DECISION NOTICE - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Mark Twain

National Forest

Region 9

September 2011

DECISION NOTICE

And

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)

KAINTUCK WEST PROJECT

Houston/Rolla/Cedar Creek Ranger District Phelps County, Missouri

Project Number 33280

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of

race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status,

religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's

income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-w, Whitten Building,

1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice or TDD).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

II. DECISION ................................................................................................................................ 1

III. REASONS FOR THE DECISION ....................................................................................... 4

IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................................... 6

V. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ............................................................................................. 6

VI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ...................................................................... 7

VII. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS ........................... 9

VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES ............................. 11

IX. IMPLEMENTATION DATE .............................................................................................. 10

X. CONTACT PERSON AND RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL ................................................. 10

XI. SIGNATURE AND DATE................................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX A: Forestwide Standards and Guidelines and Mitigation Measures

APPENDIX B: Compartment/Stand Treatment Activity Table

APPENDIX C: MAP SET (Project Vicinity Map, Alternative 2 Maps)

(Page intentionally left blank)

DECISION NOTICE KAINTUCK WEST PROJECT

Page 1

I. INTRODUCTION

The Houston/Rolla/Cedar Creek Ranger District’s primary objective of the Kaintuck West

project is to utilize an ecosystems management approach to maintain and restore the structure

and composition of the natural communities that fit with historic landscape patterns in the area.

This ecosystem management approach includes vegetation management methods such as timber

harvest and prescribed burning to mimic historic disturbance regimes. The effects of these

disturbance regimes were curtailed during the course of previous decades of forest management

(fire suppression, etc.), thus reducing the range of natural variability for these communities. The

implementation of these vegetation treatments will reproduce the effects of these natural

disturbance processes and move the natural communities in the area towards improved diversity

and sustainability. This project is only the first step towards restoring healthy, sustainable forest

ecosystems. Moving toward the desired condition may take 15 to 25 years for ground cover and

more than 100 years for the composition and structure of respective canopy characteristics.

The Forest Service has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and

regulations. The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Kaintuck West Project is available for

public review at the Houston/Rolla/Cedar Creek Ranger District Office located at 108 S. Sam

Houston Blvd., Houston, Missouri. This document, prepared by an Interdisciplinary (ID) team,

discusses the reasons for taking action in the project area. The EA also discusses environmental

effects of the proposed treatment. Copies of the EA are available for review upon request.

The EA evaluates resource management alternatives on approximately 24,074 acres total within

these management areas of which 16,270 acres is National Forest lands, 426 acres is State of

Missouri lands and 7,378 acres is private land inside its boundary. State and private lands are

mentioned in this document because activities on these ownerships are used in the cumulative

effects analysis. The legal description of the project area is: Township 37 North, Range 09

West, sections 27-29, 32-34; Township 36 North, Range 09 West, sections 3-11, 14-23, 26-34;

Township 35 North, Range 09 West, sections 4-6, 8-10, 15-16, 21, and Township 36 North,

Range 10 West, sections 10-14, 23-26, 35-36, Fifth Principal Meridian. The Kaintuck West

project lies in Management Prescriptions (MP) 1.1, 1.2, and 8.1 on the Houston/Rolla/Cedar

Creek Ranger District of the Mark Twain National Forest

II. DECISION The purpose of the Decision Notice in the NEPA process is to identify a selected alternative and

provide reasons why that alternative was selected over others considered in the Environmental

Assessment (EA).

The EA evaluated two alternatives in detail and one additional alternative was considered but not

developed in detail. In my opinion, the analysis of these alternatives provides all the information

I need to make a reasonable, informed decision about managing that area for the next 10 years in

a way that complies with the 2005 Mark Twain Forest Plan.

Based on my review of the Kaintuck West Environmental Assessment and Project File, I have

decided to implement the actions described in Alternative 2. The attached maps (Appendix C)


Page 2

illustrate the location of the proposed activities and are hereby made a part of this decision

document. I have also decided to implement the mitigation measures found in Appendix A of

this document. A table (Table D-1 from the EA) displaying the treatment activities on a

compartment/stand basis can be found in Appendix B. All activities will be implemented unless

safety/access hinders accomplishment.

In reviewing the summary of activities identified in Table DN-1 below, a non-significant forest

plan amendment would be required to implement Proposed Action 4D in its entirety. In August

2011, the Missouri Natural Areas committee met to vote on whether to accept the

recommendation of nominating Western Star as a State Natural Area. The committee agreed to

accept the nomination of Western Star as a State Natural Area contingent upon the outcome of

the Forest Supervisors decision requiring the management prescription be change from 1.1

(Natural Community Restoration, Roaded Natural ROS) to 8.1 (Designated “Special Areas”

other than wilderness). A separate decision by the Forest Supervisor is planned to finalize State

Natural Area Designation by amending the 2005 Forest plan changing the Management

Prescription of the Western Star area from 1.1 to 8.1. All activities in the Western Star area are

consistent with either a 1.1 or 8.1 management prescription. In view of the needs identified in

the purpose and need portion of the Kaintuck West EA, Project Record, and comments and

concerns received during project scoping and the 30 day comment period, I have decided to

implement the following actions in Kaintuck West project area:

TABLE DN-1: SELECTED ALTERNATIVE ACTIVITIES

1) Restore, enhance, and maintain the structure, composition, and

function of distinctive terrestrial and aquatic natural

communities.

Measures

(Estimated)

A) Restorative thinning – (open woodland, closed woodland,

savanna natural communities) (174 stands) 3,487 ac.

B) Pine removal (4 stands) (savannas and glades) 17 ac.

C) Salvage (105 stands) 1,955 ac.

D) Mid story thinning(24 stands) 363 ac.

E) Commercial pine thinning (59 stands) 1,232 ac.

F) Precommercial thinning (82 stands) 1,407 ac.

G) Cedar removal (54 stands) 470 ac

H) Eliminate Sericea lespedeza (6 stands) 125 acres

I) Erosion Control (1 stand) 1 Site

J) Skyhook placement to improve fish habitat 6 structures

L) Reconstruct Low Water Crossing 1 crossing

N) Clean up dump site 1 site

O) Fen restoration (4 stands) 72 acres

2) Restore the ecological role of fire in natural communities

Measures

(Estimated

A) Ecosystem enhancement burns (950 stands) 14,977 ac.


