

resource management and protection, are outside the scope of this project. The Forest has

demonstrated that the proposed management is in accordance with National and Regional

direction as well as in compliance with policy and regulation. Artificial Regeneration in

compliance with the National Forest Management Act is address page 386 of the modified final

EIS. The project record does not directly state regeneration methods and techniques but



concurrence with national and regional directives is understood through other regulatory

compliance.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA)

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the scope and scale of the modified proposed action is too extensive to

exclusively fit under HFRA. Specifically, the objectors contend that:

• The Forest Service should have provided 45 days to object, rather than 30, given that

the project, in its entirety, is not merely a HFRA project.

• The HFRA statute only allows the agency to analyze a single action alternative for

projects within the Wildland-Urban Interface. The great majority of the LaVA project is

outside the Wildland Urban Interface and cannot be authorized under HFRA.

Response

The reissued draft ROD discusses the designation of priority landscape areas for the treatment of

insects and disease per the 2003 HFRA (P.L. 108-148) as amended by the 2014 Farm Bill 1904

(PUBLIC LAW 113–79—FEB. 7, 2014), see pages 10-11. Section 602 (d) defines potential

treatment areas as areas of declining forest health that are experiencing substantially increased

tree mortality due to insect or disease infestation or dieback due to infestation or defoliation by

insects.

Areas that initially qualified as potential hazardous fuels treatment areas under Title I of the 2003

HFRA and were eligible for expedited NEPA review included Wildland-Urban Interface areas of

at-risk communities, municipal watersheds at risk from wildland fire, areas where ecosystem

components or resource values were threatened by wind throw, blowdown, ice storm damage, or

insect or disease epidemics, and areas where wildland fire posed a threat to threatened and

endangered species or their habitat.

The 2014 Farm Bill (Section 8204, 602 (d)) expanded the definition of these treatment areas to

include landscape scale areas experiencing an insect or disease epidemic. Section 8204 of the

Bill directs the Secretary, if requested by the Governor, to designate at least one landscape-scale

area in at least one national forest as part of an insect and disease treatment program in each

State that is experiencing an insect or disease epidemic. On March 19, 2014, a letter from the

Chief of the Forest Service was sent to Governors of States with national forests informing them

of the opportunity to request insect and disease area designations in their State to address insect

and disease infestations.

In order to be eligible for designation, an area must meet certain requirements. Any areas

designated must meet at least one of the following criteria:

• the area is experiencing declining forest health based on annual forest health surveys, or

• the area is at risk of experiencing substantially increased tree mortality over the next 15 years

due to insect and disease infestation based on the National Insect and Disease Risk Map, or

• the area is in an area where hazard trees pose imminent risk to public infrastructure, health or

safety.



In response to Wyoming Governor, Matthew Mead, On May 20, 2014, the Chief of the Forest

Service designated landscape scale areas on national forest system land within the State. The

scale of these areas was defined as one or more sixth-level hydrologic units (system of

Hydrologic Unit Codes of the United States Geological Survey). The LaVA project area is within

an expanded insect and disease treatment area. This designation was approved on March 22,

2017 by the Forest Service Chief, Thomas Tidwell and included 84 sixth level hydrologic units

for a total of 751,283 acres.

The purpose and need for the LaVA project is to respond to changed forest vegetation conditions

caused by bark beetle epidemics on the Medicine Bow National Forest (MFEIS, p 31). This

emphasis on vegetation management is consistent with HFRA authority which, in addition to a

focus on treatments designed to respond to declining forest health, authorizes the designation of

treatment areas where hazard trees pose an imminent risk to infrastructure, health, or safety

(Section 602(c)(3)). Removal of dead, dying, and at-risk trees through logging is necessary in

order to close gaps between existing and desired conditions regarding hazardous fuel levels, the

density and timing of forest regeneration, access and safety on road infrastructure and in

impacted forest stands, and to accelerate the recovery of late seral wildlife habitat. Recovery of

forest products is a connected action to achieve these goals.

See response to NEPA, Issue #2 for additional discussion on site specificity.

Conclusion

Based on my review, I find that the LaVA project’s scope and scale is appropriate and authorized

under the 2003 HFRA as amended by the 2014 Farm Bill, and 36 CFR 218 Subpart C is the

proper process for the pre-decisional administrative review.

Issue 2

The Objectors assert that HFRA is not applicable under the National Trails System Act

(CDNST)

• The Secretary is not authorized to conduct a hazardous fuel reduction project that would

occur on federal land on which the removal of vegetation is prohibited or restricted by act

of Congress or Presidential proclamation, which includes the National Trails System Act,

Section 7(c).

• HFRA projects should not take place within the CDNST corridor since implementation of

the proposed activities would substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the

CDNST and are not allowed by the National Trails System Act.

• The National Trails System Act, Section 7(c) restricts the removal of vegetation to only

those actions that would not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of a

National Scenic or Historic Trail. The action would need to be consistent with the

CDNST Comprehensive Plan and related policies.

Response

The assertion that, “the Secretary is not authorized to conduct a hazardous fuel reduction project

that would occur on federal land on which the removal of vegetation is prohibited or restricted by

act of Congress or Presidential proclamation” is incorrect. That wording comes from Section 603



of HFRA as amended by the 2014 Farm Bill and only applies to the use of categorical

exclusions. The LaVA project has been conducted under an environmental impact statement, not

a categorical exclusion, and it falls under Section 602 of HFRA. Section 602(c)(3) of HFRA

states that designation of eligible treatment areas includes areas in which the risk of hazard trees

poses an imminent risk to public infrastructure, health, or safety. Furthermore, the National Trails

System Act, including Section 7(c), does not provide any language that stipulates vegetation

management. Section 7(c) states, “Other uses along the trail, which will not substantially

interfere with the nature and purpose of the trail, may be permitted by the Secretary charged with

the administration of the trail.” The Responsible Official clarifies in the reissued draft ROD (p.

43) that any vegetation management that occurs near the CDNST is compliant with the National

Trails System Act:

The decision to implement the authorized road and vegetation treatment activities does

not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the Continental Divide

National Scenic Trail and, therefore, is compliant with the National Trails System Act, as

amended.

The modified final EIS (pp 341-343) discloses that there will be some visual impacts to the

CDNST. The impacts associated will vegetation management will be shorter in duration that the

impacts associated with downfall of trees killed by the mountain pine beetle.

As outlined in Appendix A of the modified final EIS, the Forest will apply the following project

design features and standard operating procedures to maintain the nature and purpose of the

CDNST:

• (DF-REC-7) To the maximum extent possible, alternate route(s) or detours will be used

during treatment implementation to allow continued use of the Continental Divide National

Scenic Trail and to mitigate scenery management impacts during vegetation management

operations. (MFEIS, Appendix A. p. 56.)

• (DF-REC-8) No skidding is allowed on or across the Continental Divide National Scenic

Trail without prior coordination with the local recreation staff. Any skidding that is allowed

on or across the trail will be located to limit damage to the trail and will be rehabbed back to

pretreatment condition. (MFEIS, Appendix A. p. 57.)

• (DF REC-4, DF REC-5, DF REC-8) For treatments that may impact the Continental Divide

National Scenic Trail, ensure no skidding occurs on the trail and provide alternate routes

and/or detours as needed. (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 72)

Conclusion

I find that the LaVA project is compliant with the use of HFRA authority regarding the inclusion

of the CDNST in the project area and in proposed treatment areas.



Issue 3

Objectors assert that the Forest Service fails to demonstrate how the modified proposed action

will maximize the retention of old-growth and large trees as required under Section 602(e) of the

Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

Response

As clarified in the reissued draft ROD (p. 39), the LaVA project is not subject to Sections 102(e)

and (f) of HFRA, but rather it is subject to Sections 602(d) and (e).

HFRA Section 602(d) states “(2) AUTHORITY.—Any project under paragraph (1) for which a

public notice to initiate scoping is issued on or before September 30, 2018, may be carried out in

accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 102, and sections 104, 105, and 106.” ,

including the old growth considerations found in 602(e) TREE RETENTION, which states “The

Secretary shall carry out projects under subsection (d) in a manner that maximizes the retention

of old-growth and large trees, as appropriate for the forest type, to the extent that the trees

promote stands that are resilient to insects and disease.” Section 602(e) emphasizes that HFRA’s

focus is on removal of younger and smaller trees, but HFRA provides significant discretion for

the Forest Service to determine the circumstances under which retention of old-growth and large

trees need not be maximized based on forest type and promotion of stands that are resilient to

insects and disease.

The LaVA project plans to maximize retention of old growth and large trees through: (1)

maintaining current areas of old growth and large trees; (2) providing areas for replacement of

old growth and large trees lost to disturbances; (3) providing old-growth and large tree habitat

elements in managed forests; and (4) using manipulations to reduce the time needed to develop

large trees and old-growth characteristics (Silviculture Specialist Report, pp. 44-45). The

proposed prescriptions for the LaVA project meet elements 1-4 through:

1. Maintaining current areas of old growth and large trees:

o The LRMP prohibits vegetation management practices in mapped and inventoried old

growth areas located in Management Area 5.15 - Ecological Restoration (MFEIS,

Appendix A, p. 123). Therefore, 57,449 acres have been removed from proposed

treatment. (reissued draft ROD, p. 23).

o Prescriptions in identified old growth stands that are located outside of Management

Area 5.15 will be designed to promote old growth characteristics consistent with old

growth design feature #1 (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 63) and LRMP biological diversity

Standard #2 (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 88).

o Large live trees will be retained as appropriate for the forest cover type given the

silvicultural systems used and/or the LRMP direction regarding retention of snag

recruits, which leave or create structural elements of old growth (reissued draft ROD,

p. 39).

o Treatments in inventoried and mapped spruce-fir or lodgepole pine old growth stands

in Management Area 3.5 - Forested Flora or Fauna Habitats will be limited. Required

levels will be maintained (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 118).

2. Providing areas for replacement of large trees and old growth lost to disturbances:



o Silvicultural prescriptions will be applied that leave or create structural elements of

old growth; i.e. irregular shelterwood, green and dead tree retention, and thinning in a

patchy manner to release younger trees can be applied (Silviculture Specialist Report

p. 45)

o When treatments are proposed in designated old growth but are no longer functioning

as old growth selection of new areas that have characteristics of old growth will be

delineated (Silviculture Specialist Report p. 45).

o Compliance with LRMP – Biological Diversity Standard #3: Limit management of

stands identified to meet the percentages identified in table 1-6 to actions necessary

to maintain or restore old growth composition and structure (MFEIS, Appendix A, p.

88).

3. Providing old-growth and large tree habitat elements in managed forests:

o Compliance with LRMP – Biological Diversity Standard #1: Manage old forest to

retain or achieve at least the minimum percentages of old growth by cover type by

mountain range shown in the table 1-6 (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 88).

o Compliance with LRMP – Biological Diversity Guideline #1: Identify and map old

growth blocks that mimic natural patch size and distribution. Include non-linear,

unfragmented blocks (over 300 acres) where available. Old growth in small,

scattered stands, larger patches, and streamside stretches shall be maintained to

produce a pattern that is well distributed across the landscape by making sure that

some old growth is maintained in every Geographic Area. Consider connectivity

when identifying scattered stands (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 88).

o Compliance with LRMP – Management Area 3.5 Guideline #1: Allow, through

natural processes and succession, or encourage, through vegetation treatments, the

development of lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests to provide diversity of forest

habitats.

o Compliance with Table 108 (MFEIS, p. 189), which specifies a range of recruits per

acre by diameter and cover type.

o Compliance with the LRMP’s old growth strategy that was built from the publication

“Old-Growth Description for the Major Forest Cover Types in the Rocky Mountain

Region” (Mehl 1982) (MFEIS, p. 189).

4. Using manipulations to reduce the time needed to develop large trees and old-growth

characteristics:

o Within lodgepole pine cover type, implement silvicultural (irregular shelterwood and

group selection) systems that will retain large live trees. (MFEIS, p. 189).

o Within the aspen cover type, implement silvicultural systems (i.e. coppice with

standards and group selection) that would retain large live trees (MFEIS, p 189).

o Within mixed conifer and ponderosa pine cover types, implement silvicultural

systems (irregular shelterwood, single-tree selection, and group selection) that will

retain large live trees (MFEIS, p 189).



o Within spruce/fir cover type, implement silvicultural systems (except shelterwood)

that will retain large overstory trees either as individuals or in groups (MFEIS, p.

189).

Conclusion

The project record demonstrates that the LaVA project is focused on removal of younger and

smaller trees and that the Forest exercised the discretion provided in HFRA Section 602(e) to

remove old-growth and large trees only in appropriate circumstances. I find that the modified

proposed action is consistent with the HFRA Section 602(e) requirement to maximize the

retention of old growth and large trees in the project area. Additionally, the Responsible Official

is compliance with the direction for vegetation management of old growth and large live tree

recruitment per the 2003 LRMP.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

Issue 1

Objectors assert that under the National Forest Management Act, land and resource

management plans (forest plans) are required to be revised every 15 years. Since the Medicine

Bow LRMP was authorized in 2003, which is now two years past the requirement, the decision

should be postponed until the plan is revised. Additionally, objectors contend that because the

project is to be implemented over the next 15 years, the LaVA decision will not be in compliance

with a future revised LRMP.

Response

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) states that plans shall be revised “at least every

fifteen years” (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)(A)). However, Congress continues to provide relief that the

Secretary of Agriculture shall not be in violation of this NFMA requirement, “solely because

more than 15 years have passed without revision of the plan for a unit of the National Forest

System” (Public Law 116-94, Section 407). Nationwide, many plans are past the 15-year

revision target. Congress did not intend for management activities to simply stop if the agency

fell behind this revision goal.

Objectors suggest that the LRMP should be revised before pursuing this project. However,

nothing compels the responsible official to revise the LRMP, and there is no requirement to do

so. Revising it is beyond the scope of this project. The project is consistent with the existing

LRMP as described in the modified final EIS and reissued draft ROD. If a subsequent decision is

made to revise the LRMP during the implementation of this project, the revised plan will

evaluate existing projects to determine if they need to be modified to comply with aspects of the

new plan, or if they will continue to be implemented under the existing plan. This requirement is

defined in 16 U.S.C.A. 1604(i): When land management plans are revised resource plans and

permits, contracts, and other instruments, when necessary, shall be revised as soon as

practicable.

HFRA was signed into law for a variety of provisions aimed at expediting the preparation and

implementation of hazardous fuels reduction projects on federal lands and assisting states to

restore watershed conditions and protect rural communities. The purpose and need of this project



directly implements these goals and is consistent with HFRA and the LRMP. This project does

not inappropriately rely on HFRA authorities by substituting requirements from NFMA and the

LRMP.

Conclusion

Objectors assert this project is in violation with NFMA and HFRA. My review of the project

record indicates no violation of law, regulation, or policy. Revision of the LRMP is outside the

scope of this project, but if revision is pursued during implementation, all existing projects, when

necessary, will be revised as soon as practicable to be made consistent with the revised plan. My

review of the decision and the project record find this decision consistent with NFMA and

HFRA.

Issue 2

Objectors assert that the decision and the modified final EIS violates NFMA because it is

inconsistent with plan components in the LRMP. This includes scenery management plan

components, including standards to manage vegetation in high-use recreation settings; and

meeting scenic integrity objectives of moderate, within the foreground for all national scenic and

recreation trails. Objectors also expressed concern about consistency with the LRMP on future

treatments and that the project may deviate from LRMP some guidelines.

Response

The LaVA project is consistent with the Medicine Bow National Forest Revised Land and

Resource Management Plan, 2003 (LRMP), as required by National Forest Management Act

(NFMA, 16 USC 1604(i)). The LaVA project will be implemented according to the LRMP. The

Responsible Official for this project had determined that it follows all LRMP standards and most

LRMP guidelines (reissued draft ROD, p. 38). As noted by the Responsible Official, project

implementation may deviate from some LRMP guidelines, particularly related to wildlife

security areas. These will be “addressed, documented, and disclosed during the design of

individual treatments, in accordance with Appendix A, the Adaptive Implementation and

Monitoring Framework” (reissued draft ROD, p. 38). This deviation is an appropriate use of

guidelines, which are described in the LRMP:

“Guidelines are advisable courses of action that should be followed to achieve forest goals.

Deviations from guidelines must be analyzed during project level analysis and documented in a

project decision document but do not require a forest plan.” (LRMP p. 25)

The LRMP includes standards for scenery management, including applied Scenic Management

System, to all lands, and managing for moderate scenery integrity for the foreground of all

National Scenic Trails. It also includes two guidelines that deal with the rehabilitation of project

areas and restoring scenic integrity ratings over time (LRMP, pp. 1-56). The impacts to scenery

from the project are summarized in the modified final EIS, which recognizes short term negative

impacts to scenery, but appropriately weighs a near-term dip in scenic quality against mid, and

longer-term improvements.

The Responsible Official considered near term negative scenery impacts as a way to achieve mid

and longer term enhancements in multiple ways: 1) dead and dying conifers would eventually be

replaced with stands of live green trees; 2) treatments would mitigate the aspen and conifer



encroachment which negatively impacts scenery; and 3) treatments along trails and other certain

areas would be designed to open the forest by thinning which will improve the viewshed

(MFEIS, p. 15). This rationale leads to the logical conclusion that the modified proposed action

would not preclude the mid and long-term attainment of improved scenery quality, which is

consistent with scenery plan components in the LRMP. In fact, these treatments will enhance

scenery to better align with plan objectives. The modified final EIS explains in more detail how

this project is consistent with this direction and manages a minimum level of moderate scenery

(MFEIS, p. 384).

Objectors were also concerned about the general nature of broader-scale mechanical treatments

in primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, or semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunity

spectrum classes. Again, the Responsible Official is consistent with the LRMP, which contains a

standard to manage vegetation in high-use recreation areas to provide for public safety, improve

forest health and maintain or improve the desired recreation settings (LRMP, p. 1-49).

Some objectors had additional general questions and concerns about the ability of a project to

deviate from LRMP guidelines. As discussed above, a project can deviate from LRMP

guidelines. The reissued draft ROD notes that the Responsible Official has determined that the

project is consistent with LRMP standards. Regarding guidelines, the LRMP states that

deviations from guidelines are permissible: “Guidelines are advisable courses of action that

should be followed to achieve forest goals. Deviations from guidelines must be analyzed during

project level analysis and documented in a project decision document but do not require a forest

plan amendment” (LRMP, 1-25). The LaVA modified final EIS discloses that the project may not

be consistent with certain guidelines (MFEIS, p. 34), but this could be better described in the

reissued draft ROD.

Conclusion

I find that the proposed action is consistent with the Medicine Bow National Forest Revised

Land and Resource Management Plan, 2003. I instruct the Responsible Official to clarify how

and when deviations from Forest Plan guidelines will be disclosed and justified during project

implementation.

Issue 3

Objectors assert that the decision violates NFMA because the LRMP must be amended to

comply with changed condition and CDNST direction. Objectors also assert that the modified

proposed actions are inconsistent with LRMP Management Areas 1.31, 1.33, 3.31, and 3.33

prescriptions and associated Remoteness criteria for established Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

and Semi-Primitive ROS settings.

Response

NFMA does not require a plan to be amended and the supporting EIS supplemented with every

changed condition. Policy changes regarding the management of the CDNST do not compel the

agency to amend the plan or supplement the analysis. Changed conditions that may warrant a

plan amendment are at the discretion of the Forest Supervisor. This project appropriately

considers the analysis that supported the LRMP, as well as detailed information contained in the

modified final EIS. The Responsible Official has determined that the modified final EIS is



consistent with LRMP standards and has noted, per plan direction, that it may not be consistent

with certain plan guidelines (MFEIS, p. 384).

The LRMP specifically allows vegetation management in Management Areas 1.31, 1.33, 3.31,

and 3.33 when necessary to meet specific objectives (Medicine Bow LRMP, pp. 2-13, 2-16, 2-35,

2-38).

Conclusion

Since the objector does not provide specific inconsistencies between the LaVA modified

proposed action and the LRMP, I agree with the Responsible Official’s finding that the project is

consistent with the LRMP standards.

My review of this objection point found no violations of law, regulation, or policy. Nothing in

NFMA requires a plan amendment or supplemental information to the EIS under the

circumstance presented. Furthermore, I find that the LRMP, which was developed with full

public participation, allows for activities described in the modified proposed action, in the

management areas identified by the objector.

Public Engagement

Issue 1

Objectors assert that there have been inadequate time and opportunities provided for

meaningful public engagement. Objectors stated that it is inappropriate to expect public

engagement during COVID-19.

Response

On May 8, 2020, the Forest Supervisor received and reviewed a request for an extension to the

objection period for the LaVA modified final EIS and reissued draft ROD. In response to the

request, the Forest Supervisor provided the following response: “Due to the pressing need to

address the significant wildland fire hazards to communities, the public and agency employees

and critical water supply infrastructure within this project area as well as the overhead hazard

tree threat to the safety of the public and employees I felt that delaying the initiation of the

objection filing period would not be prudent. I also considered the extensive public engagement

to date as well as the factors identified related to public engagement in the guidance document.”

The Forest Service received informal guidance dated April 3, 2020, and titled Medicine Bow

Landscape Vegetation Analysis Project (LaVA)USDA Forest Service COVID-19 NEPA

Comment Objection Periods Guidance Letter. The letter provided guidance for public

engagement activities associated with environmental analyses under NEPA and NFMA in

support of project and land management planning efforts. This guidance was reviewed and

considered by the Forest Supervisor prior to the initiation of the objection filing period for this

project.

The informal guidance clarifies that responsible officials should carefully consider the timing of

beginning new public comment periods if meaningful public engagement will be challenging or

unachievable under the current circumstances. For the LaVA project, 64 objection response

letters were received during the objection period in 2020 (during COVID-19), whereas 30



responses were received in 2019 (non-COVID). The guidance also states that those actions

deemed most critical for safety, economic recovery, or critical infrastructure should be prioritized

to move forward.

Additionally, the regulations at 36 CFR 218 do not allow for extension of objection filing

periods. The regulations at 36 CFR 218 require that written objections must be filed with the

reviewing officer within 30 days following the publication date of the final EIS in the newspaper

of record or the publication date of the notice in the Federal Register.

Conclusion

Based on a review of the project record, I find that the Responsible Official did not violate the

regulations for public engagement for the proposed project.

Issue 2

Objectors assert that the Forest Service failed to adequately notify and engage the public. In

particular, objectors contend that the Forest Service failed to announce scoping, failed to

adequately inform environmental organizations, and failed to adequately inform and engage

adjacent private landowners. Objectors also point to an incident where the Forest Service failed

to contact them after agreeing upon a request to observe cooperator meetings.

Response

The notice of intent initiating the scoping process (40 CFR 1502.7) for the draft EIS was

published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2017. The notice asked for public comments on the

modified proposed action from July 21, 2017 to August 21, 2017. As part of the scoping process,

the Forest Service also mailed 1,200 scoping postcards to organizations and individuals

including adjacent landowners; federally recognized Tribes; and Federal, State, and local

government representatives (MFEIS, p. 52). 40 CFR 1506.6 requires the agency to mail notice to

those who have requested it on an individual action. If an environmental organization did not

request to be notified of actions on the Medicine Bow National Forest, the Forest Service has no

requirement to notify the organization.

To inform the general public of the proposal, the scoping package was posted to the Medicine

Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland website on July 24, 2017. A

news release was also prepared and distributed to local and regional media outlets on August 1,

2017. Additionally, the news release was posted on the website and Twitter feed. Finally, Forest

Service personnel hosted six open house meetings between August 2017 and January 2018.

Formal scoping meetings were held in Laramie on August 8, 2017, and in Saratoga on August

10, 2017. Check-in meetings were held in Saratoga on January 23, 2018, and January 24, 2018,

and in Laramie on January 30, 2018, and on January 31, 2018. Forest Service and cooperating

agency personnel were available to answer questions related to the proposal at both the formal

scoping and check-in meetings. Fifty-eight comment letters and emails were received during the

formal scoping period. This information was used to modify the proposed action, to develop

project design features, and to develop the modified final EIS, Appendix A- the Adaptive

Implementation and Monitoring Framework.

In most cases, the issues were used to modify, clarify, or augment the proposed action, as

allowed for at 36 CFR 220.5(e)(1 and 2). However, in some cases, the interdisciplinary team also



developed indicators or ways of measuring environmental effects. The indicators will be

monitored over the life of the LaVA project and will be useful in judging the most effective

treatments to implement, describing changes in resources, as well as demonstrating

responsiveness to public concerns (MFEIS, p. 53).

Pages 20-21 of the modified final EIS, Appendix B further clarifies:

“While the scoping news release was provided to the Laramie Boomerang, Forest Service

personnel have no control if or when a media outlet might publish the information, outside of

purchasing an advertisement, which we did not and do not typically do for projects like the LaVA

Project. We did, however, recognize the Laramie Boomerang had not published the news release

prior to the open house meetings and made every effort to rectify the situation, including

emailing the scoping document directly to conservation and wildlife organizations.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (40 CFR 1500) are not explicit in

directing how agencies are to inform the public of projects that could affect them; agencies are

to develop their own implementing regulations. Direction guiding public involvement and

scoping may be found in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, chapter 10, which states:

“Scoping shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 1501.7.

Because the nature and complexity of a proposed action determine the scope and

intensity of analysis, no single scoping technique is required or prescribed. (36 CFR

220.4(e)(2)).”

Given the scope and scale of the LaVA Project, Forest Service personnel used a variety of

platforms to publicize the project, including: news releases, publishing a notice of intent in the

Federal Register, mailing more than 1,200 postcards, posting project information to the Forest

Service webpage, making presentations to local clubs and organizations, and hosting numerous

open house meetings. We also engaged with numerous cooperating agencies about the LaVA

Project since March 2017. Meetings were held on a monthly basis to encourage development of a

holistic, landscape-scale project that would benefit multiple agencies.”

In the modified final EIS, Appendix A, an adaptive implementation and monitoring framework

was developed in conjunction with cooperating agencies to outline the cyclic process for

engaging the public when identifying, refining, implementing, and monitoring individual

vegetation treatments on the Snowy and Sierra Madre Mountain Ranges over the next 15 years

(FEIS, p. 55). Annual engagement opportunities identified in the modified final EIS, Appendix A

provide feedback opportunities during the identification of focus areas; identification of

individual treatments; and during reporting and monitoring to ensure that private landowners can

be involved.

To inform the general public of the proposal, the scoping package was posted to the Medicine

Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland website on July 24, 2017. A

news release was also prepared and distributed to local and regional media outlets on August 1,

2017. Additionally, the news release was posted on the website and Twitter feed. Finally, Forest

Service personnel hosted six open house meetings between August 2017 and January 2018.

Formal scoping meetings were held in Laramie on August 8, 2017, and in Saratoga on August

10, 2017. Check-in meetings were held in Saratoga on January 23, 2018 and January 24, 2018,

and in Laramie on January 30, 2018, and January 31, 2018. Forest Service and cooperating



agency personnel were available to answer questions related to the proposal at both the formal

scoping and check-in meetings.

Conclusion

I find that the Forest Service carried out public scoping in accordance with the requirements of

40 CFR 1506.6. Through formal scoping meetings, open house meetings, and check-in meetings,

there have been robust opportunities for public engagement per the requirements of HFRA and

40 CFR 1501.7. I find that the Forest Service made an adequate attempt to notify potential

interested parties and landowners through 1,200 postcards, news releases, radio announcements,

social media posts, webpage posts, and numerous public meetings. Additionally, private

landowners can engage and provide feedback on an annual basis, as outlined in the modified

final EIS, Appendix A.

