DECISION. Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project DRAFT Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Page 1 of 15

Transcription

1 DRAFT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT NETTLE PATCH VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT U.S. FOREST SERVICE GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS CLINCH RANGER DISTRICT WISE COUNTY, VIRGINIA DECISION An Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluating a proposed action (Alternative 1), a no action alternative (alternative 2) and third alternative for the Nettle Patch Vegetation Project has been completed. Based upon my review of the Project EA, I have decided to implement a modified proposed action that utilizes the amount of timber harvest acreage from the third alternative, but retains the remaining non-timber harvest management action items. The selected modified proposed action includes the following activities: Alternative 1 (the proposed action) is the selected alternative with a few exceptions. These exceptions consist of the following from the 3 rd Alternative: 1) Regeneration harvest shall now be 318 acres. 2) Even-aged management Commercial Thinning shall now total 564 acres. 3) Even-aged management Commercial Thinning Woodland shall now total 167 acres. 4) Forest Stand Improvement Crop Tree Release (Mechanical) will total 678 acres. 5) System road maintenance shall now amount to miles. 6) Temporary road construction at 1.09 miles. 7) Landing constructions shall be approximately 9 acres (34 landings). 8) Treatment of Non-Native Invasive Species along Roads and with stands shall total 84 acres. 9) Grass/Forb Wildlife Habitat Creation shall total 12 acres. 10) Blockage of unauthorized dispersed camping / parking lot (funding dependent). The remaining sections of the proposed action (Alternative 1) shall be selected for the remaining action items as part of this decision. 1) 318 acres of mechanical and chemical site preparation post regeneration harvest. 2) 477 acres of understory oak culturing with chemical. 3) Minor harvesting in some extended areas within the 11 Management Prescription. 4) 1.7 miles of dozer line. 5) 1,455 acres of prescribed burn. 6) 2 acres of soil and water work (old road rehab). Page 1 of 15

2 Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures For this modified proposed action, all applicable Forest Wide (FW) Standards and Management Prescription Standards described in the Forest Plan would be followed and assisted in the formation of project specific mitigations. These standards provide protection for various resources such as soil, water, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and cultural resources. These specific applicable Forest Wide standards are listed in Appendix B of the EA. In addition to the adherence to the applicable standards described in the Forest Plan, the following site-specific mitigation measures will be followed with the implementation of the modified proposed action. These measures were created in response to issues raised during the public comment period and internal scoping amongst the Interdisciplinary Team that completed the analysis: Where there are small inclusions of steeper slopes (over 35%) in the harvest units, it will require winching logs to a skid road to mitigate the slope and avoid excessive skid road building. Winches will be required in the timber harvest contract. Cutting Units with a sustained slope over 35% will be required to use a cable logging method. Log landings will be located on slopes less than 35%. Slash will be placed in skid trails and existing ATV trails (in harvest units along 238, 706, 890 and 2445 road) to discourage illegal ATV use and reduce contrasts to line, color and texture to help meet Scenic Integrity Objectives. Roads will be used as unit boundaries where feasible (only corners will be painted where the road is the boundary). Timber, wildlife, and soils specialists will develop seed mixtures for soil stabilization. Day lighting of all Forest Service system roads and temporary haul roads by removing overstory trees and brush adjacent to the road bed. Removal of known Indiana Bat roost trees shall be avoided. If a roost tree needs to be cut for any reason, an informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) shall occur prior to removal (if possible). If a tree is identified as an immediate threat to public or personnel safety, it can be removed at any time, but preferably not before notification of an FS biologist and the FWS. If a tree must be removed prior to notification, FWS shall be notified as soon as possible. The removal would occur when the bats are in hibernacula (November 15 through March 15). To reduce the potential for sedimentation from harvest activities and associated projects, riparian buffers are designed to meet and/or exceed all VA State BMP s and Forest Plan Standards. Wildlife trees will be identified and protected. A minimum average of 6 trees per acre > 9 DBH shall be retained in all regeneration harvest areas to provide Indiana Bat summer roost habitat. All shagbark hickories shall be retained in harvest units unless they pose a safety hazard. Any shagbark hickory felled for safety reasons will be tracked by the Timber Sale Administration team in inspection reports. Special attention will be given to directional felling of trees away from marked gas pipelines and wells. Page 2 of 15