Page 3

TABLE DN-1: SELECTED ALTERNATIVE ACTIVITIES

3) Provide dispersed recreation opportunities emphasizing a semi-

primitive motorized setting.

Measures

(Estimated

A) Existing trail maintenance 16 miles

B) Improve existing parking and access to trailhead 1 Site

C) Construct parking area near the FS-1581/Hwy AA

Junction 1 site

4) Provide a variety of uses, products, and values by managing in

support of desired ecological conditions

Measures

(Estimated

A) Openland maintenance (16 stands) 403 ac.

B) Maintain openland habitat with rangeland management

(13 stands) 161 ac.

C) Old growth (7 stands) 143 ac.

D) Nominate Western Star as State Natural Area 1, 281 acres

5) Provide a safe and efficient Transportation System that

meets the implementation needs of the Kaintuck West project

area.

Measures

(Estimated)

A) Safe and efficient Transportation System

1) Road reconstruction: 1530B (1.3 mi.), 1581 (1.7 mi.),

1592 (0.2 mi.), 1593 (0.2 mi.), 1594 (1.3 mi.), 1711 (0.5 mi.) 5.2 miles

2) Maintain Forest System roads: 1530 (1.7 mi.), 1530C

(1.5 mi.), 1562 (0.3 mi.), 1567 (0.7 mi.), 1571 (0.8 mi.), 1576

(4.2 mi.), 1587 (2.6 mi.), 1707 (0.9 mi.), 1733 (0.5 mi.), 1734

(1 mi.)

14.2 miles

3) Decommission non-system roads: Decommission all

non-system roads unless needed for Special use permit. 19.3 miles

B) Install gate at beginning of FS-1581 1 gate

C) Control illegal access (44 access points) 44 sites

Associated and Connected Actions

Measures

(Estimated)

ACA1) Fireline construction (18 mi. dozer, 3.3 mi. blower

line) 21.3 miles

ACA2) Temporary road construction (9.6 mi. existing, 23.1

mi. new) 33 miles

Follow-up treatments Measures

(Estimated)

FT1) Spot herbicide treatment (hand or mobile ground

sprayer application) (87 partial stands) 1,810 acres


Page 4

III. REASONS FOR THE DECISION

A. Decision – Kaintuck West Project

I have chosen Alternative 2, because it is sound forest ecosystem management, best meets the

purpose and need for the Kaintuck West project, meets the desired condition for Management

Area’s 1.1, 1.2, and 8.1 while incorporating public and agency concerns. I have also chosen

Alternative 2 because in my judgment it restores, enhances, and maintain the structure,

composition, and function of distinctive terrestrial and aquatic natural communities, restores the

ecological role of fire in natural communities, provides a variety of uses, products, and values by

managing in support of desired ecological conditions, and enhances the project areas dispersed

recreation experience.

My reasons for choosing Alternative 2 are as follows:

1. The analysis and project record effectively demonstrates that Alternative 2 best meets the

concerns brought forward by the Interdisciplinary Team and public while moving the area

toward meeting the desired conditions (EA, Chapters 1-3);

2. Alternative 2 addresses, restores, enhances, and maintain the structure, composition, and

function of distinctive terrestrial and aquatic natural communities.

3. Alternative 2 will provide a variety of uses, products, and values by managing in support of

desired ecological conditions.

4. The analysis displays how it works towards the objectives of Management Prescription 1.1,

1.2, and 8.1, of the Mark Twain Forest Plan for restoring the ecological role of fire in natural

communities.

5. Alternative 2 would improve the watershed health of the Kaintuck West project area through

decommissioning 19.3 miles of non-system roads, and maintenance of approximately 16

miles of existing trails. (EA, Chapter 3).

6. Timber products and firewood would be provided.

7. Sericea lespedeza and multiflora rose would be treated through a combination of control

methods including manual, mechanical, prescribed fire and spot treatment with approved

herbicides (Glyphosate, Triclopyr, Fluroxypyr). This will allow reduction of the spread of

these 2 species in critical fen habitat and adjacent areas.

8. Manual stump treatment of Garlon 4 on approximately 1,600 acres of savanna and open

woodland natural communities would occur. This would prevent any future stump sprouting.

9. Herbicide use is permitted in the Mark Twain National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan “only after alternative analysis clearly demonstrates that pesticide use is

the most effective means to meet overall management objectives.” (MTNF 2005 Forest Plan,

2-20) The Kaintuck West EA discloses in the analysis that a combination of methods to

control invasive plant species, including spot treatments with herbicides, would be the most

effective and efficient treatment and improve the ecosystem health in the area (EA, Chapter

3).

10. Critical resources such as threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, fens,

springs, and sensitive habitats, are protected by proposed activities in Alternative 2.

11. There are little or no discernible effects to air and water quality, social economics, recreation,

and visual quality.


Page 5

12. Alternative 2 would provide protect and enhance a wide diversity of habitats to meet the

needs of plants, fish, and wildlife species with the use of old growth designations, restorative

thinning, mid story thinning, pine removal and openland maintenance.

B. Summary of Environmental Issues and Concerns

The range of alternatives developed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and approved by the

Deciding Official demonstrates that an extended effort was made to design alternatives that were

responsive to the issues and concerns identified by the IDT during public scoping and the 30-day

comment period. An issue in an EA is defined as: A point of dispute/disagreement over a

proposed action based on environmental effects. Several concerns were raised but using the

comments received from the public, other agencies, and organizations, the interdisciplinary team

determined that no “key issues” were identified to assist in the development of additional

alternatives to be evaluated in detail.

C. Alternatives considered and reasons why they were not selected.

Three different alternatives were developed. Of the three alternatives, two were selected for

detailed analysis while one alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study and not

carried forward in the analysis. The only other alternative that was analyzed in detail but was not

selected is:

Alternative 1 – This is the no action alternative. This is a viable alternative and responds to

the concerns of those who do not want vegetative management activities (i.e. “no logging”)

to take place. Current and on-going management activities would continue, such as road

maintenance, existing grazing on the existing allotment, and wildfire suppression.