Issue 3

Objectors assert that the Forest Service failed to give the contributions of cooperating agencies

sufficient weight when developing the project.

Response

The NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1501.6 and HFRA emphasize the importance of working with

cooperating agencies early and often during planning processes to take advantage of the special

expertise that these agencies can provide when addressing environmental issues and concerns.

Based on these requirements, Forest Service staff has cooperated with numerous local, State, and

Federal agencies since March 2017 to develop the LaVA modified proposed action. Cooperating

agencies were instrumental in formulating the LaVA draft, final, and modified final EISs, the

reissued draft ROD, and Appendix A – the Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring

Framework; their continued involvement is necessary for successful project implementation

(MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 7).

In 2016, the Forest Service and the State of Wyoming developed a Memorandum of

Understanding to reinforce the parties’ mutual commitment to collaboration and cooperation and

document the relationship between the parties when preparing environmental documents under

the National Environmental Policy Act. A Cooperative Working Agreement (CWA) between the

Medicine Bow National Forest and cooperating agencies dated May 7, 2019, was also

established for the purposes of developing a proposed action and preparing an EIS for the LaVA

project. The CWA outlines the responsibilities and procedures agreed upon by the cooperating

agencies and the Forest Service. Cooperating agency responsibilities include providing

information, comments, and technical expertise to the Forest Service regarding those elements of

the EIS, and the data and analysis supporting its development, for which they have jurisdiction or

special expertise or for which the Forest Service requests their assistance.

Cooperating agencies include the Wyoming State Forestry Division, Wyoming Game and Fish

Department, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Wyoming State Historic

Preservation Office, Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities, Wyoming Department of Agriculture,

Albany County Commissioners, Albany County Fire Warden, Carbon County Commissioners,

Little Snake River Conservation District, Laramie Rivers Conservation District, Medicine Bow

Conservation District, Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District, Bureau of Land



Management, State of Wyoming Governor’s Office, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(MFEIS, p. 2).

LaVA cooperating agencies and Medicine Bow National Forest personnel have been closely

engaged during the development of the LaVA project, and will continue to cooperate in the future

in accordance with the modified final EIS, Appendix A. Appendix A outlines a process for

cooperating agencies to remain actively engaged, and to exercise their special expertise during

the implementation and monitoring of the LaVA project (pp. 20-21).

Conclusion

I find that the Forest Service has complied with the NEPA regulations at 40 CFR1501.6 and

HFRA through early coordination and future engagement opportunities with cooperating

agencies. The Forest Service recognizes the importance of continued coordination and

collaboration throughout the life of the LaVA project.

Issue 4

Objectors assert that the Forest Service, by deferring information gathering and assessments

and then providing only non-NEPA public engagement opportunities in the future, violates the

public involvement requirements of NEPA.

Response

As outlined in Appendix B of the modified final EIS on pages 9-13, the Forest responded to the

objector’s comments regarding site specificity. The modified final EIS for the LaVA project

constitutes a full, project-level NEPA analysis because the site-specific direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects have been analyzed and disclosed for the public and the decision-maker.

Furthermore, the modified final EIS explains how the roughly 850,000-acre LaVA analysis area

was broken into 14 accounting units to lend site specificity to the analysis (p. 53). The

accounting units were used to augment existing condition descriptions and to enhance the ability

to disclose environmental effects. As a result, the public was able to assess the impacts of the

proposal and provide the Forest with meaningful comments.

To inform the general public of the proposal, Forest Service personnel hosted formal scoping

meetings, open house meetings, and check-in meetings. In response to the draft decision released

in 2019, the Forest received 27 objections to the LaVA project. These objections, along with the

project record, were reviewed by the reviewing officer to determine if the objections should be

upheld or if they should be dismissed. On June 18, 2019, the LaVA project Responsible Official

cancelled the objection process and withdrew the draft ROD. This action was taken due to the

number of objections received, the compressed objection review period associated with HFRA

(30 days with no extensions), and the desire to be responsive to public concerns. The

Responsible Official received numerous recommendations from the reviewing officer designed

to strengthen the analysis. This modified final EIS presents the additional analysis recommended

by the reviewing officer (MFEIS, p. 14).

One issue that was identified through public comment was the importance of continued

coordination and collaboration between the Forest Service, LaVA project cooperating agencies,

and the public throughout the life of the LaVA project implementation. As a result, the adaptive

implementation and monitoring framework was developed in conjunction with cooperating



agencies to outline the cyclic process for engaging the public when identifying, refining,

implementing, and monitoring individual vegetation treatments on the Snowy and Sierra Madre

Mountain Ranges over the next 15 years (MFEIS, p. 55).

Additionally, the Forest Service:

• Added a new section to Appendix A of the modified final EIS, entitled “Annual Engagement

Opportunities”. This section outlines feedback opportunities required during the

identification of focus areas; identification of individual treatments; and during reporting and

monitoring.

• Updated Output 2: LaVA Treatment Implementation Checklist to include a summary of

public feedback and how it was incorporated into treatment design.

• Added a new row to Attachment 6, Monitoring Plan, to monitor the effectiveness of public

engagement opportunities.

• Added Attachment 8, Comparative Analysis, to document the adequacy of proposed public

engagement opportunities.

• Developed an interactive story map to give the public an opportunity to review and provide

feedback during project implementation (MFEIS, p. 28).

Also, see response to NEPA Issue 2.

Conclusion

I find that public was able to meaningfully engage on site-specific effects that were analyzed and

disclosed in the modified final EIS and supporting documents. Additionally, I find that the LaVA

project presents opportunities for public and cooperating agency engagement through the

modified final EIS, Appendix A – the Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring Framework. The

Forest Service is committed to an open and transparent process by encouraging public

participation when identifying, designing, implementing, and monitoring treatment proposals.

Issue 5

Objectors assert that the Forest Service failed to clearly identify changes in the modified final

EIS and reissued draft ROD, which precluded meaningful public review and objection.

Response

The Forest Service has provided a detailed account of changes from the April 2019 final EIS to

the 2020 modified final EIS in Table 1 of the modified final EIS (p. 3-6). Pages 6-9 of the

reissued draft ROD outlines public concerns and regional recommendations in response to the

2019 objection process. Public concerns and regional recommendations in addition to the Forests

analysis modifications are detailed in pages 14-30 of the modified final EIS. Several

modifications were made to the modified final EIS, Appendix A as a result of the 2019 objection

process (p. 5).

Conclusion

I find that the Responsibility Official disclosed the changes made from the final EIS and draft

ROD to the modified final EIS and reissued draft ROD.



Issue 6

Objectors assert that the Forest Service made changes to specialist reports and added new

documentation after the objection period began, thereby providing inadequate time for objectors

to review and object.

Response

The notice for opportunity to object was published in the newspaper of record on April 10, 2020.

The notice directed the public to the LaVA project website

(https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=51255) for accessing the modified final EIS and

reissued draft ROD. The notice explained that paper copies were also available by request by

calling the Laramie Ranger District or the Brush Creek/Hayden Ranger District. The notice

provided contact information for the LaVA project Manager. The project website displays the

“date published” associated with posted documents. The modified final EIS (including Appendix

A and B) and the reissued draft ROD were published on April 9, 2020, under the Analysis tab.

The Medicine Bow National Forest also made available “specialist reports” available on the

project website. The Chapter 3 summary of the modified final EIS explains that “This chapter

presents a detailed overview of the affected environment in each of the 14 accounting units. It

then presents a summary of the affected environment as well as the direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects by resource area that could result from implementing the no-action alternative

and the modified proposed action. Detailed descriptions of resource effects are provided in the

resource specialist reports, located on the LaVA project NEPA website” (p. 111). Twenty-three

documents are posted and made available to the public under the “specialist reports” dropdown.

Fifteen of the 23 have a date published of April 9, 2020. The other documents and associated

date published are:

• Barrett Creek Stream Health Assessment – April 17, 2020

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife concurrence letter (dated December 20, 2019) – April 20, 2020

• Inventoried Roadless Areas Report – April 20, 2020

• Biological Evaluation, Management Indicator Species, and Species of Local Concern Report

– April 20, 2020

• Scenery Specialist Report – April 22, 2020

• Invasive Plants Report – May 1, 2020

• Transportation Report – May 7, 2020

• Heritage Specialist Reports – May 8, 2020.

Correspondence in the project record provides some explanation for the later date published for

the Invasive Plants Report, Biological Evaluation, Management Indicator Species, and Species of

Local Concern Report, and Transportation Report. A version of each of these reports had been

published on April 9, 2020. After April 9, 2020, specialists made some changes to those reports

and published the reports back to the project site on the dates in the bulleted list above. The

correspondence implies that changes from the April 9, 2020, versions are minimal. Forest staff

have provided additional explanation for the other reports. The heritage and scenery specialist

reports were unchanged from the 2019 FEIS and were moved forward from the “2019 Final EIS”

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=51255



dropdown. The Inventoried Roadless Areas Report contains the same information included in the

modified final EIS and was created and added to this dropdown to ensure full coverage of

specialist reports. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence letter is dated December 20,

2020, and was available to the public upon request. It was an administrative oversight not to post

that document prior to the date published. The Barrett Creek Stream Health Assessment has no

bearing on the analysis in the EIS and was included as an example of the assessments that the

Forest will conduct as part of implementation.

Conclusion

I find that the Responsible Official made relevant documents available to the public to review

during the objection period. Although some of the documents under the “specialist reports” tab

on the project website show published dates after the notice for opportunity to object, I find that

none of those documents contain substantively different information than was available upon the

notice of opportunity to object. I instruct the Responsible Official to document and disclose the

reason for documents being published on the project website after the notice of opportunity to

object and, if newer version were published, what changes were made to those reports.

Adaptive Management and Monitoring

Issue 1

Objectors assert that no NEPA process would be applied to the implementation of this project

for the next 15 years and that the adaptive management framework fails to ensure changes in

management will be within the scope if the original analysis. The objectors contend the agency’s

dependence on this framework as a substitute for site-specific analysis of effects violates NEPA.

The Objectors further allege that the public would not be engaged in decisions about the

management of most of the forest for the next 15 years.

Response

The agency has prepared an EIS consistent with the CEQ’s implementing regulations for NEPA

(40 CFR Part 1500). The EIS is consistent with the twin aims of NEPA which are informed

decision making and meaningful public participation. The EIS discloses the purpose and need for

action (MFEIS pp. 31-51). It discloses the actions that will be taken in an adaptive

implementation and monitoring framework. It discloses the process for identifying, refining,


Mountain Ranges during the 15-year treatment authorization period (MFEIS, pp. 61-97). The

EIS discloses the agency’s resolution of the issue that the analysis lacks site specificity (MFEIS,

p. 53). The EIS discloses the sufficiency review that the agency would conduct to determine

whether an action or changed condition is within the scope of the analysis (MFEIS, p. 97).

The EIS discloses that the Responsible Official worked with a large number of cooperating

agencies and tribal governments in the planning and analysis of this project (MFEIS, pp. 51-52).

It also discloses how the Responsible Official involved and responded to the public’s concerns in

developing and modifying the proposed action and conducting the analysis in the two iterations

of the EIS (MFEIS, pp. 2-8, 52-57). Appendix B of the modified final EIS discloses the public

comments received on the draft of the EIS and the agency’s responses. The modified final EIS



describes the agency’s preferred alternative (40 CFR §1502.14(e)) (MFEIS, pp. 59-97). It

discloses the affected environment and the environmental consequences of the project in terms of

its likely direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the biological, physical, and social

environment (MFEIS, pp. 111-384).

Appendix A of the modified final EIS discloses the actions that will be taken in an adaptive

implementation and monitoring framework. It discloses the process for identifying, refining,


Mountain Ranges during the 15-year treatment authorization period. Appendix A of the modified

final EIS also discloses the following processes that will be implemented over the 15-year

treatment authorization period for the project to ensure the treatment is allowed under the LaVA

ROD; the effects of the treatment are within the scope of the effects documented in the final EIS;

and that all resource-specific guidelines and protection measures are incorporated into treatment

design:

1. Functions of monitoring and adaptive management (p. 6);

2. Definition of adaptive management and overview of the process (p. 8);

3. Description of use of monitoring information (p. 8);

4. Monitoring included as part of implementation package (p. 16);

5. Reporting described in detail (p. 17);

6. Annual public engagement opportunities (pp. 18-19);

7. Summary of the reporting phase (p. 19);

8. The kinds of changes that will trigger a supplemental information report (FSH 1909.15,

Section 18) (p. 19);

9. How and where changes will be communicated as well as where treatment info will be

shared, and feedback will be solicited (p. 20);

10. Description of a treatment linearly from beginning to end thru the modified final EIS,

Appendix A process (pp. 20-21);

11. Each outputs’ purpose (pp. 23, 27-29);

12. The opportunity to describe what was found during field review, opportunity to not

continue with project based on changed conditions, and how feedback was incorporated

(p.);

13. The outline of each monitoring report (pp. 48-49);

14. Monitoring based decision triggers (pp. 50-55);

15. Options for treatment based on conditions of vegetation at time of implementation (pp.

65-67);

16. The conduct of surveys/review by resource area (pp. 68-75);

17. Monitoring activities and frequencies (pp. 80-81).



Conclusion

Based on my review of the modified final EIS, I find that the Responsible Official discloses the

environmental impacts of the project and the processes that will be implemented over the 15-year

treatment authorization period for the project to ensure each treatment is consistent with the

LaVA ROD; the Adaptive Management and Monitoring Framework (Appendix A) includes

sufficient measures, triggers, and feedback mechanisms necessary to ensure changes will be

implemented, consistent with NEPA; the effects of the treatment are within the scope of the

effects documented in the modified final EIS; there will be adequate public engagement

opportunities; and that all resource-specific guidelines and protection measures are incorporated

into treatment design. The Responsible Official provided sufficient opportunity for comment on

the modified final EIS and discloses the agency’s process to review effects of the individual

vegetation treatments. Although Appendix A explains that substantive changes to ground

conditions and analysis assumptions could trigger a supplemental information report, I am

instructing the Responsible Official to commit to convening an interdisciplinary team at least

every 5 five years to evaluate the need for a supplemental information report.

Issue 2

Objectors assert that the Forest Service will not have the staffing and budget to cover future

project commitments for implementation, analysis, administration, and monitoring.

Response

The modified final EIS, Appendix A discloses a robust five-phase cyclic process for engaging

cooperating agencies and public when identifying, refining, implementing, and monitoring

individual vegetation treatments. It discloses the commitments that will be made for full

implementation of the project over the 15-year treatment authorization period. It provides an

explanation of the “Focus Areas” phase in developing projects and securing funding (modified

final EIS, Appendix A, p. 13). The CEQ’s implementation regulations for NEPA require the ROD

to adopt and summarize a monitoring and enforcement program where applicable for any

mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). Appendix A includes an explanation of the reporting phase of

monitoring and shows the agency’s commitment to monitor the implantation and effectiveness of

the project (modified final EIS, Appendix A, p. 17).

The reissued draft ROD discloses all authorized treatments will be contingent upon Forest

Service and cooperating agencies’ priorities, available staffing and annual funding. Appendix A,

adopted as part of the decision, shows intent to monitor (reissued draft ROD, p. 12). The reissued

draft ROD discloses the modifications to Appendix A to ensure public and cooperating agency

involvement, allowing cooperating agencies to bring resources and funding to help with

monitoring (reissued draft ROD, p. 13).

The Social and Economic Report in the record discloses that ground conditions as well as

budgetary limitations will ultimately dictate the amounts of products removed and that budgetary

limitation will drive how much gets done (Social and Economic Report, p. 19).

The modified final EIS discloses that treatments will be dependent on staffing and funding

guided by the adaptive implementation and monitoring framework (MFEIS, p. 8). It also



discloses that treatments and activities conducted annually would be contingent upon funding

and staffing (MFEIS, p. 20).

Conclusion

Based on my review of the modified final EIS and project record, I find that the Responsible

Official discloses the staffing and budgetary commitments needed to implement the project over

its 15-year treatment authorization period.

Inadequate Mitigation

Issue 1

Objectors assert the Forest Service failed to consider a reasonable range of mitigation

measures that could address a wider variety of desirable end-state conditions than stated in the

EIS. Furthermore, objectors contend that the project design features lack specificity in how they

would be applied, and sufficient evidence of their effectiveness is not provided.

Response

The modified final EIS discloses the description of the modified proposed action which includes

project design features (MFEIS, pp. 61-96) and how the project design features were developed

to avoid or minimize impacts (MFEIS, p. 70). The effects of the alternatives, which include the

project design features, are disclosed in the modified final EIS (MFEIS, pp. 56-64). The project

record contains deliberations of the interdisciplinary team in developing the project design

features (2017Dec13_draftLaVA_DC_IDT_WorkingDoc;

2017Dec20_LaVA_CA_MeetingHighlights; 2018Jan10_LaVA_MeetingHighlights;

2018Feb26_draftLaVA_DC_IDT_WorkingDoc).

Appendix A of the modified final EIS explains the steps that will be taken prior to a treatment

being implemented to survey treatment areas in order to determine whether additional design

features would be necessary (MFEIS pp. 68-79). Appendix A includes a checklist that the agency

will use in implementation that will provide the opportunity to determine whether the project

design features are adequate and the determination regarding additional design features, if

needed (MFEIS, Appendix A, pp. 27-29). A monitoring plan will assess the effectiveness of the

design features (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 80).

Appendix A contains triggers that will demonstrate the need for more rigorous project design

features, a change in management approach, or slowing the pace of implementation (MFEIS,

Appendix A, pp. 50-55).

The project record discloses road construction and maintenance requirements which have proven

records of effectiveness (Forest Service Handbook, Sections 7709.57; 7709.58; 7709.59; Forest

Service Timber Sale contract provisions, pp. 119-123, 128-129).

The primary approach of the LaVA project is using vegetation treatments to restore sites to the

desired conditions outlined in the Land and Resource Management Plan. However, treatments

would be designed at a local scale and will consider other factors, which can be interpreted to

include the end-state conditions desired by the objector (MFEIS, pp. 31-32).



The modified final EIS discloses locations where treatments would be specifically designed to

enhance wildlife habitat (MFEIS, pp. 62-63). It discloses design criteria for invasive species

management, native seed/plant material use, and road decommissioning (MFEIS, Appendix A,

pp. 56, 59, 60). It discloses and defines road decommissioning techniques and temporary road

rehabilitation, including blocking roads by creating physical barriers (MFEIS, pp. 69, 402).

Conclusion

Based on my review, I have determined that the modified final EIS clearly defines the projects’

objectives and desired conditions, which has allowed for an adequate range and consideration of

effective design features. Additionally, I find that the Responsible Official has appropriately

analyzed and disclosed the effects of the project based on the application and effectiveness of the

design features.

Range of Alternatives

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the projects fail to consider an acceptable reasonable range of

alternatives. They contend that the issues should have been addressed in a wider range of

alternatives than the single, all-or-nothing action alternative analyzed in the modified final EIS.

Specifically, objectors contend that the Forest Service should have considered:

• An alternative that would exclude treatments within inventoried roadless areas

• An alternative that identifies a minimum road system and unneeded roads that could be

decommissioned under the modified proposed action.

• An alternative that would protect the qualities and values of the Continental Divide

National Scenic Trail.

Response

Section 104(c) of HFRA (Pub. L. 108-148, as amended) specifies the minimum number of

alternatives that the Responsible Official must consider in an EIS prepared under HFRA: the

proposed agency action; the alternative of no action; and an additional action alternative, if the

additional alternative (i) is proposed during scoping or the collaborative process…; and (ii)

meets the purpose and need of the project, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the

CEQ (HFRA, Sec. 104(c)). The EIS discloses the agency’s consistency with these requirements

and explains why no additional action alternatives other than the proposed action, as modified,

were analyzed in detail (MFEIS, p. 59).

If new issues are determined during the analysis process, the CEQ’s implementing regulations

for NEPA and the Forest Service’s NEPA regulations allow the agency to address them by

modifying alternatives (40 CFR §1503.4). In such cases, the responsible official may consider

the incremental changes as alternatives considered (36 CFR §220.5(e)(1)). The modified final

EIS and reissued draft ROD discloses the agency’s incremental changes to the proposed action to

respond to issues brought up in scoping, comments on the draft EIS, and objections during the

2019 pre-decisional administrative review process (reissued draft ROD, p. 9 footnote, pp. 13, 39-

40; MFEIS, 61-62, 97-98).



The modified final EIS (pp. 97-99) and its associated Appendix B – Response to Comments

document (pp. 22 -26) disclose the agency’s consideration of several alternatives not analyzed in

detail and provides the reasons for not conducting detailed analyzes of these alternatives.

Rational for not conducting detail analyzes on recommendations received this objection period is

provided below.

An alternative that would exclude treatments within inventoried roadless areas:

The modified final EIS discloses the agency’s consideration of an alternative similar to the

modified proposed action with the exception that it would exclude inventoried roadless areas

from treatment. However, the Forest Service explains this alternative was eliminated from the

detailed study because it does not meet the purpose and need of the project, particularly as

related to needs of LaVA cooperating agencies. Specifically, excluding inventoried roadless areas

from the proposed action would forgo opportunities to enhance forest and rangeland resiliency to

future insect and disease infestations, provide for the protection of infrastructure and restoration

of wildlife habitat, and mitigate hazardous fuel loading on roughly 27 percent (230,240 acres) of

the LaVA analysis area. Removing such a large land base from the proposed action would not

allow a landscape-scale analysis of, and response to, changed forest vegetation conditions

presented by insect and disease epidemics, which is the primary purpose of the project (MFEIS

p. 98). The purpose and need for the LaVA project is stated on page 14 of the modified final EIS.

The rationale to dismiss an alternative to exclude inventoried roadless areas from treatment

because it doesn’t meet the purpose and need is lacking. An alternative, similar to the modified

proposed alternative, excluding inventoried roadless areas would still likely meet the purpose

and need. This alternative was proposed during scoping and the modified final EIS considered

effects of treatment in each roadless area in detail and imposed mitigation to protect roadless

values based on Significant Issue 7.

An alternative that identifies a minimum road system and unneeded roads that could be

decommissioned under the modified proposed action.

As objectors referenced in other objections points, the Forest Service responded to this

recommendation on page 8 (issue 801.0103) of the modified final EIS, Appendix B. See the

responses to Travel Management Rule, Issue #1 and NEPA, Issue #4 for the justification.

An alternative that would protect the qualities and values of the Continental Divide

National Scenic Trail.

Mitigation measures were adopted to address the CDNST. The range of alternatives is consistent

with HFRA and is adequate for addressing concerns about the CDNST (Recreation Report, pp.

15, 25-27; MFEIS, p. 341; MFEIS, Appendix A, pp. 56-57).

Conclusion

Based on my review of the project record, I find that the Responsible Official’s rationale for

eliminating the alternative which proposed to exclude treatments within inventoried roadless

areas because it did not meet the purpose and intent was not adequately supported. Therefore, I

instruct the Responsible Official to consider the alternative of excluding treatments within

inventoried roadless areas.



Issue 2

Objectors assert that the Forest Service failed to adequately analyze the no-action alternative,

because it doesn’t provide a "baseline" study "for comparing the environmental consequences

to the other alternatives. Objectors contend that the no-action alternative is the “natural

processes” alternative, and a sufficient analysis would look at forest conditions 15, 25, 50, 75,

100, 125 and 150 years in the future.

Response

The no-action alternative is addressed in the modified final EIS in several places including page

6 (Alternatives Analyzed in Detail), Page 16 (Objection Findings and Responses), and in depth

on pages 60-61. Furthermore, baseline conditions are disclosed in the description of each

accounting unit and in the descriptions of the affected environment of each resource analysis

section of chapter 3 (MFEIS, pp. 3-6, 112-171, 175-384). Within the reissued draft ROD, the no-

action alternative is addressed on pages 35 and 36. This section discusses that there would be no

effort, beyond 15-year historical rates, to modify existing vegetation or related fuel conditions

associated with the bark beetle epidemic in the LaVA analysis area.

The requirement and guidance to analyze a no-action alternative is detailed in 40 CFR 1502.14

(d), Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15.14.2, and HFRA section 104(c). FSH 1909.15.14.2

states that “The no-action alternative provides a baseline for estimating the effects of other

alternatives; therefore, include the effects of taking no-action in each environmental analysis.”

The utility of a no-action alternative is also addressed in FSH 1909.15.15.2b in regard to the

temporal bounds of an analysis. This section recommends that the no-action alternative can be an

effective benchmark for estimating the effects of other alternatives if it incorporates cumulative

effects of past activities and accurately depicts the condition of the environment.

CEQ NEPA implementing regulations define three types of effects: direct, indirect, and

cumulative. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect

effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still

reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508.8). Cumulative effects are impacts on the environment

resulting from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR 1508.7). NEPA implementing regulations clearly

require analysis of effects that are reasonably foreseeable, rather than those that are speculative

150 years into the future.

The modified final EIS considers and discloses those reasonably foreseeable effects and actions

in chapter 3. Consistent with Forest Service policy, the Responsible Official defined the no-

action alternative for the LaVA project as consisting of continuation of routine management

programs and activities at historic rates (MFEIS, p. 28).

Conclusion

I conclude that the analysis of the no-action alternative in the modified final EIS and reissued

draft ROD is sufficient and meets the intent of NEPA regulations and are consistent with Forest

Service handbook guidance. The reissue draft ROD adequately uses temporal bounds of

management activities on the Forest as a benchmark for future condition predictions in the

absence of increased management.



Economics

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the modified proposed action is not fiscally responsible, and it will be a

subsidy for the timber industry to perform commercial harvest, or a subsidy for homeowners by

protecting second homes.

Response

Chapter 1 of the modified final EIS outlines the purpose and need for the LaVA project. “The

purpose and need for the project is based on the identified gaps between existing and desired

conditions within the LaVA project area” (p. 31). The modified final EIS details these gaps

throughout Chapter 1; especially, in the section titled “Background for Purpose and Need.” The

modified final EIS states that “Vegetation management activities, including prescribed fire,

mechanical, and hand treatment methods, could be applied on up to 360,000 acres to mitigate

hazardous fuel loading, provide for recovery of forest products; enhance forest and rangeland

resiliency to future insect and disease infestations; protect infrastructure and municipal water

supplies; restore wildlife habitat; enhance access for forest visitors and permittees; and provide

for human safety” (p. 62). “A combination of commercial timber sales, service contracts,

stewardship contracts, cooperative authorities, partner capacity, and Forest Service crews would

be used to implement the project” (MFEIS, p. 62).

The Silviculture Specialist Report discusses in detail regulatory compliance, desired future

condition, diversity and resilience of the forested ecosystem, and the consequences of the no-

action and action alternatives.

The Social and Economic Specialist Report dated October 2019 details the financial efficiency

analysis for the modified proposed action including a detailed breakdown of project costs and

revenues associated with timber sales, pre-commercial thinning, weed and release treatments,

prescribed fire, and fuels treatments. (p. 19-20). The modified final EIS concludes that “From a

financial efficiency perspective, the agency would spend more to implement the project than it

would receive in revenue from stumpage receipts. However, the project would produce a number

of indirect benefits, including the potential to lower fire suppression costs and enhance

ecosystem services” (p. 382).

