Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-20 Correspondence - USDA - Cottonwood Environmental Law Center USDAUnited States Forest Custer Gallatin National Forest 10 East Babcock Avenue Department of Service P.O. Box 130 - Agriculture Bozeman,NIT 59715 File Code: 1950; 1570 Date: June 17, 2020 Cottonwood Environmental Law Center Attn: John Meyer PO Box 412 Bozeman, MT 59771 Cottonwoodlaw.org Dear John: Thank you for your inquiry dated June 9, 2020. Respectfully, I have considered whether preparation of supplemental National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)analysis for the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project is required and I have determined that supplemental NEPA is not warranted. Most of the information you presented was already considered in the original Final Environmental Impact Statement(EIS), Supplemental EIS and Record of Decision. The Custer Gallatin National Forest also completed a review of new information and changed conditions in April, 2019 prior to petitioning the court to lift the injunction that had been in place since 2013. I have attached those three supplemental information reports for the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project. Your letter asserts that the EIS improperly overstated the project's reduction in sediment. The email from Mark Story,project hydrologist, is dated in 2009 well before the supplemental EIS and Record of Decision(2011). The Bozeman Municipal Watershed project is designed to strategically modem vegetative fuel conditions using thinning and prescribed fire to lower the risk of severe, extensive wildfires in the Bozeman Municipal Watershed, thereby reducing the risk of excess sediment and ash reaching the municipal water treatment plant (ROD p. S). The 2009 email, and the entire hydrology analysis, informed my decision by confirming that the project could result in a"reduction" in sediment yields from a moderate to large size fire. Cottonwood Environmental Law Center(CELC)has no standing to challenge this project in court. The appeal filed by CELC was dismissed because CELC did not submit comments on the project.Because the decision was issued in 2011, the six-year statute of limitations to challenge the EIS and ROD have expired. Next,your letter asserts that the EIS did not consider the impacts of the upgraded water treatment plant. This is not accurate. The EIS, supporting analysis and decision discuss the planned enhancements and acknowledge that while the planned upgrade will help,the fuel reduction treatments will result in additional benefits. "The perspectives of the City of Bozeman also heavily influenced my decision to select Alternative 6. City officials strongly support the use of fuel treatments designed to reduce �!►s �, Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper Cottonwood Environmental Law Center 2 the potential negative effects of wildfire in the municipal watershed due to the location of the water intakes and the limited ability of the water treatment plant to handle ash and sediment in an effective way. This decision complements the plans the City is developing for fuel reduction treatments on city properties in the Bozeman Creek drainage (City of ' Bozeman Forest Management Plan, Peck 2009), and communication with the City Public Works Department(Heaston 2010). (ROD p. 19)" The heart of my decision is the balance between the acres of treatment and effectiveness in each alternative, weighed against potential short term impacts especially to water quality. I feel that my decision best achieves that balance. At this time, the City of Bozeman is progressing with plans to upgrade the water treatment plant to a membrane filtration system. Although the changes may mitigate some of the most dire concerns about sediment that the plant can handle, it will not resolve all concerns with ash and sediment entering the water treatment system. In the long term, the cleaner the source water, the better for water quality treatment. (ROD p. 21) Lastly, even with treatment plant improvements, excessive ash and sediment frrom wildfire would reduce the ability to treat water effectively and efficiently. Even with improvements to the water treatment facility, the cleanest long-term source o f water is preferred. (ROD p. 43) The City of Bozeman agrees that fuel reduction is necessary in addition to the water treatment plant improvements: "...The City has done what it can to prepare for catastrophic wildfire by improving the SWTP[Sourdough Water Treatment Plant], but addressing.fuel reduction is essential." Amicus brief(Doc 16)filed by the City of Bozeman, AWR v. Krueger,No. 14-35069 (9th Cir.) I recently spoke with a City of Bozeman engineer to verify the City's position as it relates to the benefits of fuel treatments in the municipal watershed, in light of the email you provided. The City