Rationale – I did not select this alternative because it does not address the following as

well as the action alternative: (1) Restore, enhance, and maintain the structure,

composition, and function of distinctive terrestrial and aquatic natural communities; (2)

Restore the ecological role of fire in natural communities; (3) Provide dispersed

recreation opportunities emphasizing a semi-primitive motorized setting.; (4) Provide a

variety of uses, products, and values by managing in support of desired ecological

conditions, and; (5) Does not decommission all non-system roads unless needed for

Special use permit.

Other alternatives that were considered but not carried through the analysis include:

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14).

A third alternative that covers the same stands and actions that are identified in the modified

Proposed Action and also includes three watershed actions (1K, 1M and 1P) identified during the

scoping was considered. As the Kaintuck West analysis continued to develop, the ID Team and

the Responsible Official reviewed all of the initial actions and has chosen to defer three

watershed actions (1K, 1M and 1P) identified during the scoping phase to a separate analysis that

will be analyzed at a later date when a Watershed Assessment can be completed. Therefore this

alternative was not carried further into analysis.


Page 6

The Kaintuck West EA documents the environmental analysis and conclusions upon which this

decision is based.

IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The project was initiated with the mailing of a scoping letter to the district mailing list and

adjacent neighbors on July 13, 2010 (184 addresses). This project was also entered in the forest-

wide Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on July 8, 2010 and the information has been

accessible through the Mark Twain National Forest website since this time.

Comments received during and after the scoping period were accepted and evaluated in the

development of issues and alternatives to the proposed action. The Houston/Rolla/Cedar Creek

Ranger District received responses to the scoping document from 29 individuals and

organizations. As of the deadline for receiving comments, (close of business August 13, 2010),

27 individuals and organizations had commented. All 27 timely comments received were

reviewed and evaluated by members of the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and the deciding

official on August 19, 2010. The remaining comments, received after August 13, 2010, were

also reviewed by members of the IDT. No additional concerns were raised as a result of these

late comments.

Mailing lists of all individuals and organizations that were notified during this project can be

found in the Kaintuck West project file.

On March 1, 2011 the District mailed a letter to notify interested parties and neighbors of the

projects 30 day comment period. The document Proposed Action and Preliminary Alternatives

for 30-day Comment Period along with supporting documents and maps was posted on the Mark

Twain National Forest website and was available for review as of March 3, 2011. The Houston

Herald newspaper, Houston, Missouri (newspaper of record) published a legal notice on March

3rd, 2011 to begin the official 30 day comment period. After the 30 day comment period the ID

Team and the District Ranger reviewed the comments received both internally and externally to

see if any new issues or alternatives were identified. None were identified or formed. The

Houston/Rolla/Cedar Creek Ranger District received 15 responses as a result of the 30-day

comment period. Thirteen responses were received by the close of the comment period which

ended on April 4, 2011. A summary and response to comments can be found in the project file.

From the beginning of the project a wide range of views surfaced about the project. Responses

ranged from total support to opposition of some of the proposals.

Per 36 CFR 215.5 (a) the Responsible Official has the discretion in determining the most

effective time to provide notice under 36 CFR 215.5 (b). This project is available for meaningful

public comment.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

I have determined that this project is being conducted in a manner that does not exclude persons

from participation in, denying the benefits of, or subjects persons to discrimination because or


Page 7

their racial, ethnic or economic status. The activities carried out by this decision will not have

disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects on minority or low-income

populations.

Families falling below the poverty level in Phelps County (18.2%) exceeds the Missouri average

of 13%, but still falls below the threshold figure of 25%. The racial and ethnic composition of

the county has changed over time but still remains predominately white (93%). Phelps County

contains 7.1% minority populations with Missouri at 14.9%. Education levels are relatively high

with 79% graduating high school and 21% with college degrees. These statistics differs with

other areas of the Mark Twain National Forest in southern Missouri, with counties with larger

unemployment rates, and higher poverty levels. This demographic information indicates that

Phelps County does not qualify as an environmental justice community. (EA, Chapter 3).

Based on the review of demographic racial characteristics of the population of the counties

community and how they compare with suggested threshold levels of concern, there is little

reason to suspect that this community might fall under the provisions of Executive Order 12898.

This project would have limited, direct or cumulative affects on minorities and low-income

populations. The proposed action and other alternatives do not pose a disproportionate high and

adverse environmental, human health, economic or social effect on Phelps County

VI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

I have determined, based on the discussion of effects in the Environmental Analysis, and from

experience with similar activities, that these actions are not a major federal action, individually

or cumulatively, and will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. No

additional analysis or studies need to be conducted for me to make a determination. Therefore,

an environmental impact statement is not needed. This determination is based on the following

factors:

1. There will be no significant effects, beneficial or adverse, resulting from this project on any

resource. The environmental effects are discussed in the Environmental Assessment,

Chapter 3. The beneficial effects include: a) improvement of current and future forest health

conditions by reducing insect broods/brooding sites and providing some black oak sprouting,

b) improving firefighter safety by reducing the need for hazard tree felling during a wildfire

situation, c) increase wildfire fireline effectiveness by reducing the likeliness of large woody

snags with burning embers falling over firelines, d) improving watershed health within the

project area; e) treating invasive plants; f) improving fish habitat in Mill Creek; g) providing

safe and efficient transportation system in the project area; and, h) improving conditions of

savanna, open woodland, and closed woodland natural communities. No significant adverse

effects to the environment were identified in the environmental analysis. There is no

irreversible commitment of resources in this project. There are no known significant

irretrievable commitments of resources such as loss of soil productivity, water quality,

wildlife habitat, or recreation opportunities.

The beneficial effects of the action do not bias my finding of no significant environmental

effects.


Page 8

2. Public health and safety are not adversely affected by the proposed action. Public safety will

be improved with the removal of the majority of the dead and dying black oak trees (salvage

harvest on 1,995 acres would reduce the probability of falling debris around trails, roads,

fences and power lines). Effects of the alternative courses of action are displayed in the

Environmental Assessment (Chapter 3).