The modified final EIS, Appendix B – Response to Comments document further clarifies that

“targeting treatments to protect highly valued assets (for example, homes and municipal

watersheds) increases the likelihood future fire suppression savings may offset treatment costs.”

The reissued draft ROD states that “All authorized treatments will be contingent upon Forest

Service and cooperating agency priorities, available staffing, and annual funding appropriations”

(p. 12).

Conclusion

I find that the Responsible Official adequately explained the purpose and need for the project, the

desired future conditions, and the need for change from current condition of the forested

landscape. I find that the modified final EIS and reissued draft ROD adequately explained



financial efficiency of the project as well as implementation being contingent on available

resources.

Issue 2

Objectors assert that the modified final EIS does not adequately disclose the costs associated

with the project. Specifically, the objectors point to undisclosed costs associated with agency-

related expenditures to implement the modified proposed action other than the costs associated

with temporary roads. Furthermore, they assert that the value of recreational uses have not

been adequately considered, and the benefit of the project on ecosystem services were not

supported by reference or analysis.

Response

The Social and Economic Report dated October 2019 details the financial efficiency analysis for

the modified proposed action including a detailed breakdown of project costs associated with

timber sale prep, timber sale administration, road maintenance, pre-commercial thinning, weed

and release treatments, prescribed fire, fuel treatments, and habitat improvement (including

prescribed fire and mechanical treatment) are quantified and disclosed (p. 19). The modified final

EIS concludes that “From a financial efficiency perspective, the agency would spend more to

implement the project than it would receive in revenue from stumpage receipts. However, the

project would produce a number of indirect benefits, including the potential to lower fire

suppression costs and enhance ecosystem services” (p. 382).

The purpose and need in the modified final EIS describes the ecosystem services that the project

is designed to protect/improve: “mitigating hazardous fuel loads, providing for recovery of forest

products, enhancing forest and rangeland resilience to future insect and disease infestations,

protecting infrastructure and municipal water supplies, restoring wildlife habitat, enhancing

access for forest visitors and permittees, providing for human safety, and providing management

adaptability and flexibility in the face of uncertainty and rapidly changing forest and rangeland

conditions” (MFEIS pp. 9-12, 31). Ecosystem services are addressed throughout the resource

sections in the modified final EIS. The effects summary table (MFEIS, Table 2, pp. 9-12)

describes how the modified proposed action would affect, among others: resilience to future

epidemics, hazardous fuel loading, wildlife habitat, watershed conditions, soil health, and

recreational opportunities. Many cost and benefit implications of the alternatives (including those

related to ecosystem services), while not quantified or monetized, are explicitly addressed in the

modified final EIS:

• Silviculture: “Under the no-action alternative, vegetative treatments could be completed

under separate site-specific project decisions (see chapter 2), creating conditions suitable for

lodgepole pine regeneration. These treatments would most likely take longer to accomplish

due to the timeframe it takes to go through multiple analysis processes. This lack of

timeliness would result in fewer treatments occurring, more cost to the government for

treatments...” (MFEIS, p. 182)

• Wildfire and protection of property: “The Proposed Action would moderate potential fire

behavior… These conditions would allow increased strategic and tactical firefighting

opportunities, which would increase the probability of success during initial attack, improve

firefighter and public safety, reduce wildfire risk to communities, Wildland Urban Interface,



and natural resources, and reduce suppression costs.” (Wildfire and Fuels Report p. 31) “The

modified proposed action would reduce threats to property and human safety by prioritizing

restoration treatments in the Wildland-Urban Interface. This would reduce wildfire risk in the

Wildland-Urban Interface compared to the no-action alternative.” (MFEIS, p. 382) “The

costs of a single large fire routinely cost millions of dollars in direct suppression expenditures

alone. [Thompson et al. 2017] find that large-scale fuel treatments are necessary to

meaningfully affect wildfire risk and hazard. [O]ver time fuel treatments can pay for

themselves through reduced suppression spending, but that uncertainty related to location,

intensity, and other characteristics of fire events complicate the analysis of return on

investment.” (Social and Economic Report p. 20)

• Water: “Water supplies to Cheyenne, Laramie, and other communities would be less likely to

experience negative effects to water quality or quantity than under the no-action alternative.”

(MFEIS, p. 382).

• Other benefits associated with modified proposed action: “Displacement of recreationists,

livestock operations, and other Medicine Bow National Forest users would be less likely

because there would be less smoke emissions, less damage to infrastructure, and reduced risk

of falling trees.” (MFEIS, p. 382)

• Other costs associated with modified proposed action: “[P]roposed project activities also

have the potential to damage ecosystem services. Roads and skid trails could increase

sedimentation. Vegetation management activities in inventoried roadless areas may interfere

with visitors’ sense of solitude in these areas. These consequences are described in more

detail in other specialist reports, including recreation and soils.” (MFEIS p. 382)

The Environmental Consequences section of Recreation in the modified final EIS discuss

potential recreation-related impacts under the no-action and modified proposed action

alternatives (pp. 337-343). The effects of the no-action and modified proposed action alternatives

are summarized in Table 2 of the modified final EIS (pp. 9-12). The LaVA project would likely

negatively affect the recreation experience for some forest visitors in localized treatment areas.

Displacement from a certain location would be the main negative effect to the public along with

disturbance, but the effects would be short-term, and no significant negative impacts to

recreation resources are anticipated (Recreation Report p. 4). Because no significant impacts to

recreation resources are anticipated, visitation and related economic activity are not expected to

change under the modified proposed action. Consequently, there is no quantified economic

analysis on recreational activities.

Conclusion

I find that the modified final EIS adequately discloses the potential benefits (including ecosystem

service benefits) and costs, of the LaVA project, and has adequately analyzed and considered

recreational values and impacts.



Climate Change

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the project fails to facilitate climate change resilience. Project planning

documents cite resilience as justification for the project, but do not provide adequate clarification

of the concept and how it is being applied.

Response

The purpose and need for the project identifies several gaps between existing conditions and

desired conditions as outlined by the Medicine Bow LRMP. These include: “Existing forested

structural stages, age classes, and cover types do not meet LRMP desired conditions. There is a

need to conduct vegetation treatments to accelerate regeneration of desired tree species (for

example, lodgepole pine) to improve resilience to future epidemics and disease infestations”

(MFEIS, p. 1). The LRMP defines resilience as: “The ability of an ecosystem to maintain

diversity, integrity, and ecological processes following disturbances” (Medicine Bow LRMP,

Appendix G, p. G-33). This definition is similar to the definition provided by the objector.

The climate change vulnerability assessment incorporated by reference in the modified final EIS

discusses climate resilience. It states: “The diversity within which an ecosystem exists may affect

its resilience and adaptive capacity. Ecosystems with diverse biotic, physical, and topographic

characteristics (high biodiversity; variety in aspects, slopes, geologies and soil types, elevations)

may be more able to survive climate change than ecosystems that are less varied, because the

former, by existing across widely differing conditions, may be at lower risk of elimination by any

future climatic conditions” (Rice et al. 2018, p. 213). This discussion of resilience highlights

similar points to the objector about how biotic diversity contributes to resilience. The modified

final EIS’s comparison of alternatives in terms of the resource of Air Quality and Climate

Change states: “Thinning overstocked stands would increase forest resilience and decrease the

potential for large-scale wildfire” (MFEIS, p. 105).

Objectors raised similar concerns about a lack of clarification of the concept of resilience in the

draft EIS, and the Forest responded to these comments at several points in the Response to

Comments. Collectively, these responses describe the project’s strategy for increasing resilience

as “increasing structural diversity of forested stands at different scales across a large spatial

extent” (MFEIS, Appendix B, p. 94). The modified final EIS includes similar discussions of this

strategy for increasing resilience (MFEIS, p. 43).

Conclusion

I find that the Responsible Official adequately considered and addressed the objectors’

suggestions about using the concept of resilience. Furthermore, I find that the project record

adequately provides clarification of how the concept is being applied in the project design and

implementation.



Issue 2

Objectors assert that the modified final EIS fails to adequately analyze climate change impacts.

Specific concerns include a failure to analyze how changing weather patterns may exacerbate

the impacts of the existing road system, temporary roads, and log-truck hauling in the context of

climate change. An additional concern is that the project fails to discuss the relevance of the

Rice et al. (2018) climate change study and consider the uncertainty of and long-term impacts of

climate change. The current LRMP was developed in 2003 at a time when implications of

climate change were not well understood. Therefore, objectors contend that the LaVA project

should be based on anticipated climate changes during the 21st Century, the period when post-

beetle forests will mature.

Response

The NEPA regulations state: “Agencies shall incorporate material into an environmental impact

statement by reference when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and

public review of the action” (40 CFR 1502.21). The modified final EIS states: “To better

understand ecosystem vulnerability from climate change in Wyoming and surrounding states, the

U.S. Forest Service produced a climate change vulnerability report (Rice et al. 2018). This

document is incorporated by reference in its entirety into the modified final EIS and is included

in the project record; therefore, the findings will not be repeated here” (MFEIS, p. 330).

On the topic of roads, the objector provided a similar comment on the draft EIS, requesting in-

depth analysis of the impact of climate change on forest roads. The response to this comment

included in Appendix B to the modified final EIS indicates that the modified final EIS

incorporates by reference the climate change vulnerability assessment report mentioned above

(MFEIS, Appendix B, p. 65). This vulnerability assessment indirectly addresses the interactions

between roads and climate change, stating: “Roads are sources of sediment and contaminants;

they can alter drainage patterns in watersheds, increase surface runoff from soil compaction,

remove riparian vegetation, and facilitate the spread of invasive plant species” (Rice et al. 2018,

p. 119). The analysis in this vulnerability assessment assesses non-climatic stressors, including

roads, as a component of vulnerability to climate change. The vulnerability assessment identifies

management options for addressing climate change effects in aquatic ecosystems in glaciated

valleys in the Rocky Mountain Region. These include several relevant to the objectors’ concerns,

including “disconnecting roads from the drainage network” (Rice et al. 2018, p. 68) and

“minimizing soil compaction by limiting roads, trails, and campgrounds” (Rice et al. 2018, p.

69). Appendix A of the modified final EIS identifies a series of decision criteria, checklists, and

triggers to mitigate negative impacts of road construction. These include a LRMP standard to

“Limit roads and other disturbed sites to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length

consistent with the purpose of specific operation, local topography, and climate” (PHYS-SOIL-

S.2 in Appendix A of the modified final EIS, p. 86).

The vulnerability assessment includes a chapter that presents climate change projections through

2100 for the Rocky Mountain Region, including Wyoming. These projections are presented as

ranges based on different models in order to account for uncertainty. This chapter and the

remainder of the report discusses how these projected changes in temperature and moisture

availability will affect different ecosystems.



Conclusion

Based on review of the project record, I find that the Responsible Official adequately considered

the issues stated by the objector. By incorporating by reference the climate change vulnerability

assessment, the modified final EIS addresses potential impacts of climate change, including

consideration of long-term impacts and uncertainty.

Issue 3

Objectors assert that the modified final EIS fails to consider impacts of the modified proposed

action on forest regeneration under climate change. Specifically, the modified final EIS fails to

adequately consider:

• The peer-reviewed scientific study that finds declining forest resilience to wildfire under

climate change (Stevens-Rumann et al. 2018). The Forest Service added a reference to

this article in the modified final EIS list of references, but fails to discuss, address, or

incorporate its content into the proposed project.

• Climate change causes drought conditions that negatively impact forest regeneration

following wildfire. The analysis fails to differentiate between the prescribed burning

planned as part of this project and the wildfires studied in the cited paper.

• Forests affected by clearcutting and subsequent prescribed burning will not adequately

regenerate.

• Objectors anticipate a change from forest to cheatgrass.

• Regeneration failures would dramatically affect wildlife populations that depend on the

forest, including ungulates, birds, and fish.

Response

While the study does not include field sites in the project area, it includes several sites in

lodgepole pine and moist mixed conifer forests in northwest Wyoming. The study’s general

conclusions are relevant to the project. Notably, the authors find that forest resilience, measured

in terms of regeneration following fires, is decreasing in many areas of the intermountain West

due to factors that include increased drought as a result of climate change and distance to seed

source.

Email messages in the project record indicates that the Forest considered the cited paper in

preparing the modified final EIS. This paper was added to the References list (p. 446). The Table

highlighting changes between the final EIS and modified final EIS on pages 3-6 indicates that

this reference was included. In addition, the project record indicates that staff will consider the

paper’s conclusions when writing site-specific silvicultural prescriptions, including by

considering opening sizes and seeding distances.

The modified final EIS discusses limited regeneration and its implications in general without

specifically referencing the paper in question. Although the modified final EIS does not

specifically cite the paper in the text, several statements in the Air Quality and Climate Change

section demonstrate considerations of regeneration failure due to climate change. For example,

the modified final EIS states: “However, regeneration success could be complicated by changing

conditions associated with climate change” (MFEIS, p. 329). For example, the Silviculture

Specialist Report cites another paper (Rhoades et al. 2018) that found decreases in post-fire



recruitment in areas affected by beetle-kill that experienced overlapping disturbances of salvage

logging and fire as compared to areas not affected by overlapping disturbances (Silviculture

Specialist Report, p. 45). Similar points are made in the Biological Assessment and Biological

Evaluation of Plant Species and in the Effects Analysis for Botany (MFEIS, pp. 275-276). The

comparison of effects between the no-action alternative and modified proposed action considers

regeneration (MFEIS, p. 100). The Legal and Regulatory Compliance section cites requirements

in the National Forest Management Act that adequate restocking is assured and indicates that

artificial regeneration could be planned if natural regeneration does not occur at adequate levels

(MFEIS, p. 386). The modified final EIS discusses the potential spread of cheat grass in the

project area (MFEIS, p. 291). Appendix A indicates that one monitoring item is regeneration in

harvest units MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 48).

Conclusion

The project record indicates that the Responsible Official utilized best available science, such as

Stevens-Rumann et al. (2018), when analyzing and determining potential impacts of the

modified proposed action and climate change on forest regeneration. As an objector noted, I

concur that it is vague where the analysis specifically references the Stevens-Rumann et al.

(2018) study. I am instructing that in-text citations to Stevens-Rumann et al. (2018) be inserted

into the Silviculture Specialist Report and where relevant in the ROD (e.g., ROD pp. 29-30 and

40).

Best Available Science

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the modified final EIS and its associated documents were prepared

without applying best available science or relevant current scientific information.

Response

CEQ NEPA regulations require agencies to ensure the professional integrity, including scientific

integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements, identify any

methodologies used, and make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources

relied upon for conclusions in environmental impact statements. An agency may place discussion

of methodology in an appendix (40 CFR § 1502.24). In addition, under the hard look doctrine

agencies must ground the analysis in science using credible sources and addressing opposing

views.

The modified final EIS identifies the methodologies and the sources used to draw its conclusions

about the environmental effects of the project (MFEIS, pp. 423-454). The record discloses the

agency’s consideration of opposing scientific views (MFEIS, Appendix B, pp. 5, 63, 68, 86, 89,

99, 100, 112, 124, and 130-132).

Conclusion

I find that the modified final EIS discloses the Responsible Official’s use of relevant scientific

information and methods.



Issue 2

Objectors assert that the Forest Service’s analysis relies on assumptions that run contrary to

best available science. Specifically, Objectors challenge the Forest Service’s assumption and

conclusion that tree stands with high tree mortality and a sparse understory provide little habitat

quality to terrestrial wildlife. For instance, the Mosher et al. 2019 research found the snag forest

habitat to be particularly important for numerous bird species and that most wildlife species

increase in abundance where more snags exist.

Response

The Biological Evaluation, Management Indicator Species and Species of Local Concern Report

Landscape Vegetation Analysis (pp. 5-9) mentions tree stands with high, moderate and low tree

mortality have various levels of habitat quality to a variety of terrestrial wildlife which varies

over time and better clarifies the “Forest Service’s assumption and conclusion…” mentioned

above in the objection. Best available science information was found throughout this particular

section of the document.

The reference (Mosher et al. 2019) was added to the project record. The study was conducted in

Montana in ponderosa pine forests. Results illustrate the myriad of habitat preferences of the

small landbird community and suggest that a mosaic of disturbed conifer, intact live conifer, and

adjacent aspen forests will be critical for the persistence of populations of native avifauna in the

Intermountain West. The project record contains numerous other references discussing the

importance of snags to terrestrial wildlife species (Biological Evaluation pp. 5-9, LRMP,

Appendix D pp. 78-85).

Conclusion

I find that the Responsible Official properly documented the extensive benefits snags provide to

wildlife species throughout the Biological Evaluation utilizing other relevant current scientific

information references.

Issue 3

Objectors assert that Forest Service failed to review opposing or best available science in

regard to forest resiliency post MPB outbreak. One objector stated that the Forest Service did

not address a 2018 study that found that, during MPB outbreaks, beetle choice may result in

strong selection for trees with greater resistance to attack, and therefore retaining survivors after

outbreaks (as opposed to logging them) to act as primary seed sources could promote

adaptation for the forest (Six et al. 2018). Another objector states that the assertion throughout

the modified final EIS that intensive logging will reduce tree mortality from fire or bark beetles is

not supported by scientific sources, while Bradley et al. (2016) and Six et al. (2014) offer strong

evidence that just the opposite is true.

Response

As the Response to Comments in the modified final EIS, Appendix B indicates, the objector

suggested that the Forest consider the Six et al. (2018) paper in a comment on the draft EIS. The

objector provided a similar summary of the paper in that comment to what is in the objection and

provided a copy of the paper. The paper describes a study of a lodgepole and whitebark pine



forest in Montana that experienced high levels of beetle-caused mortality. The authors examined

the genetics of trees that survived the beetle outbreak, suggesting that pine survivorship to beetle

outbreaks may be genetic and thus heritable. As a result, they suggest that managers should

retain trees that survive beetle outbreaks to facilitate long-term adaptation to beetles.

The Forest Service’s response to the comment suggesting consideration of Six et al. (2018)

states: “Natural regeneration of trees using seed from trees remaining after harvest or seed from

cones retained in slash during harvest operations is the preferred regeneration method for this

tree species. Natural regeneration from those seeds will result in the continuation of survivor

genetics. Silvicultural prescriptions for vegetation treatments are written to address reforestation

concerns, including seed availability and seed source” (MFEIS Appendix B, p. 5). The Forest

determined that no changes to the project record or EIS were necessary in order to address this

paper. The Silviculture Specialist Report provides references to this consideration.

The Bradley et al. (2016) and Six et al. (2014) papers were not provided during previous public

comment periods and are not in the project record. The objector does provide copies of both

papers. These papers are not new publications, and thus are not new information under 36 CFR

218.8(c). Bradley et al. (2016) examine the relationship between land protection status and fire

severity in western Ponderosa Pine and dry mixed conifer forests, finding that forests with higher

levels of protection had lower severity values. This paper, given its focus on Ponderosa pine and

dry mixed conifer forests, is not relevant to the project area, which is largely lodgepole pine and

spruce-fir. Six et al. (2014) review the literature on whether timber harvesting is an effective tool

for addressing beetle outbreaks, finding many gaps in the evidence. They suggest caution against

treating timber harvesting as a “panacea” for beetle outbreaks.

The project record includes analysis of the relationship between timber harvest, fire, and pine

beetle outbreaks. Specifically, the Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation for Plant

Species includes discussion of this topic (p. 12-13).

Conclusion

I find that the Responsible Official provided adequate consideration of best available science on

the topics discussed by the objector and adequately considered appropriate information in the

project record.



Issue 4

Objectors assert that the analysis in the modified final EIS, reissued draft ROD, and other

supporting documents fails to consider the best available science on climate change, drought,

wildfire, and fuels treatments. The following are topics related to this issue for which objectors

contend that the modified final EIS did not adequately consider available science:

• Topic 1: Impacts of warming and drying trends on tree mortality, fire risk, and

megadroughts. Emerging science shows that warming and drying trends are having a

major impact on forests, resulting in tree die-off even without wildfire or insect

infestation. High temperature and low humidity are two essential factors behind the rise

in fire activity, affecting fire behavior from its ignition to its spread, and thus are two

factors the Forest Service should assess in detail in its analysis of the LaVA project.

Megadrought will undermine the stated intent of the LaVA project under all alternatives.

The following attachments were provided with regards to this topic:

• Topic 2: Inadequacy of fire suppression and fuels management in light of climate

change. Policies promoting adaptive resilience to wildfire are needed. Simply treating

more area may not achieve long-term fire and land management goals if wildland fire

cannot be safely managed. Rather, strategically placing fuel treatments to create

conditions where wildland fire can occur without negative consequences and leveraging

low-risk opportunities to manage wildland fire are critical. The following attachments

were provided with regards to this topic;

• Topic 3: The effect of historical and contemporary logging on fire severity and frequency.

• Topic 4: Mountain pine beetle, fire behavior, and weather. A recent study looking at

geospatial data and firefighter observations found no effect of red or gray stage MPB

outbreak on either daily area burned or observed fire behavior. Instead, the study found

greater daily area burned and observations of high-extreme fire behavior occurred

during warmer, drier, and windier weather conditions, and suggested efforts to reduce

the risk of extreme fire activity should focus on societal adaptation to future warming and

extreme weather. Citation:

Response

The topics of climate change, drought, wildfire, and fuels treatments are considered in the project

record. However, the documents that the objector provides are not included in the project record.

As described below, many of these papers were published in 2020 and thus were not available at

earlier stages of the analysis or were not provided at earlier stages of the analysis. Some of these

studies are not relevant to the project area itself. Below is additional analysis on each of these

topics:

Topic 1: The objector provided copies of the below papers as attachments. These papers are all

recently published and are not in the project record.

• Brodribb et al. 2020 (Attachment 1). The authors provide an overview of the impacts of

drought driven by climate change on trees, concluding that most models anticipate major

damage to forests as a result of climate change.



• Gray 2020 (Attachment 2). The article, written by NASA’s Earth Science News Teams,

summarizes science on climate change impacts on wildfire trends in the western United

States.

• Sullivan 2020 (Attachment 3). The article reports that, in 2020, several oceans reached their

warmest temperatures ever recorded. It focuses on implications for hurricanes, but also

mentions wildfire risks.

• Krajick 2020 and Williams 2020 (Attachment 4). The news article reports on a recently

published peer-reviewed scientific study that finds that the western United States and

northern Mexico has begun to experience a “megadrought” due in large part to climate

change. The abstract of the study (Williams 2020) is provided as part of the attachment.

• Domke et al. 2020 (Attachment 6). This document published by the USDA summarizes

forest carbon fluxes across states.

The objector did not provide copies of the following citations mentioned in footnotes to the

objection letter: Camille Parmesan 2006; Breshears et al. 2005; Allen et al. 2010; Anderegg et al.

2012; Williams et al. 2012; Overpeck 2013; Funk et al. 2014; Millar and Stephenson 2015; Luo

and Chen 2015; Gauthier et al. 2015; McDowell and Allen 2015; Ault et al. 2016; Zhang et al.

2017; Vose et al. 2016.

Topic 2: The objector provided copies of both papers (Schoennagel et al. 2017; Barnett et al.

2016) and the slides as attachments to their letter. The documents are not in the project record

and the objector did not provide the documents during previous comment periods. Given their

publication dates, these papers are not new information under 36 CFR 218.8(c).

• Schoennagel et al. 2017. This article advocates for an approach to wildfire policy and

management based on the concept of adaptive resilience, which involves adaptation and

reorganization in anticipation of changing wildfire regimes and future vulnerabilities caused

by climate change. According to the paper, elements of adaptive resilience include: “(i)

recognizing that fuels reduction cannot alter regional wildfire trends; (ii) targeting fuels

reduction to increase adaptation by some ecosystems and residential communities to more

frequent fire; (iii) actively managing more wild and prescribed fires with a range of

severities; and (iv) incentivizing and planning residential development to withstand

inevitable wildfire” (p. 1).

• Barnett et al. 2016. In this peer-reviewed paper, the authors summarize the frequency, extent,

and geographic variation of fuel treatment and fire interactions, using a time period between

2000-2012. They find that 6.8% of treatment units considered in the study were encountered

by a fire.

• “Wildfires RARELY encounter forest fuel treatments in West” (Attachment 10). This set of

slides, which cites the above two papers as sources, argues that “Treatments cannot reduce

regional area burned due to the scale of flammable ecosystems in the arid West.”

Topic 3: The objector provided a copy of the Lindenmayer et al. 2020 peer-reviewed study as an

attachment. The study focuses on Australia and is thus not relevant to the LaVA project area.

Topic 4: The objector provided a copy of the Hart and Preston 2020 peer-reviewed study as an

attachment. The study was published in April 2020 and thus was not available for consideration

until this latest objection period. The study examines wildfires occurring between 2003-2012 in



forests affected by mountain pine beetle in the Western United States. The authors found “no

effect of red or gray stage [mountain pine beetle] outbreak on either [daily area burned] or

observed fire behavior” (p. 1). Their analysis suggests that weather and pre-outbreak fuels

variables were drivers of fire growth and behavior.

Summary analysis

The specific documents suggested by the objector were not included in the project record, either

because these documents were published recently or were not provided at an earlier point for

consideration by the project planning team. The modified final EIS considers the topics of

drought, wildfire, climate change, and fuels treatments, and cites scientific sources on these

topics (e.g., Vose et al. 2018 on p. 451 of the MFEIS). Consideration of these topics is further

documented in the Wildfire and Fuels Specialist Report, the Biological Assessment and

Biological Evaluation for Plant Species, and the climate change vulnerability assessment that is

incorporated by reference into the modified final EIS (Rice et al. 2018) In particular, the

Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation for Plant Species summarizes literature on

climate, bark beetles, and wildfire, addressing points raised by the objector regarding the relative

influences of climate change and bark beetles on wildfire trends and the effectiveness of fuels

treatments in light of climate change (Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation for Plant

Species, p. 12-13).

Conclusion

Although many of the provided papers were published in 2020 and thus were not available at

earlier stages of the analysis, or were not provided to Forest at earlier stages of the analysis, I

have determined that the modified final EIS considers the topics of drought, wildfire, climate

change, and fuels treatments, and cites relevant scientific sources on these topics. The project

record indicates that the Responsible Official adequately meets the 40 CFR 1502.24 “hard look”

requirement on the topics addressed by the objector.

Issue 5

Objectors assert that the Forest Service failed to properly consider valid, peer reviewed science

that doesn't support their preferred action, and at times misinterpreted the science they chose to

include. For example, one objector questioned the Forest Service’s understanding of the Stone

(1995) paper, stating, “Stone (1995) found that abundance and diversity of most birds and small

to medium sized mammals were higher in stands with moderate to severe tree mortality from

drought- and bark beetle-killed trees, completely contrary to the assertions in the modified final

EIS that the Stone dissertation showed abundance of red squirrel and snowshoe hare declining

as a function of heavy tree mortality (p. 50). The Stone data clearly shows that snowshoe hare

numbers increase as a function of tree mortality and red squirrel numbers increase at tree

mortality rates up to 50% and don’t significantly decrease until nearly 90% mortality.”

