Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact

Transcription

1 Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Teeple Springs Vegetation Treatment Project Fishlake National Forest Fremont River Ranger District Sevier County, Utah Intermountain Region June 2015 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC or call (202) (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

2 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Desired Conditions.2 Purpose and Need...2 Decision Decision Design Features...3 Decision Rationale Other Alternatives Considered. 15 Public Involvement and Collaboration.15 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations.16 Finding of No Significant Impact.20 Conclusion 26 Best Available Science.26 Administrative Review Contact..26 Signature...27 MAPS Map 1: Vicinity Map of Teeple Springs Map 2: Cover Type, Compartment, and Stand Map Map 3: Forest Plan Management Area Map 30 Map 4: Inventoried Roadless Area and Draft Unroaded/Undeveloped Area Map...31 i Fishlake National Forest Fremont River Ranger District

3 INTRODUCTION In April 2015, an Interdisciplinary Team completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the. The EA disclosed the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that will result from the No Action Alternative and two Action Alternatives. This EA is available on the Fishlake National Forest website at: The area encompasses approximately 1,112 acres of National Forest System lands in all or portions of the following sections: T26S, R1E, Sections 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, and 23. The project area is located approximately 2 miles west of Fish Lake. The entire project area occurs in Sevier County. See Map 1 for a vicinity map of the area. The project area ranges in elevation from approximately 10,100 to 10,900 feet. No stream or lake riparian areas are known to occur in the project area. One stock watering pond exists within the project area. Forest Service Roads 1729 and 352 occur in the project area. In addition, Forest Service Roads 2574, 2571, and 1617 (which are closed to public use and available for administrative use) occur in the project area. The project area occurs adjacent to and west of the Fishlake Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). None of the acres in the project area occur in the IRA or in any Draft Unroaded-Undeveloped areas (Map 4). Most of the project area (1,110 acres) occurs in Forest Plan Management Area 7A; Wood Fiber Products (Map 3). A small portion (2 acres) of the project area (northeast corner) occurs in Forest Plan Management Area 3C; Management of Fish Lake Mountain (Map 1-3). The project area occurs in the Hancock Sheep and Goat (S&G) Allotment. A portion of the project area was treated in the past (1990s and 2004) with timber harvest and associated pile burning. Areas treated in the past include stands 0050, 0055, and 0036 of compartment 208 and stands 0003 and 001 of compartment 207 (Map 2). The project area consists of mixed conifer, spruce-fir and aspen ecosystems. Within the 1,112 acre project area, 11 acres are perennial grass, 40 acres are mixed conifer, 1,017 acres are sprucefir, and approximately 43 acres are aspen. In summary, I have decided to treat approximately 40 acres of mixed conifer stands, 1,017 acres of spruce-fir stands, and approximately 43 acres of aspen stands (Map 2). Treatments will consist of thinning trees from the mixed conifer and spruce-fir stands, removing dead/dying spruce trees, and removing conifers from the aspen stands. Design features are included to help minimize resource impacts. My decision is described in greater detail below. Map 2 shows areas that will be treated. 1 Fishlake National Forest

4 DESIRED CONDITIONS Desired Conditions for the are discussed in detail in Chapter 1 of the EA. PURPOSE AND NEED Within the spruce-fir and mixed conifer stands, the District has identified a need to reduce the basal area (BA) from 145 to less than 90, remove the dead/dying trees, and create opportunities for treated stands to successfully grow into Vegetation Structural Stages (VSS) 4, 5, and 6. The purpose would be to grow larger trees, while maintaining spruce resilience and providing a wood fiber product for public use. Within the aspen stands, the District has identified a need to have additional aspen trees per acre of various size and height classes, reduce the conifer cover from 37% to less than 10%, and create opportunities for additional VSS 4, 5, and 6s to be established all with the purpose of having persistent aspen communities with multi-aged stems and adequate recruitment to perpetuate the communities. This Purpose and Need and the Desired Conditions for this project are discussed and supported in Campbell and Bartos 2001, Jones et al. 2005, Mueggler 1989, Olmsted 1979, White and Feller 2001, Ferguson 2004, Hebertson 2013, Jenkins et al. 2014, and the Utah Forests Aspen Restoration Working Group DECISION I have reviewed the project record, individual specialist reports, and the analysis presented in the Environmental Assessment for the, considered internal and external comments received, and have discussed the projects anticipated effects with both the project interdisciplinary team and Fishlake National Forest staff. As a result I decided to implement the Proposed Action described in Chapter 2 of the EA and below: I decided to treat approximately 40 acres of mixed conifer stands, 1,017 acres of spruce-fir stands, and approximately 43 acres of aspen stands (Map 2). Mechanical treatments in the mixed conifer and spruce-fir stands will consist of thinning all tree species to BA 90, using uneven aged management, by group and single tree selection. In addition, while ensuring Forest Plan consistency (i.e. snags and down woody debris), beetle killed spruce trees will be removed through salvage treatments and beetle infected (dying) spruce trees will be removed through sanitation treatments. After the mechanical treatments are completed, trees will be replanted 2 Fishlake National Forest

