North Flank Vegetation Management Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · Consult hydrologist on buffer institution methods. 11. Exclude fire from the 180 acre

1

Decision Notice

& Finding of No Significant Impact

North Flank Vegetation Management Project USDA Forest Service

Flaming Gorge, Ashley National Forest Daggett County, Utah

Township 2 North Range 17 East, Sections 1-15; Township 2 North Range 18 East, Sections 1-17; and Township 2 North Range 19 East, Sections 3-9; all Salt Lake Meridian

Background The Flaming Gorge Ranger District needs to improve undesirable resource conditions within the Birch Creek-Upper Henrys Fork and Lodgepole 6th level Hydologic Unit code (HUC), while doing so providing an opportunity for commercial salvage to recover the economic value of dead and dying trees within the North Flank project area, in accordance with the Ashley National Forest (ANF) Land and Resource Management Plan. The undesirable resource conditions include; (1) high mortality of Douglas-fir stands; (2) declining aspen stands and regeneration; (3) potential for removal of key ecosystem components in the event of a wildfire due to the high fire regime condition class;

High mortality of Douglas-fir stands In 2005 the Forest experienced 33,100 acres of Douglas-fir mortality due to insects (primarily the Douglas-fir beetle). On the District, the total affected acreage increased by 10% (with fewer affected trees) in 2006. Tree mortality increased significantly (87%) from 2006 to 2007, and continues to occur. Within the 18,588 acre North Flank project area insects have caused, and are continuing to cause, pockets of Douglas-fir mortality. Approximately 50-60% of some Douglas-fir stands within the project area show visual signs of beetle attack.

Declining aspen stands and regeneration; Over time seral aspen within the North Flank project area has been displaced by, and is continuing to be displaced by, conifers, primarily Douglas fir. This is indicated by the presence of remnant aspen stands within all treatment areas. Additionally, existing aspen stands show various levels of conifer encroachment, from just a few scattered conifers to numerous maturing conifers with substantial conifer regeneration. Conifers will continue to encroach into these aspen stands if left untreated or undisturbed.

Potential for removal of key ecosystem components in the event of a wildfire due to the high fire regime condition class. Historically, fire would have helped maintain aspen within the forested areas of the project area that are now dominated by Douglas-fir. Season-long, smoldering fires would have consumed large amounts of ground fuels, with intermittent group torching of standing trees. This intermittent torching would have created small openings promoting aspen regeneration if aspen clones were present, and a younger age class of conifer regeneration. Occasionally these fires would have resulted in stand replacement fires similar to the Lodgepole Creek wildfire in 1980, which was a stand replacement fire of 91 acres resulting in a substantial aspen and browse response.

Within the project area, the fire regime condition class for the Douglas-fir and mixed conifer species would continue the trend to a class three. Condition class three fires are relatively high risk, of larger size, and result in much more severe effects. During drought years, an overabundance of vegetation can stress a site, predisposing the forest to insect infestation, disease and high intensity wildland fire. At these intensities, fires kill all of the trees – even the large ones that, at lower fire intensities, would normally survive. In the event of a wildfire these conditions put key ecosystem components at risk for removal.

North Flank Vegetation Management Project Decision Notice and FONSI

2

Decision Based upon my review of the North Flank Vegetation Management Environmental Assessment (EA). I have decided to implement Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, as analyzed in the EA, including all project design elements and monitoring related to the Proposed Action (see EA pp. 7-8 for a complete description of the proposed action and EA Appendix A for Map). The selected alternative will include the following actions:

Salvage 1,111 acres of dead and dying trees using commercial salvage techniques. One section of temporary road will be constructed (approximately 0.4 to 0.6 miles) to bypass a section of existing road that is too steep for logging truck traffic. Upon project completion, this road will be obliterated. The promotion of tree health and vigor is also an identified objective in these acres through stand improvement cutting where trees that are showing poor health and less favorable growth are harvested. Due to the extent of the beetle-caused tree mortality, proposed Treatment Area 3 was modified February 2, 2009 with the primary objective to salvage timber, not to promote residual tree health and vigor through density management. The promotion of tree health and vigor is still an objective, but would be applied through stand improvement cutting only.

