Clear Addition Project Decision Memo January 2013 DECISION MEMO. Clear Addition Fuels Reduction and Aspen Enhancement Project

Transcription

1 DECISION MEMO Clear Addition Fuels Reduction and Aspen Enhancement Project USDA Forest Service Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Carson Ranger District Douglas County and Carson City, Nevada I. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION A. PROJECT LOCATION The project is located within Douglas County and Carson City, Nevada west of Carson City in the Clear Creek drainage. The legal description is T 15 N, R 19 E, Sections 31 and 32. B. BACKGROUND/PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The project area, approximately 155 acres, is located west of Carson City in the Clear Creek drainage. The area is bisected by US Highway 50 and Forest Service Road (also called Old Clear Creek Road). Clear Creek flows through the project area. The project area is displayed in Figure 1. The project area is surrounded by National Forest Land previously analyzed in the Clear Creek Fuels Reduction and Ecosystem Environmental Assessment (EA) completed in December This parcel was acquired from a private landowner in 2009 subsequent to completion of the Clear Creek EA. The purpose and need for this project includes: The need for reduced wildland fire risk to the Clear Creek and Carson City communities and to reduce fuel loading and ladder fuels in forested and shrub areas adjacent to the wildland urban interface West of Carson City. Dense timber and shrub stands, high fuel loadings and excessive ladder fuels have created a high risk of uncharacteristic catastrophic wildland fires. Reduce dense vegetation in order to increase vigor, health and growth rates in the forested ecosystem. Competition from high tree densities has reduced stand vigor, thus increasing the possibility that insects, disease, or wildfire would kill the forested stands, including late and older successional trees. Improving the health of the forested ecosystem would reduce the long-term risk of loss and protect this ecosystem component while enhancing productivity. Aspen stands are in a declining condition because the encroaching conifer trees shade out and replace the sun-loving aspen regeneration; eventually eradicating the aspen stand completely. Removing encroaching conifers and some older decadent aspen from within the aspen stands would enhance the existing aspen stand, and removal of conifer within a tree and half height form the edge of the stand would allow the stand to expand. This action would restore an ecosystem component that has diminished in size and vigor. This would improve habitat for a variety of wildlife species, including migratory birds and mule deer. Page 1 of 10

2 Figure 1. Vicinity map of project area. Page 2 of 10

3 Help firefighters control and/or suppress potential wildland fires. This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1986), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (USDA 2004) and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in those plans. C. DECISION It is my decision to reduce fuels and enhance aspen stands by implementing the following activities. This proposal will treat approximately102 acres. Some areas would receive multiple treatments, such as thinning and underburning. Figures 2 and 3 display the treatment areas. Brush and Tree Thinning. On approximately 90 acres brush and small diameter trees, 12 inches and under, would be thinned. Treatment methods would include mastication, hand cutting, piling, chipping, fuelwood removal and/or prescribed fire. Mastication would occur on approximately 24 acres and would be limited to slopes less than 30% and would occur mainly along Old Clear Creek Road. Mastication would not occur on slopes south of Clear Creek. Aspen Enhancement. On approximately 12 acres, aspen stands would be enhanced and expanded through removal of encroaching conifers. Treatment would include removal of most encroaching conifers, up to 30 inches in diameter, from within and approximately 100 to 150 feet (1 ½ times the tallest aspen tree) from the edge of the existing stand. Prescribed burning may also be utilized in aspen stands to stimulate regeneration. Prescribed burning would occur after conifer removal but prior to any aspen sprouting response. Commercial fuelwood sales and hand crews would be utilized to remove encroaching conifers. Prescribed Fire. Prescribed fire, both understory and pile burning, would occur on a total of approximately 102 acres. Understory and pile burning would occur on approximately 19 acres to reduce shrub and small diameter tree densities, reduce surface and ladder fuels and treat activity fuels. Pile burning only would occur on approximately 71 acres to treat activity fuels. Understory burning only may also occur on approximately 12 acres to stimulate aspen sprouting. Maintenance. Maintenance would include repeated treatments to remove ladder and surface fuels, remove conifer regeneration in aspen and maintain the treated areas. Maintenance may occur on any areas that received initial treatment and would be based on monitoring results. Maintenance may include brush and small tree mastication, invasive weed treatments, hand cutting and piling, chipping, removal and/or prescribed fire. Maintenance may occur within three years of the initial treatment and would continue, as needed, for at least 20 years. Road Maintenance and Road Reconstruction. Old Clear Creek road through the project area would be repaired, including repair of wash-outs and improved drainage to accommodate runoff from the highway. Road reconstruction on the connector road from US highway 50 south to Old Clear Creek road also would be implemented, including installing culverts, modifying the grade in spots and installing a gate at US Highway 50. Page 3 of 10