5 where stocking levels are below trees per acre for spruce and trees per acre for mixed conifer. Mechanical treatments in the aspen stand will consist of removing the mixed conifer trees while retaining the existing aspen. Any aspen cut will be incidental while accessing and removing the conifer. It is anticipated that the disturbance from removing conifer will stimulate new aspen growth to move towards Desired Conditions. Following treatment, if monitoring determines that browsing has a high probability of causing aspen Desired Conditions to not be achieved, the aspen stand(s) will be fenced until the aspen are greater than 6 feet in height (4-6 years). Cutting methods will include, but are not limited to; feller bunchers, skid-steer with saw attachments, and/or hand crews equipped with chainsaws, bow-saws or loppers. Merchantable wood (trees >8 diameter at breast height (DBH)) and biomass will be moved to the nearest road via skid-steers and skidders. Non-merchantable trees (trees <8 DBH) and slash will be treated with a mix of lopped/scattered, consolidated/piled/burned, and/or hauled off-site. Nonmerchantable trees could also be made available for firewood cutting. Access to the proposed treatment units will be via State Route 25, Forest Roads 057, 329, 352 and 1729 as well as administrative roads 1617 and 2571 and There will be no changes to the current classification of these roads, although roads could be maintained or improved to meet the existing classification standards. In addition to the existing roads, a temporary road, approximately 2 miles long and 15 feet wide with possible turnouts at regular intervals, will be built to access the project area west of administrative road This temporary road will be closed to public access and will only be used for administrative use to facilitate implementation of this project. Upon project completion, the temporary road will be reclaimed using Best Management Practices and will be accomplished by ripping the roadbed and/or scarifying (scratching) the road surface with mechanical equipment. Litter and debris that is available in the area will be scattered over the ripped or scarified road surface and placed at or near the temporary road origins in order to deter traffic. Decision Design Features Project design features are developed to protect the resource and meet the goals of the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). I decided to implement the following design features and resource protection measures: 3 Fishlake National Forest

6 Pile burning will comply with the Utah State air quality standards. Prior to prescribed fire implementation, the Fremont River Ranger District will obtain approval from Utah Smoke Management. Pile burning will follow an approved burn plan. Upon request, interested parties will be notified prior to implementing any pile burning. All applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guides will be applied and are incorporated into this Decision. Treated areas will be rested from domestic grazing for at least 2 growing seasons post implementation, and possibly 3 to reduce browse pressure on new vegetation. Invasive and noxious weeds are not known to occur in the project area; however, treatment areas will be monitored post implementation. If noxious and/or invasive weeds are detected, the District will take the appropriate actions to control spread and eliminate the noxious and/or invasive weeds from the treatment areas. Equipment will be washed and inspected, prior to entering National Forest System lands, to remove any soil and debris that may contribute to the spread of noxious weeds. To provide for the safety of implementation personnel and the public, some roads and dispersed camping areas may be temporarily closed during pile burning and/or mechanical treatment implementation. Temporary closures will be determined by implementation personnel and will be based on the hazards present at the time of implementation. Where the proposed temporary road meets FS Road 352, a location that will be conducive to an effective road closure (gate or barrier) following implementation will be chosen. Within the aspen treatment areas, a minimum of 50 down logs per 10 acres; 6 inch diameter at 8 feet long; and 30 tons per 10 acres will be retained. Within the mixed conifer and spruce/fir areas, a minimum of 50 down logs per 10 acres; 12 inch diameter at 8 feet long; and 100 tons per 10 acres will be retained. Within the aspen treatment areas, a minimum of 200 snags per 100 acres; 8 inch DBH 15 feet tall will be retained. Within the mixed conifer and spruce/fir areas, a minimum of 300 snags per 100 acres; 18 inch DBH 30 feet tall will be retained in small groups across the project area. Trees containing wildlife cavities will be avoided. No project activities will occur in an active goshawk Post Fledging Area (PFA) between March 1 and September 30. Where live trees remain, project activities will not create openings greater than 1 acre. The live non-beetle infected VSS 4, 5, and 6 trees in the goshawk PFA (80 acres) will be retained. In addition, the live non-beetle infected VSS 5 and 6 trees in the Foraging Area habitat (977 acres) will also be retained, with as many VSS 4 trees as possible. 4 Fishlake National Forest