Aspen restoration will occur on 3,906 acres using a combination of commercial harvest, non-commercial thinning, and fire.

Aspen maintenance on 412 acres. Conifers will be hand felled with a chainsaw from existing aspen stands with various levels of conifer encroachment. No harvest or salvage will occur. Conifer snags will be left in place.

The remaining slash, snags, downed logs and coarse woody debris in all treatment areas will meet Forest Plan Amendment requirements for goshawks. Excessive slash will be broadcast burned or piled and burned. The implementation of this project will most likely begin in 2011 and will continue until project objectives are met.

Project Design Elements In response to public comments and specialist analysis of the proposal, project design elements were developed to mitigate some of the potential impacts from the proposed action. These measures, in addition to all other applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines and other relevant direction will apply.

Vegetation treatments

1. In Treatment Area 2, where larger pockets of conifer (primarily Douglas-fir and sub-alpine fir) exist without an aspen component, complete removal of conifer can be expected to create conditions for regeneration delay where distances from seed sources exceed 330 feet. Therefore selective removal of conifer in these areas would be used to retain healthy residuals providing for some cover and seed source retention.

2. In both Treatment Areas 2 and 4, where aspen is functioning as an understory tree with infrequent large old conifers, the large, relic conifers would be retained in order to maintain the Properly Functioning conditions (PFC) of these stands (USDA, 2008a).

Fuels

3. Fire line construction would be kept to a minimum and if used the fires lines would be seeded and water barred where necessary.

Soil

4. The high temperatures reached in slash piles would damage soil in a localized area and machine piling can compact and displace soil (McNabb and Cromack, 1990). If possible, slash piles should be located in rocky areas to minimize these effects or used as mulch to rehabilitate the half-mile of new, temporary, road. Spreading undamaged soil from surrounding area (not infested with weeds) on the burned area can minimize scars from slash burning or move slash to already disturbed areas such as roads would help protect undisturbed areas when burning (Lowe, 2005).


3

5. In Treatment Area 4 limb trees to provide more ground litter as the NF3 and NF4 landtypes in this area are steep and prone to erosion.


4

6. Subsoil or rip severely compacted soils to reduce erosion and enhance infiltration and soil porosity. Close timer sale roads with large logs and slash to reduce unauthorized use as much as possible. Subsoil with slash and close roads with log barriers for the half-mile of new road construction proposed in Area 1. (Pictures of closures are included in the project file).

7. Spread slash from the activity areas on new road construction, skid trails and landings from Treatment Areas 1, 2 and 3 to help soil resource recovery by providing habitat for microorganisms which would, over time, help release nutrients from the organic matter and improve the soil quality and productivity.

8. Coarse woody debris left in place to sustain long-term site productivity should be 5 – 10 tons per acre, and ≥ 3 inches in diameter for the community type in the areas where harvesting activity would occur (Monte, 1994).

9. In areas where non-system roads are used to remove timber for this project, such as those derived from the ANFs Global Information System (GIS) user created ‘ghost’ roads data layer, closure of the road by any means available to deter future traffic should keep the activity areas within the 15% detrimental disturbance guidelines outlined in R4 Soil Quality Standards.

Water

10. Institute a 300 foot buffer at areas where prescribed burning would to take place adjacent to Lodgepole Creek, and a 150 foot buffer area adjacent to Birch Creek. Consult hydrologist on buffer institution methods.

11. Exclude fire from the 180 acre area on the lower east end of Birch Creek in treatment area 5, unit 9 where there are steep side slopes and shallow soils.