strongly supports fuel reduction both on National Forest System lands, as well as on City lands,with the express purpose of reducing the potential negative effects of wildfire in the municipal watershed due to the location and configuration of the water intakes. The upgraded treatment plant is better able to handle sediment, but the effects of forest fires are still a concern, as indicated in the email from the Water Treatment Plant Manager that you provided "...The initial runoff is the worst but the degradation lasts for several years. " And"...the bigger issue we face from runoff from a forest fire would be sediment plugging our intakes... ". Last,new information was considered as it relates to climate change in the attached supplemental information reports. We evaluated current climate science and determined that while there is an Cottonwood Environmental Law Center 3 V evolving body of science related to climate change, the more recent articles including Schoenagel 2017 Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forest as climate chance do not provide information that is fundamentally different than what was considered for this project. In fact, Schoenagel identifies "...that fuel reduction treatments also hold promise for locally reducing wildfire hazard around WUI communities if treatments are strategically located to protect homes and the surrounding vegetation. " (Schoennagel, et. al. a.t 4587). This article does not change the environmental effects disclosed for the project. The BMW project is localized in nature and is not intended to reverse "regional"trends in wildfire, which is the focus of the discussion presented by Schoenagel. Thank you for bringing additional information forward. In your letter, you asked that I consider whether supplemental NEPA analysis is required. I have determined that it is not warranted. If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact myself or Corey Lewellen, District Ranger at the Bozeman Ranger District. Sincerely, MARY Dgl"19 as by MMY MR KSD ERICKSONDaa @096.1]19d8]3 Ob09' MARY C. ERICKSON Forest Supervisor Enclosures: BMW_SupplementalInfoReportGenera12Ol9O4l5 BMW_SupplementallnfoReportLynx 20190415 BMW SupplemntalInfoReportWolverine20190415 Cc: Chris Mehl, Mayor Corey Lewellen, District Ranger Cody Hutchinson, Regional Litigation Coordinator Forest Service Custer Gallatin National Forest 10 East Babcock Avenue US P.O. Box 130 a Bozeman,MT 59715 File Code: 2600 Date: April 15, 2019 Route To: Subject: Supplemental Information Report Determination related to Wolverine - Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project To: Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project File Background When the BMW Project decision was signed in 2011 the North American wolverine was an R1 Sensitive Species. The wolverine was proposed for ESA listing in 2013. The project biologist for the BMW project subsequently completed a memo acknowledging this change, and providing the appropriate determination given the expected project impacts—Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the wolverine. In 2014, a Programmatic Biological Assessment for the North American Wolverine in Region 1 (USDA 2014) was completed; the US Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the determination made in the BA in May 2014 (USDI 2014). The purpose of this programmatic BA was to describe and analyze projects routinely conducted on NFS lands within the Northern Region that are not likely to jeopardize the wolverine. The proposal to list the wolverine under Endangered Species Act (ESA)was withdrawn in 2014 and later reinstated in 2016. Consultation for the 2014 Programmatic was validated in 2016 (USDA 2016, USDI 2016). Consultation was reinitiated for Canada lynx for this Project in 2018 (USDA 2018). Stand-alone documentation of the BMW Project consistency with the 2014 Programmatic has been added to the project record. A summary of this documentation, including a discussion of potential impacts and a species determination was included in the Revised Biological Assessment on pages 42-44. This information was included in the BA because there is currently a challenge in District Court on whether species proposed for listing must be in the BA if consultation is completed for other species under ESA. The Agencies agree that the wolverine consultation is complete due to the programmatic consultation in 2014. We believe that inclusion of this information in project BA's is redundant unless the activity is likely to jeopardize the species or is not in compliance with the programmatic screening criteria. The BMW project complies with the programmatic screening criteria(Scarlett 2019). However,to avoid this potential conflict while the Court decides on the proper process, the project BA includes a wolverine determination. Summary of new information comparison to