7 Clumps and groups of live non-beetle infected trees in VSS 4-6 with interlocking crowns on 40-70% of goshawk PFA and FA (clumps usually consist of 2-9 trees) will be retained. Red squirrel nest tree clumps and middens around live trees where they are available, to maintain goshawk prey, will be retained. If any undocumented sensitive wildlife species are discovered during implementation, activities will stop until the District Wildlife Biologist is consulted to determine how best to proceed. No timber sale staging areas or log landings associated with a timber sale will occur in a goshawk Nest Area or PFA. Deer and elk hiding cover will be maintained on 75% of the edge of all arterial and collector roads and on 60% of all natural or created openings. If any prehistoric cultural features or deposits are encountered during project implementation, activities will be discontinued in the immediate area of the remains, and the State Historic Preservation Office will be consulted to evaluate their nature and significance. In addition, if any Native American human remains or funerary objects are discovered during implementation they will be immediately reported as required by law. If project activities inadvertently discover habitation sites, plant gathering areas, human remains and objects of cultural patrimony the Historic Preservation Department- Traditional Culture Program will be notified respectively in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. DECISION RATIONALE I am selecting the Proposed Action at this time for the following reasons: 1. This decision provides the greatest attainment of the Purpose and Need while still being sensitive to other resource concerns within the project area. I considered the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for the project area. I also took into account the competing interests and values of the public. 2. This decision aids in improving spruce-fir and mixed conifer stands by reducing the BA from 145 to less than 90, removing the dead/dying trees, and creating increased opportunities for treated stands to successfully grow into Vegetation Structural Stages (VSS) 4, 5, and 6. This increases the opportunity for the growth of larger trees, while also maintaining spruce resilience. 3. This decision aids in providing a wood fiber product for public use. 5 Fishlake National Forest

8 4. My decision to allow approximately 2 miles of temporary road to be constructed allows for the greatest attainment of the Purpose and Need while minimizing impacts from increased skid distances. Impacts from the 2 miles of temporary road are discussed in each of the Specialist Reports and summarized throughout Chapter 3 of the EA. Based on the Specialist Reports, as summarized in the EA, impacts from the 2 miles of temporary road are expected to be temporary, short-term, and minimal. 5. This decision aids in improving aspen stands by having additional aspen trees per acre of various size and height classes, reducing the conifer cover from 37% to less than 10%, and creating opportunities for additional VSS 4, 5, and 6 trees to be established. This increases the opportunity to have persistent aspen communities with multi-aged stems and adequate recruitment to perpetuate the aspen communities. 6. Internal and external concerns were considered during the development of the Proposed Action. Eleven comment letters were received from scoping and the Notice and Comment Period. Several themes emerged from an analysis of the eleven comment letters. The concerns, recommendations and responses are summarized in the Public Involvement section of Chapter 1 in the EA. Responses to these concerns and recommendations can also be located in the Response to Comments document found in the project record. Many of these concerns and recommendations were incorporated by clarifying the Proposed Action and adding additional Design Features. 7. I considered impacts to hydrology/soils resulting from temporary roads, timber harvest, log landings, and skid trails. No streams, lakes, springs, or seeps occur in the project area (Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report as summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA). There are no floodplains or municipal watersheds within or near the project area (Ibid). One stock watering pond does occur in the project area (Ibid). Based upon the Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report, as summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA, impacts from the Proposed Action are expected to be minimal. No detrimental impacts to streams, springs, and/or riparian areas within the project area are expected to occur. In addition, no accelerated hillslope erosion or mass wasting is expected to occur. To help minimize potential impacts to hydrology and soils, I decided the temporary road will be approximately 2 miles long and 15 feet wide. I decided this temporary road will be closed to public access and will only be used for administrative use to facilitate implementation of this project. Upon project completion, I decided the temporary road will be reclaimed using Best Management Practices and will be accomplished by ripping the roadbed and/or scarifying (scratching) the road surface with mechanical equipment. Litter and debris that is 6 Fishlake National Forest