12. Follow applicable and relevant Best Management Practices (BMPs) found in the timber management, fire management, and road building and management sections of the EPA Region 10 Source Water Protection Best Management Practices for Forestry and Public Land Management (EPA 2005) within zone 1 municipal watershed areas of the project area excluding the Long Park Reservoir as all proposed activities are located down-watershed from Long Park Reservoir and the reservoir is the only “back-up” water supply for the town of Manila. Applicable zone 1 areas within the project area include: 1) Within the Town of Dutch John municipal watershed, from the headwaters of Lodgepole Creek running to the Forest boundary extending ¼ mile on either side of the creek; and 2) Within the Sols Canyon Wells area (municipal water supply for Manila, Utah), extending ¼ mile on either side of the drainage. This area is located in the northern end of the Lower West Sols Canyon Prescribed Burn Unit 8.

13. Follow applicable and appropriate design features, BMPs, and recommendations found in the State of Utah (2000) Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan including Appendices IX (Hydrologic Modifications) and X (Silvicultural Activities).

14. Follow applicable and appropriate design features, BMPs, and recommendations found in the Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 –Soil and Water Conservation Practices.

15. Follow all applicable and appropriate design features, BMPs, and recommendations found in Forest Service Manual 2500, Chapter 2520 –Watershed Protection and Management.

Air

16. Ensure the clearing index is 500 or above on burn days. Minimize effects on smoke sensitive areas (listed in the Air Quality section of this report).


5

Heritage

The following stipulations were specified in the Section 106 agreement and are a legal obligation for the Forest.

17. Site: 42DA173 (AS-122) The site is on the edge of a Treatment Area 5 which includes prescribed burns. This site is also located within the boundary of site 42DA665. In order to avoid adverse effects to the site, the Forest would establish a 30m (100ft) protection buffer around site 42DA665(the buffer would also encompass site 42DA173). The Forest would establish a fire break between the protection buffer and the broader burn area. The fire break would enable the forest to use a variety of methods to burn the treatment area without adversely affecting the site.

18. Site: 42DA208 (AS-151) The Carter Military Road crosses areas of the project where mechanical vegetation removal is planned and areas of the project where vegetation burning is planned. The proposal as planned could adversely affect the historic road by cutting down or burning historic Telegraph poles or trees containing historic telegraph insulators located along the historic road. Therefore, the Forest would establish a protection buffer along the Carter Road and historic telegraph line. The buffer would be 30m (100ft) on each side of the road. For the prescribed burns within the project area, the Forest would use pre-burn methods to establish a fire break between the protection buffer and the broader burn area. The Forest Heritage Program would provide GIS shapefiles of the protection buffer areas.

For the salvage within the project area, the Forest would restrict tree cutting to manually cutting trees within the protection buffer. In addition, cut lumber would not be stacked or piled within the protection buffer. The Forest would establish a new bypass road for Forest Road FS-015 that would move all commercial logging traffic off of the Carter Military Road. The Forest Heritage Program would provide GIS shapefiles of the protection buffer areas.

19. Site: 42DA665 (AS-604) In order to avoid adverse effects to the site, the Forest would establish a 30m (100ft) protection buffer around site 42DA665. The Forest would establish a fire break between the protection buffer and the broader burn area. The Forest Heritage Program would provide GIS shapefiles of the protection buffer areas. Site: 42DA1828 (AS-1977) The Forest would establish a 30m (100ft) protection buffer around Site 42DA1828. The Forest would restrict salvage within the protection buffer to manual cutting only. Cut lumber would not be stacked or piled within the protection buffer. The Forest Heritage Program would provide GIS shapefiles of the protection buffer areas. The Forest would establish a new bypass road for Forest Road FS-015 that would move all commercial logging traffic off site 42DA1828.

20. Site: 42DA1830 (AS-1979 The Forest would establish a 30m (100ft) protection buffer around site 42DA1830 to protect the site from prescribed burns. The Forest would establish a fire break between the protection buffer and the broader burn area. The Forest Heritage Program would provide GIS shapefiles of the protection buffer areas.