Response

The 2020 Biological Assessment referenced Dr. Stone’s PhD thesis, though many years ago, is

still relevant as it discloses details very similar to the project ecosystems and species interactions

specifically. It is of high-quality peer reviewed literature. Thus, applicable to the best available

scientific information recommendations. Stone 1995 is one of several references found in the



biologist reports within the project record (Biological Evaluation, pp. 5-9). Review of the

objection on page 50 of Stone 1995 found no relevant information to claim an “abundance and

diversity of most birds and small to medium sized mammals were higher in stands with moderate

to severe tree mortality from drought- and bark beetle-killed trees.” Page 50 was a list of

references. The Stone data could be contradictory to what is stated in the Biological reports but

there are many other references which are not. The overall analysis of effects on Canada lynx

prey base is not based on just one reference but more of an accumulation of research.



methodologies used, and make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources

relied upon for conclusions in environmental impact statements. An agency may place discussion

of methodology in an appendix (40 C FR § 1502.24). In addition, under the hard look doctrine

agencies must ground the analysis in science using credible sources and addressing opposing

views.

The modified final EIS identifies the methodologies and the sources used to draw its conclusions

about the environmental effects of the project (MFEIS, pp. 423-454). The record discloses the

agency’s consideration of opposing scientific views (MFEIS, Appendix B, pp. 5, 63, 68, 86, 89,

99, 100, 112, 124, and 130-132).

Conclusion

I have determined that modified final EIS and the associated wildlife effects analyses properly

documents and utilizes pertinent science. The project record indicates that the Responsible

Official adequately meets the “hard look” requirement of 40 CFR 1502.24.

Issue 6

Objectors assert that the 2020 Wildlife Biological Evaluation violates NEPA by failing to disclose

removed science from the 2019 Wildlife Biological Evaluation, which refutes some of the Forest

Service’s assumptions and conclusions it relies on in support of the LaVA project.

Response

Both the 2019 and 2020 Biological Evaluations are part of the project record. All of the previous

references from 2019 are still valid even though they are not listed in the 2020 report. The

references were originally included as background information but determined to be not critical

to the analysis of the effects of the alternatives. They were included after receiving comments

from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department addressing their concerns of fire impacts to

Canada lynx (WYGF Letter, pp. 2, 4). The project reveals that the Forest Service Regional Office

recommend the topic be removed because the topic is stochastic relative to wildlife resources and

has no influence on impacts to wildlife species’ analyses conducted (Mary Rasmussen-Flores

email February 25, 2020, to Steve Loose and others).

Nonetheless, the references (and often the same exact text) have remained in the Plants

Biological Evaluation, or has been relocated to the modified final EIS, Chapter 3 - Affected

Environment and Environmental Consequences, Plant species of concern. See below for a

comparison of the references between documents.



Hart et al. 2015 and Kulakowski and Jarvis 2011

2019 Wildlife Biological Evaluation

• Page 26: Recent studies in the western United States have found that the mountain pine

beetle (MPB) epidemic across the west has not increased the risk of fire danger (Hart et al.

2015, Fire Science Digest 2012), nor has there been an increase in occurrences of high-fire

severity in southern Wyoming (Kulakowski and Jarvis 2011).

• Page 27: Kulakowski and Jarvis (2011) also concluded that dry conditions, rather than fuels

associated with outbreaks, influence the occurrence of severe fires.

2020 modified final EIS, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences, Plant Species

of Concern

• Page 276: Recent studies in the western United States found the mountain pine beetle

epidemic has not increased the risk of fire danger (Hart et al. 2015) nor has it caused an

increase in occurrences of high-fire severity in southern Wyoming (Kulakowski and Jarvis

2011).

2019 Plants Biological Evaluation (Current Version)

• Page 12: There is a large body of scientific evidence that shows that climate has been more

important than beetle outbreaks in influencing fire patterns in lodgepole pine forests in this

region over the past century (Lynch et al. 2006, Romme et al. 2007, Kulakowski and Jarvis

2011, Black et al. 2013, Hart et al. 2015), that effects of salvage logging are variable, and

this treatment does little to alter wildfire patterns or soil burn severity (Kulakowski and

Veblen 2007, Fraver et al. 2011, Rhoades et al. 2018).

• Page 12: Far-reaching studies have explored the history of episodic disease-driven tree

mortality in the western United States and found that the MPB epidemic across the west has

not increased the risk of fire danger (Hart et al. 2015), nor has there been an increase in

occurrences of high-fire severity in southern Wyoming over the last century (Kulakowski and

Jarvis 2011).

• Page 13: Kulakowski and Jarvis (2011) also concluded that dry conditions, rather than fuels

associated with outbreaks, influence the occurrence of severe fires, while other researchers

found warmer temperatures and/or drought to be the strongest predictors of fire behavior in

MPB stands (Lynch et al. 2006, Black et al. 2013, Hart et al. 2015).

• Page 39: Recent studies in the western United States have found that the mountain pine

beetle (MPB) epidemic across the west has not increased the risk of fire danger (Hart et al.

2015), nor has MPB caused an increase in occurrences of high-fire severity in southern

Wyoming (Kulakowski and Jarvis 2011).

Romme et al. 2007


• Page 26-27: Romme et al. (2007) provides considerable information on the lodgepole pine

and spruce-fir forest types common on this National Forest. They conclude that these forests

have always burned infrequently (decade to century-long intervals for lodgepole and

century-long for spruce-fir) but at high intensity. The research suggests insect outbreaks



have a little to no effect on fire severity in these forest types. Additionally, tree-killing insects

do not increase the amount of fuels in forested stands but shift fuels from live to dead and

both live and dead fuels carry fire under very dry weather conditions. Romme et al. points

out that recent, severe fires burned under very dry weather conditions, which is considered

the norm for the occurrence of these fire events.


of Concern

• Page 276: Forested habitats and forested vegetation communities in this analysis are adapted

to fire (Romme et al. 2007) and it is expected prescribed fire would have a beneficial impact

on these ecosystems by restoring fire to the landscape in a controlled manner that benefits

fire-adapted native plants.


to fire (Romme et al. 2007), and wildfire could have beneficial or adverse effects on diversity,

depending on factors such as soil burn severity and post-fire invasive species invasion.

2019 Plants Biological Evaluations (Current Version)

• Page 13: Romme et al. (2007) concludes that lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forest types

common on this National Forest have always burned infrequently (decade to century-long

intervals for lodgepole and century-long for spruce-fir) but at high intensity. He suggests

insect outbreaks have a little to no effect on fire severity in these forest types and that tree-

killing insects do not increase the amount of fuels in forested stands but shift fuels from live

to dead, and both live and dead fuels carry fire under very dry weather conditions.

• Page 12: There is a large body of scientific evidence that shows that climate has been more

important than beetle outbreaks in influencing fire patterns in lodgepole pine forests in this

region over the past century (Lynch et al. 2006, Romme et al. 2007, Kulakowski and Jarvis

2011, Black et al. 2013, Hart et al. 2015).


to fire (Romme et al. 2007) and it is expected that prescribed fire could have a beneficial

impact on these ecosystems by restoring fire to the landscape in a controlled manner and

burning fire-adapted plant species.

Jenkins, et al. 218


• Pages 26, 28 - 29, 43, 48, 52, 58, 62, 67, 73, 80, 86, 92, 101, 104, 111, 114, 121, 125,

133,138,145, 148, 154, 158, 163, 169, 175, 178, 183, 189, 195, 201, 213, 218, 228: Jenkins et

al. (2008) concludes “…the interaction of western bark beetles, fuels and fire in forest

systems is inherently complex and much remains unknown…Additionally, differences in the

physical environment, stand conditions, the amount and distribution of available fuels, and

weather make “one size fits all” management approaches ineffective.”


of Concern

• Not referenced




• Page 12: Several studies attributed higher rates of fire spread and increased fire intensities

in MPB epidemic stands to decreased vegetative sheltering and its effect on mid-flame wind

speed rather than fuels associated with tree mortality (Jenkins et al. 2008, Simard et al.

2011).

Gillette et al. 2014


• Page 26: Gillette et al. (2014) stated “The influence of mountain pine beetle caused tree

mortality on wildfire behavior, however, depends primarily on the time elapsed since the

outbreak, with wildfire risk initially heightened but diminishing over time. Generally,

extreme fire potential exists in stands that have suffered high levels of mountain pine beetle

caused tree mortality until the likelihood of torching (the transition of fire from the surface to

the canopy) and crowning (spread from crown to crown) are minimized, and this process can

take a decade.” With more than a decade passing since the initial MPB outbreak on the

Medicine Bow National Forest, this area is in the gray, needless phase that Gillette et al.

described as having less influence on wildfire.


of Concern

• Page 431: Not cited within the document but included in the references section.


• Page 12: Several studies found wildfire risk initially heightened during the red needle phase,

but diminishing over time (Gillette et al. 2014), while others found no difference in wildfire

risk between red needle trees and live trees (Simard et al. 2011, Harvey et al. 2014).

Conclusion

I find that the references and associated discussions about wildfire severity and available fuels

across the Forest remain in the project record. I am instructing the Responsible Official to clearly

explain the deletion of the references from the 2020 version of the Wildlife Biological Evaluation

Report, and to disclose whether the information is relevant to the analysis or conclusions.



Wildlife

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the modified proposed action will likely have a significant impact on wildlife

habitat, including wildlife security areas. They contend that due to the design of the project, it is

difficult to determine specific impacts and the needed mitigation measures. Specifically,

objectors brought up concerns with the effects on cover, noise, seasonal migration, and

degradation of range forage and water resources.

Response

The Biological Evaluation, Management Indicator Species and Species of Local Concern Report

addressed fifteen terrestrial wildlife species which are Forest Service - Region 2 Sensitive

species, five Management Indicator Species, and three species of Local Concern (pp. 14-19,

MFEIS, pp. 217-223). Design features important to a particular species were incorporated into

the modified proposed action to mitigate impacts.

Determinations of Effects on the species were consistent. For all of the Management Indicator

Species, the Determinations were: “some habitat will remain across the Forest under both

Alternatives. Proposed activities are consistent with the revised Forest Plan Standards (LRMP

2003).” Determinations for the Sensitive Species, with both alternatives, may adversely impact

individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend

to federal listing. Proposed activities are consistent with the revised Forest Plan Standards

(LRMP 2003)” (MFEIS, Table 159, p. 248).

The Wildlife Biological Assessment Report addressed the threatened species, Canada lynx. It

was determined both the no-action and the modified proposed action, May Affect, Likely to

Adversely Affect (following exemptions and exceptions in the Southern Rockies Lynx

Amendment) (pp. 8, 60, 65). Habitat connectivity within Lynx Analysis Units, among Lynx

Analysis Units, and across linkage corridors will be maintained. The modified proposed action is

consistent with the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (USDA 2008), utilizing exemptions and

exceptions for vegetation management (p. 60). Continued vegetation management at the 15-year

average level would comply with the revised LRMP, the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment

(USDA 2008), and the Biological Opinion (USFWS 2008) for the Southern Rockies Lynx

Amendment as analyzed in individual project Biological Assessments (p. 66). There will be no

effect on the federally listed species Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. A LaVA design criterion

prohibits all vegetation management within the 766-acre Preble’s meadow jumping mouse area

of influence along the Laramie River within the Fox Wood accounting unit. No actions were

proposed in suitable habitat for the Threatened Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat,

therefore no effect (MFEIS, p. 216, Biological Assessment p. 8). See the response for

Endangered Species Act, Issue 1, for additional discussion of effects on Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse.

Security areas will be decreased with the LaVA modified proposed action. LaVA project is not

consistent with LRMP guidelines (pp. 1-40, 2-43) to maintain or increase security areas.

However, the proposed action has been modified to change 90 acres of security areas in Roadless

Areas from “timber emphasis” to “other management emphasis” in response to public comments.

This change requires that the primary benefit of any proposed action in these 90 acres would be



to improve wildlife habitat (Biological Evaluation, p. 146). In response to public comments,

several minor changes to the modified proposed action were made regarding management of

some security areas. First, only noncommercial activities to improve wildlife habitat would now

be allowed in the Sheep Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area. Secondly, 90 acres of security

areas in the Encampment River Addition and Platte River Addition roadless areas that currently

fall within the forest and rangeland resiliency and forest products treatment opportunity area

would be managed for wildlife habitat improvement rather than timber production. Finally, a

decision trigger was added to the modified proposed action that prohibits removal of more than

30 percent of the security areas in treatment opportunity areas in any given accounting unit

(MFEIS p. 224).

The modified proposed action was also clarified between draft and modified final EIS to better

describe and depict where management actions and treatments would be emphasized during

LaVA project implementation. This effort resulted in roughly 110,650 of the total treatment

opportunity area acres being assigned a wildlife emphasis. These acres correspond to LRMP

Management Areas 3.5 Forest Flora or Fauna Habitat Limited Snowmobiling; 3.54 Special

Wildlife Areas (Sheep Mountain); 3.58 Crucial Deer and Elk Winter Range; and 5.41 Deer and

Elk Winter Range. The primary objective of treatments in these areas would be to provide quality

forage, cover, breeding habitat, and solitude for a variety of wildlife species and to improve

wildlife habitat in general. These areas would also provide excellent opportunities to work in

conjunction with LaVA cooperating agencies to achieve multiple resource and agency benefits

(MFEIS, p. 227).

Rangeland health will be impacted in the short-term during logging operations but will gradually

improve as the forest canopy is removed and sunlight is able to reach the grasses, forbs and

shrubs in the understory. Timber harvest would produce transitory forage (forage that would be

available for a limited number of years) that could last 15 years or more, depending upon site

characteristics. (MFEIS, pp 284-286).

Conclusion

I find that the Responsible Official documented the extensive analysis and disclosed the

projected impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitats, and wildlife security areas for both alternatives.

The modified purposed action is in compliance with the LRMP direction, Forest Service Manual

2600 - Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management, and the Endangered Species Act,

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the National Forest Management Act.

Issue 2

Objectors assert that the Forest Service failed to adequately analyze impacts to American

marten.

Response

As a Management Indicator Species (MIS), the American marten was addressed within the

Biological Evaluation, Management Indicator Species and Species of Local Concern Report on

pages 46-55. The American marten is an MIS for the Medicine Bow National Forest and a Forest

Service – Region 2 sensitive species because of its uncommon occurrence, relation to

fragmentation, reliance on coarse woody debris, and its often-negative response to vegetation



management. The report included lengthy discussions on the possible effects of the no-action

alternative and modified proposed action on the American marten. A thorough scientific review

was described, and local survey data was included. All of the components required for

completing a Biological Evaluation were fulfilled (Forest Service Manual 2600 Wildlife, Fish,

and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management including chapter 2670 Threatened, Endangered, and

Sensitive Plants and Animals [FSM 2672.42]). The analysis determined “may adversely impact

individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend

to federal listing” determination is made for American marten for both alternatives. Some habitat

will remain across the Forest for martens based on the following:

• Continuation of average levels of vegetation management or LaVA implementation impacts

some habitat, reduces some habitat quality, and regenerates some areas not currently suitable

habitat.

• Stands of designated old growth will be retained across the mountain ranges according to

Forest Plan Standards (LRMP 2003), maintaining some habitat.

• Some LaVA treatment will occur in designated roadless areas, reducing marten habitat often

unaffected by management actions.

• Snags, recruitment trees, and coarse woody debris may not be retained in Wildland-Urban

Interface treatment areas, reducing marten habitat quality.

• The proposed activities are consistent with the revised Forest Plan Standards (LRMP 2003).

Conclusion

I have determined that the Responsible Official properly documented the extensive analysis of

American marten. The effects of the no action and proposed treatments on the American Marten

were fully described and disclosed in the Biological Evaluation, Management Indicator Species

and Species of Local Concern Report. Furthermore, I find no violation of LRMP direction,

Forest Service Manual 2600 - Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management, the

Endangered Species Act, or the National Forest Management Act.



Issue 3

Objectors assert that the 2020 Wildlife Biological Assessment violates NEPA and the

Endangered Species Act. Specifically, they contend that:

• The Forest Service fails to identify the changes made between this 2020 Wildlife

Biological Assessment and the previous, February 2019, Wildlife Biological Assessment,

which makes it difficult for the public to provide meaningful comments.

• The Biological Assessment improperly concludes the project will have no effect on

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, endangered Wyoming toad, threatened piping plover,

endangered least tern, endangered whooping crane, endangered pallid sturgeon,

endangered bonytail chub, endangered Colorado pike minnow, endangered humpback

chub, endangered razorback sucker, and threatened yellow-billed cuckoo.

• The Forest Service fails to provide site specific information about the location, timing,

and extent of vegetation treatments and roads, the public nor the decision maker is able

to discern how those actions relate to wildlife or its habitat and are precluded from

meaningful analysis on these impacts.

• Best available science demonstrates that the Endangered Species Act -listed species in

the project area will be harmed by the logging and truck hauling on forest roads over the

next 15 years.

Response

Chapter 1 of the modified final EIS identifies and describes the changes and updates made in

terms of analysis modifications, to the modified final EIS and biological assessment (MFEIS pp.

21- 24). The modified final EIS, Table 1 on pages 3 – 5 also documents the summary of changes

between the original and modified project.

National Environmental Policy Act 220.3 (definition of adaptive management) and 220.5 (e)(2)

describes adaptive management. The modified final EIS describes six treatment opportunity

areas and 14 accounting units representing a reasonable analysis area incorporating site

specificity to inform the analysis in the biological assessment and consistent with adaptive

management as described in 220.5(e)(2). The modified final EIS clarified the modified proposed

action to describe and depict where management actions and treatments would be emphasized

during project implementation, breaking down the LaVA analysis area into six treatment

opportunity areas and 14 accounting units which provided site specificity to inform the analysis

in the biological assessment (MFEIS, pp 53, 70 – 84, 112 - 171). HFRA allows for designation of

priority treatment areas that reduce risk or extent of, or increase resiliency to, insect or disease

infestation. The six treatment opportunity areas and 14 accounting units designated for the LaVA

project is consistent with HFRA. The LaVA Monitoring Plan and Decision-Making Triggers

described in the modified final EIS, Appendix A (Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring

Framework, Decision Triggers 2 – 9 on pp. 51 - 54) ensures the effects of the project comply

with law, regulation, policy, the Medicine Bow National Forest Revised Land and Resource

Management Plan, and that the effects of project implementation remain within those analyzed

and disclosed in the modified final EIS and the 2020 Wildlife Biological Assessment.

The Endangered Species Act (Section 7 regulations [50 CFR 402]) does not require analysis for

species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project area and for which no suitable



habitat is present, and if the species are not affected by any major construction activity as defined

in §404.02. Table 1 beginning on page 8 of the 2020 Biological Assessment documents the

rationales for excluding these species from analysis. The 2020 Biological Assessment meets

Forest Service Manual 2672.42 Standards for Biological Evaluations.

The 2020 Biological Assessment determined the LaVA project will have no effect on the Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse because no actions are proposed in suitable habitat since project design

criteria prohibits treatment in Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat effectively avoiding

effects to the species and its habitat. See the response for Endangered Species Act, Issue 1 for

additional discussion of effects on Preble’s meadow jumping mouse.

The 2020 Biological Assessment determined the LaVA project will have no effect on the

Wyoming toad, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, and yellow-billed cuckoo because

suitable habitat is not present near proposed actions (defined as the treatment opportunity areas

and accounting units); no effect on the pallid sturgeon, bonytail chub, Colorado pike minnow,

humpback chub, and razorback sucker because suitable habitat is not present near the proposed

actions, species are not present in the project area (defined as the treatment opportunity areas and

accounting units) and no water depletions will occur to the Colorado River or its tributaries.

Figure 13 in the 2020 Biological Assessment (p. 36) identifies Lynx Analysis Units, linkage

corridors and treatment opportunity areas, including identifying Timber Emphasis treatment

areas in relation to the Lynx Analysis Units and linkage areas. The Biological Assessment

describes how the project is consistent with the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment guidelines,

objectives and standards, which accounts for the various treatment influences on lynx habitat

including clearcut treatments (pp. 34 – 52). The 2020 Biological Assessment identifies two lynx

linkage corridors for which portions of them occur in the LaVA project area (2020 Biological

Assessment, pp. 25 – 27). The North Gate Linkage Corridor occurs in the south of the LaVA

project area within the Big Blackhall Accounting Unit. The Snowy Range Linkage Corridor

occurs in the French Douglas, Pelton Platte, and Fox Wood Accounting Units.

The Biological assessment acknowledges that it is reasonable to expect some type of vegetation

management will occur in approximately 1,100 acres of lodgepole pine in a timber production

management area (Management Area 5.15) in the North Gate Linkage Corridor. This is where

clearcut treatments could be anticipated to occur in this Linkage. The analysis in the Biological

Assessment further describes where vegetation management is unlikely to occur, including

inventoried and mapped spruce-fir and lodgepole pine old growth stands consistent with LRMP

direction per Management Areas 3.5 and 5.15 (p. 30). The Biological Assessment states that

“…this linkage corridor includes a 2,321-acre area that is in a No Treatment zone for the LaVA

project. No vegetation management will occur in this area.” (p. 30). Figure 11 on page 32 of the

Biological Assessment identifies treatment limitation areas. The Biological Assessment provides

sufficient information addressing where clearcut treatments could potentially occur in the North

Gate linkage corridor.

The Biological Assessment describes the amount of lodgepole pine and spruce-fir in the Snowy

Range linkage corridor and identifies how much of those forest types are in the timber

management areas 5.13 and 5.15. Additionally, the Biological Assessment identifies acres

affected from past vegetation treatments and fire within those management areas. The Biological

Assessment acknowledges that it is reasonable to expect some vegetation management will occur

in some of the remaining lodgepole stands and in some spruce-fir stands in the Snowy Range



linkage corridor during the life of the LaVA project. There is also the potential for treatments in

aspen, where aspen occurs in the linkage corridor. The analysis further describes where

vegetation management will not occur or is unlikely to occur, equating to 15,490 acres, including

10,518 acres in the Platte River Wilderness and 4,872 acres of designated old growth. Figure 12

on page 33 of the Biological Assessment identifies treatment limitation areas. The Biological

Assessment provides sufficient information addressing where clearcut treatments could

potentially occur in the Snowy Range linkage corridor.

The June 10, 2019, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion and the December 20,

2019, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concurrence Letter documents Forest Service compliance

with the Endangered Species Act. The 2020 Biological Assessment discloses project impacts of

timber harvest and road use on lynx and lynx habitat, acknowledging adverse effects including a

decrease in suitable habitat quality and quantity (pp. 53 – 58). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

issued an Incidental Take statement in their June 10, 2019, biological opinion based on the

adverse effects analyzed and disclosed by the Forest Service. The Biological Assessment

addresses road use and relevant direction from the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment on pages

20, 36 – 37, 49 – 50, 53, 57 – 58, and 59. The LaVA modified proposed action and design criteria

provides measures to reduce road impacts (pages 6 and 61 – 63 of the 2020 Biological

Assessment). Decision triggers are established to prevent exceeding amount of vegetation

management (tree harvest and removal) identified for each Lynx Analysis Unit to ensure meeting

Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment direction (discussed on pp. 38 – 40 and 43 – 44 of the 2020

Biological Assessment).

Conclusion

Based on review of the project record, I find that the Responsible Official has adequately

provided information on changes made between the February 2019 Wildlife Biological

Assessment and the 2020 Wildlife Biological Assessment, provided adequate site specificity, and

that the effects of the proposed LaVA project on federally listed species protected under the

Endangered Species Act were adequately analyzed and disclosed in the project record.



Issue 4

Objectors assert the 2020 Wildlife Biological Evaluation violates NEPA. Specifically, they

contend that (D):

• Due to the lack of site-specific information, the 2020 Biological Evaluation fails to provide

sufficient analysis to support the modified final EIS in meeting NEPA’s requirement to

take a “hard look” at impacts from the modified purposed action and no-action

alternatives on Management Indicator Species, Sensitive Species, and Species of

Concern.

• The Forest Service concludes, where tree mortality is high, that there will be little impact

to the brown creeper and three-toed woodpecker from temporary roads associated with

clearcutting under the modified proposed action. This conclusion is based on the

agency’s assumptions that stands with high tree mortality do not provide suitable habitat

for species like brown creeper or the three-toed woodpecker.

• The Forest Service concludes that clearcutting and associated temporary roads to

access those clearcuts “could benefit bighorn sheep.” This, despite acknowledging

concerns about bighorn sheep habitat connectivity and declining bighorn populations.

Response

National Environmental Policy Act 220.3 (definition of adaptive management) and 220.5 (e)(2)

describes adaptive management. The modified final EIS describes six treatment opportunity

areas and 14 accounting units representing a reasonable analysis area incorporating site

specificity to inform the analysis in the biological evaluation and consistent with adaptive

management as described in 220.5(e)(2). The modified final EIS clarified the modified proposed

action to describe and depict where management actions and treatments would be emphasized

during project implementation, breaking down the LaVA analysis area into six treatment

opportunity areas and 14 accounting units which provided site specificity to inform the analysis

in the biological evaluation (MFEIS, pp. 53, 70 – 84, 112 – 171). HFRA allows for designation

of priority treatment areas that reduce risk or extent of, or increase resiliency to, insect or disease

infestation. The six treatment opportunity areas and 14 accounting units designated for the LaVA

project is consistent with HFRA. The LaVA Monitoring Plan and Decision-Making Triggers

described in the modified final EIS, Appendix A (Decision Triggers 2 – 9 on pp. 51 - 54) ensures

the effects of the project comply with law, regulation, policy, the Medicine Bow National Forest

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, and that the effects of project implementation

remain within those analyzed and disclosed in the modified final EIS and the 2020 Wildlife

Biological Evaluation.

The modified final EIS (Chapter 2) describes primary and secondary treatment objectives within

the different treatment opportunity areas including fuels treatment and safety emphasis, forest

and rangeland resiliency and forest products emphasis, wildlife emphasis, recreation emphasis,

scenic and aspen emphasis, and special area emphasis. The treatment opportunity area narratives

describe the management tools that could be used within the associated area and how treatments

would comply with underlying LRMP management area direction. This section also includes

additional maps depicting the treatment opportunity areas, areas where different management

tools could be used, and areas where treatments would not be proposed as a result of law,

regulation, policy, and LRMP direction. The 2020 Biological Evaluation describes the existing



condition and analyzed the effects of the no-action alternative and the modified proposed action

for sensitive species, management indicator species, and species of local concern (2020

Biological Evaluation, Management Indicator Species, and Species of Local Concern Report, pp.

19 – 140).

Based on the analysis of the LaVA project vegetation management treatments in treatment

opportunity areas and accounting units (Tables 18, 20, 22 – 26, 28 – 39, 41 – 54, 56 – 65), and

the description of treatment objectives and emphasis per the different treatment opportunity areas

identified on the landscape, the biological evaluation adequately assessed and disclosed the

impacts to Forest Service Sensitive species, Management Indicator Species and Species of Local

Concern.

As noted by the objector, the Biological Evaluation concludes that stand initiation management

and associated temporary roads will have little impact on brown creeper and three-toed

woodpecker where tree mortality is high. Based on peer-reviewed publications cited in the

Biological Evaluation on pages 22 and 35 – 37, stands where tree mortality is high become

unsuitable for brown creeper as density of live or dead canopy is reduced and as bark falls from

trees, causing a loss of protective cover for nest sites and declines in prey. While trees infested

with bark beetles, and dead trees in various stages of heartwood decay provide key habitat

requirements for three-toed woodpecker, the Biological Evaluation states that most trees are no

longer infested with bark beetles. The Biological Evaluation makes a reasonable assumption

based on peer-reviewed science that where temporary roads occur in stands of high tree mortality

no longer infested with bark beetles, there will be little impact to brown creeper and three-toed

woodpecker.