9 available in the area will be scattered over the ripped or scarified road surface and placed at or near the temporary road origins in order to deter traffic. 8. I considered impacts to macroinvertebrate fauna/organisms resulting from temporary roads and timber harvest. No stream or lake riparian areas are known to occur in the project area (Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report). One stock watering pond exists within the project area (Ibid). There are no floodplains or municipal watersheds within or near the project area (Ibid). No springs or seeps are known to occur in the project area (Ibid). Aquatic macroinvertebrates are Fishlake National Forest management indicator species (MIS). Since there are no streams, lakes, springs, or seeps in the project area, impacts to macroinvertebrates are expected to be minimal (Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report). One stock watering pond occurs in the project area. Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates in this pond, as a result of implementing the Proposed Action, would also be minimal. 9. I considered impacts to wildlife resulting from temporary roads and timber harvest. Four Threatened or Endangered wildlife species are addressed in the Wildlife Specialist Report and in the Biological Assessment (BA); the California condor, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Utah Prairie Dog and Mexican Spotted Owl. The Wildlife Specialist Report and BA determined the Proposed Action would have no effect on the California condor, Yellowbilled Cuckoo, Utah prairie dog or Mexican spotted owl individuals or their critical habitat and the effects of the Proposed Action would not affect any listed species. The Wildlife Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation (BE) also determined that implementation of the Proposed Action would have no impact on the greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbit, Townsend s big-eared bat, spotted bat, peregrine falcon, bald eagle or desert big-horn sheep. As disclosed in the Wildlife Specialist Report and BE, implementation of the Proposed Action may impact northern goshawk, Flammulated owl and three-toed woodpecker individuals and/or their habitat, but impacts would be low and not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. The Wildlife Specialist Report also determined that implementation of the Proposed Action would have no effect or impact on the Brewer s sparrow, vesper sparrow, sage thrasher, Lincoln s sparrow, song sparrow, yellow warbler or MacGillivray s warbler. 7 Fishlake National Forest

10 As disclosed in the Wildlife Specialist Report, implementation of the Proposed Action may impact Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, hairy woodpecker, Western bluebird and mountain bluebird individuals and/or their habitat, but impacts would be low and they would continue to persist at the Forest, District and in the project area where they occur. To help minimize impacts to wildlife, I decided to implement the following design features: Within the aspen treatment areas, a minimum of 50 down logs per 10 acres; 6 inch diameter at 8 feet long; and 30 tons per 10 acres will be retained. Within the mixed conifer and spruce/fir areas, a minimum of 50 down logs per 10 acres; 12 inch diameter at 8 feet long; and 100 tons per 10 acres will be retained. Within the aspen treatment areas, a minimum of 200 snags per 100 acres; 8 inch DBH 15 feet tall will be retained. Within the mixed conifer and spruce/fir areas, a minimum of 300 snags per 100 acres; 18 inch DBH 30 feet tall will be retained in small groups across the project area. Trees containing wildlife cavities will be avoided. No project activities will occur in an active goshawk Post Fledging Area (PFA) between March 1 and September 30. Where live trees remain, project activities will not create openings greater than 1 acre. The live non-beetle infected VSS 4, 5, and 6 trees in the goshawk PFA (80 acres) will be retained. In addition, the live non-beetle infected VSS 5 and 6 trees in the Foraging Area habitat (977 acres) will also be retained, with as many VSS 4 trees as possible. Clumps and groups of live non-beetle infected trees in VSS 4-6 with interlocking crowns on 40-70% of goshawk PFA and FA (clumps usually consist of 2-9 trees) will be retained. Red squirrel nest tree clumps and middens around live trees where they are available, to maintain goshawk prey, will be retained. If any undocumented sensitive wildlife species are discovered during implementation, activities will stop until the District Wildlife Biologist is consulted to determine how best to proceed. No timber sale staging areas or log landings associated with a timber sale will occur in a goshawk Nest Area or PFA. Deer and elk hiding cover will be maintained on 75% of the edge of all arterial and collector roads and on 60% of all natural or created openings. 8 Fishlake National Forest