21. Site: 42SM565 (AS-1950) The Forest would establish a 30m (100ft) protection buffer around Site 42SM565. The Forest would restrict salvage within the protection buffer to manual cutting only. Cut lumber would not be stacked or piled within the protection buffer. The Forest Heritage Program would provide GIS shapefiles of the protection buffer area

22. If previously unknown archaeological artifacts or remains are discovered at any time during the project, all ground disturbing activities within 300 feet (100m) of the discovery would cease immediately and the project supervisor would immediately contact the Forest Archaeologist regarding the discovery.

Upon fulfillment of the stipulations specified above, Ashley National Forest would have no further obligations for this project under 36 CFR 800.


6

Wildlife

The following mitigations measures have been developed to alleviate impacts from the proposed action:

23. Ongoing surveys are being conducted for the northern goshawk. If goshawks are located in the project area, the guidelines of the Northern Goshawk Strategy and Agreement (Rodriguez et al. 1998) and the Forest Plan Amendment for the Utah Northern Goshawk Project (USFS 2000) would be implemented, which are the following:

a. Prohibit forest vegetation manipulation within active nest areas during the active nesting period. The active nesting period normally occurs between March 1st and September 30th;

b. In active nest areas, restrict USFS management activities and human uses for which the Forest issues permits during the active nesting period unless it is determined that the disturbance is not likely to result in nest abandonment; and,

c. Identify a Post-Fledgling Area (PFA) which encompasses the active, alternate and replacement nest areas and additional habitat needed to raise fledglings. A PFA should be approximately 420 acres (exclusive of nest area acres) when sufficient habitat exists, no treatments would occur if a nest is active, within this buffer until young have fledged the nest (September 30th).

24. Apply the following in order to further reduce potential impacts to three-toed woodpeckers (Picoides dorsalis):

a. Snags containing nest cavities or offering potential nesting opportunities would be marked as Wildlife Leave Trees. Trees with cavities would be left standing; and,

b. An average of six snags greater than 12 inches in diameter would be retained per acre. This is based on the estimated size and number of snags need to support 100% of the potential woodpecker population (all species) for conifer forests. In order to maximize wildlife value and useful life, snags with some bark still present, located near other trees (preferably in clumps, to help with wind firmness) would be selected for retention where possible. This would ensure that the stands continue to provide habitat for a wide array of species, including sensitive species which may be present in the project area, following harvest.

25. A minimum of 100 tons per 10 acres of non-merchantable ground fuels would be left mostly in the larger diameters of greater than three inches. Non-merchantable slash in excess of 100 tons per 10 acres would be treated through a combination of machine/hand piling and jackpot burning. Any dozer machine piling would be through use of brush blades. Where possible, slash piles would be placed in rocky areas.

26. Where available, a minimum of 50 down logs greater than 12 inches in diameter and greater than eight feet long would be retained per 10 acres. This would be part to the 100 tons per 10 acres of ground fuels left in the project area.

27. The Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et.al. 2000) guidelines would be followed.

a. Management actions within each Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) would not allow any more than 30% to become unsuitable at any one time per LAU; and,

b. Timber management actions would not allow any more than 15% to become unsuitable in any given 10-year period, per LAU.

28. After salvage operations, all roads reopened or improved for the purpose of project activity would be closed.

29. Broadcast burning would be restricted in the spring and early summer, until August 1 in order to reduce impacts to nesting birds.


7

Noxious Weeds

30. Emphasis prior to and during project implementation should be on preventing new noxious weeds from establishing within the proposed project area. This would most likely be accomplished by requiring the following preventive practices:

a. Use standard timber sale contract provisions (e.g. WO-C/CT 6.36) to ensure appropriate equipment cleaning prior to and during timber harvesting activities. The standard equipment cleaning contract provisions are available at: www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/ftp/invasives/documents/GuidetoNoxWeedPrevPractices_07052001.pdf (USDA 2001).

b. Use the Sols Canyon road in timber harvesting and prescribed burning activities only when necessary as this area is heavily infested at spots with musk thistle (moderate priority) and hound’s tongue (high priority).