4 Figure 2. Prescribed burning. Page 4 of 10

5 Figure 3. Vegetation treatments. Page 5 of 10

6 To protect resources the following project design features will be implemented: All Federal, State and local regulations pertaining to prescribed burning would be followed. A Region 4 approved burn plan would be completed and followed. Archeological sites would be flagged and avoided during project implementation. Trees would be directionally felled away from identified archeological sites, and no slash piles would occur in identified archeological sites. Fire lines would be constructed around cultural sites with wooden elements prior to implementation. Where available, three of the largest snags per acre would be retained. Large woody debris would be retained, at least 3 pieces per acre, greater than 12 dbh or the largest available. Project activities would not occur April 15th through July 30th within 100 feet of riparian areas to minimize disturbance to migratory birds during the breeding season. Prescribed burning would be permitted during this period. Within two days of burning operations, site will be surveyed for active nests. Nesting areas will be flagged and no burning will occur within 50 feet of the nest. A Limited Operating Period (LOP) would be established within the spotted owl Protected Activity Center (PAC) to prohibit project activities from occurring between March 1st and August 30th. The LOP may be waived or modified if the wildlife biologist determines nesting activity is not occurring. Short duration prescribed burning may occur during the LOP. Within the PAC fuels treatment would only occur immediately along the road and include only minor thinning of shrubs and trees less than 6 inches diameter. Rare plant populations would be flagged and avoided. If Washoe tall rockcress is detected, individual plants will be flagged and excluded from project activities. For a large group of rockcress plants, the perimeter of the population will be determined and flagged to exclude project activities. For both individual and groups of plants a 50ft. buffer will be applied to maintain rare plant habitat by excluding project activities. The buffer width may be adjusted to fit the configuration of rare plant habitat with respect to topography and the vegetation present at the specific site as determined by the district botanist. Ground based equipment would operate on slopes less than 30%. No trees would be removed where they provide stream bank stability and ground based equipment would stay on established stream crossings. Pile burning would be minimized in riparian conservation areas and would not occur within aspen stands. Contract equipment would be washed and inspected prior to entering National Forest System lands to remove any soil and debris that may harbor noxious weed seeds. Known occurrences of noxious weeds would be managed. If road surface material is needed to repair roads, sources would be inspected and determined to be weed free. Page 6 of 10

7 My decision is based on several factors including the contents of this Decision Memo, sitespecific resource information, and supporting documentation. My conclusion is based on a review of the record that shows a review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. Relevant scientific information includes recommendations from archeologists, wildlife biologists, botanists and hydrologists. II. REASONS FOR CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDING THE DECISION Decisions may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA) when conditions of one of the categories identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture are met. These categories can be found in 7CFR par 1b, or as identified in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) , section 31. To be categorically excluded there must not be extraordinary circumstances related to the decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment. I have concluded that this decision is appropriately categorically excluded from documentation in an EIS or EA as it is a routine activity with a category of exclusion and there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment. A. CATEGORY OF EXCLUSION This decision qualifies for the following exclusion under FSH , Chapter 31.2, Category, 31.2(6) Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities which do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than one mile of low standard road construction. B. FINDING OF NO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES Extraordinary circumstances include, but are not limited to: Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas. Inventoried roadless areas. Research natural areas. American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas. The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude the use of a categorical exclusion. It is the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist (FSH Chapter 30.3). The categorical exclusion is appropriate in this situation because there are no extraordinary circumstances potentially having effects which may significantly affect the environment. I have determined this based on the following analysis: Page 7 of 10