11 10. I considered impacts to aquatic organisms/aquatic habitats resulting from temporary roads and timber harvest. No stream or lake riparian areas are known to occur in the project area (Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report). One stock watering pond exists within the project area (Ibid). There are no floodplains or municipal watersheds within or near the project area (Ibid). No springs or seeps are known to occur in the project area (Ibid). Based upon the Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report, as summarized in the EA, no Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Sensitive aquatic species are known to occur in the project area. Therefore, there will be no effects from the Proposed Action to any Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Sensitive aquatic species. Aquatic macroinvertebrates and resident trout are Fishlake National Forest management indicator species (MIS). Since there are no streams, lakes, springs, or seeps in the project area, impacts to macroinvertebrates, as a result of implementing the Proposed Action, are expected to be minimal (Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report). No resident trout occur in the project area. One stock watering pond occurs in the project area. Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates in this pond, as a result of implementing the Proposed Action, would be minimal (Ibid). 11. I considered impacts from the introduction and spread of noxious weeds resulting from temporary roads. Invasive and noxious weeds are not known to occur in the project area; therefore, impacts from invasive/noxious weeds, as a result of implementing the Proposed Action, are expected to be minimal (Range Resources Specialist Report as summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA). To help minimize any potential impacts I decided that treatment areas will be monitored post implementation. If noxious and/or invasive weeds are detected, the District will take the appropriate actions to control spread and eliminate the noxious and/or invasive weeds from the treatment areas. Equipment will also be washed and inspected, prior to entering National Forest System lands, to remove any soil and debris that may contribute to the spread of noxious weeds. 12. I considered impacts related to the probability of human caused fires being ignited resulting from temporary roads. There have been no known human caused fires in the project area with the current road system believed mainly due to cooler temperatures and moisture levels at elevation 10,100 10,900 feet (Fire/Fuels Specialist Report as summarized in the EA). The snow usually remains on site until late June and the monsoonal rains generally begin in July (Ibid). The Fire/Fuels Specialist Report determined the increased potential for human caused fires, as a result of implementing the Proposed Action, is unlikely. To help minimize potential impacts, I decided the 9 Fishlake National Forest

12 temporary road will be closed to public access and will only be used for administrative use to facilitate implementation of this project. Upon project completion, the temporary road will be reclaimed using Best Management Practices and will be accomplished by ripping the roadbed and/or scarifying (scratching) the road surface with mechanical equipment. Litter and debris that is available in the area will be scattered over the ripped or scarified road surface and placed at or near the temporary road origins in order to deter traffic. I also decided that prior to prescribed fire implementation, the Fremont River Ranger District will obtain approval from Utah Smoke Management and the pile burning will follow an approved burn plan. 13. I considered impacts to the nutrient cycle resulting from timber harvest. The Vegetation Specialist Report, as summarized in the EA, determined that impacts to the nutrient cycles, as a result of implementing the Proposed Action, would be minimal. To help minimize impacts, I decided that within the aspen treatment areas, a minimum of 50 down logs per 10 acres; 6 inch diameter at 8 feet long; and 30 tons per 10 acres will be retained. Within the mixed conifer and spruce/fir areas, a minimum of 50 down logs per 10 acres; 12 inch diameter at 8 feet long; and 100 tons per 10 acres will be retained. I also decided that within the aspen treatment areas, a minimum of 200 snags per 100 acres; 8 inch DBH 15 feet tall will be retained. Within the mixed conifer and spruce/fir areas, a minimum of 300 snags per 100 acres; 18 inch DBH 30 feet tall will be retained in small groups across the project area. In addition, areas will be thinned, not clear-cut, which will minimize impacts to nutrient cycling. I have also decided that some trees will be retained for wildlife purposes; see the Decision Design Features listed above, which will also minimize impacts to nutrient cycling. 14. I considered impacts to insect activity resulting from timber harvest. No stream or lake riparian areas are known to occur in the project area (Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report). One stock watering pond exists within the project area (Ibid). No springs or seeps are known to occur in the project area (Ibid). Aquatic macroinvertebrates are Fishlake National Forest management indicator species (MIS). Since there are no streams, lakes, springs, or seeps in the project area, impacts to macroinvertebrates are expected to be minimal (Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report). One stock watering pond occurs in the project area. Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates in this pond, as a result of implementing the Proposed Action, would be minimal (Ibid). 10 Fishlake National Forest