3 Temporary closure will be used to prevent rutting and the need to widen roads, skid trails and bladed skid trails. Rutted areas will be smoothed, ripped and seeded to restore soils conditions for growing biomass. Temporary roads will be water barred, fertilized, seeded and mulched to promote erosion control vegetation cover, protect aquatic resources, and help meet SIOs. No excavation will occur within utility corridors. Gas company will be contacted to verify if any additional mitigation factors will be necessary such as reinforcement for vehicles at pipeline crossings, etc. Gas company will be notified prior to planned prescribed burn and gas wells in question will be shut down before ignition. Gas well improvements will be protected by special provision under the timber sale contract when harvest activities occur adjacent to gas well sites. ed roads will be signed that logging is occurring to alert forest users to expect logging truck traffic. Small patches of identified old growth within other management prescriptions larger than an acre in size (per Forestwide guidance) will be flagged and protected during harvesting activities. These areas will not be avoided for the purposes of prescribed burning. Compartment 2059, Stand 26 (regeneration harvest) will have a 100 buffer to the south along FSR 238C. Retention trees in thinnings will have marking paint applied on side of tree facing away from the road. To reduce the potential for the establishment and spread of non-native invasive plants, an equipment cleaning provision will be included in all timber sale contracts for this project. If a coal bed is exposed during road construction or harvest activities, a Forest Service geologist and/or hydrologist will be consulted to determine what, if any, measures are needed to avoid or mitigate potential episodic ph problems. Mitigation measures will be outlined in the burn plan which will allow for proper smoke dispersal. A spot weather forecast will be requested from the National Weather Service in Morristown Tennessee to ensure the migration measures can be met for smoke dispersal. If smoke becomes a problem, the following mitigations will be followed: o Smoke patrols during the burn o Burn Boss will determine the need for night time patrol o Place smoke warning signs on US 23 & Rt. 58, if needed (determined by the burn boss) o If smoke causes low visibility on any state route then the Burn Boss will order law enforcement and fire vehicles with warning lights to warn and slow traffic o Notify Wise County Sheriff Department if necessary o An ADI (Atmospheric Dispersion Index) of 21 or greater is preferred o The burn boss will request an additional spot weather forecast in afternoon to determine the nighttime dispersion. Dispersal of herbicides for Non-native plant control shall tier to the Environmental Assessment, Forest-Wide Non-Native Invasive Plant Control for the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. Page 3 of 15

4 Temporary roads within the Eastland creek watershed will be required to have rock in place before to use as a haul road. Before any Forest Stand Improvement Crop Tree Release (Mechanical) projects are implemented a discussion of desired future conditions will be discussed for any type of wetland within each stand with specialist. Normal Operation Season (AT13) in the timber sale contract will be changed from the current standard of March 15 to December 15 to a Normal Operation Season that is appropriate for the given location of each sale area if necessary. For regeneration harvest units in High and Moderate SIO areas immediately adjacent to the concern level 1 or 2 travelway, a band of trees in width will be retained and then transitioning the leave-tree density from higher density near travelways to the desired density within the unit. Any treatment openings that extend to designated travelways will be random in width of the opening adjacent to the travelway, and in spacing between these openings. o To the extent feasible, these openings should appear natural with obvious human made features eliminated, such as temporary roads, skid trails, landings, and slash. Geometric shapes are to be avoided in regeneration harvest units within High and Moderate SIO areas. Thinning unit in High SIO along FSR 2020D will have an increase in the percent of retention trees at the top of small knobs in this area. Thinning units in Moderate SIO along FSR 2420 and 2420C will have a higher percent of retention trees on the ridgetop and upper elevation and ripping and seeding the skid trails and landing to reduce any visual contrast from the existing landscape character. Within the Regeneration unit along FSR 238 and located between FSR 2536 and 2435 the following is prescribed: o Leave an untreated buffer of forest along FSR 238 that is between feet in width, o Lop slash visible from FSR 238 (if any), o Assure timber marking is not visible from the road. o Boundary adjacent to FSR 2536 will be pulled just east of existing ridgeline. TSI-crop tree release units in Moderate SIO north of FSR 238 will require lopping slash visible from FSR 238 (if any). Temporary roads extending from all open roads will be revegetated in the immediate foreground following project completion, and any visible skid trails and landings are successfully ripped and seeded to reduce or eliminate color contrast. A higher retention of trees will occur as is feasible an sage along ridgelines and upper elevations to reduce the appearance of the size of openings and prevent introducing notches or daylighting on knobs and spur ridges. Green Salamander Mitigations The documented green salamander locations in stand 12 will be buffered by a minimum of 5 chains (330 ) extending north into the stand from the existing road to the south. As the project progresses, sites that are identified that potentially meet certain habitat characteristics will be evaluated for buffering (minimum of 5 chains, 330 ) from thinning and regeneration harvests. Page 4 of 15