3. There will be no significant adverse effects on prime farmlands, floodplains, wetlands,

historic or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, ecologically critical areas, civil rights,

women, or minority groups. The Environmental Assessment discusses the anticipated effects

of implementing these actions.

4. Based on public participation and the involvement of resource specialists, I believe effects on

the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. This does not

mean that the decision to proceed with the project will be acceptable to all people, as some

will probably find that their needs and interest are not served by the selected alternative.

However, the comments they expressed during scoping, 30-day comment period, and

considered in the EA, did not disclose any significant adverse effects that would result from

the project on the quality of the human environment. Thus, it is my professional judgment

that physical, biological, social, and economic issues have been addressed well enough for

me to make an informed decision. The proposed actions are similar to other management

activities recently implemented on the Houston/Rolla/Cedar Creek Ranger District and on the

Mark Twain National Forest; therefore the results are reasonably predictable. (EA, Chapter

3)

5. There are no known effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain or involve

unique or unknown risks. Timber harvesting, timber stand improvement, wildlife habitat

improvement projects, herbicide treatment to eliminate non-native invasive plants, watershed

improvement projects, prescribed burning, and grazing have been conducted throughout this

area for many years enabling us to predict fairly well what the effects of these actions may

be. Environmental effects described in the assessment, have been analyzed in enough detail

to determine predictable results.

6. These actions are similar to other management activities previously implemented and do not

set a precedent for other projects that may be proposed to meet the goals and objectives of

the 2005 Mark Twain Forest Plan.

7. There are no known significant cumulative effects between this project and other projects

implemented or planned on areas separated from the affected area of this project beyond

those evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, for the 2005 Mark Twain

Forest Plan. Cumulative effects are evaluated in Chapter 3 for each resource in the effects

section of the Kaintuck West Environmental Assessment.

8. Based on the archaeologist’s analysis and concurrence from the State Historic Preservation

Office (August 4, 2011) and because any sites or structures eligible for the National Register

of Historic Places will be avoided, there will be no adverse effects on heritage resources, or

eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. As stated in the August 4,


Page 9

2011 letter, “We concur with your recommendation as presented in Report No. R2011-09-05-

03-250 that there are seventy five (75) sites that may be eligible for inclusion in the National

Register of Historic Places (Attachment E), and fifty-nine (59) sites that are not eligible

(Table 1). We also concur that there will be no adverse effect on the condition that the

mitigation measures as described in Attachment E, and on Pages 20-22 are implemented.”

9. Based on the Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment (EA, Appendix F) for the

Kaintuck West Project, which analyzed impacts to federally-listed Threatened and

Endangered Species, there will be a “No Effect” (NE) determination on Hine’s emerald

dragonfly, pink mucket pearlymussel, Curtis’ pearlymussel, scaleshell mussel, Tumbling

Creek cavesnail, Virginia sneezeweed, Mead’s milkweed, running buffalo clover a “Not

Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) on Indiana bat and Gray bat and a “Not Likely to

Adversely Affect –Beneficial Effects” (NLAA-BE) on Hine’s emerald dragonfly Critical

Habitat. On page three of the USFWS Consultation form dated 6/29/11, reviewing Fish and

Wildlife Service Biologist gave Concurrence on the Kaintuck West project.

10. The actions do not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or requirements

imposed for the protection of the environment. The Environmental Assessment displays

compliance with the Forest Plan, Environmental Protection Agency, Missouri Department of

Natural Resources, and Missouri State and National Historic Preservation Act.

11. The best available and most current scientific information was taken into account and

appropriately evaluated and applied were appropriate in this analysis.

VII. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

It is my finding that the actions of this decision comply with the requirements of the National

Forest Management Act of 1976, and the 2005 Mark Twain National Forest Land and Resource

Plan. I have reviewed the 2005 Forest Plan and determined that this decision is consistent with

the Forest Plan’s goals and objectives. The action in this project complies fully with the 2005

Forest Plan Chapter 3, Management Direction for Management Prescription 1.1, 1.2, and 8.1,

and the Forestwide Standards and Guidelines (2005 Forest Plan, Chapter 2). I have also

reviewed Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Effects, of the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the 2005 Mark Twain Forest Plan, and conclude that

the environmental effects associated with this project are consistent with those described in the

FEIS. This decision is subject to the Planning Rule and FSM 1920 and 1922.

My decision will comply with all current, applicable laws and regulations. I have summarized

some pertinent ones below.

National Environmental Policy Act

This Act requires public involvement, and consideration and disclosure of potential

environmental effects. For this project, a strong effort was made to reach out to the public,

identify interested parties, consult with them regarding the proposed action, identify public issues

and concerns, and use that information to develop proposed alternatives, improve the effects

analysis, and make a well-reasoned decision.


Page 10

The Kaintuck West project environmental analysis was conducted following the procedures and

requirements contained in this Act. An interdisciplinary team fully evaluated and disclosed the

environmental effects of the proposed project based upon field study, resource inventory and

survey, the best available science, and their professional expertise. The entirety of

documentation for this decision demonstrates compliance with this Act.

Forest Plan Consistency (National Forest Management Act)

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that all site-specific project activities be

consistent with direction in the applicable Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan).

This project implements the Mark Twain National Forest-2005 Forest Plan. As required by

NFMA Section 1604(i), I find this project to be consistent with the 2005 Forest Plan including

goals, objectives, desired future conditions, and Forest-wide and Management Area standards

and guidelines.

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act requires that federal activities not jeopardize the continued

existence of any species federally listed or proposed as threatened or endangered, or result in

adverse modification to such species’ designated critical habitat. As required by this Act,

potential effects of this decision on listed species have been analyzed and documented in a

Biological Evaluation.

Clean Water Act

The beneficial uses of water in streams draining the project area would be maintained during and

following the implementation of Alternative 2. As the soil, water, fisheries sections of the EA

make clear, application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management practices, and

project design features will ensure protection of water resources.

Executive Orders 11990 (Wetlands) and 11988 (Floodplains)

As discussed in the water section of the EA, wetlands and floodplains would be protected

through the use of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, project design criteria (EA, Chapter 3

page 20), and best management practices. Therefore this decision is in compliance with these

Executive Orders.