the NEPA Analysis The project area contains little (less than 1%) high quality wolverine reproductive denning habitat, as it lacks areas of higher elevation, deep snow loading sites (FEIS p. 390). The project area does not contain large proportions of high-quality habitat for either martens or wolverines. Therefore, overall project effects are expected to be less than for similar projects in high quality habitat. (FEIS p. 3-400). The project may impact individuals or habitat, but would not lead to a USDA y aAmerica's Working Forests—Caring Every Day in Every Way Primed on Recycled Paper �«' Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project File 2 trend toward federal listing (ROD p. 34, 36). The findings in the supplemental analysis from 2013 and the programmatic compliance summary are consistent with the level of effects considered previously. In short, "as the proposed activities in the BMW Decision are is not considered a primary or secondary threat to the wolverine, these land management activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the wolverine". (Scarlett 2019). The effects analysis in a Supplemental analysis from 2013 (Dixon 2013), the Revised BA (USDA 2018), Programmatic Compliance Summary (Scarlett 2019) and Wolverine NEPA Review(Scarlett 2019a) are within the scope and range of effects considered in the original analysis because project level impacts would affect a similar amount of primary habitat (approximately l acre) and would have the same or similar impacts to individuals. New science was reviewed and found to be consistent with previous findings. The revisit to wolverine makes the "determination"required, in recognition of the species status under the Endangered Species Act, but the potential effects did not change. As required in the NEPA Handbook (FSH 1909.15), Section 18.1, I carefully considered this new information to determine its importance. I considered the analysis, conclusions and supporting information. A correction, supplement or revision is not needed because the revised analysis and conclusions indicate that the potential impacts from the project are within the scope and range of effect previously disclosed in the original analysis (Scarlett 2019a), the project is consistent with the ESA and my decision is unchanged. C MAbSupisor KSON Fore Supporting Information Dixon, 2013. Wolverine Supplement. Dixon, Bev. USDA Forest Service, Gallatin national Forest, Bozeman Ranger District. Bozeman, MT. Scarlett 2019. Summary Sheet to show Compliance with Wolverine Programmatic Screens. Randy Scarlett. Custer Gallatin National Forest, West Yellowstone, MT. Scarlett 2019a. Supplemental Information Report for North American Wolverine. Randy Scarlett, Custer Gallatin National Forest, West Yellowstone, MT. USDA, 2014. Programmatic Biological Assessment for the North American Wolverine in Region 1. USDA Forest Service,Norther n Region. Missoula MT. USDA 2016. Marten Letter to FWS Requesting Validation of Programmatic Consultation. Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project File 3 USDA 2018. Revised Biological Assessment for the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Fuel Reduction Project. November 8, 2018. Randall Scarlett, Wildlife Biologist. Custer Gallatin National Forest,Hebgen Lake Ranger District, West Yellowstone, MT USDI, 2013. Wolverine Proposed Listing Rule. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States. Federal Register, February 3, 2013. Volume 78,No. 21 USDI, 2014. USFWS Letter of Concurrence for wolverine. Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena Field Office, Helena, MT. USDI, 2016. Bush Letter to FS Validating Programmatic Consultation. USDI, FWS, Biological Opinion regarding the effects of the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project, 12/17/2018. Jodi Bush. Helena MT. Forest Service Custer Gallatin National Forest 10 East Babcock Avenue US P.O. Box 130 a Bozeman, MT 59715 File Code: 2600 Date: April 15, 2019 Route To: Subject: Supplemental Information Report Determination related to Canada Lynx and Lynx habitat Consultation - Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project To: Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project File Background In 2012, a challenge was filed in Montana District Court against the Bozeman Municipal Watershed project. The Forest Service Decision for the project was upheld on all counts except that the decision relied on a flawed Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment relative to the effects of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) on critical habitat designation. The defendants are ENJOINED from implemenling the East Boulder Fuels Reduction Project and Bozeman Municipal Watershed Fztels Reduction Project on the Gallatin National Forest, pending completion of reiniliated consultation[to determine the effect the Lynx Amendment would have on critical habitat]and any fin•ther procedures that might be required under the National Environmental Policy Act in light of the findings from that consultation. ..... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court GRANTS the defendants'motion for summa y judgment(doc. 32) on all remaining claims and issues. (Order Case 9:12-cv-00055-DLC) The case was challenged in the Federal Appeals Court and the District Court Decision was upheld. As directed by the Court in his Order June 25, 2013, the Agencies consulted on the effect the NRLMD Amendment would have on critical habitat, which was a programmatic consultation. The consultation process was completed in October 18, 2017. A determination of"may affect, is likely to adversely affect"was made by the Forest Service (USDA 2017). The US Fish and Wildlife Service' biological opinion stated that the effects of the NRLMD are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated Canada lynx critical habitat. (USFWS 2017a) Programmatic consultation then informed project level consultation for the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project. Consultation was reinitiated for the project. A Revised Biological Assessment (BA) was submitted to the Service on November 8, 2018, with a determination of may affect, likely to adversely affect" for both lynx and lynx critical habitat (USDA, 2018). The Service's biological opinion is that the BMW project is"not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of lynx" and "is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modif cation" of designated Canada lynx critical habitat (USFWS 2018). This Supplemental Information Determination document demonstrates my consideration of the "new information" and compliance with NEPA procedures in light of"new information". USDA y America's Working Forests—Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed an Recycled Paper �r Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project File 2 Summary of New Information and Consideration Comparison of the Estimate of Affects to Lynx Habitat under the Revised Biological Assessment (1112018) and the Estimates discloser)during the NEPA process. Revised BA Final Environmental* Existing condition-73474 acres in the LAU Roughly 66%of the LAU (67,910 acres) provide lynx habitat(71%) provides lynx habitat in the form of moist, cool coniferous forest types, plus small inclusions of important non-forest types such as sage fields and willow/riparian habitat. (FEIS p. 3-172) The Revised BA shows an increase over numbers in FEIS due to new mapping methodology and field data(revised BA p. 11, 14-15). However,the project effects are proportionally similar to the estimates in the FEIS. Acres of lynx habitat affected—Up to 1080 Acres of lynx habitat affected- range of 1,115 to acres(Revised BA, p. 19) 3,489 acres (FEIS p. 3-182 -189) Alternative 6, 372 less than Alt 2,and 1213 less than Alt 3 (from the FEIS) Slightly fewer acres would be affected than estimated in the alternatives in the FEIS, but estimates are within the scope of effects and is a positive change. 3.7%of Multistory would be affected FEIS Alt 2 would affect 3.4% of assumed multistory (Revised BA p. 19) (FEIS p. 182),Alt 6 would affect 4.2% of assumed multistoried(FEIS. P. 189), and Alt 3 would affect 5.9%of assumed Multi (assuming 33,101 acres multistoried, as this is what remains after other structures are accounted for in the total of 67,910 acres of lynx habitat in LAU)(FEIS p. 186). The estimated percentage of habitat affected is similar 3.4%to 4.2%assumed multistory) . 3-182-189 The FEIS disclosed that 3.4%to 5.9%could be affected (FEIS p. 186-190). Under the current mapping methodology and acres 3.7%(Revised BA p. 19) is the estimate,which is within the range disclosed and less than alternative 6 (4.2%). A'total of 34,835 acres(47.4% of lynx habitat After treatment 46-47% denning habitat would remain in the LAU)would provide denning after (FEIS p. 3-182 to 190). treatment(Revised BA, p. 22). Although slightly more denning habitat would be affected(+226 acres)under new analysis, the proportion of the lynx habitat in the LAU providing denning habitat(47.4%)would be similar to the FEIS 46-47%)after treatment. Activities assumed to create early stand 11%of lynx habitat in the early stand initiation stage initiation habitat("unsuitable habitat" in the under the FEIS analysis which was likely due to new FEIS) would occur on approximately 1845 methodology and data used in the analysis, growth of acres; while more acres may be regenerated young stands into an Other structure over the last using new analysis than what was expected decade,etc. under Alt 6 in the FEIS, overall,the amount of ESI stands post-treatment would be less under the new analysis—3.8%of lynx habitat in the LAU in ESI Revised BA p. 18 Fewer acres of early stand initiation are estimated to result from the project which is a positive change overall. Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project File 3 Revised BA Final Environmental* Would meet NRLMD standards including The FEIS includes the BMW estimate for the WUI Veg S 1, S2, S5,and S6 and others. The ITS exemption because at the time, BMW was one of the for lynx was amended in 2017, so the running first, if not the first project under this direction. The tally of acres treated under the WUI FEiS concludes that the project is well within the 6% exemption to NRLMD standards has changed, limit(3-176, 177, 191). as well as the limit for the Forest. The current Forest estimate is still well below the The largest combined impact to lynx foraging habitat limit(now lower at 41,262 acres), because would occur in Alternative 5 with 2,334,which is cumulatively the total is 1,818 (BMW, East approximately Y of I%of the maximum Forest-wide Boulder, and North Hebgen included), which allowance of 50,000 acres. is 4%of the allowed limit. (Revised BA p. 27-3 0 The estimated impact in the revised BA is fewer acres than disclosed in the FEIS as the"largest combined impact"but a higher percentage due to the revised incidental take. In either case,the Forest is well below the exemption ceiling and the BMW project impacts a very limited amount of the WUI acres allowable for treatment. When comparing the new information of the projected impacts under the Revised Biological Assessment(USDA 2018)and the NEPA document(USDA 2010),the estimates are within the scope and range of effects estimated in 2010 as disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS) because the effects are essentially the same or slightly less. *In the FEIS,Alternative 2 impacted the least lynx habitat, Alternative 3 the most and Alternative 6 was the preferred alternative (FEIS 3-190), which is why the range of effects from those alternatives is summarized. Current lynx science was considered in the Revised Biological Assessment(2018) and associated documentation provided to the Service. The findings of this new scientific literature would not result in any change to the conclusions or determinations made in the previous Canada lynx effects analysis. (Scarlett 2019). The project meets the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and is consistent with the Forest Plan direction related to Canada lynx and lynx critical habitat which is the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) which is consistent with the conclusion in the NEPA analysis (FEIS 2010) and the BMW Record of Decision (2011). The Forest Service determination of"may affect, likely to adversely affect"for both lynx and lynx critical habitat is the same as previously disclosed in the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project Record of Decision (USDA 2011), The USFWS biological opinions for lynx and lynx critical habitat made the same determinations (USFWS 2009, USFWS 2018). No additional terms or conditions were provided at the project level under the 2018 biological opinion for the project. I reviewed potential cumulative effects associated with some new or reasonably foreseeable actions including the Limestone West Timber Harvest proposal, the Millie Fire and roadside hazard tree removal along with some small road safety and watershed improvement projects. These activities either have no combined effect or negligible effect that would not change the analysis or conclusions in the BMW FEIS(2010), ROD (2011) or the supporting wildlife analysis. Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project File 4 As required in the NEPA Handbook(FSH 1909.15), Section 18.1, I carefully considered this new information to determine its importance. The conclusions and analysis from the recent consultation process are within the scope of anticipated effects disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement p. 171-192 and Appendix D (FEIS 3/2010) and Record of Decision p. 34, 57 (11/2011). New information related to science and potential cumulative effects are also within the scope of anticipated effects (Scarlett 2019). A correction, supplement or revision is not needed because the revised analysis and conclusions indicate that the potential impacts from the project are within the scope and range of effects previously disclosed in the original analysis and my decision is unchanged. L�J C . MARY . 9R KSON Forest Supervisor References Order Case 9:12-cv-00055-DLC. 06/25/2013. Federal District Court of Montana. Missoula, MT. Scarlett, Randy. 2019. Lynx and Lynx Critical Habitat Supplemental Information Report (SIR) Memo. West Yellowstone, MT. Custer Gallatin National Forest. USDA, 2008. Biological Assessment for the Terrestrial Wildlife Species, Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project. 