13 Within the spruce-fir and mixed conifer stands, by reducing the BA from 145 to less than 90 and by removing the dead/dying trees, impacts from the Spruce beetle will be reduced while also maintaining spruce tree resilience. 15. I considered impacts to tourists/forest visitors and associated economics resulting from timber harvest. The Recreation Specialist Report, as summarized in the EA, determined that impacts to tourist/forest visitors and associated economics, as a result of implementing the Proposed Action, would be minimal. To help minimize impacts, I decided that no permanent closures in the project area will occur. To provide for the safety of implementation personnel and the public, some roads and dispersed camping areas may be temporarily closed during pile burning and/or mechanical treatment implementation. Temporary closures will be determined by implementation personnel and will be based on the hazards present at the time of implementation. 16. I considered impacts to recreational opportunities, associated economics, and visual quality resulting from timber harvest. The Recreation Specialist Report, as summarized in the EA, determined that impacts to recreational opportunities, associated economics, and visual quality, as a result of implementing the Proposed Action, would be minimal. There are no designated wilderness areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, or draft Unroaded/Undeveloped Areas within the project area (Visual Quality Specialist Report, as summarized in the EA). To help minimize potential impacts, I decided that no permanent closures in the project area will occur. To provide for the safety of implementation personnel and the public, some roads and dispersed camping areas may be temporarily closed during pile burning and/or mechanical treatment implementation. Temporary closures will be determined by implementation personnel and will be based on the hazards present at the time of implementation. I decided that upon project completion, the temporary road will be reclaimed using Best Management Practices and will be accomplished by ripping the roadbed and/or scarifying (scratching) the road surface with mechanical equipment. Litter and debris that is available in the area will be scattered over the ripped or scarified road surface and placed at or near the temporary road origins in order to deter traffic. Reclaiming the temporary road will help minimize visual effects. I also decided that areas would be thinned, not clear-cut. 11 Fishlake National Forest

14 17. I considered impacts to stand structure resulting from timber harvest. The Vegetation Specialist Report, as summarized in the EA, determined that implementation of the Proposed Action would better improve Vegetation Structural Stages (VSS) compared to the No Action Alternative. Based on the Vegetation Specialist Report, as summarized in the EA, as a result of implementing the Proposed Action, VSS trends towards meeting Desired Conditions and achieving a better balance between the VSS classes. To improve stand structure, while also minimizing potential impacts, I decided to treat approximately 40 acres of mixed conifer stands, 1,017 acres of spruce-fir stands, and approximately 43 acres of aspen stands (Map 2). Mechanical treatments in the mixed conifer and spruce-fir stands will consists of thinning all tree species to Basal Area (BA) 90, using uneven aged management, by group and single tree selection. No clear-cutting will occur. In addition, while ensuring Forest Plan consistency (i.e. snags and down woody debris), beetle killed spruce trees will be removed through salvage treatments and beetle infected (dying) spruce trees will be removed through sanitation treatments. After the mechanical treatments are completed, trees will be replanted where stocking levels are below trees per acre for spruce and trees per acre for mixed conifer. Mechanical treatments in the aspen stand will consist of removing the mixed conifer trees while retaining the existing aspen. Any aspen cut will be incidental while accessing and removing the conifer. No clear-cutting will occur. It is anticipated that the disturbance from removing conifer will stimulate new aspen growth to meet desired conditions. Following treatment, if monitoring determines that browsing has a high probability of causing aspen Desired Conditions to not be achieved, the aspen stand(s) will be fenced until the aspen are greater than 6 feet in height (4-6 years). The treatments in the spruce-fir and mixed conifer stands are expected to improve stand structure by creating opportunities for treated stands to successfully grow into Vegetation Structural Stages (VSS) 4, 5, and 6. The purpose is to grow larger trees while maintaining spruce resilience. Treatments in the aspen stands are also expected to improve stand structure by creating opportunities to have additional aspen trees per acre of various size and height classes, and create opportunities for additional VSS 4, 5, and 6s to be established. The purpose is to have persistent aspen communities with multi-aged stems and adequate recruitment to perpetuate the communities. 18. I considered impacts to livestock permittee operations. Based on the Range Resources Specialist Report, as summarized in the EA, the Proposed Action would have minimal to no effect on the allotment management of the Hancock Allotment. The Fremont River 12 Fishlake National Forest