Clean Air Act

The Air Resources section of the Environmental Assessment analyzes the effects of the proposed

activities on air quality and Class I airsheds. This analysis found that National Ambient Air

Quality Standards are not likely to be exceeded by the activities planned in Alternative 2(EA,

Chapter 3 page 31). This decision, with impacts limited to the immediate area of activity, will

not affect any Class I airsheds.

National Historic Preservation Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Native

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

Surveys were conducted for Native American religious or cultural sites, archaeological sites, and

historic properties or areas that might be affected by this decision.

My decision is based on a review of the record that shows consideration of relevant scientific

information, including responsible opposing views, and as appropriate, the acknowledgement of


Page 11

incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. My decision implements

the 2005 Mark Twain National Forest Plan. As required by NFMA Section 1604(i), I find this

project to be consistent with the Plan.

VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11 (as published in the Federal

Register, June 4, 2003). A written Notice of Appeal must be postmarked or received within 45

days after the date of the notice of this decision in the Houston Herald, newspaper, Houston,

Missouri at the following address.

USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region

ATTN: Appeals Deciding Officer (ADO), Dave Whittekiend

626 E. Wisconsin Ave,

Gaslight Building, Suite 700

Milwaukee, WI 53202-4616

or Email: [email protected] Subject: Kaintuck West Project

or Fax; 414-944-3963 ATTN: Appeal Deciding Officer, USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region

Normal business hours (for hand-delivered appeals) are 7:30 am – 4:00 pm, Mon-Fri. Electronic

appeals should be in TXT, RTF, DOC, PDF, or other Microsoft Office-compatible formats.

Appeals must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14.

IX. IMPLEMENTATION DATE

If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, 5 days

from the close of the appeal filling period. If we receive an appeal, implementation may not

occur for 15 days following the date of the appeal deposition. (36 CFR 215.9)

X. CONTACT PERSON AND RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL

Kimberly Bittle, Houston/Rolla/Cedar Creek District Ranger, is the responsible official for the

Kaintuck West Project EA. Further information about this decision can be obtained several

ways:

Telephone: Contact, Mark Hamel Houston/Rolla/Cedar Creek Ranger District Office

during business hours (8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. CST) at (573) 341-7443.

In writing: Contact, Houston/Rolla/Cedar Creek Ranger District, 108 S. Sam Houston

Blvd., Houston, MO 65483 Attention: Mark Hamel

Facsimile requests: Address to: Mark Hamel, Integrated Resource Analyst at: (573) 364-

6844.

E-mail requests: [email protected].

Please include the project name (Kaintuck West project #33280) in the subject line of the

e-mail

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Page 12

XI. SIGNATURE AND DATE

/s/ Kimberly Bittle 09/12/2011

KIMBERLY BITTLE Date

District Ranger

Houston/Rolla/Cedar Creek Ranger District


Page 13

APPENDIX A

Forestwide Standards and Guidelines

Southwest Mitigation Measures


Page 14

(Page intentionally left blank)


Page 15

APPENDIX A

Forestwide Standards and Guidelines Below is a partial listing of Forestwide Standards and Guidelines from the 2005 Forest Plan

(pages 2-1 thru 2-42) that have specific meaning to the Kaintuck West project. The Kaintuck

West project complies fully with the 2005 Forest Plan Forestwide S&G’s.

Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS) Management (2005 Forest Plan, 2-2)

Prioritize areas of NNIS for treatment based on threats to resources, species status,

relationship to boundaries, size of the infestation, potential for further spread and

effectiveness of available control measures.

Water and Soil Resource Management (2005 Forest Plan, 2-3/4)

Riparian Management Zone (RMZ)

Within the RMZ the following activities are prohibited:

Timber management (unless needed to move toward desired condition, or for some

salvage);

Mechanical constructed firelines for prescribed burns;

Log landings;

Use of chemicals (unless needed to move towards desired condition)

Watercourse Protection Zone (WPZ) Within the WPZ the following activities are prohibited:

Timber management within 25 feet of stream;

Log landings;

Use of chemicals (unless to move towards the desired condition).

Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat Management

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species (TES)

Indiana Bat (2005 Forest Plan, 2-6)

Maintain trees with characteristics of suitable roosts (i.e., dead or dying with exfoliating bark

or large living trees with flaking bark) wherever possible with regard for public safety and

accomplishment of overall resource goals and objectives.

Prescribed Fire, Fuels, and Wildland Fire Management

Firelines – Prescribed Fire (2005 Forest Plan, 2-15)

Where practical and safe for firefighters and the public, utilize existing natural or

manmade barriers, such as drainages, cliffs, streams, roads, and trails instead of

constructed firelines.

Encourage hand-constructed firelines where feasible and practical.

Smoke Management (2005 Forest Plan, 2-19)

Use best available smoke management practices to minimize adverse effects on public

health, public safety, or visibility from prescribed fire.


Appendix A Page 16

Pesticide Use (2005 Forest Plan, 2-20)

Use pesticides only after alternative analysis clearly demonstrates that pesticide use is the

most effective means to meet overall management objectives.

The use of pesticides must comply with the product label.

Areas treated with pesticides shall be signed, as appropriate, to ensure users are informed of

possible exposure.

Rangeland Management (2005 Forest Plan, 2-20/21)

Allow grazing only in those areas with adequate fencing for control and management of

livestock.

Control the timing, duration, and intensity of livestock grazing to achieve desired

structure and species composition objectives.

Fertilization on cool season pastures should be done primarily for desirable legume

establishment and maintenance.

Timber Management

Harvesting (2005 Forest Plan, 2-28)

Reserve trees and reserve tree groups should include a combination of the following:

1. The largest, long-lived species occurring on the site (pine, white oak, post oak,

hickory, black gum);

2. Standing dead trees; and

3. Cavity or den trees.

Space reserve trees and reserve tree groups to mimic natural community structure and

composition.

Include a combination of at least five trees in reserve tree groups. Where opportunities

permit, locate some reserve tree groups within drainages.

Leave downed woody material on site whenever possible.