5 Retain trees within 300 feet of a rock feature supporting salamanders. Retain trees in a corridor 300 feet wide between rock features supporting salamanders that are within 500 feet of each other. DECISION RATIONALE I have chosen a modified proposed action for the following reasons: Alternative 1 moves the project area towards: (1) attaining Forest-Wide Goals and Objectives identified in the Forest Plan and (2) the Desired Future Condition for Management Prescriptions 8A1, Mix of Successional Habitats in Forested Landscapes, 9H, Management, Maintenance and Restoration of Forest Communities and 7B Scenic Corridors. With the implementation of the modified proposed action and portions of Alternative 3, the project area shall move towards the goals/desired future conditions in the Jefferson Forest Plan which includes the following: 8A1-OBJ1: Maintain a minimum of sixty percent of the area greater than 40 years of age. 8A1-OBJ2: Maintain a minimum of twenty percent of the area in late-successional to old growth forest conditions greater than 100 years of age. Trees greater than 120 years of age may occur throughout the prescription area as individuals or small groups. Portions of this prescription area are managed by natural processes and prescribed fire and contribute to the older aged forest component across the prescription area. These lands include riparian areas, areas of low productivity like shale barrens, and lands where commercial timber harvest is uneconomical. Cavity trees, cull trees, standing dead trees, and down logs are common throughout the area as a result of natural mortality. 8A1-OBJ3: Maintain a minimum of four percent of the prescription area in early successional forest habitat conditions (stand age less than 10 years, openings 2 acres in size and greater). Early successional forest provides several important habitat components that change over time unless a patch is maintained every one to three years through mowing or herbicide applications. Timber management in these areas is designed to provide transitional early successional habitat over time, as well as a full spectrum of age classes between the early- and late-successional stages. The grass-forb component, important for grazers and species that feed on insects, is created immediately following a disturbance event and quickly becomes a dense herbaceous understory of shrubs and young trees which provides both hiding cover and soft mast for food. The forested edges created by the opening are prime hunting territory for both avian and fur-bearing predators. 8A1-OBJ4: Maintain an open road density at or below 1.25 miles per square mile (applies to National Forest System roads only). The recreation experience in this area is not considered remote, although open road densities may be fairly low. Access is provided through portions of the area on Forest Service and State roads with a gravel or native surface. Roads may occasionally be paved. Forest visitors on foot, horse, or bikes rarely experience feelings of solitude, challenge, or risk. Comfort, sanitation, and Page 5 of 15

