2008-06-09_REVISION - C1980007 (3)

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 managed to maintain viable populations of existing nativE; and desired non-native vertebrate species within the planning area. The 1982 planning regulations provided guidance for implementation of NFMA and directed forests to select Management Indicator Species (MIS) as a method to 1) establish explicit Forest Plan objectives for wildlife and fish habitat, 2) analyze the degree to which the Forest Plan. alternatives meet those objectives, and 3) monitor the effects of Forest Plan implementation (36CFR 219.19). In May 2005 the GMUG Forest Supervisor issued. an ainendinent that, in part, revised the list of Management Indictor Species (MIS). This list revision was completed under the authority and guidance provided in 36 CFR 219.19 (1982 Rule). Also as part of this amendment, trae GMUG used authority provided in 36 CFR 219.14(f) in the 2005 Planning Rule (2005 Rule) to make monitoring of MIS populations discretionary. However, on March 30, 201)7 the Forest Service was enjoined by the 9th Circuit District Court from implementation of the 2005 Rule. That ruling invalidated the authority provided by 36 CRF 219.14(f). Revising the GMUG list of MIS was completed under authorities provided in the 1982 Rule and, therefore, remains valid and in effect. However, since the 2005 Rule has been enjoined and, therefore, authority granted in 36 CFR 219.14(f) invalidated, the GMUG has reinstated MIS requirements per the 1982 planning regulations to~ monitor both habitat and populations. Regardless of the planning rule in effect, the GMUG has considered and will continue to consider the "best available science" in forest and project level planning, including data and analysis needs for MIS. The scope of analysis for MIS is determined by forest plan management direction, specifically, its standards and guidelines (Chapter II) and monitoring direction (Chapter IV). The GMUG Forest Plan establishes monitoring and evaluation requirements that employ both habitat capability relationships and, at the appropriate scale, population data. The analysis completed for this project examined how the project directly, indirectly, and cumulatively affects selected MIS habitat and populations and how these local. effects could influence Forest-wide habitat and population trends. Further, the analysis indicates that the project contributes to meeting Forest Plan direction. as it relates to MIS. In March 2005, an EA/DN was prepared to amend the GMUG Forest Plan to address MIS and monitoring (USDA FS 2005a). The amendment revises the MIS list in the Forest Plan to the following species: elk, Abert's squirrel, Brewer's sparrow, northern goshawk, Merriam's wild turkey, pine (American) marten, red-naped sapsucker and common trout (Table 3-10). The amendment also revises language in Forest Direction and Standards arzd Guidelines for Management Areas in the Forest Plan, and the Monitoring Plan. The revised language eliminated the project or forest-level requirement to monitor population numbers or trends. Of the MIS, five have been identified to occur or have habitat in the project area, including: elk, Merriam's wild turkey, red-naped sapsucker, American marten and northern goshawk. Abert's squirrel and Brewer's sparrow or their habitat do not occur within or adjacent to the analysis area; therefore, these species would not be affected. Stream habitats in the project area do not support Colorado River cutthroat trout, rainbow, or brown trout (common trout) due to their inherent high sediment loads and intermittent stream flows (Figure 5). There are 74 acres of spruce fir habitat suitable to support pine marten (American marten) in the project area; however, the habitat is isolated and marginal (Figure 9). Because spruce-fir habitat makes up a very small percentage of the project area (1.2 percent) and would receive minimal surface disturbance, the proposed • • 92 Deer Creek Ventilation Shaft and E Seam Methane Drainage Wells FEIS