Finding of No Significanta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2012. 9. 25. · United States Department of Agriculture . Forest Service . September 2012 . Redbird

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

September 2012

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Decision Notice

Redbird Fuels Treatment Project Redbird Ranger District, Daniel Boone National Forest Clay, Leslie, and Owsley Counties, Kentucky

For More Information Contact:

Thomas Dozier, District Ranger 91 Peabody Road

Big Creek, KY 40914 (606) 598-2192

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 to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Redbird Fuels Treatment Project

ii

NEPA (short for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) is the Forest Service decision-making process that provides opportunities for interested parties to give their ideas and opinions about resource management. This input is important in helping the Forest Service to identify resource needs, which will shape the alternatives evaluated and lead to the formation of a decision. The following explains the steps of the NEPA process, and where the attached proposal is in that process.

Step One–Need for a Project. The Forest Service or some other entity may identify the need for a project. YOU may bring the need for a project to the attention of the Forest Service.

Step Two–Develop Project Proposal. The Forest Service or a project proponent develops detailed, site-specific proposal. YOU may be proponent who develops proposal or YOU can share input and ideas.

Step Three–Scoping (Public Input). The Forest Service solicits public input on the site-specific proposal to define the scope of environmental analysis and range of alternatives to be considered. YOU provide site-specific input on issues, alternatives, and mitigation measures.

Step Four–Develop Reasonable Range of Alternatives. If scoping determines need for environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, the Forest Service develops alternatives. YOU suggest alternatives to the proposed action during the scoping process.

Step Five–Information for Formal Public Comment Period. Forest Service performs analysis of environmental effects, identifies preferred alternative, and solicits formal public comment. YOU provide timely and substantive comments on the analysis during the comment period.

Step Six–Environmental Analysis and Decision. Forest Service finalizes the environmental assessment and makes decision to implement one of the alternatives. YOU can review the decision; you can appeal if you disagree, and you have “standing.”

Step Seven–Appeal. Forest Service allows public 45 days following legal notice of decision to appeal. YOU may file formal Notice of Appeal.

Step Eight–Implementation. Forest Service implements the project. YOU may contribute labor, equipment, or funding to implement the project.

Step Nine–Monitor and Evaluate. Forest Service monitors and evaluates project results. YOU provide feedback on the project to the Forest Service.

Where is this project in the Forest Service NEPA process?

Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Notice

iii

Figure 1. Redbird Fuel Treatment Project vicinity map


iv

Table of Contents Finding of No Significant Impact for the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project ................................................. 1

Finding ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 A - Context ............................................................................................................................................ 1 B - Intensity Factors .............................................................................................................................. 2

Decision and Rationale (36 CFR 220.7(c) (2)) ............................................................................................. 6 Decision .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Rationale for Choosing the Proposed Action ........................................................................................... 6 Project Location ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Action to Be Implemented ........................................................................................................................ 6

Prescribed burning ................................................................................................................................ 6 Adaptive Management .......................................................................................................................... 7 Forest Plan Design Criteria and Monitoring ......................................................................................... 7

Public Involvement (36 CFR 220.7(c) (3)) ............................................................................................... 8 Incorporated by reference (36 CFR 220.7(c) (4)) ..................................................................................... 9 Findings required by other laws and regulations applicable to the decision (36 CFR 220.7(c) (5)) ........ 9 Expected Implementation Date (36 CFR 215.9) ...................................................................................... 9 Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities (36 CFR215.11) .......................................................... 9 Contact Information (36 CFR 220.7(c) (8)) ........................................................................................... 10

Table 1. Indicators of resource effects for no action and the proposed action .............................................. 2 Table 2. Proposed burning units by sum of biophysical setting (acres) ........................................................ 7


1

Finding of No Significant Impact for the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project Finding Based upon my review of the analysis of the proposed activities described in the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project Environmental Assessment (Forest Service 2012 (EA)), I have determined that the proposed action (as described on pages 5 to 17 of the EA) will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment based on the context and intensity of its impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be required.