Salvage (2005 Forest Plan, 2-29)

Salvage timber resources damaged by natural or man-caused disturbance events when

salvage activities are compatible with overall resource goals and objectives, management

prescriptions, or to protect public safety.

Plan salvage activities to leave at least 10%-15% of the affected area, unless the area presents

an unacceptable risk to public health or safety, or threatens forest health. These areas should

be in a variety of patch sizes and distributions on the landscape.

Transportation Management

Unneeded Roads (2005 Forest Plan, 2-42)

All unneeded roads under Forest Service jurisdiction should be decommissioned.


Appendix A Page 17

Kaintuck West Mitigation Measures

Below are the mitigation measures listed in Chapter two of the Kaintuck West EA and are

specific to the Kaintuck West project.

Soils

SW1: Piling slash ahead of ground-based equipment prior to covering the area can minimize

compaction over the treatment areas.

Heritage Resources

CR1: Site avoidance during project implementation

Avoidance of cultural resources will be understood to require the retention of such properties in

place and their protection from effects resulting from the undertaking. Effects will be avoided by

implementing the following specific actions in the Kaintuck West project area:

a) Establishing clearly defined site boundaries and buffer zones around those sites in areas

where commercial timber harvest and/or tree-felling/removal activities will take place

that might result in an adverse effect to an archaeological site. Buffer zones will be of

sufficient size to ensure that the integrity of the characteristics and values which

contribute to, or may potentially contribute to, the properties' significance will not be

affected;

b) Routing temporary roads, and placing log landings and skid trails away from

archaeological sites;

c) Where road/trail re-alignment is proposed, routing reconstructed roads away from

archaeological sites;

CR2: Site protection during prescribed burns

1. Firelines

a) Those archaeological sites located along existing non-maintained woods roads that may

be used as fire lines will be protected by hand-clearing those sections of the road/fireline

that cross the sites. Although these roads are generally cleared of combustible debris

using a small dozer, those sections of roads crossing archaeological sites will be cleared

using leaf blowers and/or leaf rakes. There will be neither removal of soil, nor

disturbance below the ground surface, during fireline preparation.

b) Archaeological sites and features that may be located along proposed routes of

mechanically-constructed firelines, where firelines do not now exist, will be avoided by

fireline construction by routing firelines around archaeological sites. Sites that lie along

previously constructed dozer lines from past burns where the firelines will be used again

as firelines, will be protected during future burns by hand clearing those sections of line

that cross the sites, rather than re-clearing the lines using heavy equipment. In those

cases in which these activities will take place outside stands not already included in

cultural resources surveys, prior to project implementation, the cultural resources surveys


Appendix A Page 18

will be completed. Appropriate mitigation measures as noted in CR1, CR3, CR4, and

CR5 will be applied prior to project implementation to protect any archaeological sites

that may be located in these areas. Consultation with the Missouri SHPO will be

completed prior to project implementation.

2. Burn unit interior

a) Combustible contributing elements at eligible or unevaluated sites in the burn unit

interiors will be protected from damage during the burns by removing excessive fuels

from the feature vicinity, and, where necessary, by burning out an area around the feature

prior to igniting the main burns. Burning out is accomplished by constructing a set of

two hand lines, approximately 30 to 50 ft. apart, around the feature and by then burning

the area between the two lines while the burn is carefully monitored. A fuel-free zone is

thereby created around the combustible elements. Any combustible features that might

be located in a burn unit will also be fully documented at a minimum with digital

photographs and/or field drawings prior to the burn.

b) Eligible or unevaluated sites containing above ground, non-combustible cultural features

and exposed artifacts will be protected, where necessary, by removing, by hand,

concentrations of fuels of sufficient density to significantly alter the characteristics of

those cultural resources.

c) No mitigation measures are proposed for any sites in the burn interior that have been

previously burned and/or that do not contain combustible elements or other above ground

features and exposed artifacts [as described in (a) and (b) above], because it is not

expected that the burns proposed for the Kaintuck West project area would be sufficiently

intense to cause adverse effects to these sites.

3. Post-burn monitoring

Post-burn monitoring may be conducted at selected sites to assess the actual effects of the

burns on the sites against the expected effects and to check for indirect effects at the sites

following the burn. SHPO consultation will be carried out with respect to mitigation for

any sites that suffer unexpected damage during the burn, or that are suffering damage

from indirect effects following the burn.

CR3: Monitoring of maintained openlands

Management of maintained openlands within the Kaintuck West project area will require periodic

monitoring to determine if project activities are causing new ground disturbance or otherwise

adversely affecting historic properties within the openland areas. Should this prove to be the case,

ground or site disturbing activities will be halted in that area and further implementation and/or

SHPO consultation will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

CR4: Other mitigation measures

If it is not feasible, or necessarily desirable to completely avoid an archaeological site that may

be harmed by a project activity (CR1), then the following steps will be taken: (1) In consultation

with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the site(s) will be evaluated

against National Register of Historic Places significance criteria (36 CFR 60.4) to determine if

the site is eligible for, or appears to be eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic


Appendix A Page 19

Places. This evaluation may require subsurface site testing. (2) In consultation with the Missouri

SHPO, and with the Advisory Council if required, mitigation measures will be developed which

will lessen, or minimize, the adverse effects on the site, so that a finding of No Adverse Effect

results. (3) The agreed-upon mitigation measures will be implemented prior to initiation of

project activities that have the potential to affect the site.

CR5: Discovery of cultural resources during project implementation

Although the cultural resources surveys completed for this project are designed to locate all

archaeological sites and site components that might be eligible for the National Register, such

sites and site components may go undetected for a variety of reasons. Should any previously

unrecorded cultural resources be discovered during project implementation, activities that may

be affecting that resource will be halted immediately; the resource will be evaluated by an

archaeologist, and consultation will be initiated with the SHPO, as well as with the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation, if required, to determine appropriate actions for protecting the

resource and for mitigating any adverse effects on the resource. Project activities at that locale

will not be resumed until the resource is adequately protected and until agreed-upon mitigation

measures are implemented with SHPO approval.

Wildlife

TE1: Burning timeline No burning of Kaintuck fen can occur between the dates of April 30 and November 1.