15 Ranger District Range program will work closely with the Hancock sheep permittee to ensure that livestock grazing does not impact the ability of aspen trees to regenerate and recruit. The Hancock Annual Operating Instructions will be modified to rotate the sheep herd away from aspen treated areas until the aspen suckers have exceeded the browsing height of sheep. To assist this effort, I decided that treated areas will be rested from domestic grazing for at least 2 growing seasons post implementation, and possibly 3 to reduce browse pressure on new vegetation. 19. I considered impacts to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Sensitive, and MIS plant species. As disclosed in the plant BA and BE and summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA, the Proposed Action would have no effect/no impact on any individual or known habitat of any Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Sensitive, or MIS plant species. 20. I considered impacts to cultural/heritage resources. After review of the Proposed Action, the Fishlake Forest Archaeologist determined that the Proposed Action would have little to no concern for the cultural/heritage resources program. The Forest Archaeologist determined that no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to cultural/heritage resources, as a result of implementing the Proposed Action would be expected to occur. A letter from the Utah State Historic Preservation Office also concluded the Proposed Action would have no effect on any known cultural resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Native American tribes were contacted and they expressed no concerns about the Proposed Action. To help minimize any potential impacts, I decided if any prehistoric cultural features or deposits are encountered during project implementation, activities will be discontinued in the immediate area of the remains, and the State Historic Preservation Office will be consulted to evaluate their nature and significance. In addition, if any Native American human remains or funerary objects are discovered during implementation they will be immediately reported as required by law. If project activities inadvertently discover habitation sites, plant gathering areas, human remains and objects of cultural patrimony the Historic Preservation Department- Traditional Culture Program will be notified respectively in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 21. All of the Design Features listed in Chapter 2 of the EA are recommended by members of the Interdisciplinary Team. To help minimize impacts from implementing the Proposed Action, I decided that all the Design Features listed in Chapter 2 of the EA will be implemented. 13 Fishlake National Forest

16 22. This decision is consistent with the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986) and it responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Plan. The Desired Conditions and Purpose and Need for this project respond to and are consistent with Fishlake National Forest goals and objectives found in Chapter IV of the Forest Plan. Some of the relevant goals and objectives are listed below: o Maintain structural diversity of vegetation on Management Areas dominated by forested ecosystems (Forest Plan IV-11). o Manage aspen for retention where needed for wildlife, watershed, or esthetic purposes (Forest Plan IV-11). o Manage seral aspen stands for a diversity of age classes (Forest Plan IV-11). o Manage aspen to perpetuate the species and improve quality (Forest Plan IV-4). o Provide wood fiber while maintaining or improving other resource values (Forest Plan IV-4). o Improve timber age class distribution and maintain species diversity (Forest Plan IV-4). o Manage tree stands using both commercial and noncommercial methods. Enhance visual quality, diversity, and insect and disease control (Forest Plan IV- 62 and IV-84d). o Maintain and manage forested inclusions to provide a high level of forage production, wildlife habitat, and diversity (Forest Plan IV-112). o The area will have a mosaic of fully stocked stands that follow natural patterns and avoid straight lines and geometric shapes (Forest Plan IV-113). o Prevent and control insect infestation and disease (Forest Plan IV-5) The compared the action alternatives with the general direction and standards and guidelines listed in the Fishlake Land and Resource Management Plan to determine compliance. The District determined the action alternatives are compliant with the general direction and standards and guidelines listed in the Fishlake Land and Resource Management Plan. The District determined a Forest Plan Amendment is not required as part of this project. This review along with supporting rationale is found in the project record. 14 Fishlake National Forest