The Biological Evaluation reasonably concludes that since bighorn sheep prefer open, grassy

areas with long sight distances, where stand initiation treatments occur adjacent to bighorn sheep

habitat they may increase and improve habitat because removing trees opens up treatment areas

to grassy and herbaceous growth (2020 Biological Evaluation, Management Indicator Species,

and Species of Local Concern Report, pp. 87 and 89). Temporary roads, if located in or adjacent

to bighorn sheep habitat and migration corridors, could temporarily influence bighorn sheep

distribution, movements and habitat use. The Biological Evaluation acknowledges that roads

have impacts to wildlife and habitat and that the road network may be reducing a small

percentage of suitable habitat across the Forest. The Biological Evaluation concludes that the

LaVA project would impact some habitat and temporarily reduce habitat with disturbance,

including from temporary roads, but also has the potential to create travel corridors within

currently forested areas especially where treatments are adjacent to bighorn sheep habitat.

Conclusion

Based on review of the project record, I find that the Biological Evaluation adequately analyzed

and disclosed effects to Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species and Species of Local

Concern consistent with Forest Service Sensitive Species policy (FSM 2670) and the Medicine

Bow National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan.



Issue 5

Objectors assert that the 2020 Wildlife Biological Assessment fails to demonstrate compliance

with the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment and the Medicine Bow Forest Plain in violation of

the National Forest Management Act. Specifically, the objectors contend:

• The modified proposed actions could occur throughout 13 Lynx Analysis Units in

unsuitable, suitable, and nonhabitat. The Forest Service will be relying on exemptions

and exceptions to Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment standards. But what type of

vegetation management will occur in suitable lynx habitat, in the Lynx Analysis Units

generally, and in linkage corridors? Which Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment

components will apply to these actions?

• The Forest Service states that there will be 3,978 acres of the 1% precommercial

thinning exceptions. It is unclear what assumptions the Forest Service is relying on to

calculate compliance with the 1% precommercial thinning exception under the Southern

Rockies Lynx Amendment.

• The extensive use of exemptions and exceptions is concerning, especially when the

Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment analysis did not anticipate such use in a single

project authorization. Therefore, the Forest Service should seek a LRMP amendment.

• These number of acres affected in each Lynx Analysis Unit is not calculated based on a

worst-case scenario, but rather on the Forest Service’s own opaque assumptions about

yet-to-be determined locations of vegetation management. Tiering to the consultation

conducted under the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment does not resolve the Forest

Service’s need to conduct site-specific analysis to consider and disclose the impacts of

its proposed actions both for purposes of NEPA and the Endangered Species Act.

Response

The objector states that without site specific locations or analysis, the revised Wildlife Biological

Assessment (2020 Wildlife Biological Assessment) fails to demonstrate compliance with the

Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment or the 2003 Medicine Bow National Forest Revised LRMP

in violation of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (subsection (e)(4) on page 5 of the

NFMA). The Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ROD went into effect in October of 2008 and

revised all LRMPs in Region 2 including the Medicine Bow LRMP. The National Forest

Management Act requires national forests and grasslands to meet direction set forth in their

respective LRMPs and requires an amendment to the LRMP if a Forest Service action cannot

meet LRMP standards or cannot meet the intent of LRMP guidelines.

The 2020 Biological Assessment analysis demonstrates consistency with objectives, standards

and guidelines of the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (pp. 4, 28, 29, 34 -40, 43 – 52, 79 –

82), and addressed the amount of vegetation management in each Lynx Analysis Unit (pp. 37-40,

Tables 4 and 5 on pp. 41-42, Tables 6 and 7 on pp. 55-56, 79-82). Vegetation management during

the life of the LaVA project is limited by the amount of vegetation management analyzed in the

Biological Assessment and consulted on with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service per the June 10,

2019 Biological Opinion and the December 20, 2019, Concurrence Letter. Vegetation

management, skid trails, landings, and temporary roads all count toward habitat changes

(Biological Assessment, p. 53).



Decision triggers are established to prevent exceeding the amount of vegetation management

identified for each Lynx Analysis Unit in compliance with the Southern Rockies Lynx

Amendment (Biological Assessment pp. 38-40, 43, 44). Treatments impacting vegetation

management standards is limited by decision-making triggers 4 through 9 (MFEIS, Appendix A,

pp 52 – 54). These measures prevent more than 3 adjacent Lynx Analysis Units exceeding 30%

unsuitable. These measures limit Wildland-Urban Interface exemptions to VEG S1 and S2 to

Kettle Ponds, Brush Creeks, Upper Sierra Madre, and Battle Creek Lynx Analysis Units. These

measures limit precommercial thinning to 1% of habitat in each Lynx Analysis Unit, limit total

Wildland-Urban Interface area treatments, and limit total incidental damage in alignment with

the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment vegetation management standards (2020 Wildlife

Biological Assessment pp 16 – 18, 33). Objectors states that it is unclear what assumptions the

Forest Service is relying on to calculate compliance with the 1% precommercial thinning

exception under the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment. The 2020 Biological Assessment

describes proposed vegetation management for each Lynx Analysis Unit in Tables 4 and 5 on

pages 41 – 42, in Appendix C of the Biological Assessment, and describes the strategy for

vegetation management in Lynx Analysis Units on pages 37 – 40.

The objectors asked “what type of vegetation management will occur in suitable lynx habitat, in

the Lynx Analysis Units generally, and in linkage corridors? Which Southern Rockies Lynx

Amendment components will apply to these actions?” The modified final EIS and the analysis in

the Biological Assessment describes the treatment opportunity areas and what each one

emphasizes, in relation to suitable lynx habitat, Lynx Analysis Units, and in linkage corridors.

The biological assessment identified the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment standards,

guidelines and objectives that apply to treatments in lynx habitat. The modified final EIS

summarizes information from the 2020 Biological Assessment on how the LaVA project meets

the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment objectives, standards, and guidelines.

The Biological Assessment acknowledges a decrease in quantity and quality of suitable habitat

(pp. 37 – 50, 53 – 56). Vegetation treatment effects on Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment

vegetation management standards will be tracked by individual projects by year by Lynx

Analysis Unit (MFEIS Appendix A, pp. 40-42). Movement and connectivity are analyzed for

Lynx Analysis Units and linkage corridors, and the Biological Assessment describes how

connectivity will be maintained in the Lynx Analysis Units (pp. 4, 18 – 20, 24, 28 – 36, 34, 43,

50-52, 58, 60). The LaVA Treatment Implementation Checklist requires adherence to design

criteria and LRMP standards and guidelines including the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment

(MFEIS Appendix A, pp. 27 - 29). In terms of compliance with the National Forest Management

Act, the modified final EIS and Biological Assessment demonstrate meeting the Medicine Bow

LRMP and the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment requirements, as supported by the

Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation process documented in the June 10, 2019,

Biological Opinion and December 20, 2019, Concurrence Letter, and do not indicate a need for a

LRMP amendment. See response to Endangered Species Act, Issue 3 for addition discussion

about Endangered Species Act Section 7 documentation and consultation process.

Conclusion

Based on review of the project record, I find that the Responsible Official demonstrates

compliance with the National Forest Management Act through consistency with the Medicine



Bow LRMP, Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C §1531 et seq.).

Issue 6

Objectors assert that it is difficult to cross-reference the 2019 Wildlife Biological Evaluation to

the new 2020 Wildlife Biological Report, which precludes meaningful public review and is in

violation of NEPA.

Response

The two Biological Evaluations are structured different, but both contain a Table of Contents

(hyperlinked on electronic versions) to assist the reviewer in navigating the documents (pp. ii-

iv). Furthermore, the modified final EIS contains a table depicting changes from the 2019

version (pp. 3-5. Table 1. Changes from the April 2019 final EIS to 2020 modified final EIS).

Conclusion

I find that the 2019 and 2020 Biological Evaluations are in compliance with NEPA and formatted

sufficiently to allow for meaningful review. Additionally, the recommend formatting standards

outlined in 40 CFR 1502.10 and 36 CFR 220.5 (d), only apply to the modified final EIS itself,

not its supporting documents.

Issue 7

Objectors assert that the 2020 Wildlife Biological Evaluation is flawed because it asserts that the

modified proposed action has the potential to have beneficial impacts on wildlife habitat,

namely, bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain elk, and mule deer.

Response

The National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500) requires Federal agencies to disclose the

environmental impacts of their actions, using information of high quality and scientific accuracy.

Forest Service Manual 2600 Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management was

reviewed and referenced in the 2020 Wildlife Biological Evaluation. Forest Service policy

requires that a review of programs and activities, through a biological evaluation, be conducted

to determine their potential effect on threatened and endangered species, species proposed for

listing, and sensitive species (Forest Service Manual 2670.3). Preparation of a Biological

Evaluation as part of the NEPA process ensures that species receive full consideration in the

decision-making process. The 2020 Biological Evaluation analyzed and determined the likely

effects of the modified proposed action on Forest Service sensitive species consistent with Forest

Service Manual 2670.31-2670.32.

The 2020 Wildlife Biological Evaluation states on page 1: “There are several habitat

improvement opportunities for terrestrial wildlife with the LaVA project. While habitat

improvements would continue to occur under the No Action Alternative, LaVA could accelerate

the rate of habitat improvements because this single analysis addresses habitat improvement

opportunities across the Snowy Range and Sierra Madre Range for the next 15 years. All

opportunities would be evaluated with field surveys, but existing information suggests several

options. Habitat improvements will include wildlife enhancement opportunities identified by the



Platte Valley Habitat Partnership. This partnership includes local, State, and Federal agencies that

combine resources to design and implement habitat enhancements across land ownership

boundaries.” The Biological Evaluation acknowledges that habitat improvement projects would

continue under the no-action alternative and expresses that LaVA could accelerate the rate of

habitat improvement by providing opportunities across a large landscape, the Snowy Range and

Sierra Madre Range. This would be in addition to habitat improvement projects that would

continue regardless of the LaVA project and thus increasing the rate of habitat improvement. The

no-action alternative considered 15-year average rates of harvest that would continue (MFEIS

pp. 61, 77, 226, 256). The Biological Evaluation describes how habitat would be improved for

bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain elk, and mule deer (pp. 1 – 2, 84 – 91, and 141 – 142). The

Wyoming Game and Fish Department expressed support of the LaVA project in their April 2017

comment letter, commenting that the LaVA project would provide opportunities to improve deer

and elk habitat, and benefit the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s Mule Deer Initiative.

Appendix A of the modified final EIS demonstrates commitment to implementing wildlife

habitat improvement projects and identifies decision triggers and restraints in wildlife habitats

(MFEIS, Appendix A, pp. 6, 51, 93, 105, 119, 124). The modified final EIS, modified proposed

action includes treatments in LRMP wildlife emphasis management areas consistent with the

associated LRMP direction (MFEIS, p. 77), and includes habitat improvements in the Wildlife

Emphasis treatment opportunity area (MFEIS, pp. 76 – 77). Analysis by accounting units

provides site specificity to adequately disclose effects, including positive and negative as

described in the 2020 Wildlife Biological Evaluation. The Biological Evaluation references the

Medicine Bow LRMP standards and guidelines influencing management of wildlife habitat.

Those most directly involved in habitat management include standards and guidelines for water

and aquatics and Biological Diversity. The Biological Evaluation demonstrates meeting LRMP

direction.

The modified proposed action includes Design Features and Decision Triggers to reduce impacts

and promote habitat conservation (MFEIS Appendix A, pp. 50 –64). Design Features include

limitations on management actions in wetlands and riparian areas, measures to promote unique

habitat features outside of Wildland Urban Interface for overstory and understory diversity, and

management guidance for shrubland treatment. There are Decision Triggers to limit the reduction

of security areas and to ensure habitat improvements are a percentage of all vegetation

treatments. The LaVA Monitoring Plan in Appendix A of the modified final EIS identifies

monitoring to assess effectiveness of project-specific design features and treatments for

improved wildlife habitat and/or shrubland habitat (MFEIS, Appendix A, pp. 80 – 81).

Conclusion

Based on review of the project record, I find that the Responsible Official meets the requirements

under the National Environmental Policy Act of providing high quality information and accurate

scientific analysis supporting the rationale for LaVA project effects on wildlife. The analysis

adequately informs the Responsible official on understanding the environmental consequences.

The LaVA project provides sufficient detail supporting the rationale that actions associated with

the LaVA project promote wildlife conservation.



Issue 8

Objectors assert that the Forest Service failed to adequately analyze direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects of temporary roads on brown creeper, snowshoe hare, three-toad

woodpecker, bighorn sheep, and other species.

Response

Brown creeper, snowshoe hare, three-toed woodpecker and bighorn sheep were analyzed within

the Biological Evaluation, Management Indicator Species and Species of Local Concern Report

Landscape Vegetation Analysis (LaVA) (pp. 19-39, 84-91). In all instances, it was stated in the

report that temporary roads will be obliterated and returned to the land base within 3 years,

obliteration methods are described in design criteria in the modified final EIS, and regeneration

to suitable habitat will occur in similar time frames to regeneration within stand initiation

treatment areas. Noise associated with treatment implementation can cause temporary

disturbance to wildlife in the short-term, but the disturbance is not expected to cause decreased

reproductive success or survival across the populations. The Determination of Effects state some

habitat will remain across the Forest for brown creepers, three-toed woodpeckers, snowshoe hare

and bighorn sheep under both alternatives. The proposed activities are consistent with the revised

LRMP standards.

Appendix A of the Biological Evaluation, Management Indicator Species and Species of Local

Concern Report Landscape Vegetation Analysis (LaVA) contains a review of literature

concerning road impacts to wildlife and has 52 citations which describe road impacts on a

variety of wildlife species (pp. 158-168). Research on bird species is limited but included.

Fragmentation of wildlife habitat for many species due to temporary roads is a recognized

impact.

Temporary road locations will be reviewed and approved before they are created. “Route

verification would be held prior to road contract preparation, to show Forest and District

Specialists the location and design of planned relocation, realignment and new construction to

ensure the road would not have additional adverse effects on resources” (Transportation Report,

p. 5). Once the transportation needs have been identified, the layout and design of temporary

roads is done in accordance with best management practices which reduces adverse effects on

the environment. In addition to the route verification, the LaVA project includes a checklist

where specialists analyze treatments and associated actions (such as temporary roads) in detail.

This checklist will provide resource specialist the opportunity to provide feedback on temporary

roads (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 27-29). Appendix A also includes the relevant LRMP Wildlife

Guidelines 2 (BIO-WILD-G.2.) and 5 (BIO-WILD-G.5.) (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 94).

• Guideline 2: During project analysis and design, evaluate current and desired open road

density at the geographic area scale and design projects, including road management to

provide adequate security areas for wildlife and limit disturbances during parturition, nesting,

and fledging periods.

• Guideline 5: Apply seasonal restrictions as needed on motorized use of travelways to reduce

disturbance in sensitive big game areas, such as birthing areas and winter range.



Conclusion

I find that the Responsible Official adequately considered the impacts of temporary roads on

fragmentation, wildlife species, brown creeper, snowshoe hare, three-toed woodpecker and

bighorn sheep. There is an adequate analysis of road effects.

Endangered Species Act

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the Forest Service failed to consider impacts to Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse, and the justification for eliminating the mouse from further analysis in the 2020 Wildlife

Biological Assessment is flawed. Specifically, objectors contend:

• The Forest Service ignores direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from log hauling

trucks and other equipment using existing system and new temporary roads to access

specific treatment units, especially if those roads cut through Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse suitable habitat.

• The Biological Assessment does not indicate Preble’s meadow jumping mouse suitable

habitat or area of influence in relation to treatment opportunity areas.

• The Forest Service should have adopted a measure prohibiting new road construction in

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse suitable habitat to avoid impacts. The fact that the

Forest Service did not do so indicates that such impacts may occur and must be

disclosed and consulted upon. But without site-specific information or analysis of the

actual treatment units, it is impossible for the public to locate where and how this would

be a problem.

• There are no monitoring questions or triggers in the modified final EIS, Appendix A –

Implementation and Monitoring Framework to check for compliance with this project

design criteria during project implementation.

Response

Pages 9 – 15 of the 2020 Biological Assessment describes the greatest possible extent of Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse distribution in the LaVA project area, and references the Area of

Influence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wyoming Ecological Services as the broadest

reasonable approach to identifying any potential Preble’s meadow jumping mouse distribution

within the LaVA project area. The Biological Assessment states that approximately 766 acres of

the Area of Influence occurs in the Fox Wood accounting unit in a treatment opportunity area,

providing site specificity. The Biological Assessment cites the 2018 Recovery Plan for Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5-year review (USFWS 2014)

describing habitat and the species distribution, referencing Figure 4 in the status review

indicating that Preble’s meadow jumping mouse overall range does not extend west of Laramie,

Wyoming, and therefore would not extend to the LaVA project area. Based on USFWS 2018,

USFWS 2014, Federal Register 2013, and Bowe and Beauvais 2012 cited in the Biological

Assessment (page 14), the biological assessment concludes that the Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse distribution does not occur in the LaVA project area, but does conclude that the Area of

Influence map (https://www.fws.gov/wyominges/Species/Prebles.php) suggests Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse might potentially be impacted by projects in the Upper Laramie Drainage which

https://www.fws.gov/wyominges/Species/Prebles.php



overlaps the LaVA project area. The design criteria states “No treatment will occur in the

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Area of Influence that occurs in the LaVA project area” (shown

as Figure 6 on p. 15 of the 2020 Biological Assessment). As described in the Biological

Assessment, this effectively avoids any effects to the species and its habitat.

The objector brings up a concern about roads to access treatment areas and temp roads, stating

that the Biological Assessment does not identify if those roads cut through Preble’s habitat.

However, the Biological Assessment does state that no actions are proposed in suitable habitat.

This implies that absolutely no actions, including roads, will cause any effect to habitat or the

species. The objector states that none of the maps in the Biological Assessment show Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse suitable habitat or Area of Influence in relation to treatment opportunity

areas, forest roads to access treatment areas within those treatment opportunity areas, or

locations of possible temporary roads. However, the 2020 Biological Assessment and the design

criteria describe the location of where the Area of Influence overlaps the LaVA project area,

stating “This area occurs within Township 13 North, Range 77 West, section 33 and Township 12

North, Range 77 West, section 04.” (Page 14 of the 2020 Biological Assessment). The LaVA

Appendix A, Implementation and Monitoring Framework includes items to review for each

individual LaVA project to ensure they do not occur in the Area of Influence (MFEIS, Appendix

A, pp. 24 - 29). This checklist measure is the mechanism to review project actions prior to

implementation and ensure they do not occur in the Area of Influence, effectively avoiding any

effects to the species and its habitat.

According to the Biological Assessment of the analysis area, potential Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse habitat occurs in a steep canyon near the Laramie River in shrubland/riparian habitat. No

logging activities or temporary roads would occur in this habitat because of the location, terrain,

and habitat type. (MFEIS, Appendix B, p. 126)

The LaVA project is consistent with LRMP, which includes a standard that states: In suitable

habitat within the range of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, avoid placing new recreation

sites, trails or roads within the riparian zone. Existing roads in designated critical habitat will be

reviewed for possible closure or relocation (LRMP, p. 1-43, Threatened, Endangered, and

Sensitive Species Standard 10).

Conclusion

Based on review of the project record, I find that the Responsible Official adequately analyzed

and provided sufficient rationale for the no effect determination on the Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse, meeting Endangered Species Act requirements.



Issue 2

Objectors assert that the Forest Service has failed to provide available and consistent

documentation associated with Biological Opinion/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consultation.

Specifically, objectors contend:

• The Forest Service states that formal consultation was completed with the Fish and

Wildlife Service on June 10, 2019. Except for a concurrence letter from the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service on December 20, 2019, that only discusses three areas of

modifications that the Forest Service requested, documentation was not made available

for review during public notice, comment, or objection periods, which has precluded

meaningful public comment on the project.

• The Forest Service revised the Biological Assessment in February 2020, after the date

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consultation and after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service completed its biological opinion in June 2019. Therefore, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion or concurrence letter can’t be based on a biological

assessment that was completed months after consultation.

Response

The June 10, 2019, consultation letter and its concurrence statement (June 10, 2019, Biological

Opinion) is a second-tier consultation for Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment projects. As noted

by the objector, this second-tier consultation was completed June 10, 2019, documenting

concurrence with the determination of effect of the LaVA final EIS and determined that the LaVA

project is consistent with the incidental take statement from the first-tier biological opinion

(Biological Opinion for the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment). As noted, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service concurrence on the determination of effect of the LaVA modified final EIS was

received on December 20, 2019. The June 10, 2019, and December 20, 2019, concurrence

documents are available in the project record, and conclude consultation pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act. There is not a legal requirement to post document to the project

website, however members of the public can request to review the project record any time,

including during the public notice, comment, or objection periods.

The modified final EIS documents and summarizes information from the LaVA Biological

Assessment that consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was completed (MFEIS,

pp. 23, 387 – 388, 392). The final EIS and modified final EIS reference the consultation

documents, including the June 10, 2019, Biological Opinion, which are available upon request.

The objector noted that the Forest Service revised biological assessment is dated February 2020,

after the date of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consultation and after the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service completed its biological opinion in June 2019 and after the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service concurrence letter related to specific changes in December 2019. The

differences between the Biological Assessment associated with the December 2019 consultation

(Biological Assessment dated October 2019) and the February 2020 Biological Assessment are

as follows:

The February 2020 Biological Assessment was reformatted to make the tables more legible and

make text, figures, and maps 508 compliant.



The following three sentences were removed and do not appear in the February 2020 Biological

Assessment cumulative effects section:

There is currently vigorous scientific debate about the influence of bark beetle killed trees

to wildfires (Wells 2012). Moreover, the geographic extent and severity of wildfires is

determined by many climatic factors, vegetation conditions, topography, and local

weather conditions (Kulakowski and Jarvis 2011, Hart et al. 2015, Fire Science Digest

2012). As stated by Jenkins et al. (2008), “…the interaction of western bark beetles, fuels

and fire in forest systems is inherently complex and much remains

unknown…Additionally, differences in the physical environment, stand conditions, the

amount and distribution of available fuels, and weather make “one size fits all”

management approaches ineffective.”

This was added to the October 2019 Biological Assessment to address a scoping statement from

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department that under the no-action alternative, wildfires posed

substantial risk to lynx. Later review by the Forest requested removal of these sentences because

this topic is stochastic relative to wildlife resources. These three sentences have no influence on

LaVA project impacts to lynx or on any issues for which LaVA consultation was completed

(impacts to species, individuals, Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment standards and guidelines,

exemptions/exceptions, determination, jeopardy, or recovery). Deletion of these three sentences

did not change effects of the action.

The Consultation letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states: “This Project should be re-

analyzed if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed or proposed

species or designated or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this

consultation; if the action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to a listed

species or designated or proposed critical habitat that was not considered in this consultation;

and/or, if a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by this

project.” Removal of the three sentences discussed above did not result in effects of the action

not considered in this consultation nor did it modify the proposed action that was consulted on.

Conclusion

Based on review of the project record, I find that the Responsible Official provided adequate

opportunity for public review and comment, provided sound rationale for changes between the

Biological Assessments, and demonstrated compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended, (16 U.S.C §1531 et seq.).

Issue 3

Objectors assert that the LaVA project is noncompliant with the Endangered Species Act,

because wildlife populations, habitats, and protection measures will continue to change over the

life of the project (15 years)

Response

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C §1531 et seq.) establishes

requirements for reinitiation of consultation (50 CFR 402.16):



(a) Reinitiation of consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by the

Service, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or

is authorized by law and:

(1) If the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is

exceeded;

(2) If new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or

critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered;

(3) If the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to

the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion or

written concurrence; or

(4) If a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the

identified action.

Per §402.16 Reinitiation of Consultation procedures, if the distribution of suitable habitat and

species changes such that there are effects not previously analyzed and consulted on per the

December 20, 2019, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter (LaVA MFEIS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service Concurrence Letter – 06E I 3000-2020-F-0074), these Reinitiation of Consultation

procedures require the Forest Service to assess changes and associated effects not previously

considered and reinitiate consultation on the LaVA project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

December 20, 2019, Concurrence Letter states: “This Project should be re-analyzed if new

information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed or proposed species or designated

or proposed critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this consultation; if the

action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to a listed species or designated

or proposed critical habitat that was not considered in this consultation; and/or, if a new species

is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by this project.” (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service December 20, 2019, Concurrence Letter, Conclusion section on pp. 12 – 13).

Based on these reinitiation of consultation requirements set forth in the Endangered Species Act

and referenced in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concurrence Letter, should any of the

Endangered Species Act-listed species in Table 1 of the Biological Assessment change location

or if the distribution of suitable habitat changes and is impacted by the LaVA project in a way not

previously considered, the Forest Service is required to reinitiate consultation in compliance with

the Endangered Species Act. This is the case with all authorized projects that the Forest Service

implements, regardless of a project’s scope, scale, or design. To suggest that the LaVA project

doesn’t and will not comply with the reinitiation of consultation requirement is unsubstantiated.

Conclusion

Based on review of the project record, the Responsible Official properly disclosed the impacts to

Endangered Species Act-listed species and will reinitiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service in accordance with 50 CFR 402.16 if future conditions necessitate. I find the

project and its analysis compliant with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16

U.S.C §1531 et seq.).



Temporary Roads

Issue 1

Objectors assert that there is a lack of site-specific information regarding temporary roads

locations. Specifically, objectors contend that:

• The report is speculative and general as to where and how roads will be constructed.

• The Forest Service continues to overly rely on its Adaptive Implementation and

Monitoring Framework to address any potential negative environmental consequences

from temporary road construction and use.

• The Forest Service fails to demonstrate that the agency will be able to ensure the

removal of temporary roads. The modified final EIS lacks any supporting evidence

regarding the history of previous temporary road removal and how well timber sale

purchasers met the reclamation requirements.

• The Forest Service seems to assert that temporary roads only have an impact when

open, which discounts the harm from construction and the fact that even when closed

• The Forest Service failed to provide the requisite “hard look” analysis NEPA requires to

disclose the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.

• That simply listing BMPs and providing project design features does not alleviate the

agency’s duty to demonstrate their success.

• The Forest Service fails to consider, disclose or discuss long term funding expectations

to support the road system.

Response

A temporary road is defined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations 212.1 as a road necessary for

emergency operations or authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization that

is not a forest road and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas. Temporary roads are

non-system roads that are authorized for use only during the timber sale operations and are not

part of the permanent transportation system. Once the use is complete, the road is rehabilitated

and closed within 3 years after the vegetation management treatment has been completed

(modified final EIS, Appendix A, p. 62). Therefore, temporary roads do not increase the road

density of the permanent forest transportation system.

The primary function of temporary roads is to provide access to timber sale landings where logs

are stored for later pick up. Per timber sale contract 2400-6, provision B.5.1, the location and

clearing widths of all temporary roads must be agreed upon, in writing, by the Forest Service and

timber sale contractors after a timber sale is sold and before temporary road construction is

started. This provision necessitates post-decision field reviews between the entities to ensure

proper design and location of the temporary road prism to minimize environmental impacts. It

also results in estimates of temporary road mileages and locations being provided in

environmental documents, rather than specific delineations, as is the case with the LaVA project.