TE2: Ignition Only hand ignition (no aerial or ATV ignition) is permitted within Kaintuck fen itself.

TE3: Mechanized equipment

No wheeled and/or tracked mechanized equipment is permitted within Kaintuck fen itself.

TE4: Herbicide treatment Only individual NNIS plants can be treated (with items such as a clamper and/or a wick) with

herbicide within Kaintuck fen itself.

TE5: Herbicide application NNIS plants can be treated (with a back pack sprayer or hand sprayer mounted on an ATV)

within 200 feet of Kaintuck fen (but not within Kaintuck fen itself).

TE6: Herbicide treatment timing Herbicide application must be scheduled to occur between mid-May and August 30 in Kaintuck

fen.


Appendix B Page 20

APPENDIX B

Compartment/Stand Treatment Activity Table


Appendix B Page 21

PROJECT ACTIVITIES BY STAND

Table D-1: Kaintuck West Compartment/Stand Treatment Activity Table

Compartment Stand Acres Forest

Type Proposed Action Activity

206 1 5 54

206 2 13 53

206 3 5 98

206 4 16 54

206 5 17 53

206 6 18 54

206 7 4 53

206 8 26 54 Salvage

206 9 13 53 Restorative thinning - Open Woodland

206 10 11 53


206 12 20 51


206 14 16 53 Restorative thinning - Closed Woodland

206 15 3 98







206 22 16 51

206 23 19 54





206 28 13 59

206 29 10 54

206 30 13 59

206 31 36 99 Opening Maintenance


206 33 14 79


206 35 10 99


206 37 12 99

210 1 17 59 Salvage, Prescribed burn


210 4 12 54 Prescribed burn



Appendix B Page 22









210 12 14 59

Cedar Removal, Restorative thinning - Open Woodland,

Herbicide, Control access, Prescribed burn

210 13 46 51 Restorative thinning - Open Woodland, Prescribed burn



210 16 2 59






210 25 42 99

Sericea Control, Herbicide, Fen restoration, Control

access, Prescribed burn

210 26 10 99



210 27 3 99



210 28 10 99

Cedar Removal, Herbicide, Control access, Prescribed

burn









210 37 15 98 Cedar Removal, Prescribed burn

210 38 34 59 Control access, Prescribed burn

210 39 20 32 Pine thinning, Prescribed burn

210 40 10 59 Salvage

210 41 20 59 Salvage









Appendix B Page 23




210 49 24 51

Restorative thinning - Open Woodland, Herbicide,

Prescribed burn











210 60 22 53 Restorative thinning - Closed Woodland, Prescribed burn










210 70 7 51

210 71 20 51 Salvage






210 77 1 99




210 81 12 51 Timber Stand Improvement, Prescribed burn







210 88 10 51


Prescribed burn




Appendix B Page 24




210 91 37 53 Control access, Salvage, Prescribed burn




















210 111 1 99



210 114 9 51 Mid Story Removal, Prescribed burn









211 2 34 59 Savanna, Herbicide, Prescribed burn


211 4 6 99









211 13 24 51 Mid Story Removal, Herbicide, Prescribed burn


Appendix B Page 25




211 14 27 44

Pine thinning, Savanna – non-commercial, Herbicide,

Prescribed burn










211 24 30 32 Pine thinning, Control access, Prescribed burn


































Appendix B Page 26






211 59 23 79 Erosion Control, Prescribed burn


211 61 24 98 Opening Maintenance, Control access, Prescribed burn

211 62 8 79


211 64 34 98 Control access, Opening Maintenance











211 76 45 99

Opening Maintenance, Herbicide, Control access,

Prescribed burn

211 77 4 98

211 78 8 98

211 79 6 99

Opening Maintenance, Herbicide, Control access,

Prescribed burn






215 1 11 59 Restorative thinning - Closed Woodland, Prescribed burn,

Proposed State Natural Area

215 2 31 51

Savanna – non-commercial, Prescribed burn, Proposed

State Natural Area

215 3 16 53

Restorative thinning - Closed Woodland, Herbicide,

Prescribed burn, Proposed State Natural Area

215 4 2 98 Prescribed burn, Proposed State Natural Area

215 5 14 51

Timber Stand Improvement, Prescribed burn, Proposed

State Natural Area

215 6 23 53


State Natural Area

215 7 16 53

Restorative thinning - Closed Woodland, Prescribed burn,



215 9 5 59 Proposed State Natural Area


Appendix B Page 27




215 10 12 51 Timber Stand Improvement, Proposed State Natural Area

215 11 11 53


State Natural Area

215 12 15 59

Savanna – non-commercial, Herbicide, Prescribed burn,


215 13 21 53


State Natural Area


215 15 8 53



215 16 13 51



215 17 16 51



215 18 25 53


State Natural Area


215 20 18 59

Mid Story Removal, Herbicide, Prescribed burn,



215 22 20 32

Pine thinning (H), Prescribed burn, Proposed State

Natural Area

215 23 4 53



215 24 6 59




215 26 11 53


State Natural Area

215 27 11 53


State Natural Area

215 28 4 32

Clearcut pine, Prescribed burn, Proposed State Natural

Area


215 30 15 51



215 31 4 53




215 33 12 51




215 35 8 53 Savanna, Prescribed burn, Proposed State Natural Area



Appendix B Page 28




215 37 3 32

Clearcut pine, Prescribed burn, Proposed State Natural

Area


215 39 16 59








215 45 34 51




215 47 15 53


State Natural Area

215 48 16 54



215 49 44 51










216 7 17 99



216 8 7 98

Cedar Removal, Sericea Control, Herbicide, Prescribed

burn














216 22 9 42 Cedar Removal, Control access, Prescribed burn


Appendix B Page 29








216 27 33 51 Prescribed burn, Old growth designation


















216 45 19 51


Prescribed burn







216 52 11 32

Pine thinning, Cedar Removal, Control access, Prescribed

burn

216 53 17 97 Cedar Removal, Control access, Prescribed burn




216 57 6 51


Prescribed burn



216 60 13 51


Prescribed burn




Appendix B Page 30





216 64 8 79 Pine thinning, Cedar Removal, Prescribed burn

216 65 22 32


burn


216 67 10 51


Prescribed burn




216 71 11 51