6 camping facilities are not provided, although primitive camping can be enjoyed throughout the area. 8A1-005: Maintain and restore southern yellow pine forest communities through artificial or natural regeneration. Regeneration pine-hardwood forest types artificially or naturally to mixed pine-hardwood stands of native species to retain the pine component. 9H-004: 4-10 percent of the prescription area consists of a dispersed system of transitory openings created through vegetation management activities. 9H-005: Maintain and restore southern yellow pine forest communities through artificial or natural regeneration. 9H-007: Proactively manage species composition and tree vigor in stands at a level that reduces susceptibility to damage from insect and disease infestations and other forest health problems like oak decline.. 9H -012: Regeneration harvest areas may occupy up to 16 percent of a project analysis area in order to provide 4-10 percent of an individual contiguous management prescription area in early successional forest habitat conditions and to cluster these conditions on the landscape. 7B-007: Allow vegetation management activities to: o Enhance or rehabilitate scenery. o Enhance both game and non-game wildlife habitat. o Maintain rare communities and species dependent on disturbance. o Reduce fuel build-ups. o Control non-native invasive vegetation. In addition, the design criteria and the mitigation measures listed above and included in this alternative will address and reduce the impacts of the project issues raised during public scoping. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL Alternative 2: This is the No Action alternative. This alternative was not selected because it does not satisfy the primary purpose and need for the proposed action. It does not move the area towards the Desired Future Condition components of Management Prescriptions 8A1, Mix of Successional Habitats in Forested Landscapes and 9H, Management, Maintenance and Restoration of Forest Communities and 7B Scenic Corridors. The specific Desired Conditions and Standards that this objective will not meet are listed in the Decision Rationale. Alternative 3: This third alternative was created to address several issues brought forward in public comment including sediment impacts on water bodies, the scale of regeneration harvests, and the use of herbicides and prescribed fire. Although only one additional alternative is being presented, it was created to address a variety of public issues. The changes in alternative 3 include the reduction of temporary roads to 1.09 miles, a 28% reduction of regeneration harvest to 318 acres, a 23% reduction of commercial thinning to 564 acres, a 32% reduction of woodland commercial thinning to 167 acres, mechanical and chemical understory oak culturing was removed, no herbicide will be used for site preparation activities, no commercial harvesting Page 6 of 15

7 will occur in the extended riparian zone buffers, 16 landings were eliminated, dozer lines were eliminated, road construction, reconstruction and decommission was removed, road maintenance was decreased by approximately 2 miles and an unauthorized dispersed camping / parking lot will be blocked to protect water features. Alternative 3 is further summarized in the following tables. The prescribed burn included in this alternative will be for one large landscape burn of 1,118 acres which removes 337 acres of site preparation burning post shelterwood harvests. Portions of this alternative were selected as part of the decision to lessen soil and water impacts in certain watersheds. THE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY During scoping for this project several alternatives were suggested by the public. These were considered but eliminated from detailed study. They include the following: Increased Thinning: Many stands could potentially benefit from a thinning (as they are fully over-stocked) however, this probably should have been done years ago. Many stands are well past the culmination of mean annual increment and past the biological rotation age. Although thinning at an older age is not typical, Hilt found that diameter growth of the largest 40 trees per acre show a distinct response to thinning, regardless of age or site index in upland oaks (Hilt 1979). This would do little to benefit the declining scarlet oak found throughout the project area that are already well past their average life expectancy of 80 years. Additionally, it would do nothing to increase the early successional habitat in the project area nor would it be economically feasible as harvest yields from thinning would be low. Uneven-Age Management by either Single Tree Selection or Group Selection: Table D6 in the Forest Plan (Appendix D, pg. D-5, D-9) has identified the recommended silvicultural regeneration methods for specific forest community types. Based on the forest community types proposed for regeneration, uneven-aged methods (either single tree selection or group selection) are rated as either not recommended or possible which leaves a question of regeneration success when utilizing these methods. Moreover, implementation of an uneven age management system requires more frequent entries to achieve the desired age class distribution. Also, three criteria must be met for uneven-age management to be considered in an area, which is further outlined in the plan under Forestwide standard 119 (pp. 2-34). The area must: (1) be at least 100 acres in size; (2) occur on slopes less than 30%, and (3) be near an existing road. These criteria were developed to identify the limiting physical features for a viable commercial timber sale utilizing uneven-age harvesting methods. In the absence of any of the three criteria, a viable uneven-age sale offering does not exist, irrespective of other biological and social considerations. Using the above criteria, the total project area within management prescriptions 7B, 8A1, and 9H were reviewed to determine the location of lands meeting the above uneven-aged criteria. Although scattered small areas met criteria 2 & 3 (slopes from 0 to 20 percent and near existing roads), no area met all three criteria within the project area. Throughout the project area, the presence of maples, blackgum, and sourwood mixed amongst the desirable oak species complicates the use of single tree selection in any given stand. Clatterbuck et al. (2010) states on the majority of hardwood sites in the southeastern United Page 7 of 15