8 A. Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that federal activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of any species federally listed and candidate, proposed, threatened, or endangered, or result in adverse modification to such species designated critical habitat. In accordance with this Act, the district wildlife biologist analyzed and documented the potential effects of this project on species and critical habitat listed under the ESA. The information indicated that there is no critical habitat for any federally listed species in the project area. Biological Evaluations were also completed for Forest Service Sensitive Species (available in the project file). B. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds. Floodplains: Executive Order is to avoid adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains. Floodplains are identified by this order as, the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent (100-year recurrence) or greater chance of flooding in any one year. No Effect Some of this project is located along Clear Creek; floodplains are present. Effects of implementing this project would not be detrimental to the floodplains. Reducing the potential for a stand-replacing wildfire would be beneficial to the floodplain. Wetlands: Executive Order is to avoid adverse impacts associated with destruction or modification of wetlands. Wetlands are defined by this order as, areas inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated condition for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. Not Present, No Effect There are no wetlands in the project area. Municipal Watersheds: Municipal watersheds are managed under multiple use prescription in land and resource management plans. No Effect Clear Creek is a tributary to the Carson River, which supplies some of Carson City s municipal water. There would be no detrimental effect to the watershed. Reducing the potential for a stand-replacing wildfire would be a beneficial effect to the watershed. C. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas. Wilderness: Not Present, No Effect This project is not within a wilderness area and the decision will not affect any wilderness areas. The nearest wilderness area is the Mt. Rose Wilderness located Page 8 of 10

9 approximately eight miles north of the project area. This decision, with impacts limited to the immediate area of activity, will not affect any wilderness areas. Wilderness Study Areas Not Present, No Effect This project is not within a Wilderness Study Area and therefore the decision will not affect any wilderness study areas. National Recreation Areas Not Present, No Effect There are no National Recreation Areas on the district. This decision will not affect National Recreation Areas. D. Inventoried Roadless Areas. Not Present, No Effect This project is not within any inventoried roadless areas (IRA s) and therefore does not affect any IRAs. E. Research Natural Areas. Not Present, No Effect This decision does not affect Research Natural Areas (RNA s). The project is not in or adjacent to the one designated RNA on the district, the Babbitt Peak RNA which is located approximately 15 miles northwest of the project area. This decision, with impacts limited to the immediate area of activity, will not affect RNA s. F. American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites, archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of a project on any district, site, building, structure, or object this is included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Section 106 of the National Preservation Act also requires federal agencies to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act covers the discovery and protection of historic properties (prehistoric and historic) that are excavated or discovered on federal lands. It affords lawful protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public and Indian lands. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act covers the discovery and protection of Native American human remains and objects that are excavated or discovered in federal lands. It encourages avoidance of archaeological sites that contain burials or portions of sites that contain graves through in situ preservation, but may encompass other actions to preserve these remains and items. This decision complies with the cited Acts. Surveys were conducted for Native American religious or cultural sites, archaeological sites, and historic properties or areas that may be affected by this decision. One site was recorded as being eligible for the National Federal Register. This site will not be impacted by project activities. Proposed improvements to the site follow the Secretary of Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation for historic sites. Based on these mitigations, a no properties affect determination was made. Consultation on this finding occurred with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office. Page 9 of 10

10 Additionally, the Federal government has trust responsibilities to Tribes under a government-togovernment relationship to insure that the Tribes reserved rights are protected. Consultation with tribes helps insure that these trust responsibilities are met. Consultation with potentially affected tribes occurred prior to scoping, in additional, tribes were mailed the request for comments letter. No comments were received and no tribal concerns were identified for this project. III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The proposal for this project was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping. A scoping letter was mailed out to interested persons and organizations on August 10, The project was also included in the April 1 to June 30, 2012, July 1 to September 30, 2012, and October 1 to December 31 Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). IV. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS This decision is consistent with management direction, including standards and guidelines, in the Amendment to the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (January, 2004), which were developed in accordance with the National Forest Management Act of 1976, 16 USC 1604(i) and 36 CFR (e) and with the National Environmental Policy Act. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES Pursuant to 36 CFR (a) (4), this decision is not subject administrative appeal. VI. IMPLEMENTATION DATE This decision may be implemented immediately. Project implementation will most likely begin in VII. CONTACT PERSON For further information concerning this decision, please contact: Sally Champion, Carson Ranger District, 1536 So. Carson Street, Carson City, NV 89701, _/s/ Genny Wilson January 16, 2013_ GENNY WILSON Date District Ranger Page 10 of 10