The project record demonstrates that temporary road construction has been a public concern

since project inception. The record also demonstrates that, in response to this concern, the Forest

committed to using system roads, rather than constructing temporary roads, whenever possible to

facilitate vegetation management (MFEIS, p. 172). The record further demonstrates that the



Forest will use a Wetness Index Rating tool when determining temporary road locations (LaVA

Steering Group Notes, January 29, 2018). The Wetness Index Rating tool uses inputs to illustrate

inherent wetness on the landscape, thereby providing spatial depiction of areas where temporary

road building and landing construction may be problematic due to compaction and erosion issues

(Internal Briefing Paper, December 6, 2017). Use of the tool, in concert with the use of best

management practices, will allow for avoidance of environmentally sensitive areas during

design, layout, and construction of temporary roads.

Although temporary road locations have not been explicitly delineated in the modified final EIS,

as noted by objectors, and cannot be, as explained above, the modified final EIS contains site-

specific information about temporary road locations and their environmental effects in numerous

locations. Some examples include:

• Chapter 2 contains a treatment opportunity area map displaying areas where temporary road

construction would not be allowed. These “no temporary road construction” areas, which

comprise roughly 135,000 acres, or 22 percent of the total treatment opportunity area

acreage, are based on LRMP direction prohibiting all road construction activities in specific

management area locations and the decision to exclude temporary road construction in

inventoried roadless areas.

• The accounting unit maps in Chapter 3 depict the existing road system, as well as the “no

temporary road” construction areas, while the corresponding narratives include estimates of

existing road densities. By knowing both the existing road density by accounting unit and

where temporary road construction is prohibited by the LRMP, assumptions can be made

about where temporary roads may or may not be needed during LaVA project

implementation (p. 114).

• Chapter 3, Hydrology describes existing and projected quantities of road-stream crossings

(Gloss 2018), existing and projected quantities of temporary road construction in wetlands

(Gloss 2018), and existing and projected quantities of road construction in the water

influence zone (Gloss 2018). These factors represent quantitative indicators to estimate the

potential direct and indirect effects of proposed project implementation (p. 316).

• Chapter 3, Transportation states, “Adverse effects from maintenance and reconstruction

activities would include short-term vegetation loss, vegetation removal, soil disturbance and

compaction, an increase of mixed traffic, and traffic delays during project implementation.

There would also be short-term increases of noise and dust. Recreational road and trail

access could be temporarily affected by transportation needs associated with timber hauling,

equipment access, and harvesting activities” (pp. 331-332).

Appendix A: Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring Framework, which has been adopted by

the project decision, also includes numerous mechanisms designed to track and assess temporary

road construction over the life of LaVA project implementation. Some of these mechanisms

include: a pre-treatment checklist to provide early identification of whether temporary road

construction may be needed for individual project implementation (p. 24); an implementation

checklist requiring field review of treatment areas, including temporary road construction areas,

if applicable, and district ranger approval (p. 27); a tracking workbook that tracks planned,

implemented, and rehabilitated temporary roads (p. 31); a decision-making trigger table

requiring pre- and post-tracking and monitoring of temporary road construction (p. 54); project



design features including mechanisms to minimize the effects of temporary road construction (p.

62); and pre-treatment standard operating procedures (p. 75). Appendix A also provides

opportunities for cooperating agency involvement and public engagement during identification,

design, refinement, implementation, and monitoring of individual treatments. As discussed in

Appendix B: Response to Comments (p. 14), this adaptive implementation and monitoring

approach, as well as the ability to make assumptions and to identify direct and indirect effects

resulting from temporary road construction, complies with the National Environmental Policy

Act, section 1505.1, “Agency Decision-Making Procedures.”

With regard to closure and rehabilitation of temporary roads, timber sale contract include

contract provisions that authorize the use of temporary roads. Contract provision B(BT)5.1 is

used to agree (agreement between the timber sale purchaser and Forest Service personnel) on the

location of temporary roads prior to construction, with the final disposition of temporary roads

also included within the timber sale contract. Contract provision B(BT)6.63-Temporary Roads

describes the final treatment of temporary roads, which will close the route to future travel and

reduce erosion. The agreements are documented and include information on location, how the

road will be stabilized, and closed (Transportation Report, p. 16-17). Timber Sale Contract

Administration personnel make certain contract provisions are met prior to acceptance of work

and the closeout of the timber sale contracts. Furthermore, if the timber sale purchase fails to

meet the requirements of the contract (i.e. proper decommissioning of roads), that Forest Service

has the ability to terminate the contract for breach (B(BT)9.31), collect damages (B(BT)9,4), and

keep the purchaser’s surety bonds (B(BT)5.9) to ensure obligations of the environmental analysis

are met.

In addition to timber sale contract provisions, the project record also contains multiple

documents that speak to closure and rehabilitation of temporary roads. Some examples include:

• Appendix A of the modified final EIS clarifies under the Temporary Road Construction,

Landings, and Skid Trails Design Features on page 62 that, “Complete rehabilitation of

temporary roads will occur within 3 years after the vegetation management treatments have

been completed (DR-RdT-1). Page 319 of the modified final EIS also discusses the timing

and effects of temporary roads. The text on page 319 states, “[m]any individual temporary

roads at the site-scale are likely to have short-term sediment effects during construction and

use and during rehabilitation activities within one or two operating seasons, with effective

ground cover being established within a couple years” (p. 319).

• Document “2019Mar04_LaVA_HydroSupplementalInfo_508c” provides information on the

reclamation of roads.

• The “Supplemental Information on Temporary Road Water Resources Effects” (pp. 1-6)

speaks specifically to temporary road effects to watershed features, timing of hydrologic

effects, rehabilitation techniques, and results of past monitoring of road decommissioning on

the Forest.

• Forest Service Manual (7712.11- Exhibit 01) identifies multiple options for road

decommissioning, including blocking the entrance, revegetation and water barring, removing

fills and culverts, establishing drainage and removing unstable road shoulders, and full

obliteration re-contouring and restoring natural slopes.



• BMP monitoring results for implementation and effectiveness on the Medicine Bow National

Forest is presented in the Hydrology Report on pages 20-21. Additionally, BMP monitoring

conducted by Wyoming State Forestry “found projects on National Forest System lands

within Wyoming have a BMP application rate of 96 percent and were 97 percent effective in

providing adequate protection (WSFD, 2014b)

• Appendix A: Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring Framework contains mechanisms to

track the closure and treatment of temporary roads and to ensure temporary roads are closed

within the three-year time frame. Specifically, item 8b in the LaVA Monitoring Plan

(MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 80) states “Ensure temporary roads are decommissioned, temporary

drainage structures are removed, sites are effectively rehabilitated, and motorized use has

been curtailed.” In addition, the trigger table (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 54) contains yellow-

light and red-light triggers related to temporary road rehabilitation, with a yellow-light

trigger of “More than 5% of temporary roads constructed are not effectively rehabilitated

within 3 years of treatment completion” and a yellow-light adaptive action option that states

“Review temporary road rehabilitation efforts and determine barriers to effective

rehabilitation. Address barriers to effective rehabilitation, by means such as improving

techniques, increased project administration, increased funding, etc.” The red-light trigger is

“More than 10% of temporary roads are not effectively rehabilitated within 3 years of

treatment completion.” with the associated red-light adaptive action option that states “Do

not allow new temporary road construction until more than 95% (yellow light trigger) of

constructed temporary roads have been effectively decommissioned within 3 years.” Again,

this monitoring and these adaptive actions put extra focus on the reclamation requirements

and will ensure they are met. Using the outputs in Appendix A provides an implementation

and monitoring feedback loop that will monitor road closure effectiveness and provide

feedback on future closures. Furthermore, this adaptive process allows for flexibility to adapt

implementation strategies as climate conditions change.

As for long-term funding of temporary roads, improvement of roads used for timber sales do not

typically affect other road maintenance funds, and once road improvements are completed, long-

term maintenance and deferred maintenance costs are expected to decrease. Effects to other

resources from the use of the existing road system is under each affected resource section (soils,

hydrology, wildlife, etc.) (MFEIS, Appendix B, p. 16). The funding analysis that is provided in

the Transportation Report (p. 7) is within the scope and scale of the LaVA project (1 to 15 years)

and longer-term maintenance funding is beyond the scope of the LaVA project.

Finally, the length of time that a temporary road is open is dependent on the treatment unit size

and volume of material within the unit. Complete rehabilitation of temporary roads will occur

within 3 years after the vegetation management treatments have been completed (MFEIS,

Appendix A, p. 62).

Conclusion

I find that the Responsible Official has adequately addressed site-specific project planning and

monitoring, including appropriate time frames based on past monitoring; and included

appropriate project design criteria and pre- and post-treatment standard operating procedures to

minimize the effects of project implementation on soil resources, including the decommissioning



of temporary roads as part of the adaptive management and monitoring plan required by the

reissued draft ROD.

The project record indicates that the effects of temporary roads have been addressed and that

temporary roads will be closed within three years of completing project activities. It also

addresses how temporary roads will be accounted for and monitored through the adaptive

implementation process.

Issue 2

Objectors assert that the method to calculate road densities per accounting unit is incorrect and

misleading, which precluded meaningful public input. When calculating the road densities, the

Forest should have removed the area/acres where LRMP direction or congressional designation

prohibits the construction of temporary roads.

Response

Chapter 3 of the LRMP outlines direction for geographic areas. Geographic areas generally

include an individual watershed or aggregation of watersheds and are 125,000 acres in size or

smaller. Analyses at the geographic area scale provide a framework for monitoring the

effectiveness of Forestwide and management area standards and guidelines and for achieving

Forestwide goals and objectives and desired conditions (LRMP, p. 3-1). Being that LaVA is a

landscape scale project, for analysis purposes, the project uses accounting units as a substitute for

geographic areas. Accounting units are similar to geographic areas in that they are smaller than

125,000 acres in size and they are comprised of an aggregation of watersheds. The primary

difference is that accounting units overlay 7th-level watershed boundaries with Lynx Analysis

Units, thereby contributing to a more robust, project-specific watershed and lynx analysis

(MFEIS, p. 33). Because of this, the accounting units comprise 23 management areas delineated

in the LRMP (MFEIS, p. 37), including inventories roadless areas, wilderness areas, and areas

recommended for wilderness.

In addition to the accounting unit information being used to contribute to the effects analyses for

the LaVA project, the information will be used during project implementation to assess whether

individual projects are moving vegetation toward LRMP desired conditions. Monitoring for

attainment of LRMP desired conditions will be done at the accounting unit (geographic area)

scale, as outlined in Appendix A of the modified final EIS. Therefore, when analyzing the effects

of the proposed temporary roads on the effected environment, it is prudent to be consistent and

calculate the road densities off the total acres in each accounting unit. To remove areas/acres

where LRMP direction or congressional designation prohibits the construction of temporary

roads (i.e. wilderness, inventoried roadless, recommended for wilderness) from the road density

calculation would lead to an inconsistent and biased analysis.

Common practice used to calculate road density is to divide the number of miles of road within a

geographical area by the square miles of area within the same geographic area. For example, the

Rock Morgan accounting unit encompasses 61,356 acres (95.9 square miles) and contains 128

miles of road. To calculate road density, 128 is divided by 95.9 and equals 1.3 miles per square

mile. If the Forest had chosen different geographical areas this would have increased or

decreased the geographical square miles and resulted in different road densities. There is not law,

regulation, or policy that specifies how to calculate and analyze road densities. However, there is



a LRMP guideline that states, “During project analysis and design, evaluate current and desired

open road density at the geographic area scale and design projects, including road management

to provide adequate security areas for wildlife and limit disturbances during parturition, nesting,

and fledging periods (BIO-WILD-G.2) (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 94).

Conclusion

The Forest was transparent in the decision to divide the project area into accounting units and the

calculation of road density. I find that the Responsible Official took a reasonable approach and

adhered to common practices and LRMP guideline BIO-WILD-G.2 in calculating the road

density within each accounting unit.

Issue 3

Objectors assert that the Forest Service should consider leaving temporary roads open for

increased public and firefighter access.

Response

Travel Management Rule, 36 CFR 212.1 defines a temporary road as a road necessary for

emergency operations or authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization that

is not a forest road and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas. Temporary roads are

typically authorized for use in timber sale contracts and are not part of the permanent

transportation system. Once the use is complete, the road is to be rehabilitated and closed.

Additionally, temporary roads are not intended for use by the public and are determined to be not

necessary for long-term management. Under the modified proposed action, temporary roads

would be reclaimed within three years of individual project completion to preclude future

motorized use and to restore ecological function in the affected area (MFEIS Appendix B, p. 29).

Converting temporary roads into National Forest System roads would take an extensive travel

management analysis, done in accordance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. The

Responsible Official has determined that the travel analysis associated with the travel

management rule is beyond the scope of the LaVA project (MFEIS, Appendix B, p. 29).

Permanent road construction was considered for this project; however, in an effort to be

responsive to public comments, it was determined that it is not needed to achieve the purpose

and need for the project. Page 97 of the modified final EIS states “After the scoping comment

period closed (August 21, 2018), Forest Service personnel again re-evaluated the transportation

component of the proposed action and determined that the 10 miles of proposed permanent road

construction was not needed to achieve the purpose of and need for the project. Therefore,

permanent road construction was removed from the proposal”. This decision was further stated

on page 12 of the reissued draft ROD, where it concluded that the selected alternative

(alternative 2, the modified proposed action) would eliminate the 10 miles of proposed

permanent road construction.

Conclusion

Through the original proposed action, I have determined that the Responsible Official adequately

considered adding permanent roads to the Forest transportation atlas. However, through public



input, it was concluded that additional permanent roads are not necessary to fully achieve the

purpose and need of the LaVA project.

Issue 4

Objectors assert that the soils analysis inadequately discloses the reclamation and monitoring

requirements for temporary roads.

Response

Pre-treatment and post-treatment standard operating procedures for soil resources and temporary

roads are outlined in the modified final EIS Appendix A – Adaptive Implementation and

Monitoring Framework on pages 72-73 and pages 78-79, respectively. Required monitoring and

reporting is also included in the adaptive management framework (MFEIS, Appendix A, pp. 80-

81).

Soils will be monitored for detrimental soil disturbance using the Forest Service National Soil

Disturbance protocols in the first, third, and fifth years following treatment by soil scientists,

hydrologist, or both (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 80). Construction of temporary roads will be

monitored to ensure these roads are decommissioned, temporary drainage structures removed,

effective rehabilitation, and prevention of unauthorized motorized use through site inspections

conducted during implementation by Sale Administrators; and in the first and third years

following rehabilitation by soil scientists, hydrologists, and botanists (MFEIS, Appendix A, p.

80, Monitoring Item 8b – Transportation System, Temporary Roads System).

Conclusion

After reviewing the project record, I have determined that the Responsible Official adequately

disclosed the reclamation and monitoring requirements for temporary roads in the modified final

EIS and the associated Appendix A.

Issue 5

Objectors assert that roads increase the spread of non-native invasive plant species, leading to

significant ecological impacts and that the Forest Service improperly relies on design features to

avoid discussing or disclosing these impacts.

Response

The impacts of the proposed activities on invasive plant species is disclosed on pages modified

final EIS p. 290 to 296. Design features are an important part of this project as noted on page

294:

“This project includes several design features to reduce the likelihood of introducing new

weed species or populations and slow their spread. Applicable design features would be

applied in all locations where treatments are implemented. The proposed project also

includes an adaptive implementation and monitoring framework that provides input from

the public, agencies, and Forest Service specialists before implementation, as well as a

monitoring component which will help guide treatment design and implementation

relative to invasive plant species as the project proceeds over the projected 15-year term.”



The modified final EIS did disclose effects of invasive species. Page 292 states:

“Because this project has not yet defined specific treatment units and weed species and

infestation acreages vary among the accounting units, we cannot effectively predict and

compare the magnitude of likely changes in invasive species infestations among the

accounting units. We can only predict invasive plant establishment is likely to be greatest

in the areas with the highest disturbance to soils and native plant communities.”

Furthermore, to prevent the spread of invasive species, timber sale contract provision, B6.35

Equipment Cleaning, contains contract requirements to prevent the spread of invasive species

from one timber sale to another and from one treatment unit to another within a single timber

sale. The Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation of Plant Species addressed how

equipment washing may reduce the spread of invasive species.

“Design criteria and BMPs for washing equipment prior to working on site and using

certified weed-free materials may reduce but not necessarily eliminate the introduction of

new populations’ (p. 41).

Conclusion

The project record indicates that the Responsible Official has adequately considered the potential

effects of invasive species caused by the modified proposed action. The Adaptive

Implementation and Monitoring Framework contained in the modified final EIS, Appendix A

provides for ongoing implementation and feedback on Best Management Practices, closure,

mitigation measure effectiveness.

Issue 6

Objectors assert the analysis fails to provide a justification for 600 miles of temporary road,

clarification on estimated miles of temporary roads needed annually. Furthermore, objectors

contend that regardless of the 75-mile temporary road limitation, there are still concerns of

ineffective closures, reclamation, and monitoring.

Response

The number of road miles needed to implement the proposed project is addressed in Response to

Comments (p. 121) and further analyzed in the white paper titled “2019Oct10_LaVA Temporary

Additional Analysis.docx.” An analysis of historical temporary road data conservatively

estimated one mile of temporary road would be needed per 334 acres of treatment which resulted

in an estimate of 1,077 miles of needed roads. The analysis went on to state “Though the analysis

identified a conservative temporary road estimate based on total project area and associated

boundaries, it did not recognize that during project implementation treatments may be located in

areas where LRMP direction, roadless and/or management area direction does not allow the

construction of temporary roads or the type of treatment will not require the construction of

temporary roads to complete. Because the analysis did not account for the acreage where

temporary road construction is prohibited, the ID Team decided that 600 miles of temporary road

construction is a more realistic number.”

Regarding the 75-mile temporary road limitation, the analysis went on to determine the number

of miles needed on an annual basis. “On an annual basis it is estimated that 53 miles of



temporary roads will be built based on the acreage by treatment type in the modified proposed

action… This was based on recommendations by district fuels and wildlife specialists.

Temporary roads for fuels treatments are rarely needed as most fuel treatments fall within the

boundaries of timber harvest and use the temporary roads from the harvest. If fuel treatments fall

outside of timber harvest hand cutting, hand piling, or mastication are the most common

mechanisms of treatment. Watershed and wildlife habitat restoration also use hand cutting, hand

piling, and mastication most commonly and very rarely require the use of temporary roads.”

However, the initial estimate of 53 miles per year was further refined to account for the fact that

additional temporary road mileage may be needed as more remote treatments are accessed later

in the project’s life and to account for areas where temporary road construction is prohibited. The

final analysis concluded that 75 miles of road is estimated on an annual basis.

Conclusion

The number of temporary road miles needed to implement the LaVA project was analyzed using

historical data and estimated to be 600 total miles. In response to concerns raised, a cap of 75

miles of temporary roads being open at one time is also in place. The Transportation Report

outlined the details of how temporary roads are agreed upon and factors considered when

choosing road locations. By adhering to the implementation process outlined in the modified

final EIS, Appendix A – Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring Framework, resource

specialists will be able to analyze the location, closure and potential effects of each route.

I find that the Responsible Official adequately considered the construction, use and quantity of

temporary roads for the life of this project and on an annual basis as well as site-specific details

pertaining to road location, the length of time temporary roads are open, impacts, and

reclamation, closure, and associated monitoring of temporary roads.

Given the information provided above, I have determined that the Responsible Official

adequately clarified the estimated miles of temporary roads that may be needed by year over the

life of the project and appropriately disclosed that information in the modified final EIS.

Travel Management Rule

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the Forest Service should have included identifying a minimum road

system and unneeded roads in its purpose and need statement and analyzed an alternative that

implemented a minimum road system in the project area.

Response

The recommendation to include the identification of a minimum road system was received

during the 45-day public comment for the draft EIS (see 801.0103: Include Minimum Road

System in Purpose and Need, comment 1 and 801.0307: Existing Transportation System,

comment 1). This recommendation was subsequently addressed in the Response to Comments

document (MFEIS, Appendix B) on pages 8 and 16, and on page 43 of the reissued draft ROD.

As descried on page 99 of the modified final EIS, in response to public comment, the responsible

official modified the proposed action to eliminate all miles of new system road construction and

reduced the temporary road miles from 1,000 to 600 miles. Under the modified proposed action,



LaVA only analyzed the effects of utilizing temporary roads in order to meet the purpose and

need. Temporary roads are different from existing system roads in that they do not need to

conform to the 2005 Travel Management Rule. Because they are temporary, they are not

considered part of the road system and the minimum road system criteria in 36 CFR section

212.5(b) does not apply. Thus, a Forest-wide travel analysis report is not required and was not

prepared. (reissued draft ROD, p. 43).

Furthermore, the purpose and need for the LaVA project is to respond to changed forest

vegetation conditions caused by the bark beetle epidemics on the Medicine Bow National Forest

(MFEIS, p. 31). The recommendation to identify an alternative that implements the minimum

road system appears to be outside the scope of the project.

Conclusion

I find that the Responsible Official has adequately addressed this issue in the reissued draft ROD,

and I concur with the determination that an analysis of the minimum road system is not required

under the 2005 Travel Management Rule.

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR)

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the proposed Wildland-Urban Interface vegetation treatments in

inventoried roadless areas are not supported by information presented in the modified final EIS;

specifically, the maps provided do not show structures and therefore can’t be used to determine

where actual Wildland-Urban Interface exists. Without this information, use of exceptions for

timber harvest in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule are not substantiated.

Response

The modified final EIS contains updated maps for each of the 25 inventoried roadless areas that

show general locations of structures, in addition to the power lines, ditches, etc. that were shown

in the original maps. These maps show locations where vegetation management is proposed in

the absence of nearby structures identified on the maps.

The term Wildland-Urban Interface originated in “A Report to the Council of Western State

Foresters” in September of 2000. This report identified interface communities as “places where

structures directly abut wildland fuels” (66 FR 751, pp. 751-777). Current Forest Service

definitions of Wildland-Urban Interface differ from the original and include areas where

structures may not directly occur (MFEIS, pp. 422, 399), but key infrastructure could still be

damaged by wildfire due to proximity. Integral to this definition are the Community Wildfire

Protection Plans for Carbon County (2016) and Albany County (2013), as they identify “at risk

communities” that serve as the basis for establishing the Wildland-Urban Interface in many

areas. These documents are referenced in the modified final EIS.

Specific to this tree-cutting in the Wildland-Urban Interface, harvest in inventoried roadless areas

is allowed through exception 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)(ii). This exception allows for limited timber

harvest “to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such

as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would

be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period” (RACR



2001). Objectors contend that the exception is being used as a broad-brush tool to allow harvest

in inventoried roadless areas without careful consideration of where harvest is necessary to

protect structures and developments. Use of this exception does not require the presence of

structures or other facilities or developments.

Conclusion

I find that the updated maps offer sufficient information for the public to provide meaningful

comments on the proposed activities associated with inventoried roadless areas. The Community

Wildfire Protection Plans for Carbon and Albany Counties identify at risk communities, thereby

supporting Wildland-Urban Interface delineations and the use of exception 36 CFR

294.13(b)(1)(ii) to allow timber harvest in potential treatment areas complies with the 2001

Roadless Area Conservation Rule.


Issue 2

Objectors assert that the modified proposed action does not meet the exceptions of the

Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

• The LaVA modified final EIS fails to ensure that the “cutting, sale, or removal of timber”

will be “infrequent” as the Roadless Rule requires.

• The modified final EIS also discloses that much of the area where logging in roadless

areas will be authorized could involve logging of large trees. The agency cannot ensure

that will comply with the Roadless Rule’s admonition that logging involve generally small

diameter timber.

• The Forest Service fails to demonstrate that logging in 65,000 acres of inventoried

roadless areas will “maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and

structure.”

Response

The project uses exceptions under 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)(i) and (ii) for timber harvest on

approximately 75,000 acres and 36 CFR 294.13(b)(2) for harvest on approximately 1300 acres

(MFEIS, p. 360). The Roadless Area Conservation Rule has specific language that applies to all

timber harvest exceptions: “The cutting, sale or removal of timber in these areas is expected to

be infrequent”. The agency has not officially defined “infrequent” in this context; however, it

implies very rare; the exception –occurring at wide intervals in space and time. The modified

final EIS addresses this issue (p. 353) by stating that exceptions are only needed for up to 80,000

acres, which is 35% of the total inventoried roadless area acres. Further refinement of these acres

in the modified final EIS (p. 353) shows that less than 25,000 acres would likely be

commercially removed, and approximately 18,000 of these acres would be in the Wildland-

Urban Interface. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule exception applies to all timber “cut,

sold, or removed.”

The modified final EIS, Appendix A (p. 70) describes the two-step process that will be followed

to assure that activities proposed in inventoried roadless areas meet 2001 Roadless Area

Conservation Rule requirements. The process involves evaluating the effects of the activity on



the nine roadless characteristics through the Roadless Area Characteristics Worksheet –if any

activities are anticipated to negatively impact one or more characteristic, the inventoried roadless

area portion of the treatment proposal will be eliminated or achieved by other means that do not

result in adverse impacts to roadless characteristics. In step two of the process, the Deputy

Regional Forester will make a “determination” on the applicability of any exceptions to

individual treatments based on information provided in the Region 2 Roadless Area Review

Form. These steps are designed to ensure that no negative impacts to roadless characteristics

occur and are implemented through Decision Trigger 12 (p. 55).

Additional requirements in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule apply to the use of

exceptions 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)(i) and 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)(ii). These exceptions require that

timber cut through use of the exceptions is “generally small diameter”, and that one or more

roadless characteristics as defined in 36 CFR 294.11 will be maintained or improved as a result

of implementing the exception. There are no additional requirements for the use of exception 36

CFR 294.13(b)(2).

The modified final EIS defines small diameter on page 353 as trees less than 7-inches diameter

breast height (DBH). The document states that most of the need to cut larger diameter trees

would occur through fuels treatment in Wildland-Urban Interface and concludes that a maximum

of 25,000 acres of commercial harvest would occur in these areas. Average size classes of trees

killed by insect and disease are presented in Table 129 (MFEIS, p. 223).

The modified final EIS, Appendix A (p. 55) ensures that one or more roadless characteristic will

be maintained or improved as a result of implementing the timber harvest exceptions through the

“yellow-light” and “red-light” triggers that require elimination of the activity in inventoried

roadless area or identifying other means of achieving the objective if treatments are anticipated

to negatively impact one or more characteristic.

Conclusion

I have determined that the modified final EIS adequately addresses the frequency of use of

exceptions for timber harvest. The requirements for exceptions are addressed in the modified

final EIS and the two-step evaluation and determination process described in Appendix A. I find

the Responsible Official is in compliance with the requirements outlines in the 2001 Roadless

Area Conservation Rule.


Issue 3

Objectors assert that the modified final EIS inadequately analyzes tree removal effects on

Roadless characteristics.

Response

NEPA requires that environmental effects of proposed activities be analyzed and considered in

the public involvement and decision-making process. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation

Rule relies on analyses conducted through NEPA to allow authorized decision makers to

carefully consider effects in protecting roadless characteristics. Pages 112-171 in the 2020

modified final EIS describe baseline resource conditions in the 14 accounting units, including



inventoried roadless areas. On pages 365-375, the modified final EIS describes the existing

condition and expected effects of potential activities for the no-action and modified proposed

action by each of the nine roadless characteristics individually. The modified final EIS describes

general effects to roadless characteristics that may occur, given the overall objectives of the

project, and clarifies that most effects are likely to be less since limitations on roadless

treatments may occur through the Regional review and approval process outlined in the modified

final EIS, Appendix A. Trigger point 12 (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 55) requires an analysis of

effects on each of the nine roadless characteristics for proposed activities in inventoried roadless

areas prior to treatment design and layout. Any activity, including tree removal, that is

anticipated to negatively impact one or more roadless characteristic will be eliminated from the

inventoried roadless area portion of treatment proposal or other means of achieving resource

objectives that do not result in adverse impacts to roadless characteristics will be identified. This

adaptive management review and approval process is intended to ensure that negative effects are

not only analyzed, but also avoided project areas located in inventoried roadless areas.