7/8/2008. USDA, Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest. Dixon, Bev. Bozeman,MT. USDA,2009. Supplement to Biological Assessment, Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project. 9/4/2009. Dixon, Bev. USDA, Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest. Bozeman, MT. USDA, 2010. Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement. March 2010. USDA Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest. Bozeman, MT. USDA,2011. Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project, Record of Decision. November, 2011. USDA Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. USDA, 2017. Biological Assessment for the effects of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction on Lynx Critical Habitat with Supplemental Information. 7/2017. Supplemented 9/2017. USDA Forest Service,Northern Region. Gary Hanvey and Laura Conway, Wildlife Biologists. Missoula, MT. Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project File 5 USDA 2018. Forest Service, Revised Biological Assessment for the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Fuel Reduction Project. November 8, 2018. USDA Forest Service, Custer Gallatin National Forest. Randy Scarlett, Wildlife Biologist. Bozeman, MT. USFWS 2008. Letter of Concurrence and biological opinion to District Ranger for the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project. 8/8/2008. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Wilson, Mark. Helena Field Office, Helena, MT. USFWS 2009, Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Fuel Reduction Project on Designated Critical Habitat for Canada Lynx. 11/4/2009. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Wilson, Mark. Helena Field Office, Helena, MT. Helena, MT. USFWS, 2017. Amended Incidental Take Statement to Implement the NRLMD. 3/27/2017. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Jodi Bush. Helena Field Office, Helena, MT. USFWS, 2017a. Biological Opinion regarding the effects of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction on designated Canada Lynx Critical habitat. 10/18/2017. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Jodi Bush. Helena Field Office, Helena, MT. USFWS, 2018. Biological Opinion regarding the effects of the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project, 12/17/2018. Jodi Bush. Helena Field Office, Helena MT. i r*rr Forest Service Custer Gallatin National Forest 10 East Babcock Avenue U; S P.O. Box 130 a Bozeman, MT 59715 2600 Date: Aril 15 File Code: p , 2019 Route To: Subject: Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project Supplemental Information Report- Determination To: Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project File Background The Bozeman Municipal Watershed (BMW) Project was analyzed and a Record of Decision published in November 2011. A legal challenge ensued and the project has been enjoined since .tune of 2013. Given the time span, I considered new information and changed conditions consistent with the NEPA handbook (FSH 1909.15, Section 18.1). • The interdisciplinary team considered whether the ongoing mortality and growth cycle appreciably altered the conditions in the project area. Based on that discussion I determined that those changes are limited and did not warrant revised analysis. • The Forest published an Amendment to the Gallatin Forest Plan (1987) in November of 2015(Gallalin Forest Plan Amendment to Correct, Remove or Replace Outdated Management Direction (Gallatin Forest Plan Clean-zip Amendment). Specialists evaluated the project to ensure consistency with that Clean Up Amendment. • A few new activities have occurred or are proposed near the project. Those projects were evaluated for potential cumulative effects by the Interdisciplinary Team. • The species status of Whitebark Pine and the North American Wolverine changed since 2011. The Wildlife Biologist made determinations appropriate to the Wolverine Status, which is documented in the 2019 Wolverine SIR Determination. White Bark Pine status is discussed below. • Determinations related to Canada Lynx and designated critical habitat are in a separate document to more succinctly address a remand from the District Court of Montana. (2019 Lynx SIR) Forest Plan Clean Up Amendment 11/2015 The BMW Decision (2011) is consistent with the Clean Up Amendment. The changes in the Amendment were not substantive. See the Wildlife SIR Memo (2019) for a discussion of the amendment related to elk hiding cover as it modified the scale of analysis (Scarlett 2019a). The vegetation structure and old growth rnerno discloses old growth analysis at the amended scale (Nosal 2018). A table was compiled to show consistency with the amendments (2019 Forest Plan Amendment Consistency). The project decision is consistent with the previous standards, as well as the amended language. Updates to terminology do not substantively change the decision