I base my finding on the following:

The actions proposed in the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (EA: pages 18 to 44; individual specialist reports found in the project record). Each resource area defined the scope of analysis and cumulative effects boundaries to determine the context in which the environmental effects will occur. Based on the analysis of resource effects in the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project EA and project record information, I conclude that no significant effects will occur, because effects are mitigated by following project design features, best management practices, Forest Plan standards, and by complying with all applicable Federal and State laws, agency regulations, and policies.

The Land and Resource Management Plan for the Daniel Boone National Forest (USDA-FS 2004a (Forest Plan)) has defined Management Area and Prescription Area direction. The analyses of effects summarized in the EA (pages 18 to 44) and detailed in the specialist reports describe effects that are both beneficial and adverse. Although some effects will occur as a result of prescribed burning activities, there will be no significant irreversible resource commitments or irretrievable loss of wildlife habitat, soil productivity, or water quality beyond those previously disclosed in the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Forest Plan1 and as such is not considered significant. While both beneficial and adverse effects are important, they are not significant, in either context or intensity, to the degree that an environmental impact statement is warranted for the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project.

A - Context The context of the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project is limited to the local area encompassed by the proposed treatment units and lands in close proximity to these units (figure 1). No unique geographic characteristics were identified within the project area that would indicate an increased potential for significant effects. The Redbird Fuels Treatment Project proposes treatments that would reduce fuel loading, reduce fire regime condition class, and promote fire-mediated upland ecosystems.

Each of the 10 proposed areas would initially be treated with a 5- to 8-year burn cycle (up to four times) until the reference conditions have been reached. Periodic burning to maintain reference conditions would occur at longer intervals (8+-year cycles) and would be triggered by the adaptive management strategy described under the proposed action section.

1 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Daniel Boone National Forest. Land and Resource Management Plan. Southern Region, Daniel Boone National Forest. Winchester, KY. Bulletin R8-MB 117A. 280 pp.


2

The scale of the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project is not indicative of significant effects beyond those already considered in the FEIS for the Forest Plan (2004b). Numerous other fuels reduction projects have occurred across the Daniel Boone National Forest. The fuels reduction projects in the Redbird project area would have short-term impacts during treatment activities, and the long-term potential to maintain reduced fuel loading and fire regime condition classes as well as move toward maintenance of fire-mediated upland ecosystems.

B - Intensity Factors

B.1 - Impacts That May Be both Beneficial and Adverse If no action is taken at this time, the purpose and need and objectives for the project, to move toward the desired conditions for reduced fire hazard and promotion of fire-mediated upland ecosystems, would not be accomplished. Existing conditions would favor wildfires that burn at higher intensities and rates of spread compared to treated areas. High-intensity wildfires could result in high tree mortality in forest stands, could result in extensive property loss, and could cause large amounts of erosion and sedimentation that would adversely affect water quality (USDA-FS 2004b pages 3-303 to 3-304).

Under the proposed action, potential adverse impacts would be minimized or eliminated by implementing project design criteria (EA, pages 13 to 16). Beneficial effects would include the reduction of fuels and the reduction of fire hazard. Beneficial effects have not been used to offset or compensate for potential adverse effects. Most of the project acres would require repeated burning to attain fuel reduction and upland ecosystem conditions that approach and maintain Forest Plan desired conditions. Some short-term adverse effects to some resources, including recreation, visuals, watershed, soils, and plant and animal species may result from ground and noise disturbance and minor changes to some habitat conditions. However, Forest Plan Standards and project-specific resource protection measures have been designed to protect and improve resource conditions (EA pages 13 to 16). Potential adverse effects of this project are expected to be within thresholds that historically have not resulted in impacts that would be considered significant, even when considered separately from the beneficial effects that occur in conjunction with adverse effects.

Long-term benefits to the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project landscape would include reduction in fire hazard conditions and restored upland ecosystems. Based on extensive experience planning and implementing similar projects, the interdisciplinary team has included resource protection measures (EA pages 13 to 16) that would likely result in no significant impacts.

Table 1 displays the indicators used to compare the resource effects of implementing the proposed action.