8 States, the diversity of species and need to control shade-tolerant and midstory species are serious disadvantages to implementing single tree regeneration practices if the objective is to regenerate and sustain shade-intolerant species. A significant use of herbicides would be needed to control competing midstory vegetation to allow establishment and subsequent growth of desired advance regeneration. Additionally, with single tree selection the goal is to maintain a relatively higher stocked stand than what might be necessary to meet stand, project area and management prescription objectives. Typically with this method the goal is have the stand to be somewhat crowded to maintain good form in individual trees. This makes single tree selection desirable for the management of high value species. Using this regeneration method to meet the project objectives would require a low basal area. Even then, this likely would not move compositional and structural needs in the management prescription closer to the desired future conditions. The use of this method would likely interfere with compositional goals of regenerating pine and even oaks in this area. This regeneration method could, as mentioned earlier, regenerate oaks if used with herbicide. However, shadeintolerant species frequently fail to reproduce in the shade (Nyland 2002). This could prove problematic for regeneration of intermediate (oaks) and shade-intolerant (yellow pine) species in the future for this stand if the single tree regeneration method was selected. Single tree selection would do very little to meet structural demands and would likely interfere greatly with desired future composition. Short cutting cycles would most likely be needed to maintain this regeneration method. This would definitely increase site disturbance due to the frequency of harvest. It s also very likely that residual trees and reproduction would likely suffer logging damage, decreasing the future value of the stand. Higher logging cost, due to dispersed merchantable timber, would do very little to offset the already cost-prohibitive stand tending treatments that would be necessary to weed out undesirable species out of the midstory. Therefore, using this regeneration method was not analyzed in further detail. An alternative to single-tree selection, group selection is an uneven-aged treatment that requires the cutting of stems in groups. These groups are usually 1.5 to 2 times the average height of the surrounding mature trees or less than ½ acre in size. It s an un-even aged regeneration method that is more favorable to intolerant species that do not regenerate in the small openings created by single-tree selection (Clatterbuck et al. 2010). In a study done in central Appalachian mixed hardwood stands, with larger openings shade intolerant species increase (Dale et al. 1985) while, generally speaking, logging cost decrease (LeDoux 1999). After 30 years of regeneration, results Ledoux (1999) found that smaller group opening sizes had fewer trees per acre, smaller trees and more shade-tolerant species. It is also important to note. In opening sizes less than ½ acres in size, a typical opening size considered for the group selection method, Dale et al. (1985) found that shade-tolerant species dominated the openings. To create an uneven-age structure, generally speaking, several cutting cycles are required. These frequent entries for harvesting require elaborate networks of carefully planned skid trails and roads. Decreased cutting cycles also increase site disturbance and increase soil, water, and wildlife impacts. Therefore, an alternative that would utilize uneven age management was considered but not analyzed in detail. This alternative was specifically questioned about during the scoping process Page 8 of 15