Conclusion

The modified final EIS analyzes the effects of tree removal and other potential activities in

inventoried roadless areas within the broad context of treatments that could be implemented. The

modified final EIS, Appendix A, requires further analysis of effects to roadless characteristics for

specific proposals and ensures no negative effects to roadless characteristics will occur. I find the

analysis of tree removal effects on roadless characteristics is adequate.


Issue 4

Objectors assert that the modified final EIS inadequately analyzes the impacts of proposed

Roadless treatments on Threatened and Endangered species habitat.

Response

The project proposes vegetation treatments on up to 10,164 acres using exception

294.13(b)(1)(i). This exception allows for the infrequent cutting of generally small diameter

timber to improve threatened, endangered, sensitive or proposed species habitat (2001 RACR).

The objectors contend these treatments do nothing to improve habitat for Colorado River

cutthroat trout and boreal toads, and that the analysis in the modified final EIS shows timber

removal will damage this habitat. Therefore, objectors contend that use of the exception does not

comply with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

Table 193 (MFEIS, pp. 354-360) shows potential treatment identified by WDFG in Colorado

River cutthroat trout and boreal toad habitat over 10,164 acres in six inventoried roadless areas

using exception 294.13(b)(1)(i). The modified final EIS describes effects to Threatened,

Endangered, and Sensitive species and those dependent on large areas of undisturbed land on

pages 368-370. The Aquatics Report analyzes the effects of proposed activities on Colorado

River cutthroat trout and boreal toads. The Biological Evaluation contained in the Aquatic Report

concludes that activities “May Impact Individuals…. but is Not Likely to Result in Loss of

Viability… nor Cause a Trend Toward Federal Listing” for both species.




Conclusion

The modified final EIS analyzes the effects of the modified proposed action on Colorado River

cutthroat trout, boreal toads, and all other TEPS species. The Biological Evaluation in the

Aquatics Report provides further information and conclusion of effects for the two species for

which exception 294,13(b)(1)(i) is used.

Issue 5

Objectors assert that the U.S. Forest Service Regional Roadless review process fails to disclose

information to the public, which prevents meaningful and informed public review.

Response

The use of exceptions under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is contingent upon the

appropriate level of review. In March 2012, USDA Secretarial Memo 1042-157 delegated

authority for the use of exceptions to the Chief of the Forest Service. In June 2012 and October

2018 subsequent delegations moved approval levels to Regional Foresters. The Regional

Roadless review process allows the Regional Forester to ensure thorough reviews and

appropriate levels of approval for activities in inventoried roadless areas. These implementing

procedures are designed to apply consistent application of exceptions allowed under the 2001

Roadless Area Conservation Rule, rather than offering another public review process.

Public participation components to allow for input as individual treatment proposals are

developed are included in the modified final EIS, Appendix A on pages 8, 18, 75, and 136. These

opportunities apply across the LaVA assessment area, including within inventoried roadless

areas, and are intended to be in effect over the life of the project.

Conclusion

There is no legal requirement nor intent to provide for public review during the Regional

Roadless review process. Appendix A of the modified final EIS includes several opportunities for

public involvement through development of individual treatments. I find that the project

adequately allows for meaningful and informed public review through this avenue.


Recreation

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the project does not limit how much {timber} can be cut even in

recreational areas. The proposal fails to analyze impacts to areas designated as recreational.

Response

Environmental impacts from the proposed treatments to recreation resources were assessed and

documented in Table 2 (p. 11) of the modified final EIS. To conserve and protect recreation

resources while enhancing recreation opportunities, project design features were developed in

modified final EIS, Appendix A – Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring Framework (page



57). Indicators were also developed to measure potential impacts to recreation resources and

activities from LaVA project implementation (MFEIS, p. 57).

Individual vegetative treatments will be authorized in pre-defined treatment opportunity areas.

Treatment opportunity areas were established by considering places where vegetation treatments

will conform to applicable laws, regulations, policies, LRMP direction, and the project purpose

and need (reissued draft ROD, p. 18). Figure 2 on page 19 of the reissued draft ROD depicts the

locations of all the treatment opportunities areas, including the recreation emphasis areas.

Additionally, for location reference, the treatment opportunity areas correspond to management

area direction and boundaries outlined in the LRMP. For instance, Table 7 on page 22 of the

reissued draft ROD displays each management area (i.e. Management Area 8.21 Develop

Recreation) that falls within the recreation emphasis treatment opportunity area, and it outlines

the acres to be treated and the acres that cannot to be treated in each management area. This table

also clarifies that a total of 70,668 acres within the recreation emphasis areas can be treated,

while 61,564 acres cannot be treated.

Conclusion

Based on a review of the project record, I find that the Responsible Official properly analyzed

the impacts of the purpose action on recreation emphasis treatment opportunity areas. This

analysis has allowed the Responsible Official to determine that 61,564 acres will not be treated

within recreation emphasis areas. I have further determined that vegetation treatments within the

recreation emphasis areas will comply with applicable laws, regulations, policies, LRMP

direction, and the project purpose and need.

Issue 2

Objectors assert that the concept of multiple use has and will likely be challenged by a project of

this magnitude in that: a) large areas of the forest will be unavailable/restricted to the public

during various phases project, b) considerable new changes will occur both in terms of access

as well as the distribution of users across the Forest, and c) use of the forest may be forever

altered due to the project length (15 years) and size (360,000 acres)and proposed activities

(logging, temporary road building, etc.).

Response

The purpose of the project is to respond to changed forest vegetation conditions caused by the

bark beetle epidemics on the Medicine Bow National Forest. The 2003 Medicine Bow National

Forest Revised LRMP guides natural resource management activities and provides an overall

strategy for managing the Forest. The intent of the direction in the LRMP is to manage National

Forest System lands for multiple uses. (Recreation Report, p. 29). The modified proposed action

has been designed with and include recommended best management practices, and design

criteria which if effectively implemented, would be consistent with the recreation resource

LRMP standards, guidelines, and goals.

Environmental impacts from the modified proposed action were assessed and documented in

Table 2 (pp. 9-12) of the modified final EIS. Chapter 1 of the modified final EIS identifies and

describes the changes and updates made in terms of analysis modifications, to the modified final

EIS. On page 36 of the reissued draft ROD, the Responsible Official acknowledges that the



modified proposed action will generate significant short-term effects but is the environmentally

preferred alternative when considering an intermediate-term and long-term perspective.

Furthermore, the Responsible Official discloses that the proposed vegetation treatments over the

next 15 years could change the natural appearance of some areas and disperse recreationists,

amongst other impacts (MFEIS, p. 371). The LaVA project would likely negatively affect the

recreation experience for some forest visitors in localized treatment areas. Displacement from a

certain location would be the main negative effect to the public along with disturbance, but the

effects would be short-term, and no significant negative impacts are anticipated to recreation

resources. (Recreation Report, p. 4). Developed recreation would likely not see any significant

difference with the modified proposed action alternative, as most hazard trees in developed areas

have been removed and are addressed annually. (Recreation Report, p. 29).

Conclusion

Based on a review of the project record, I find that the Responsible Official properly analyzed

impacts of the modified proposed action on recreation and other Forest uses. On page 34 of the

reissued draft ROD, the Responsible Official acknowledges that the proposal will not please all

interests, but will most reasonably balance the need for aggressive response to the impacts of the

bark beetle epidemic, while being consistent with the Forest Service’s mission and mandates

under law, regulation, and policies for managing the Medicine Bow National Forest.

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST)

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the modified final EIS fails to adequately analyze impacts to the

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST). In particular, objector contend that the

modified final EIS lacks site-specific information required to evaluate the effects of the modified

proposed action on the CDNST and to ensure consistency with the nature and purposes of the

trail.

Response

The National Trail System Act as codified at 16 USC 1241-1249, Forest Service Manual (FSM)

2353.4 (various chapters and paragraphs), and the 2009 CDNST Comprehensive Plan provide

direction for the management of the CDNST. The 2003 Medicine Bow LRMP provides

management direction specific to the portions of the CDNST within the forest boundaries.

Approximately 47 miles of the trail is located in the project area.

The nature and purposes of the CDNST are “to provide for high-quality scenic, primitive hiking

and horseback riding opportunities and to conserve natural, historic, and cultural resources along

the CDNST corridor” (CDNST Comprehensive Plan 2009).

The National Trails System Act at 16 U.S.C. § 1246(a)(2) indicates that management in the

vicinity of the CDNST while it traverses management areas that are subject to development or

management is acceptable, but should be designed to harmonize with the CDNST as possible:

“Development and management of each segment of the National Trails System shall be designed

to harmonize with and complement any established multiple-use plans for that specific area in

order to insure continued maximum benefits from the land.”



In a number of documents for establishment of the trail, it is noted that the trail overlaps with

highly managed areas and that the trail was not to be a reason to curtail active management of

various resources. 16 USC 11246 (c) explains that, “Other uses along the trail, which will not

substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, may be permitted by the

Secretary charged with the administration of the trail.” The wording above recognizes multiple

uses and seeks to moderate impacts on the trail from resource management to the extent feasible

while meeting resource management objectives. In this project, removal of dead and down trees

is a key objective for safety from falling trees and potential wildfire.

Neither the modified final EIS nor reissued draft ROD document how the conclusion of no

substantial interference was determined. However, impacts to the trail corridor and trail users are

discussed. Those impacts are considered minimal and exist for short periods of time. The

following in the project record describe impacts to the CDNST and the processes for making

project decisions where concerns for the CDNST or other scenic and recreation would be

addressed:

The reissued draft ROD states that any vegetation management that occurs near the CDNST is

compliant with the National Trails System Act, see page 43:

The decision to implement the authorized road and vegetation treatment activities does

not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the Continental Divide

National Scenic Trail and, therefore, is compliant with the National Trails System Act, as

amended.

There will be some visual impacts to the CDNST. The impacts associated will vegetation

management will be shorter in duration that the impacts associated with downfall of trees killed

by the mountain pine beetle:

Environmental Consequences, Direct and Indirect Effects – Recreation, Modified Proposed

Action (MFEIS, p. 341)

However, some users could perceive negative visual impacts along some trails, especially

along the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail that traverses three accounting units.

Recreation project design features 7 and 8 have been developed to minimize impacts to

the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (see Appendix A, attachment 2).

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Effects – Recreation, No Action Alternative,

Current Management (MFEIS, p. 342)

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and National Forest System trails would

continue to have tangled downfall on and along trails in timbered areas with dead trees.

Annual maintenance along the trails would not keep up with the increasing number of

trees that would be on the trails over time. More trails may become unavailable for use

or may need to be closed if no treatments occur.

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Effects– Recreation, Modified Proposed Action,

Current Management (MFEIS, pp. 342-343)

If treatments along the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail or National Forest

System trails are implemented, the cumulative buildup of fallen trees along and on



portions of the trails would be reduced in treatment areas. The noticeable effects of the

treatments on visual characteristics would be the new disturbance to areas.

In many areas with heavy beetle kill, visual characteristics have declined a due to the

number of dead trees, constant tree fall, and jack-strawed areas of dead beetle-killed

trees. In treated areas, visual characteristics would improve over time, likely faster than

in untreated areas. Perceived negative visual characteristics may not be as noticeable

when a clear trail corridor is visible. Treatments would allow overhead hazards and

downed logs to be removed along and adjacent to the trails, allowing annual

maintenance other than trail clearing.

The forest will apply the following project design features and standard operating procedures to

maintain the nature and purpose of the CDNST:

(DF-REC-4) Minimize overlaying skid trails/haul roads on non-motorized system trails.

If trails are used as skid trails and haul roads, they will be returned to pre-existing

conditions. Trail widths will not be increased.

(DF-REC-5) When timber harvest activities preclude use of a nearby trail, a) notify the

public; b) consider identifying timeframes for safe travel on the trail; c) if harvest is

expected to preclude use for more than one season and a detour is feasible, provide a

detour; and d) place warning signs on all trail access points and along the trail where

treatment activities are occurring.

(DF-REC-7) To the maximum extent possible, alternate route(s) or detours will be used

during treatment implementation to allow continued use of the Continental Divide

National Scenic Trail and to mitigate scenery management impacts during vegetation

management operations. (MFEIS Appendix A. p. 56.)

(DF-REC-8) No skidding is allowed on or across the Continental Divide National Scenic

Trail without prior coordination with the local recreation staff. Any skidding that is

allowed on or across the trail will be located to limit damage to the trail and will be

rehabbed back to pretreatment condition. (MFEIS, Appendix A. p 57.)

(DF-SCN-1) In all treatment areas, follow general direction and associated standard and

guidelines in the Visual Resource Management section of the forest plan (pp. 2-52 to 2-

53).

The project implementation process, which relies on public involvement, requires analysis of the

project area (MFEIS, Appendix A, p 14) and field review of projects (MFEIS, Appendix A, p.

15). The LaVA pre-treatment standard operating procedures (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 68)

identifies steps to be taken prior to treatment. The steps to be taken for Recreation are found on

page 71, for Trails on page 72, and for Visual Resources on page 75.

The process above incorporates site specific concerns into project design and implementation for

activities affecting recreation, trails and scenery. Regarding the interference to the nature and

purposes of the CDNST from these activities, the processes outlined seek to minimize the

impacts to the CDNST or other recreation and scenic resources.

The implementation process described in Appendix A of the modified final EIS provides for site

specific consideration of projects. At that time, the design can incorporate measures to address

consideration of activities in the vicinity of the trail in order to maintain a more primitive setting

or less visual impact.



Conclusion

Based on my review of the project record, I find that the Responsible Official has properly

followed direction in the Medicine Bow LRMP, FSM2350, the CDNST Comprehensive Plan and

the National Trails System Act (as codified at 16 USC 1241-1246) in the development of the

LaVA project.

I instruct the Responsible Official to adopt the following minor revisions:

• Correct the error in DF-SCN-1. This design feature should reference “Forest Plan, Scenery

Management Section, page 1-56.”

• Include the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Vegetation Treatment – Best Practices

guide in the Trails portion of the LaVA pre-treatment standard operating procedures.

Issue 2

Objectors assert that the reissued draft ROD fails to document how the decision will affect the

CDNST.

Response

FSH 1909.15 Chapter 26.2 Record Decision requires that agencies (1) state what the decision is,

(2) identify all alternatives considered and identify factors considered in making the decision,

and (3) state whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been

adopted, and if not, why they were not adopted. A monitoring and enforcement program should

be summarized for any mitigation.

On page 36 of the reissued draft ROD, the Responsible Official acknowledges that the modified

proposed action will generate significant short-term effects but is the environmentally preferred

alternative when considering an intermediate-term and long-term perspective. He further

acknowledges that the proposed vegetation treatments over the next 15 years could change the

natural appearance of some areas and disperse recreationists, amongst other impacts (MFEIS, p.

371). The LaVA project would likely negatively affect the recreation experience for some forest

visitors in localized treatment areas. Displacement from a certain location would be the main

negative effect to the public along with disturbance, but the effects would be short-term, and no

significant negative impacts are anticipated to recreation resources. (Recreation Report, p. 4).

Developed recreation would likely not see any significant difference with the modified proposed

action alternative, as most hazard trees in developed areas have been removed and are addressed

annually. (Recreation Report, p. 29).

Conclusion

I find that the Responsible Official adequately considered and disclosed the direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects of the modified proposed action on the CDNST.



Issue 3

Objectors assert that the modified final EIS analysis of scenery resources and the Recreation

Opportunity Spectrum (ROD) classes is inadequate.

Response

The LaVA pre-treatment standard operating procedures require use of the Scenery Management

System as specified in 2380.31.1 and compliance with policy paragraph 2380.31.2 (MFEIS,

Appendix A, p. 75). The modified final EIS effects analysis indicates that by following

procedures documented in Appendix A of the modified final EIS, the effects will be managed to

the range that was anticipated in the LRMP. These procedures provide for scenic views of

distinctive landscapes to be addressed.

Regarding the objector’s concern that the CDNST is in a Roaded Modified ROS class, the

designation of this ROS class is an artifact of the ROS process. ROS classes that are less

modified than Roaded have an acreage requirement of at least 2,500 acres (ROS Users Guide,

page 28). That results in smaller areas of less modified ROS classes being subsumed into more

modified ROS classes in the direction for a LRMP. Within a more modified ROS class, smaller

areas can be managed for more impact.

The LRMP defines ranges of ROS classes for management areas and indicates that ROS is

mapped for specific locations. FSH 2353.44b.8 states: “Where possible, locate the CDNST in

primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized ROS classes, provided that the CDNST may have to

traverse intermittently through more developed ROS classes to provide for continuous travel

between the Montana-Canada and New-Mexico-Mexico borders.”

While the desire may be to locate the CDNST in primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized

ROS classes, it is recognized that the CDNST may be located in more developed classes. The

following statement from 16 U.S.C. § 1246(a)(2) indicates that management in those areas is

acceptable, but should be designed to harmonize with the CDNST as possible: “Development

and management of each segment of the National Trails System shall be designed to harmonize

with and complement any established multiple-use plans for that specific area in order to insure

continued maximum benefits from the land.”

Appendix A of the modified final EIS provides for site specific decision-making and

determination of effects for each project. The general effects that are presented in the modified

final EIS represent the best estimate of the types of effects. Implementation steps would take into

account the different ROS classes during project design. The project design would be held to

meet the LRMP ROS class requirements. In the situation where salvage or clean-up of a stand

disturbance event has occurred, the typical analysis of how the project would affect the ROS

class is not as useful as when operating in a green tree situation. The disturbance processes does

not recognize the ROS requirements for minimizing scale or intensity of in semi-primitive

settings. The land manager can work to minimize the impacts of the treatments on the ROS while

meeting other objectives of reducing fuel loading or improving access.

The Recreation Report describes likely effects to Semi-Primitive settings. The discussion

indicates minimal effects that would not be extensive. The report explains that: “None of the

negative impacts to the ROS settings would be of such intensity or extent that they would create



a change in class. Design criteria have been developed to mitigate negative impacts to recreation

resources depending on the specific treatment area” (Recreation Report, p. 22).

Conclusion

I find that the Responsible Official has provided for management of the CDNST in accordance

with the LRMP. The modified final EIS and Appendix A as written address the issues raised by

the objectors and other direction which would seek to accommodate the desired ROS settings

and scenic integrity for the CDNST from the Comprehensive Plan to the extent feasible with

existing management direction.

Issue 4

Objectors assert that the modified final EIS fails to discuss the affected environment of the

CDNST corridor.

Response

The existence of CDNST in various accounting units is identified in the modified final EIS at

page 171.

There is not a discussion that specifically addresses the environment of the CDNST corridor in

the modified final EIS. The Recreation Report mentions the CDNST affected environment

briefly on page 8 and in descriptive tables on pages 12 and 13. There is not a specific discussion

of the CDNST corridor in that document. Effects of activities on the CDNST corridor are

discussed in the modified final EIS (pp. 341 and 342).

The CDNST is part of the broader landscape that this project area addresses. The CDNST was

not identified as an issue for this project, which would be a reason for a brief description of the

CDNST corridor. There is no requirement to have a detailed discussion for each of the uniquely

designated areas in the affected environment. The responsible official has discretion on how to

describe the affected environment for the alternatives (40 CFR 1502.15). The CDNST was not

considered a significant issue for the alternatives. However, the Responsible Official addressed

the CDNST in the implementation guidance in Appendix A of the modified final EIS.

The objectors’ issue concerning status of rights-of-way (in (16 U.S.C. § 1246(a)(2)) to be

described is not clear. That section of US Code has several elements. The element about

designating a right-of-way is beyond this project’s scope.

Conclusion

I find that the Responsible Official addressed the project area’s affected environment and

location of the CDNST for the project. Designating a right-of-way for the trail is outside the

scope of this project.



Issue 5

Objectors assert that project design features fail to protect CDNST desired conditions. Objectors

also contend that project design features require a forest plan amendment.

Response

Design features do not require a LRMP amendment. Design features are developed at the project

level to address on-the-ground situations. The LRMP requires a Scenic Integrity Level of at least

moderate, so the claim that the project will be implemented and result in a level of low is

speculative and not supported by project implementation guidance and decision process.

Regarding Objective and design features on page 63 of Appendix A of the modified final EIS:

Scenic Resources Objective: To provide high-quality scenery while allowing multiple-use

management to occur.

Design Feature-1 In all treatment areas, follow general direction and associated standards and

guidelines in the “Visual Resource Management” section of the LRMP (pp. 2-52 to 2-53). (DF-

SCN-1)

The intent of DF-SCN-1 is to follow the LRMP standard for using the Scenery Management

System. The reference here is incorrect and will need to be corrected to point to page 1-56 as

shown here:

Scenery Management

Standards 1. Apply the Scenery Management System (SMS) to all National Forest System

lands. Travel routes, use areas, and water bodies determined to be of primary importance

are concern level 1 and appropriate scenic integrity objectives are established according

to the SMS.

With DF-SCN-1, project implementation will consider the CDNST and the scenic integrity

objectives developed by following DF-SCN-1 (as corrected). Application of scenic integrity

objectives in areas where the treatments are largely salvage or cleaning up of down and dead is

difficult. The vision for a natural appearing landscape in the long term is overshadowed by a

landscape that is altered by a disturbance process. The existing condition may be considered a

natural evolving process. Under the National Trails System Act, in managed areas, existing

conditions or natural evolving processes may be changed to meet multiple use objectives - 16

USC 1242 (a) (2). These objectives can include activities that temporarily deviate from scenic

integrity objectives to reach the intended scenic integrity objective over time.

The recreation design features in Appendix A of the modified final EIS (pp. 56 - 57) are intended

to address impacts to the trail experience from treatment activities. The LaVA pre-treatment

standard operating procedures provide for use of additional design features as determined though

that process. This process will address site-specific concerns at time of implementation.

The result of the current design features and the LaVA Pre-treatment standard operating

procedures would be that scenic integrity is maintained to the appropriate level considering the

area it is traversing and that the nature and purposes of the trail are maintained, other than short

term impacts. Impacts could occur at different locations on the trail for varying lengths of time.

The implementation process addresses the impacts of projects (trail closures, settings, and scenic



integrity), so that substantial interference is avoided in conformance with LRMP requirements or

due to higher standards established (with additional design features) in project implementation.

Conclusion

Based on my review of the modified final EIS, I find that the Responsible Official has properly

developed design features and provided for site-specific project design in order to consider the

CDNST and concerns about other resources. The LaVA pre-treatment standard operating

procedures to develop individual projects to meet LRMP requirements and identify where

projects can be developed to consider site specific information and concerns. To further ensure

proper consideration of the CDNST, I am instructing the Responsible Official to correct DF-

SCN-1 in the modified final EIS, Appendix A to reference the Scenery Management section of

the LRMP (pp. 1-56).

Issue 6

Objectors assert that the modified final EIS fails to disclose cumulative effects associated with

the North Savery project.

Response

The North Savery project is included in Table 199 of the modified final EIS, which identifies

reasonably foreseeable projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis (MFEIS, p. 383).

The ROD for North Savery indicates that 2.17 miles of the CDNST are located within one-half

mile of projects (ROD, North Savery, May 2019, p. 19). The EIS and ROD for North Savery

indicated there would be no substantial interference with the nature and purpose of CDNST.

The recreation analysis in the modified final EIS addresses cumulative effects to the CDNST.

The analysis finds, “If treatments along the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail or National

Forest System trails are implemented, the cumulative buildup of fallen trees along and on

portions of the trails would be reduced in treatment areas. The noticeable effects of the

treatments on visual characteristics would be the new disturbance to areas” (MFEIS, p. 342).

The objector’s contention that approval of the North Savery project was inappropriately

approved is outside the scope of this objection resolution process.

Conclusion

Based on my review of the modified final EIS, I find that the Responsible Official acknowledged

and analyzed the North Savery project and its potential effects in the cumulative effects section

in the modified final EIS for the LaVA project. The decision authority for the North Savery

project is outside the scope of the LaVA decision.



Hydrology

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the Forest Service failed to address and disclose direct, indirect, and

cumulative watershed impacts; including sedimentation impacts from temporary road

construction and use.

Response

The Hydrology Report presents a detailed evaluation of existing conditions, potential direct and

indirect impacts, and cumulative watershed effects associated with the proposed management

actions outlined in the Chapter 2 of the modified final EIS. This includes road construction,

reconstruction, use, and post-use rehabilitation activities. The “Supplemental Information on

Temporary Road Water Resources Effects” document (pp. 1-6) speaks specifically to temporary

road effects to watershed features, timing of hydrologic effects, rehabilitation techniques, and

results of past monitoring. This information is summarized in the modified final EIS (pp. 297 –

321; Tables 180-183, and 185). Furthermore, the analysis in the Hydrology Report was

completed for overall watershed conditions, as well as the12 individual indicators related to the

Watershed Condition Framework (Hydrology Report pp. 11-26, 43; MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 31;

MFEIS pp. 297-321). Potential impacts to each indicator for each alternative, along with the

rationale behind the assessed effect(s) are displayed for:

• Water quality (including impaired waters, erosion, and sedimentation);

• Water quantity (including changes in flow type, volumes, timing, and duration associated

with changes in forest canopy cover);

• Aquatic habitat (fragmentation, large woody debris, channel shape and function);

• Aquatic biota (native species, exotic or invasive species);

• Riparian and wetland characteristics;

• Hill slopes and soils (mass wasting, soil productivity, erosion, contamination);

• Fire regime (including wildfires);

• Changes in forest or rangeland vegetative characteristics;

• Invasive species; and

• Forest health associated with insects and disease.

No potential impairments were identified for any of these indicators due to the required inclusion

of project design criteria, best management practices, Region 2 Watershed Conservation

Practices, LRMP standards and guidelines as listed in the Hydrology Report on pages 20-21 and

47-51. Additionally, required project-specific resource protection measures and adaptive

monitoring are listed throughout the modified final EIS, Appendix A – Adaptive Implementation

and Monitoring Framework. These include project decision triggers, design features, standard

operating procedures, and monitoring related to watershed conditions and individual indictors.

Attachment 1: LaVA Decision-Making Triggers 1, 10, and 11 all pertain to conserving watershed

related resources. Attachment 2: LaVA Project Design Features includes required practices for

Hydrology and Wet Areas (p. 58), Soils (pp. 60-61), and Temporary Road Construction,



Landings and Skid Trails (p. 62). Attachment 4: LaVA pre-treatment standard operating

procedures includes additional resource protection measures for Soils, Hydrology, and Wet Areas

(pp. 72-73); and Transportation System/Temporary Roads/Stream Crossings (p. 75). Attachment

5: LaVA post-treatment standard operating procedures includes follow-up rehabilitation and

monitoring required for Soils, Hydrology and Wet Areas (p. 78), as well as Transportation

System/Temporary Roads/Stream Crossings (p.79).