Table 1. Indicators of resource effects for no action and the proposed action Effects Indicator Proposed Action

Fire and Fuels: Fuel loading and reduced flame lengths

Reduce fuel loading across 19 percent of the treatment area with an associated reduction in potential flame lengths greater than four feet in 90th percentile conditions.

Air Quality: Air Quality Standards

No long-term adverse impacts to air quality standards are expected as long as recommended design criteria are incorporated into prescribed fire prescriptions (and smoke management plans) and successfully implemented.

Silviculture and Timber Resources: Fire-mediated: communities

Enhance growing conditions for fire-mediated and fire-influenced communities long-term. Conditions for germinating seed would be improved. Competition for nutrients, light, and water would be reduced.


3

Table 1. Indicators of resource effects for no action and the proposed action Effects Indicator Proposed Action

Conservation Plants: Presence of Conservation Plants

Fire is not expected to reduce the likelihood of any of these species existing on the landscape, and in fact could reasonably improve conditions for Appalachian golden banner, scarlet Indian paintbrush, three bird orchid, Wasioto rosinweed, and probably ginseng.

Nonnative Invasive Plants: Nonnative Invasive Plant Populations

Disturbance to soil and vegetation from fire promote the growth of existing populations of nonnative invasive plant species and provide seedbed and habitat for new infestations. This would contribute to a general expansion of these species from disturbances related to other projects that have occurred, are occurring, and will occur in the general area of the proposed project.

Soils: Soil Productivity No adverse effects to soil productivity provided design criteria and prescribed fire prescriptions developed for each specific treatment unit are successfully implemented.

Hydrology: Stream Sediment Increase in 6th Level Watersheds

Less than 1 – 1.3 percent increase over current conditions would be reduced by the implementation of buffer strips and BMPs. Unlikely that changes of this magnitude will influence water quality in any of the drainages.

Wildlife/Aquatics: Habitat for species that prefer closed canopy mature forests with well-developed understories, including Forest MIS.

Habitat would decrease on many of the sites treated, although 76 percent of the habitat would be unaffected and all sites treated would continue to provide suitable habitat. Suitable habitat would continue to occur in all affected watersheds. The likelihood of large scale wildfire would be reduced.

Wildlife/Aquatics: Habitat for wildlife species that prefer or require fire-mediated forest communities with an open herbaceous understory, including Forest MIS.

Habitat for these species would be improved on approximately 4,000 acres due to proposed burning. The likelihood of large-scale wildfire would be reduced.

Wildlife/Aquatics: Aquatic habitat, including Forest MIS.

Aquatic habitat would remain relatively unchanged. Reduced fuel loading and flame lengths would reduce the likelihood of large-scale wildfire.

Wildlife/Aquatics: Proposed, Threatened and Endangered Species, Regionally sensitive species and Conservation Species.

Direct effects to individuals may occur, although with implementation of project design features and protection or stream and riparian habitat potential for effects are greatly reduced. Habitat would be maintained within all treatment sites and in all affected watersheds. Fuel loading would be reduced on 5,666 acres and 18 percent of the treatment sites would have reduced flame lengths, reducing the risk of large-scale wildfire.

Heritage: Effects to lithic scatters and historic sites that are all lacking perishable surface materials

Limited nature of the heat produced by a prescribed burn is not considered an adverse effect on lithic scatters and historic sites that are all lacking perishable surface materials

Recreation and Visual: Visual Impacts

Evidence of controlled burning would be noticeable during implementation, but would begin to be obscured by vegetation as leaf out continues through spring

For specific details by resource, see EA pages 21 to 27.

B.2 - The Degree to Which the Proposed Action Affects Public Health or Safety By following the project design criteria (EA, pages 13 to 16), public health and safety will be protected. For specific details by resource, see EA pages 27 to 28.


4

B.3 - Unique Characteristics of the Geographic Area Such As Proximity to Historic or Cultural Resources, Parklands, Prime Farmlands, Wetlands, Wild and Scenic Rivers, or Ecologically Critical Areas The only unique feature within the project area is the rare community overlapping with the proposed Sugar burn unit is a bog, which comprises less than 1 acre of that unit. Bog vegetation is expected to be influenced regularly by prescribed fire, which may burn through portions of the bog. For specific details by resource, see EA pages 28 to 29.