9 which led to its initial consideration during the project proposal process, although for the above stated reasons was removed from consideration. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This proposal first appeared on the District s quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in the first quarter of calendar year 2015 as the Pulaski Vegetation Management Project and has appeared on the schedule as such since that time. Scoping was conducted by the District Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to determine the issues and concerns related to the proposed action. A variety of individuals and organizations were contacted to determine the scope of the issues and concerns related to the proposed action. Scoping letters were mailed on April to interested and affected agencies, organizations, and individuals informing them of the proposed action and requesting their input. A Legal Notice requesting comments was published in The Coalfield Progress newspaper on March The Coalfield Progress is the newspaper of record for the Clinch District. A series of public meetings were held to gather input and comments. The first public meeting was held at the Clinch Ranger District on March in which 21 members of the public participated. A post meeting Project Area field trip was then held in which 5 members of the public went onto the project site with Forest Service staff. An additional meeting was hosted during the official comment period by Barry Garten, Clinch District Ranger, on April 19, 2016 at the City of Norton s town hall. 4 members of the public and a journalist from the Coalfield Progress attended this meeting. Forest Service staff also attended the Town of Coeburn s town hall meeting on April In both town hall meetings, project activities were outlined and comments were received from all present governing authorities. A comment period was held on the draft EA starting on February 22, 2017 and extended through to April 24, This project is also listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest. This Schedule is available on the internet at Careful consideration was given to all received comments to ensure all project issues were gathered and addressed. I carefully reviewed and weighed the comments received during scoping and during the notice and comment period in the development of this decision and used them to guide my decision. Comments are addressed in Appendix D of the EA. 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. Page 9 of 15

10 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 ) CONTEXT The physical and biological effects of this action vary according to the resource area analyzed. These impacts are primarily limited to the immediate areas impacted by the actions in the proposed action modified now with elements of Alternative 3 in the Nettle Patch Project Area on the Clinch Ranger District. Both beneficial and adverse impacts of this project have been considered and these activities will not cause a significant effect to the quality of the human environment (EA Chapter 3). INTENSITY The intensity of effects was considered in terms of the following: 1. s 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. Consideration of the intensity of environmental effects is not biased by beneficial effects of the action (EA, Chapter 3). 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. There shall be no significant effect on public health or safety. Potential impacts to the safety of forest visitors and adjacent residents will be mitigated (for example notification of prescribe burns to private in-holders, signage of areas treated with herbicides..etc.) (EA, Chapter 2, Project Specific Mitigations and Chapter 3, Health and Safety Report). 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 these characteristics would not be significantly affected by the actions with the mitigations. There was an impacted watershed identified in the project area (EA, Chapter 3). Identified cultural resources and specific wildlife species habitat will be avoided during all harvesting activities (EA, Chapter 2, Project Specific Mitigations). 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 credible (based on location & scope of actions) scientific controversy over the impacts of the proposed decision. The best available science was considered in making this decision. The project record demonstrates a thorough review of relevant scientific information, consideration of responsible opposing views, specific watershed locations of actions, acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk (EA Chapter 3). Interested and affected parties were highly engaged in the scoping process for this project. The major issues brought forward centered in sediment impacts to water features, impacts to scenery, viewsheds and recreational experience, the use of prescribed fire, Page 10 of 15

11 project activities on steep slopes and landslide risks, and impacts to Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Locally Rare species. Alternative 3 and a serious of design criteria and mitigations were created in response to these issues as outlined in the EA. No significant impact to these issues was found during analysis. 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). 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 proposed control methods are well established and have been utilized frequently in the past (EA Chapter 2 and 3). The protections prescribed for the green salamander have been used by other Forest Service Forests and are not entirely new in their application. More specific monitoring protocols are planned for higher risk soil sites which is not traditionally how soils monitoring is completed for similar projects on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest. This is proposed due to public interest on the project and will not set precedence for protocol in future like decisions. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. The action is not related to other Forest Service actions. The overall cumulative impacts with other non-forest Service actions are not significant now in the modified proposed action. No other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects or activities were identified whose effects could combine with the modified proposed action and result in a significant cumulative effect (EA Chapter 3). 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 all identified resources will be avoided during project implementation (EA, pages ). The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred with this finding by letter dated 03/15/ 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 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, because it was determined that the project will not adversely affect any federally listed species and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this finding on April 24, 2017 (EA page 90 and Project Biological Evaluation, EA Appendix E). Page 11 of 15