31. In addition to the above preventive practices, the following (which are part of the Forest Service’s national strategy and the Forest’s Integrated Weed Management System (IWMS) would also occur:

a. Early Detection and Rapid Response: The project area and areas immediately adjacent to the project area should be monitored during and for several years after completion of proposed activities. Early detection of noxious weeds improves the likelihood of eradicating and/or controlling new noxious weed infestations if and when they occur. Emphasis should be placed at timber harvesting areas, prescribed burned areas, and other areas that would be disturbed as a result of proposed activities.

b. Control: Monitoring and treatment of existing noxious weed sites should continue to occur prior to, during, and after project completion.

Monitoring 1. The Forest’s soil specialists would monitor for soil impacts through site visits using random sampling

points or transects in activity areas. Determination of ground cover, large woody debris, litter or duff, soil displacement, compaction, puddling, and erosion can be used to determine soil health.

2. Forest soil or timber personnel would do repeat photo point monitoring for road decommissioning. Napper (2004) provides instructions for effective photo point monitoring.

3. Where applicable, the Forest’s stand exam crew would conduct regeneration surveys at three and five years post-harvest to demonstrate that natural tree stocking levels are being met.

4. Forest weed management personnel would monitor for noxious weeds and, if necessary, conduct initial control and follow-up maintenance (see Noxious Weeds measures above).

5. Monitor areas after burning and during and after harvesting to determine if further design features may be needed to prevent sediment delivery to creeks (e.g., laying of weed-free mulch and/or seeding burned slopes next to Lodgepole Creek).

Decision Rationale When compared to the No Action Alternative this alternative will better meet the purpose and need for this project by promoting forest health through commercial and non-commercial means. The removal of dead and dying trees will improve tree vigor and health, promote and maintain aspen stands, and reduce the potential for removal of key ecosystem components in the event of a wildfire.

Salvage of 1,111 acres of dead and dying trees in Treatment Areas 1, 2, and 3 will provide an opportunity to realize commercial value from these trees while improving the vigor and health of the trees retained within the treatment areas. With the removal of dead and dying conifer trees greater sunlight will be able to reach the forest


8

floor stimulating the growth of Douglas-fir seedling and aspen. The harvest operation and the added burning of slash will simulate the effects of fire, preparing the seed bed for Douglas-fir (Shearer, 1981) and stimulating aspen regeneration where present in openings. This treatment will selectively remove dead and dying trees and selected large live trees, leaving the live residual overstory largely intact and allowing for greater reduction in dead fuel loads in the long term as the dead trees would otherwise topple.

The removal of conifer encroaching on aspen will reduce the conifer fuel load, return or maintain aspen stands to a healthier, more vigorous condition (Kurzel et. al 2009; Sheppard et. al 2006), and will increase species diversity on the landscape by maintaining aspen stands that would otherwise succeed to late seral species. Selective removal of conifer in areas where larger pockets of conifer (primarily Douglas-fir and sub-alpine fir) exist without an aspen component will be used to retain healthy residuals providing some cover and seed source retention. Where aspen is functioning as an understory tree with infrequent large old conifers, the large, relic conifers will be retained in order to maintain the Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) of these stands (USDA, 2008b). These old conifer trees insure survival of a stand in the event that the aspen stand is replaced and herbivory overwhelms the sprouts.

The reintroduction of fire in Treatment Area 5 into Douglas-fir dominated stands will remove competing conifers and return decadent aspen stands where they occur to a healthier, more vigorous condition. The re-introduction of fire will create a mosaic pattern over time of aspen stands interspersed with conifer where aspen is currently present. This pattern will create natural fuel breaks that assist in the control of unwanted wildfires since aspen stands have higher moisture content, burning with less intensity than conifer (Utah Fire Amendment 2000). The use of non-commercial treatments in Treatment Areas 4 and 5 responds to concerns over commercial harvest in undeveloped areas while still addressing the need for treatment within these areas.