B.4 - Degree to Which the Effects on the Quality of the Human Environment Are Likely To Be Highly Controversial The effects from this project on the quality of the human environment are expected to be minor and short in duration. Beyond implementation activities, the resulting conditions provide diverse habitat conditions that improve ecosystem resiliency (EA, page 29).

B.5 - Degree to Which the Possible Effects on the Human Environment Are Highly Uncertain or Involve Unique or Unknown Risks The impacts from introducing fire to the landscape can be predicted and have been disclosed in the environmental assessment. The Forest Service has a lengthy history in the use of fire as a tool to manipulate vegetation. Controlled burning can be done under a variety of conditions to achieve various objectives. Monitoring would help to describe those conditions and burn plans would be written to achieve desired conditions (EA pages 17 to 44).

B.6 - Degree to Which the Action May Establish a Precedent for Future Actions with Significant Effects or Represents a Decision in Principle about a Future Consideration Activities proposed in this project are site-specific to this project (EA pages 1, 5 to 17).

B.7 - Whether the Action is Related to Other Actions with Individually Insignificant but Cumulatively Significant Impacts. The interdisciplinary team designed the proposed action so that site-specific adverse cumulative effects to sensitive resources would be unlikely. Long-term impacts would be positive, as a diversity of habitat conditions would result. The proposed action would protect the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project area watershed, plants, wildlife, aquatic species, and other sensitive resources.

The cumulative effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future forest actions on vegetation, fuel hazard, watershed conditions, and other forest resources have been considered in the document (EA pages 29 to 41)and in the biological assessment (Reitz 2012a ) and in the specialists reports prepared for this project; they are incorporated by reference. Based on the extensive resource survey work completed during the planning process and the way in which the project is designed, resources in the analysis area are expected to be protected during implementation and improved and sustained in the long term. Resource protection measures, best management practices, and other project-specific design elements of the proposed action are listed in the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project EA (table 6, pages 13 to 16).

For specific details by resource, see EA pages 30 to 40.

Finding of No Significant lmpact and Decision Notice

B.8 - Degree to Which the Action May Adverrsely Affect Districts, Sites, Highways,Structures, or Objects Listed in or Eligible for Listing in the National Register of Histo1cPlaces or May Cause Loss or Destruction of Significant Scientific, Cultural, or HistoricalResourcesNo cultural resources were discovered in the dozer line project areas. Therefore, no historic propertieswould be affected by this undertaking (Bodkin 2011c, page 7) (EA page 40).

B.9 - Degree to Which the Action May Adversely Affect an Endangered or ThreatenedSpecies or its Habitat that has been Determrined to be Critical under the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973There will be no adverse effects to an endangered or threatened species or its habitat determined to becritical under the Endangered Species Act (EA pagesi 40 to 41).

B.10 - Whether the Action Threatens a Viol i l t ion of Federal, State, or Local Law orOther Requirements lmposed for Protection of the Environment.The activities proposed in this project do not violate Federal, State, or local laws (EA page s 41 to 44).

r , / , ) l e ' -

r \ -r'| i. -,'\ l - - ' l I ('{*/4-\

r rf: ' --u"- : / ' - " - - - ' ' / 4 ' - t ' , l

THODistrict RangerRedbird DistrictDaniel Boone National Forest

.-. --V"t*i-->{\t 'J

t' i 2

Date


6

Decision and Rationale (36 CFR 220.7(c) (2)) Decision Based upon my review of the analysis of the proposed activities, Redbird Fuels Treatment Project Environmental Assessment (EA), I have decided to implement the proposed action as described on pages 5 to 17 of the EA.

Rationale for Choosing the Proposed Action I believe that the proposed action best meets the needs identified for this project (EA, pages 1 to 4).

1. Reduce fire regime class – The proposed action will reduce potential fire behavior to the low category, which will decrease risk to public and firefighter safety in the event of a wildfire. Areas repeatedly treated with prescribed fire will provide up to 5,700 acres of low fire behavior from where firefighters can employ tactics and strategies for safe suppression efforts.