12 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 for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA (EA page 31). 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. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS Forest Plan Consistency The Forest Plan has been reviewed to determine whether the decision being made is consistent with the present management prescription 8A1, 9H, 7B and 11 direction, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and other laws and regulations. The purpose of the project is meet certain project objectives as outlined in the EA including 8A1 Objective 3, 8A1 Objective 2, 8A1 Objective 4, 8A1-005, 9H-004, 9H-007, 9H-012, and This action is consistent with the Forest Plan (Appendix B, listed applicable Forest Plan standards). Vegetation Manipulation These actions which alter vegetation comply with the seven requirements of 36 CFR (b) and are consistent with Forest Plan Direction. This action is best suited to the multiple use goals established for the area. As previously stated, this action would help achieve the Forest Plan desired conditions of 1) Wildlife and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Habitat Goal 6 (Plan, p. 2-13); 2) Vegetation, Old Growth and Forest Health Forest-wide Goal 12 (Plan, p. 2-24); 3) Timber Management Goal 15 (Plan, p. 2-32).. This action would achieve these goals while minimizing impacts to biological (EA, p ), cultural (EA, p ), aesthetic (EA, p ), and economic (EA, p ) resources. This action assures that all regenerated acres will be adequately stocked with desirable trees species (EA, pages 8-10), as previously described. The action was chosen because, when weighed by the impacts to various resources, this action best moves the project area towards its Desired Future Condition while achieving the Goals and Objectives of the Forest Plan. The potential effect on residual trees, adjacent stands and old growth was considered in choosing this alternative (EA, pages 15-17, 54-62). This action will avoid permanent impairment of site productivity and ensure conservation of the soil and water resource through the application of Alternative 1 and 3 s design Page 12 of 15

13 criteria and mitigation measures found on pages of the EA. Analysis of the impacts to the soil and water resource concluded that these impacts are not expected to be significant (EA, pages ). This action will adequately mitigate impacts to the wildlife resource (EA, pages 62-96), and fisheries resource (EA, pages 86-90). This action will also adequately mitigate impacts on the recreation, scenic and aesthetic values of the area (EA, pages ). Clean Water Act Public issues that revolved around watershed & sedimentation have the underlying clean water act s relations to the first proposed action as the basis for comments. Through sound scientific approaches of identifying the source of potential problems and adjusting the proposed action to not cross thresholds that significantly effects on conditions that would be in non-compliance to this law. OBJECTION OPPORTUNITIES This project is subject to the pre-decisional objection process pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 218 Subparts A and B. The opportunity to object ends 45 days following the date of publication of the legal notice in The Coalfield Progress. The publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection, and those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by another source. Objections will be accepted only from those who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project during scoping or other designated opportunity for public comment. Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on new information arising after designated comment opportunities 218.8(c). The objection must contain the minimum content requirements specified in 218.8(d) and incorporation of documents by reference is permitted only as provided in 218.8(b). It is the objector s responsibility to ensure timely filing of a written objection with the reviewing officer. All objections are available for public inspection during and after the objection process. Written objections, including attachments, must be filed with: Reviewing Officer Joby P. Timm, Forest Supervisor, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke Virginia , (540) (voice). The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered objections are: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic objections must be submitted in a format such as an message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc,.docx) to objections-southern-georgewashingtonjefferson@fs.fed.us. Please state Nettle Patch Vegetation Management Project in the subject line when providing electronic objections, or on the envelope when replying by mail. IMPLEMENTATION DATE As per 36 CFR , if no objection is received within the legal objection period, this decision may Page 13 of 15

14 be signed and implemented on, but not before, the fifth business day following the close of the objection-filing period. If an objection is filed, this decision cannot be signed or implemented until the reviewing officer has responded in writing to all pending objections. CONTACT For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Shelby Williams, Project Team Leader at THIS DOCUMENT IS A DRAFT AND IS NOT CONSIDERED A FINAL DECISION DOCUMENT. A FINAL DECISION NOTICE WILL BE SIGNED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PERIOD. BARRY GARTEN Acting Clinch District Ranger Date Page 14 of 15

15 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider. Page 15 of 15