Prescribed burn


216 73 22 44 Pine thinning, Cedar Removal, Prescribed burn




216 77 4 44 Cedar Removal, Pine removal in Glades, Prescribed burn

216 78 9 51


Prescribed burn

216 79 15 54 Salvage, Cedar Removal, Prescribed burn




















216 100 5 54 Savanna, Prescribed burn

216 101 31 32 Pine thinning (H), Prescribed burn

216 102 2 51

Cedar Removal, Restorative thinning - Open Woodland,

Herbicide, Control access, Prescribed burn


Appendix B Page 31





216 104 4 51 Savanna, Grazing, Herbicide, Prescribed burn

216 105 8 59

Cedar Removal, Savanna, Grazing, Herbicide, Prescribed

burn

216 106 1 99 Grazing, Prescribed burn

216 107 26 99 Grazing, Control access, Prescribed burn

216 108 12 54 Savanna, Grazing, Herbicide, Prescribed burn








216 116 2 59 Mid Story Removal, Grazing, Herbicide, Prescribed burn

216 117 6 59

Cedar Removal, Mid Story Removal, Herbicide,

Prescribed burn

216 118 3 59


Prescribed burn

216 119 6 59


Prescribed burn









216 128 15 32


burn

216 129 13 53 Salvage, Control access, Prescribed burn












216 141 15 51 Restorative thinning - Open Woodland, Herbicide,


Appendix B Page 32




Control access, Prescribed burn





216 146 7 51



216 147 4 32 Pine thinning (L), Control access, Prescribed burn


216 149 22 51 Savanna, Herbicide, Control access, Prescribed burn

216 150 20 53 Salvage, Grazing, Prescribed burn









216 162 43 59 Savanna, Herbicide, Control access, Prescribed burn











216 174 10 99 Opening Maintenance, Control access, Prescribed burn






216 180 6 32 Cedar Removal, Pine removal in Glades, Prescribed burn









Appendix B Page 33








216 192 22 99 Opening Maintenance, Prescribed burn









































Appendix B Page 34

















































Appendix B Page 35
















216 297 1 99 Grazing, Control access, Prescribed burn






216 303 25 99

Opening Maintenance, Control access, Dump clean-up,

Prescribed burn


























Appendix B Page 36







220 33 66 51


Prescribed burn
























220 57 26 51


Prescribed burn
















Appendix B Page 37

















































Appendix B Page 38































221 41 7 32 Pine thinning (L), Prescribed burn


















Appendix B Page 39















222 1 4 54



222 4 34 99 Herbicide, Control access, Prescribed burn

222 5 7 54












222 17 3 99 Cedar Removal















222 32 10 53



Appendix B Page 40





222 35 1 98

222 36 19 54




222 40 19 54

222 41 10 54


222 43 14 53 Timber Stand Improvement

222 44 4 99

222 45 21 54







222 52 9 54

222 53 2 54


























Appendix B Page 41






















303 1 17 32 Pine thinning (L), Prescribed burn, Proposed State

Natural Area

303 2 12 32

Pine thinning (L), Prescribed burn, Proposed State

Natural Area

303 3 25 32

Pine thinning (H), Control access, Prescribed burn,


303 4 21 53



303 5 13 53




303 7 17 53



303 8 21 32

Pine thinning, Prescribed burn, Proposed State Natural

Area


303 10 26 53



303 11 14 53


State Natural Area

303 12 10 54



303 13 12 51


State Natural Area


303 15 8 53 Restorative thinning - Closed Woodland, Prescribed burn,


Appendix B Page 42





303 16 6 35

Cedar Removal, Prescribed burn, Proposed State Natural

Area

303 17 3 35

Cedar Removal, Prescribed burn, Proposed State Natural

Area

303 18 9 53

Restorative thinning - Open Woodland, Prescribed burn,


303 19 12 54


State Natural Area

303 20 31 53 Salvage, Prescribed burn, Proposed State Natural Area


303 22 11 53

Restorative thinning - Open Woodland, Prescribed burn,


303 23 34 53



303 24 38 51


State Natural Area

303 25 13 51


State Natural Area

303 26 9 32

Pine thinning, Prescribed burn, Proposed State Natural

Area


303 28 25 32

Pine thinning, Control access, Prescribed burn, Proposed

State Natural Area

303 29 11 54


State Natural Area

303 30 16 51


State Natural Area

303 31 11 54





303 34 22 51



303 35 21 51



303 36 38 53



303 37 33 51




306 1 6 51

306 2 4 51



Appendix B Page 43




306 4 1 99

306 5 1 99






307 6 46 99

Opening Maintenance, Sericea Control, Herbicide,



































307 40 15. 53 Restorative thinning - Closed Woodland, Prescribed burn



Appendix B Page 44

















































Appendix B Page 45





308 3 10 54

308 4 11 32 Pine thinning

308 5 36 51


308 7 12 53 Salvage

308 8 31 54

308 9 7 54

308 10 8 54

308 11 10 51

308 12 5 53

308 13 14 54

308 14 1 99

308 15 6 54

308 16 9 53

308 17 7 54

308 18 13 99


308 20 20 51

308 21 9 53


308 23 10 51
























Appendix B Page 46









308 51 16 54 Savanna – non-commercial, Herbicide, Prescribed burn












308 63 12 51









308 73 11 51 Savanna – non-commercial, Herbicide, Prescribed burn



308 78 17 53

Restorative thinning - Closed Woodland, Control access,

Prescribed burn















Appendix B Page 47

FOREST TYPES:

32 - Shortleaf Pine

35 - Eastern Redcedar 59 - Mixed Oaks

42 - Eastern Redcedar – Hardwood 78 - Black Walnut

44 - Oak-Pine 79 - Mixed Lowland Hardwoods

51 - Post Oak – Blackjack Oak 89 - Mixed Hardwoods

53 - Black Oak – Scarlet Oak – Hickory 97 - Lowland Brush

54 - White Oak 98 - Upland Brush

55 - Northern Red Oak 99 – Open


Appendix C Page 48

APPENDIX C

Project Maps

Documents

DECISION NOTICE - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and