2. Upland fire mediated areas − Oaks and other fire-dependent species will be favored over the shade-tolerant species such as maple.

3. Annual schedule of prescribed − Each of the 10 proposed areas will initially be treated with a 5- to 8-year burn cycle (up to four times) until the reference conditions have been reached. Periodic burning to maintain reference conditions will occur at longer intervals (8+-year cycles) and will be triggered by the adaptive management strategy.

4. Reintroduction of fire and reduction of Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCC) 2 and 3 - Vegetation and related fuel strata will be modified with repeated prescribed fire that will cause the vegetation types to trend toward FRCC 1. Fire frequency will move toward more historical levels and allow for lower severity wildfires.

Project Location The Redbird Fuels Treatment Project is located on NFS lands in Clay, Leslie, and Owsley Counties, Kentucky. The project area has 10 distinct treatment units, several of which are adjacent to each other (see figure 1).

Action to Be Implemented

Prescribed burning Treating up to 5,700 acres of understory vegetation and dead fuel on Forest Service managed lands with prescribed burning (table 2; details, table 1, EA page 6). Each of the 10 areas to receive prescribed fire will initially be treated with a 5- to 8-year burn cycle (up to four times) until the reference conditions have been reached. Periodic burning to maintain reference conditions will occur at longer intervals (8+-year cycles) and will be triggered by the adaptive management strategy.


7

Table 2. Proposed burning units by sum of biophysical setting (acres) Unit Unit Acreage

Britton Branch 1a 1,077 Britton Branch 2 220 Cherry Treea 714 Granny's Branch 1 363 Granny's Branch 2 341 Pooler 545 Rockhouse 1 670 Rockhouse 2 626 Sugara 783 Venus 327

Total 5,666 a - Area that has been treated with controlled burns over the past ten years / FF-Fire Frequency from BPS Description

Redbird fuels treatment proposed control line types (71 miles) will include existing road (50 miles), handtool-cleared (11.2 miles), machine cleared (5 miles), and creek drainage (6 miles). For details by unit, see EA table 2, page 7.

EA table 2 identifies unit “variations.” Areas identified as such are representative of options for treatment area perimeters resulting from adaptive management monitoring. In some cases, these “variations” are regeneration areas that will be excluded from burning until they are mature enough to withstand fire encroachment and have a good survival rate. One “variation” has also been identified to avoid a known “coal gob pile2” located within proposed perimeters.

Adaptive Management Adaptive management is a concept for dealing with uncertainty in environmental management. Additional treatments will be prescribed based on predictable treatment outcomes (conditions that trigger the next action). Trigger points (ground conditions that indicate additional prescribed burning is needed) are based on observable stand conditions for forest type groupings and vary by fuel loading, duff layer conditions, and vegetative indicators. See tables 3 to 5 in the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project EA (pages 10 to 12) for the adaptive management matrix used for restoration and maintenance of historic fire-regulated communities. Trigger points are predicated on monitoring stand conditions annually starting in year 1 post burn.

Forest Plan Design Criteria and Monitoring

Project Design Criteria Project-specific design criteria, such as Forest Plan standards, and Kentucky best management practices, are employed to protect resources during implementation of proposed activities. See EA table 6, pages 13 to 17) for the design criteria identified for the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project proposed action.

Monitoring In addition to the adaptive management monitoring, the following monitoring will also be implemented for this project as described in the EA, pages 16 to 17.

2 Low-coal-content waste from a previous private mining operation


8

Public Involvement (36 CFR 220.7(c) (3)) A review of Forest Plan management direction for the area, the National Forest Management Act, and consultations with Forest Service and other agency resource specialists resulted in the proposal.

The project proposal has been listed in the Daniel Boone National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions since July 2009. Public scoping was conducted between January 4 and February 7, 2011. The scoping package was also posted on the Daniel Boone National Forest website in January 2011, and a flyer announcing the project was posted in post offices and convenience stores near the 10 treatment areas. No comments were received from the public with concerns for the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project proposed action. Other than a letter from the Eastern Band Cherokee Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation office, (see below) no scoping comments were received.