or analysis so the terminology was not updated specifically but it is likely, the correct terms were used in the original analysis. The Decision is consistent with the Gallatin Forest Plan as Amended (2015). New analysis in response to the Amendment is within the scope and range of effects considered in the original analysis because the conclusions simply address a slightly different measure but do not result in any changed effects to various resources. USDA Zy America's Working Forests—Caring Every Day in Every Way Primed on Recycled Paper Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project File 2 Cumulative Effects Specialists reviewed potential cumulative effects associated with some new or reasonably foreseeable actions including the Limestone West Timber Harvest proposal, the Millie Fire and roadside hazard tree removal along with some small road safety and watershed improvement projects. These activities either have no effect or negligible combined effect that would not change the analysis outcomes or conclusions in the BMW FEIS (2010), Supplemental EIS (2011), Record of Decision (2011) or supporting specialist reports. Specialists documented their review in Supplemental Information Report (SIR) Memos. The Memos and supporting documents that I based my determination on are listed in the References Section of this Report. Whitebark Pine Status Beneficial and negative effects will both be limited in scope given that there is likely a very limited amount, if any, vvhitebark pine tii)ithin treatment areas. The proposed action may impact individual whitebark piste plants but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability, These limited effects are within the scope and range of effects analyzed in the previous analysis and makes a "determination"of effects relative to a candidate species as required(Botany SIR_Reid2018). Science New science was reviewed related to Fuels, Elk, Grizzly Bear and Climate. See those SIR Memos for discussion. No science reviewed posed conflicting information related to the analysis (FEIS 2010, SFEIS 201 1) or my decision (ROD 2011). In general,the information was similar to science considered in the original analysis and decision. Determination As directed in the NEPA Handbook(FSH 1909.15), Section 18.1, I carefully considered this new information to determine its importance. The Forest Plan consistency findings related to the Clean Up Amendment demonstrate consistency with the Plan and therefore NFMA. The effects related to Whitebark Pine have not changed. There were no cumulative effects outside the scope of what was considered previously. The species status conclusions and other analysis are within the scope of anticipated effects disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Supplemental EIS, supporting analysis and the Record of Decision (11/2011). A correction, supplement or revision is not needed because the project is consistent with current direction and the new information does not change the decision or conclusions. G C MAR C, ERI KSON Forest Supervisor Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project File 3 References 2018 Aquatic Species SIR. Roberts, Bruce, Fisheries Biologist. Custer Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. 2018 Botany SIR. Reid, Kim. Custer Gallatin National Forest, Billings, MT. 2018 Recreation SIR. Urie, Wendi, Recreation Specialist. Custer Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. 2018 Roadless SIR. Urie, Wendi, Recreation Specialist. Custer Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. 2018 Soils SIR. Keck, Toni. Soils Scientist. Custer Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. 2018 Vegetation SIR. Nosal, Johanna, Silviculturist. Custer Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. 2019 Climate SIR. Seth, Teri, Biological Scientist. Custer Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. 2019 Forest Plan Amendment Consistency Table. Compiled by Teri Seth. March 20, 2019. Custer Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. 2019 IDT Summary New Information. Seth, Teri, Biological Scientist. Custer Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. 2019 Invasive Weeds SIR. Seth, Teri, Biological Scientist. Custer Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. 2019 Scenery SIR. Ruchman, Jane, Landscape Architect. Custer Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. 2019 Water Ouality SIR. White, Dale, Hydrologist. Custer Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. 2019 Wildlife SIR Memo. Scarlett, Randy, Wildlife Biologist. Custer Gallatin National Forest, West Yellowstone, MT. 2019 Wolverine SIR Memo. Scarlett, Randy, Wildlife Biologist. Custer Gallatin National Forest, West Yellowstone, MT. 2019 Wolverine SIR Determination. Erickson, Allary, Forest Supervisor. Custer Gallatin National Forest, West Yellowstone, MT.