Conclusions

I find that the Responsible Official adequately analyzed, addressed, and disclosed existing

conditions, direct and indirect effects, and cumulative effects to watershed conditions and

associated indicators in sufficient detail, and at a sufficient scale, for the public and the

Responsible Official to make reasoned comparisons between Alternatives. Similarly, I have also

determined that temporary road impacts on water quality and aquatic habitats were sufficiently

analyzed, addressed, and disclosed. The Responsible Official included appropriate project design

criteria, best management practices, Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices, LRMP

standards and guidelines, as well as project-specific practices such as project design features,

decision triggers, standard operating procedures, and monitoring to ensure maintenance or

improvement of watershed conditions and individual contributing indicators.

Issue 2

Objectors assert that in order to analyze potential changes to water quality, the modified final

EIS should have included current water quality data and monitoring information. This

information is important to guide management decisions and serve as baseline data for future

monitoring and evaluation of potential influence on downstream water quality. Additionally, the

modified final EIS should provide baseline information for current levels of road-related

sedimentation.

Response

Quantitative monitoring of water quality is performed by the Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) and reported as part of the State’s 305(b) and 303(d) program. The

Wyoming DEQ’s 2016/2018 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report was used and discussed in the

analysis of water resources and watershed conditions (Hydrology Report pp. 15-17; MFEIS, p.

299). Only five stream segments within the analysis area had impaired or threatened water

quality; all other streams in the analysis area met State assigned beneficial uses and

corresponding water quality standards. For the five stream segments identified as not meeting

their assigned beneficial uses, the DEQ identified heavy metals contamination as the cause. Both

the Hydrology Report and the modified final EIS state that “Timber harvest, fuels treatments,

and road construction generally have little direct effects on water quality related to heavy metal

contamination.”

Qualitative monitoring is routinely conducted by the Forest Service in the form of site

inspections performed throughout project implementation, as well as more formally during Best

Management Practices (BMP) implementation and effectiveness monitoring. BMP monitoring

results for implementation and effectiveness on the Medicine Bow National Forest is presented

in the Hydrology Report on pages 20-21. Additionally, BMP monitoring conducted by Wyoming



State Forestry “found projects on National Forest System lands within Wyoming have a BMP

application rate of 96 percent, and were 97 percent effective in providing adequate protection

(WSFD, 2014b).” Additionally, the “Supplemental Information on Temporary Road Water

Resources Effects” document (pp. 1-6) speaks specifically to temporary road effects to watershed

features and water quality, timing of hydrologic effects, rehabilitation techniques, and results of

past monitoring.

Conclusion


conditions, including use of all available baseline data (both internal and external sources), as

well as potential changes to overall water quality resulting from proposed project activities,

including road-related activities.

Clean Water Act (CWA)

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the Forest Service improperly relies on project design features to ensure

compliance with the CWA Specifically, objectors contend:

• The Forest Service fails to disclose if any stream segments in the project area are listed

on the 303(d) list of impaired waters for other contaminants, including turbidity. The

analysis fails to assess whether the project could exacerbate the subwatersheds already

classified as functioning at risk. And the Framework in the modified final EIS, Appendix A

does not address 303(d) impaired waters.

• The Forest Service has failed to coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to

determine the necessity of CWA Section 404 permits.

Response

Assessment of water quality for each of the 6th level watersheds as it relates to the Watershed

Condition Framework is presented in detail in the Hydrology Report on pages 11-12, 15-17,

Table 3 on pages 23-26, and effects analysis presented on pages 27-38.

The modified final EIS also includes a summary of this analysis on pages 300-301 and Figure

59. It states:

“This assessment showed most watersheds within the analysis area are functioning

properly with regards to water quality. The exceptions were Haggarty Creek, North Fork

Little Snake River, and Encampment River-Billie Creek. The Haggarty Creek and the

Roaring Fork Little Snake River impairment information has been disclosed above.”

[referencing the heavy metal contamination identified by the Wyoming 2016/2018

Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)].

“The Encampment River-Billie Creek sixth-level watershed is functioning at risk and

recovering from a breach in an irrigation ditch that created gullies and introduced

sediment into Billie Creek (USDA Forest Service 2002). While physical stream channel

and habitat features in Billie Creek are still recovering, Wyoming Department of



Environmental Quality monitoring in 2003 found a healthy benthic community (Wyoming

Department of Environmental Quality 2018).”

Table 180 shown on page 311 of the modified final EIS provides a summary comparison of water

quality for each alternative. Proposed activities are not expected to change impaired waters for

either alternative. Ground disturbing activities are noted as having the potential to increase

erosion and sedimentation.

Impaired waters listed on Wyoming’s 2016/2018 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report were

specifically considered and discussed in the Hydrology Report on page 15-17 and the modified

final EIS Water Quality section on page 299, which states:

“Water Quality According to Wyoming’s 2016/2018 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report

(Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 2018), five stream segments in the

analysis area have impaired or threatened water quality due to heavy metals: Roaring

Fork Little Snake River (1.8 miles), Haggarty Creek (5.6 miles), West Fork Battle Creek

(4.9 miles), Bear Creek (0.7 miles), and Rambler Creek (0.5 miles). Documentation of

heavy metal contamination in other streams is sparse and contamination is not believed

to be a significant problem. The five streams with elevated heavy metals are believed to

be outside the range of natural variability for water quality. Timber harvest, fuels

treatments, and road construction generally have little direct effects on water quality

related to heavy metal contamination.”

Project design criteria and best management practices to minimize potential impacts to water

quality, including impaired water bodies, are listed in the Hydrology Report (pp. 20-21, and

Appendix C, pp. 47-51). Project decision triggers, design features, standard operating

procedures, and monitoring related to water quality are included throughout the modified final

EIS, Appendix A – Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring Framework. Attachment 1: LaVA

Decision-Making Triggers on page 50 lists the very first Decision Trigger as dealing specifically

with water quality through the required maintenance or long-term improvement of stream health

and compliance with State of Wyoming designated uses for surface waters. Attachment 2: LaVA

Project Design Features includes required practices for Hydrology and Wet Areas (p. 58), Soils

(pp. 60-61), and Temporary Road Construction, Landings and Skid Trails (p. 62) all designed to

ultimately protect water quality. Attachment 4: LaVA pre-treatment standard operating

procedures includes additional resource protection measures for Soils, Hydrology, and Wet Areas

(pp. 72-73); and Transportation System/Temporary Roads/Stream Crossings (p. 75). Attachment

5: LaVA post-treatment standard operating procedures includes follow-up rehabilitation and

monitoring required for Soils, Hydrology and Wet Areas (p. 78), as well as Transportation

System/Temporary Roads/Stream Crossings (p.79).

The Forest Service National BMP Program is the agency’s nonpoint source pollution control

program for achieving and documenting protection of water quality consistent with the CWA,

State regulations, and other requirements. The National BMP Program is modeled after a

successful 20-year-old regional BMP program in the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region

(Region 5). BMP implementation and effectiveness on the Medicine Bow National Forest is

presented in the Hydrology Report on pages 20-21. Additionally, BMP monitoring conducted by

Wyoming State Forestry “found projects on National Forest System lands within Wyoming have

a BMP application rate of 96 percent, and were 97 percent effective in providing adequate

protection (WSFD, 2014b).”



Compliance with Executive Order 11990 - Wetlands Management and Executive Order 11998 –

Floodplain Management was addressed in the Hydrology Report (pp. 6-7), as well as the

modified final EIS, Appendix B – Response to Comments (p. 82). Both state the Forest Service

would coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,

and mitigate for impacts to wetland habitats in order to comply with Executive Order 11990. The

Forest Service would coordinate with Federal Emergency Management Agency and local

floodplain managers as needed to reduce the risk of flood loss, restore and preserve the natural

and beneficial values in floodplains, and minimize the impacts of floods on human safety, health,

and welfare in compliance with Executive Order 11998.

Avoidance and minimization measures such as project design criteria, best management

practices, Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices, and project pre- and post-treatment

standard operating procedures would be used during project planning and implementation such

that the need for any wetland or floodplain permitting would be limited to only where absolutely

unavoidable. It was estimated only 0.8 mile of temporary road construction could potentially be

constructed through wetlands, and 12 miles potentially located within the Water Influence Zone,

over the next 15 years under the LaVA project (Hydrology Report pp. 34, 37). Any permitting

needs and coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or floodplain managers will

be considered and addressed during individual project implementation in accordance with

modified final EIS, Appendix A: Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring Framework,

specifically during the project field validation and project review phases.

Conclusion


conditions and changes to water quality, including impaired waters listed on the Wyoming

Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report; potential impacts to regulatory floodplains and wetland

habitats; and appropriate project design criteria, best management practices, standard operating

procedures, monitoring, and decision triggers were included to ensure maintenance or

improvement of water quality in accordance with State assigned beneficial uses; wetland habits;

and floodplain processes. I concur with the Responsible Official and conclude that the LaVA

project complies with the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990 - Wetlands Management

and Executive Order 11998 – Floodplain Management.

Soils

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the Soils Resource Report improperly cites its associated references.

Response



methodologies used, and make explicit reference to the scientific and other sources relied upon

for conclusions in environmental impact statements.

Two and half pages of reference literature is listed in the “References” section of the Soils

Resource Report (pp. 33-35) and are also posted to the project folder in electronic file format.



Most of the in-text citations correspond to those listed in the Reference section. However, as the

Objector points out, several in-text citations do not have a corresponding reference listed or vice

versa, a reference is listed but was not cited in the main body of the report. Specifically, the in-

text citation of Overland 2017 pertaining to the soil modeling, is missing from the reference list.

Conclusion

I find that although most references are properly cited within the Soils Resource Report, a key

reference pertaining to the soil model used in the effect analysis, is omitted. I am instructing the

Responsible Official to correct the in-text literature citations and update the Reference list to

ensure that all the applicable scientific literature, law, regulation, policy, and opposing science is

accurately portrayed throughout the Soils Resource Report, and corresponding section of the

modified final EIS.

Issue 2

Objectors assert that the Forest Service does not have the adequate staffing to perform

additional site-specific soils analyses and monitor the temporary road construction as

referenced in the Soils Resource Report. Objectors contend that that site-specific analyses

outlined in Appendix A of modified final EIS could be side-stepped due to lack of personnel.

Response

The reissued draft ROD requires the use of the Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring

Framework (reissued draft ROD, pp. 9, 24-27). The Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring

Framework outlines the process for site-specific project planning by interdisciplinary teams.

Various soil, watershed, and engineering professionals are located across the Forest to participate

in this process to guide management actions and road location and design to minimize impacts to

soils and watershed conditions. Pre- and post-treatment standard operating procedures for soil

resources and temporary roads are outlined in Appendix A of the modified final EIS on pages 72-

73 and 78-79, respectively. Required monitoring and reporting is also included in the Adaptive

Management framework (MFEIS, Appendix A, pp. 80-81).

Soils will be monitored for detrimental soil disturbance using the Forest Service National Soil

Disturbance protocols in the first, third, and fifth years following treatment by soil scientists,

hydrologist, or both (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 80). Construction of temporary roads will be

monitored to ensure these roads are decommissioned, temporary drainage structures removed,

effective rehabilitation, and prevention of unauthorized motorized use through site inspections

conducted during implementation by Sale Administrators; and in the first and third years

following rehabilitation by soil scientists, hydrologists, and botanists (MFEIS, Appendix A, p.

80, Monitoring Item 8b – Transportation System, Temporary Roads System).

Conclusion

I find that the Responsible Official has adequately included the appropriate interdisciplinary

team to conduct site-specific project planning and monitoring. They included appropriate project

design criteria and pre- and post-treatment standard operating procedures to minimize the effects

of project implementation on soil resources.



Issue 3

Objectors assert that there are errors and need for clarification for multiple tables, abbreviations,

acronyms, and assumptions used in the soil analysis and modeling.

Response

Specific questions and comments from the Objector regarding information presented in the

various tables associated with the model input parameters are listed below:

• Table 1 – In the fourth column from the end, the abbreviation P/N is unidentified.

▪ The abbreviation P/N appears to be a shortened form of the project “Purpose and Need”

(p. 5) However the abbreviation is not defined within the Soils Resource Report.

• Tables 2 - 7 - What were the model inputs, associated units (where appropriate), and

parameter definitions?

▪ Tables 2 - 7 have corresponding descriptions that present brief definitions and parameter

values for each of these seven primary model inputs on pages 8 - 12 of the Soils Resource

Report. Additionally, more detailed discussion, definitions, and interpretations of each

parameter set is contained in Overland (2017) within the project file. Also, the seven

primary inputs are listed for the Inherent Wetness Model (IWM) on page 5 and 6 of the

Soils Resource Report.

• Table 10 – In the middle of the page, this table shows 3,373 miles of road. How does this

“square” with the 600 miles of new road for this project?

▪ The miles of roads depicted in Table 10 in the “Road Segment Analysis of Existing

Transportation Network” section depict the existing road system contained in the GIS-

based INFRA database (Soils Resource Report, pp. 12-13). These include Maintenance

Levels 1 through 5, as well as non-Forest System roads. This report section and

corresponding data displayed in Table 10 are part of the overall discussion of existing

resource conditions and therefore does not include discussion of the potential need for up

to 600 miles of temporary roads that is associated with the Action Alternatives. A general

discussion of potential resource effects associated with construction of up to 600 new

miles of temporary roads is presented on pages 22 and 29-30, and Table 15 of the Soils

Resource Report.

• Page 13 - In first paragraph under Equivalent Clearcut Area –How is “management

activities” defined? It seems activities requiring some level of management would be much

more diverse than those mentioned here. HUC is not defined. An 80-year recovery time for

all activities is general and highly variable. What is the definition of recovery?

▪ The discussion presented on page 13-14 of the Soil Resource Report referencing the

Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) Model and 6th level HUC watersheds is a summary

taken from more detailed discussion, analysis, and modeling found throughout the

Hydrology Report. The ECA “model takes all land management activities (timber

harvesting, road building, and ski areas) and fire history into account” (p. 13). The

Hydrology Report states that “ECA is used to assess cumulative effects of vegetation

treatments and roads” on peak streamflows (p. 19) and that “all Forest Service activities

(harvest, site preparation, fire history, transportation, recreation, etc.) are evaluated” as



part of the ECA model based on the percentage of basal area removed by each activity

(Hydrology Report, Appendix B, pp. 44). The acronym “HUC” stands for “Hydrologic

Unit Code” (Hydrology Report, page 13). Appendix B of the Hydrology report (p. 44)

states “the time scale for recovery from a clearcut to 100 percent forested area is 80

years.” Recovery time varies based on the forest tree species present for a given region.

Conclusion

I find that the Soils Resource Report adequately presented brief summaries of the models used as

management indicators, and appropriately referred to more detailed discussions of each model

and associated parameters contained within references posted to the project file, or to supporting

information in the Hydrology Report.

Issue 4

Objectors assert that the Forest Service failed to provide an assessment of landslide risks in the

project area and how the modified proposed action would affect such risk.

Response

The Soils Resource Report and the modified final EIS include evaluations of mass wasting (i.e.

landslide risk). Mass wasting is defined as “slope movement or mass movement where soil

and/or rock move downslope typically in a mass, largely under the force of gravity, but

frequently affected by water and water content in the soil” (Soils Resource Report, p. 27). Mass

wasting was used a measure to address soil erosion and assess overall soil productivity and

stability (Soils Resource Report, Table 1, p. 5). Mass wasting was identified as a potential

environmental impact associated with temporary roads and mechanical, ground-based treatments

(Soils Resource Report, pp. 22, 24). Approximately 112,300 acres within the project area,

occurring across all 14 accounting units, were identified as having severe mass wasting potential

for both Alternative 1 and 2 (Soils Resource Report, Tables 12 and 13, p. 26; MFEIS Table 186,

p. 322). Mass wasting is also discussed in the watershed conditions comparison between

alternatives shown in Table 182 on page 313 of the modified final EIS. For both alternatives, no

effect to watershed condition is anticipated to result from mass wasting because proposed temp

road construction would avoid unstable slopes (MFEIS, p. 313).

The project file contains two maps entitled “High Mass Wasting and Severe Erosion Areas” for

both the Sierra Madre Range and the Snowy Range, that depict hill slopes identified as having

severe mass wasting potential across the project area. Associated GIS data used to create these

maps is also included in the project file for future use during site-specific project planning.

project best management practices, mitigation measures, and design criteria addressing potential

impacts to landslide risk and soil functions overall are discussed in the Soils Resource Report on

pages 18-19 and modified final EIS, Appendix A – Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring

Framework on pages 60-61 and 62-63. These incorporate practices from the Forest Service

National Core BMPs, Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices, LRMP standards and

guidelines, and project-specific design features developed by the interdisciplinary team.

Additional resource standard operating procedures are outlined in the modified final EIS,

Appendix A – Adaptive Implementation and Monitoring Framework on pages 72-73 and 78-79.

Minimizing impacts to soil resources through the incorporation of these various measures is



discussed in the analysis of alternatives on page 20-32 of the Soils Resource Report and pages

323-326 of the modified final EIS.

Conclusion


conditions and changes to mass wasting (i.e. landslide) potential; and included appropriate

project design criteria to minimize the effects of project implementation on triggering mass

wasting. An adaptive management and monitoring plan for mitigating site-specific impacts is

outlined in Appendix A of the modified final EIS and is required by the reissued draft ROD prior

to on-the-ground project implementation.

Issue 5

Objectors assert that the Soils Resource Report is incomplete in general, difficult to interpret,

and lacking in specific information.

Response

The soils analysis identified potential resource concerns associated with proposed project

activities and presents various soils resource indicators and measures used to analyze the

potential for resource effects associated with each alternative on pages 4-5 and Table 1. The

wetness indicator model was used in addition to, not as a substation for, information pertaining to

inherent soil properties associated with severe erosion hazard, severe mass wasting (i.e. landslide

potential), shallow soils, and organic matter (p. 5, Table 1). Existing resource conditions are

discussed on pages 7-16. Potential resource effects associated with the alternatives is presented

on pages 20-31 and includes consideration of both mechanized and non-mechanized vegetative

treatments, temporary roads, and prescribed burning.

Conclusion


conditions, direct and indirect effects, and cumulative effects to soil conditions and associated

indicators in sufficient detail, and at a sufficient scale, for the public and the Responsible Official

to make a reasoned comparison of between Alternatives their respective potential effects on soil

resources.

Issue 6

Objectors assert that the soils analysis is built more in modeling than ground truth. Much of this

is due to absence of soil information for the MBNF. Surveys have not been done for the Forest.

This is contrary to policy established in FS Manual 2500, Ch 2550.

Response

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2550 states that qualitative or quantitative methods may be used to

assess, analyze, and monitor soil quality and effects of management activities on soils (FSM

2551.4). Examples of established protocols for both qualitative and quantitative methods are

listed in FSM 2550.6.



The Soils Resource Report states on page 5 that a field review for the soil resources was not

available so the following data sources were used to evaluate the soil resources within the project

area:

• Medicine Bow National Forest corporate Geographic Information System (GIS) data.

• Medicine Bow National Forest corporate soil data.

• Inherent Wetness Model (IWM).

Although county-wide soil survey data is not currently available from the NRCS for Albany and

Carbon Counties in Wyoming, soil survey information is available for Forest Service lands

within those counties (correspondence from Dave Gloss, MBNF Hydrologist, May 20, 2020;

soils GIS data filed in the project file).

Conclusion

I find that FSM 2550 does not require on-the-ground soil surveys prior to project analysis and

allows for both qualitative and quantitative methods and data sources to be used to assess

existing conditions and potential effects resulting from land management activities.

Cultural and Heritage Resources

Issue 1

Objectors assert that the 2009 programmatic agreement with the state of Wyoming is not

appropriate for this project proposal, and that the Forest Service is using the 2009 programmatic

agreement to forgo identification and evaluation of cultural resources.

Response

Per the 2009 programmatic agreement between the Forest Service, Wyoming State Forestry

Division, the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, as amended, and 36 CFR Part 800 part 4.b.2., the agency may use a phased process

to conduct identification and evaluation efforts for cultural resources when analyzing large land

areas where discrete vegetation management activities are not specifically defined. The

agreement further specifies that as Forest Service personnel develop specific vegetation

management activities, the activity will be subject to a complete cultural survey and consultation

on the eligibility and effects of the activity on identified cultural resources.

Through the scoping process of this project, consultation with the tribes and any other interested

parties was conducted to identify up front any significant traditional properties, religious

properties, historical properties, or a combination of these properties that may need protecting

once specific vegetation management activities are identified. (MFEIS Appendix B, pp. 79-80).

All surveyed and inventoried cultural resources considered eligible or unevaluated for the

National Register of Historic Places have either been excluded from the area of potential effect

or will be buffered and avoided during resource management activities. (MFEIS, p. 389).

In response to public comment, project design features were developed to protect cultural sites

that need protection; fulfill National Historic Preservation Act requirements; and avoid,

minimize, or mitigate unexpected adverse impacts to heritage resources during implementation



of the LaVA project (MFEIS, Appendix A, p. 64). Notably, design features 1 and 3 state that

National Historic Preservation Act compliance will be completed for each treatment area prior to

treatment implementation, and site-specific implementation measures to protect or enhance

heritage resources will be determined at the time of treatment implementation.

Conclusion

I have determined that the 2009 programmatic agreement is the appropriate tool to ensure

compliance with National Historic Preservation Act and it provides the necessary protection of

cultural resources in the project area.

References Cited

Alexander, R.R., and Edminster, C.B. 1980. Lodgepole Pine Management in the Central Rocky

Mountains. Journal of Forestry 196. April.

Barnett (2016) Beyond Fuel Treatment Effectiveness: Characterizing Interactions between Fire

and Treatments in the US

Bradley, C.M., C.T. Hanson, and D.A. DellaSala. 2016. Does increased forest protection

correspond to higher fire severity in frequent fire forests of the Western United States?

Ecosphere 7(10):e01492. 10.1002/ecs2.1492.

Brodribb, T.J., et al. (2020), Hanging by a thread? Forests and drought, Science 368 (6488): 261-

266, DOI:10.1126/science.aat763

Domke, G.M. et al. (2020) Greenhouse gas emissions and removals from forest land, woodlands,

and urban trees in the United States, 1990-2018, Resource Update FS-227, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, https://doi.org/10.2737/FS-RU-

227.

Gillette, N.E., D.L. Wood, S.J. Hines, J.B. Runyon, J.F. Negron. 2014. The Once and Future

Forest: Consequences of Mountain Pine Beetle Treatment Decisions. For. Sci. 60(3): 527-538.

Gray, E., (2019) Satellite Data Record Shows Climate Change’s Impact on Fires

Hart, S.J. and D.L. Preston (2020) Fire weather drives daily area burned and observations of fire

behavior in mountain pine beetle affected landscapes

Hart, S.J., T. Schoennagel, T.T. Veblen, and T.B. Chapman. 2015. Area burned in the western

United States is unaffected by recent Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreaks. Proceed. Natl. Acad.

Sci. 112(14):4375-4380.

Interagency Federal Wildland Fire Policy Review Working Group. 2001. Review and Update of

the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Boise, Idaho: National Interagency Fire

Center. January.

Jenkins, M.J. 2008. Bark beetles, fuels, fires and implications for forest management in the

Intermountain West. For. Ecol and Mgt. 254:16-34.

Krajick, K. (2020) Climate-Driven Megadrought Is Emerging in Western U.S., Says Study

https://doi.org/10.2737/FS-RU-227

https://doi.org/10.2737/FS-RU-227



Kulakowski, D. and D. Jarvis. 2011. The influence of mountain pine beetle outbreaks and

drought on severe wildfires in northwestern Colorado and southern Wyoming: A look at the

past century. For. Ecol. And Manage. 262:1686-1696.

Lindenmayer et al. (2020) Recent Australian wildfires made worse by logging and associated

forest management.

Mosher, B.A.; Saab, V.A.; Lerch, M.D.; Ellis, M.M.; Rotella, J.J. 2019. Forest Birds Exhibit

Variable Changes In Occurrence During A Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic. Ecosphere 2019,

10, 12.

Rhoades, C.C.; Pelz, K.A., Fornwalt, P.J., Wolk, B.H., Cheng, A.S. 2018. Overlapping Bark

Beetle Outbreaks, Salvage Logging and Wildfire Restructure a Lodgepole Pine Ecosystem.

Forest 2018, 9, 101.

Rice, J.R., Joyce, L.A., Regan, C., Winters, D., and Truex, R. 2018. Climate change vulnerability

assessment of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain

Region. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-376. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 216 pp.

Romme, W. H., Clement, J., Hicke, J., Kulakowski, D., MacDonald, L. H., Schoennagel, T. L.,

and Veblen, T. T. 2007. Recent forest insect outbreaks and fire risk in Colorado forests: A brief

synthesis of relevant research.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237285146_Recent_Forest_Insect_Outbreaks_and_

Fire_Risk_in_Colorado_Forests_A_Brief_Synthesis_of_Relevant_Research

Schoennagel et al. 2017. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Adapt to wildfire in

western North American forests as climate changes

Six, D.L., E. Biber, and E. Long. 2014. Management for mountain pine beetle outbreak

suppression: Does relevant science support current policy? Forests 5:103-133.

Six, D.L., Vergobbit, C., and Cutter, M. 2018. Are survivors different? Genetic-Based selection

of trees by mountain pine beetle during a climate change-driven outbreak in a high-elevation

pine forest, Frontiers in Plant Science 9:993, doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00993 (Attachment 1 to

WildEarth Guardians’ draft EIS comments).

Stevens-Rumann, C.S., K.B. Kemp, P.E. Higuera, B.J. Harvey, M.T. Rother, D.C. Donato, P.

Morgan, and T.T. Veblen. 2018. Evidence for declining forest resilience to wildfires under

climate change. Ecology Letters 21 (2): 243-252.

Stone, W.E. 1995. The Impact of a Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic on Wildlife Habitat and

Communities in Post-Epidemic Stands of a Lodgepole Pine Forest in Northern Utah. PhD.

Dissertation, Utah State University. Logan, Ut. 253 pp.

Sullivan, B.K. (2020) Climate Adaptation: Warmest Oceans on Record Adds to Hurricanes,

Wildfire Risks.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Revised Medicine Bow

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Laramie, WY.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237285146_Recent_Forest_Insect_Outbreaks_and_Fire_Risk_in_Colorado_Forests_A_Brief_Synthesis_of_Relevant_Research

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237285146_Recent_Forest_Insect_Outbreaks_and_Fire_Risk_in_Colorado_Forests_A_Brief_Synthesis_of_Relevant_Research



USDA Forest Service, 2008. Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction or Amendment

(SRLA). Record of Decision for Final Environmental Impact Statement: October 2008.

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Lakewood, Colorado

Wyoming State Forestry Division (WSFD). 2014a. Wyoming forestry best management

practices, forestry BMPs water quality protection guidelines. Wyoming State Forestry

Division. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Available at

http://deq.wyoming.gov/media/attachments/Water%20Quality/Nonpoint%20Source/Best%20

Management%20Practices/2014_wqd-wpp-Nonpoint-Source_Wyoming-Forestry-Best-

Management-Practices.pdf

http://deq.wyoming.gov/media/attachments/Water%20Quality/Nonpoint%20Source/Best%20Management%20Practices/2014_wqd-wpp-Nonpoint-Source_Wyoming-Forestry-Best-Management-Practices.pdf



Medicine Bow Landscape Vegetation Analysis Project (LaVA)...Medicine Bow Landscape Vegetation...

Documents

Transcript of Medicine Bow Landscape Vegetation Analysis Project (LaVA)...Medicine Bow Landscape Vegetation...