The January 2011 scoping letter was sent to six federally recognized tribes that coordinate with the Daniel Boone National Forest on all projects. The Eastern Band Cherokee Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation office responded with the request to send all related archaeological, cultural resource, and historical investigatory materials relating to the project to the Tribal Historical Preservation Officer for review and comment. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historical Preservation Office responded during the second 30-day comment period (see Appendix C of the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project environmental assessment for a list of commenters and the Forest Service consideration of the comments).

The archaeological survey report and a copy of the Exempt Undertaking were forwarded to the Tribal Historical Preservation Officer upon acceptance of the report by the Kentucky State Historic Preservation Officer.

A biological assessment was sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for review and concurrence was received on March 13, 2012.

The archaeological survey report was submitted to the Kentucky State Historic Preservation Officer for consultation under the Section 106 review process. The Kentucky State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with the findings and recommendations contained in the report. The concurrence letter is located in the project file.

A Legal Notice was published in the Manchester Enterprise (newspaper of record) on February 2, 2012, consistent with 36 CFR 215.5. The EA and all specialist reports were also posted to the Daniel Boone National Forest website, and a flyer announcing the 30-day notice and comment period was posted at convenience stores and post offices near the treatment areas. No comments were received during this comment period. A second Legal Notice was published in the Manchester Enterprise on March 15, 2012. Comments were received from three parties. For a list of individual commentors and the disposition of the comments received, see the Redbird Fuels Treatment Project environmental assessment, Appendix B - Disposition of Comments Received on the Project Environmental Assessment. Three comment letters received (see Appendix C for a list of commenters and the Forest Service consideration of the comments).


9

Incorporated by reference (36 CFR 220.7(c) (4)) My decision incorporates by reference the following documents:

• USDA Forest Service. Redbird Fuels Treatment Project Environmental Assessment. July 2012

• USDA Forest Service. Redbird Fuels Treatment Project Finding of No Significant Impact. August 2012

• USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Daniel Boone National Forest. Southern Region, Daniel Boone National Forest. Winchester, KY. Bulletin R8-MB 117A. 280 pp.

• USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Daniel Boone National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan for the Daniel Boone National Forest. Southern Region, Daniel Boone National Forest. Winchester, KY. Bulletin R8-MB 117B. 522 pp.

Findings required by other laws and regulations applicable to the decision (36 CFR 220.7(c) (5)) This action complies with the Forest Plan and does not violate Federal, State, or local law requirements imposed for the protection of the environment (EA pages 41 to 44).

Expected Implementation Date (36 CFR 215.9) If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may not occur for 15 business days following the date of appeal disposition.

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities (36 CFR215.11) This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11. A written appeal, including attachments, must be postmarked or received within 45 days after the date this notice is published in the Manchester Enterprise Newspaper, Manchester, Kentucky. This newspaper is published weekly on Thursday. Appeals must meet content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. Send the Notice of Appeal to:

Frank Beum, Appeal Deciding Officer Attn: Appeals & Litigation USDA-Forest Service, Daniel Boone National Forest 1700 Bypass Road Winchester, KY 40391

Appeals may be faxed to (859) 745-1568. Hand-delivered appeals must be received at the Forest Service office at the above address in Winchester, Kentucky within normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Appeals may also be mailed electronically in a common digital format to: [email protected]


Contact Information (36 CFR220.7(c) (B))Alison CoonsStearns Ranger District, Daniel Boone National Forest3320 Hwy 27 NWhitley City, KY 42653606-376-5323

.fl E -

i , . ' - / t t / ,\*/1-4-= \- ,+-- --"

.t 1:-r__

THOMASooziDistrict RangerRedbird DistrictDaniel Boone National Forest

-) i . '

-.1

)<- t , t { ' - . -+- ' t . " t , -

U -" ,'r,Lr" t-^--'l L

Date

l 0

Documents

Finding of No Significanta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2012. 9. 25. · United States Department of Agriculture . Forest Service . September 2012 . Redbird