This alternative meets the direction, objective, standards and guidelines identified in the Forest Plan.

The North Flank Vegetation Management Project EA documents the environmental analysis and conclusions upon which this decision is based.

Other Alternatives Considered

Alternative 1 No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. The North Flank Vegetation Management Project would not be implemented to accomplish project goals.

Douglas-fir beetles will likely continue to seek suitable Douglas-fir hosts, causing continued mortality of this tree species until the bark beetle population collapses or the susceptible host component is dead. Greater fuel build-up would result as trees topple to the ground over the next several decades, increasing fire hazard. Wildfire could then burn with greater severity in the future. If a large scale, stand replacing wildfire were to occur, diversity of age and structure would decrease as the landscape shifted to predominantly one age class. The loss of current or future Douglas-fir seed trees in stand replacement fire would likely result in delayed regeneration of a site where aspen or lodgepole pine are not present.

No other alternatives were analyzed as there were no significant issues or unresolved conflicts identified that would warrant such an analysis.

Public Involvement The action was originally listed as a proposal in the Forest’s Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) since the second quarter of 2008 and updated periodically during the analysis. The proposed action was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during the 30 day comment period, which began when the request for comment and legal notice of proposed action was published in the Vernal Express on May 14th, 2008. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency mailed or emailed scoping letters soliciting comments to 126 individuals or organizations (see scoping letter mailing lists in project record). Three entities/individuals submitted written comments. See Appendix B of the EA for our responses to comments. The


9

input provided by interested publics and agencies who commented was combined with resource information to develop and strengthen the Proposed Action.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations This decision is consistent with the Ashley National Forest Land Management Plan. The project was designed in conformance with management areas as directed by the Forest Plan and incorporates the appropriate Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. The treatment areas fall within the following management areas:

n - Range of resource uses and outputs - Commodity production modified for amenity production;

f - Dispersed Recreation Roaded – Harvest designed to enhance recreation, wildlife, and visual opportunities;

b - Moderate timber production - Open to commercial and personal use harvest; and

l – Optimization of wildlife habitat diversity through timber harvest at moderate levels.

A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and EA were considered. I determined these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared.

To the best of my knowledge, this decision is in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Some of the principal laws and regulations considered include the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Executive Order 13186 of 2001 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Federal Noxious Weed Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and Executive Order 11990 Wetlands, Executive Order 11988 Floodplains and Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice.

Finding of No Significant Impact The significance of environmental impacts must be considered in terms of context and intensity. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human and national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. In the case of a site-specific action, significance usually depends upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Intensity refers to the severity or degree of impact. (40 CFR 1508.27)

Intensity The intensity of effects was considered in terms of the following:

1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that, on balance, the effect will be beneficial. My finding of not significant environmental effects is not biased by beneficial effects of the action.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. There will be no significant effects on public health and safety because smoke management plans will be met prior to ignition, thus reducing impacts to within acceptable levels due to shorter time span of the fire and emission reduction techniques (EA p. 67). Impacts to air quality from traffic on dirt roads and the new road construction will not be significant because of the short duration of the construction periods and use of the roads (EA p. 67). The proposed action would not be expected to have any significant and adverse effects on any municipal water supply (See EA p. 41).


10

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area, because cultural sites located within the project area will be protected with stipulations specified in the Section 106 agreement. These stipulations have been incorporated into the decision as part of the design criteria (EA pgs 10-11 and pgs 23 - 22). There are no parklands, prime farmlands, or wild and scenic rivers within the project area, and the analysis of the roadless areas shows that the effects are not likely to have meaningful impacts to the condition of these roadless characteristics because the treatments within roadless have been designed to mimic natural processes and to minimize visible and intense effects to each of the wilderness characteristics (see EA pgs 28-31). The proposed action would not be expected to have any significant and adverse effects on any floodplain, or wetlands (see EA pgs 37 - 47).

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. There is no known credible scientific controversy over the impacts of the proposed action (EA Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section pgs 14-73).

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The Agency has considerable experience with actions like the one proposed. The analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk (EA Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section pgs 14-73).

6. The 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. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, because the action is routine in nature and is neither precedent-setting nor are significant effects expected from similar actions. (EA Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section pgs 14-73).

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Analysis shows that cumulative impacts will not be significant (EA Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section pgs 14-73). There are no known reasonably foreseeable actions in or near the project area. Site visits and studies indicated that past harvesting activities are having very little if any detrimental impact on current watershed conditions (EA p. 47). Activities that could cumulatively impact air quality include oil and gas exploration and development on federal, tribal, state and private lands with much of the local activity south and west of Vernal including projects on the South Unit of the Ashley National Forest. The impact is not expected to be significant given the short time frame and emission reduction techniques used in prescribed fire treatments. (EA pgs 67 - 68). The spread and propagation of noxious through cattle grazing, recreation, past timber harvesting activities, roads, and recreation is unlikely because of the implementation of Project Design Elements; low to almost nonexistent level of noxious weed presence within and immediately adjacent to the project area; minimal use by cattle in areas proposed for treatment; light to moderate use levels at areas adjacent to areas proposed for treatment; and the Integrated Weed Management System that has successfully controlled and/or eradicated noxious weed infestations (EA pgs 27 - 28). Grazing of livestock does occur within the project area. However, the areas proposed for treatment are receiving little to no use by livestock. Monitoring shows that current levels of grazing has not been detrimental to the recoveries of other areas where prescribed burns and/or harvesting activities have occurred (USDA, 2010b),(EA p47).


11

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed , or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, because stipulations to avoid adverse effects to the six sites within the project area that are listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places will be followed (EA pgs 23 - 25). A letter from the Utah State Historic Preservation Office concurring with the determination of No Adverse Effect was received on May 20, 2010.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species act of 1973. There are four federally listed or candidate terrestrial wildlife species potentially found on the ANF. Of these four species only the Canada lynx has the potential to be impacted by project activities. The Biological Assessment determined that the selected alternative may affect but would not likely adversely affect Canada Lynx with the current condition of lynx habitat within the project area, application of design features within the selected alternative, and by following the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (EA pgs 49 - 50). On September 14, 2009 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with these findings.

A determination of no effect was made for Threatened and Endangered (T&E) plants and aquatic species in relation to the selected alternative as there are no T&E plant or aquatic species within the project area (EA pgs 71 - 72)

10. Whether the action threatens to violate Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The action will not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA (EA pgs 1-74). The action is consistent with the Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

After considering the effects of the actions analyzed, in terms of context and intensity, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.

Administrative Review (Appeal) Opportunities This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 215. Appeals must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. Only individuals or organizations who submitted comments or otherwise expressed interest in the project during the comment period may appeal. Appeals must be postmarked or received by the Appeal Deciding Officer within 45 days of the publication of the notice of this decision in the Vernal Express. The actual publish date is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Timeframe information from other sources should not be relied on. The Appeal Deciding Officer is Kevin B. Elliott, Ashley National Forest Supervisor. Although Mr. Elliott is stationed in Vernal, appeals must be sent to: Appeal Deciding Officer, Intermountain Region USFS, 324 25th Street, Ogden, Utah 84401; or by fax to (801) 625-5277; or by email to: [email protected]. Emailed appeals must be submitted in rich text format (.rtf), Word (.doc) or portable document format (.pdf) and must include the project name in the subject line. Appeals may also be hand delivered to the above address, during the regular business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Documents

North Flank Vegetation Management Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · Consult hydrologist on buffer institution methods. 11. Exclude fire from the 180 acre