17 23. This Purpose and Need and the Desired Conditions described in this Decision and/or in the EA are supported in Campbell and Bartos 2001, Jones et al. 2005, Mueggler 1989, Olmsted 1979, White and Feller 2001, Ferguson 2004, Hebertson 2013, Jenkins et al. 2014, and the Utah Forests Aspen Restoration Working Group I considered Alternative 3 and not constructing a temporary road; however, with no temporary road and because of longer skid distances, implementation costs would increase in terms of labor, fuel, and equipment (Vegetation Specialist Report, as summarized in the EA). This increased cost could result in the project not being implemented (Ibid). If the project was not implemented, the Purpose and Need would not be accomplished and the Desired Conditions would not be achieved. Other negative impacts from increased skid distances are discussed in the various specialist reports. For these reasons, I chose not to select Alternative I also considered the No Action Alternative; however, I chose not to select the No Action Alternative because the Purpose and Need would not be accomplished and the Desired Conditions would not be achieved. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED An issue is a point of debate, dispute, or disagreement regarding anticipated effects of implementing the Proposed Action. Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the Proposed Action and Alternatives. An issue is best described in a cause and effect statement. Issues are used to develop alternatives when unresolved conflicts for alternative uses of available resources exist. Internal and external scoping efforts identified two unresolved conflicts for alternative uses of the available resources associated with this project; (1) temporary road construction may result in adverse impacts to hydrology, soils, wildlife, noxious weeds, and probability of human caused fires being increased and (2) timber harvest may result in adverse impacts to hydrology, soils, wildlife, nutrient cycling, insect activity, tourist/forest visitors, recreational opportunities, visuals, economics, and stand structure. Therefore, an alternative that includes timber harvest with no temporary roads was considered and the No Action Alternative which does not include any timber harvest or temporary roads was considered. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COLLABORATION This project is posted on the Schedule of Proposed Actions website at A scoping letter was mailed to approximately 61 individuals in April Five comment letters were received as a result of 15 Fishlake National Forest

18 this scoping effort. Comment letters were received from Utah Environmental Congress, Dick Artley, Utah Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands, Utah Farm Bureau Federation, and R. Ladell Baum. Comments from Utah Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands, Utah Farm Bureau Federation, and R. Ladell Baum expressed support for this project while comments from Utah Environmental Congress and Dick Artley raised concerns about this project. A legal notice requesting public comments and participation was published in the newspaper of record, the Richfield Reaper, on April 9, A Notice of Proposed Action and Opportunity to Comment document was also mailed to approximately 86 potentially interested individuals and groups, and it was made available on our website at for public review. Six comment letters were received during the Notice and Comment Period as a result of this effort. Comment letters were received from Wild Earth Guardians, Utah Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands, Fremont River Conservation District, The Hopi Tribe, The Navajo Nation, and from Rex Thomas Griffiths. Comments from Utah Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands, Rex Thomas Griffiths, and from the Fremont River Conservation District expressed support for this project while comments from Wild Earth Guardians raised concerns about this project. The Hopi Tribe and The Navajo Nation had a few recommendations that are included in my decision above. Several themes emerged from an analysis of the comment letters received in April/May 2011 and April/May The concerns, recommendations and responses are summarized in Chapter 1 of the EA and responses to these concerns and recommendations can also be located in the Response to Comments document found in the project record. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS My decision is consistent with all applicable laws, executive orders, regulations and policies as summarized below: National Forest Management Act (NFMA) This decision is consistent with the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986) and it responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Plan. The Desired Conditions and Purpose and Need for this project respond to and are consistent with Fishlake National Forest goals and objectives found in Chapter IV of the Forest Plan. The Fremont River Ranger District compared the action alternatives with the general direction and standards and guidelines listed in the Fishlake Land and Resource Management Plan to determine compliance. The District determined the action alternatives are compliant with the general direction and standards and guidelines listed in the Fishlake Land and Resource 16 Fishlake National Forest

19 Management Plan. The District determined a Forest Plan Amendment is not required as part of this project. This review along with supporting rationale is found in the project record. Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order Executive Order 13186, entitled Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, directs Federal agencies to protect migratory birds by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practical, adverse impacts on migratory birds resources when conducting agency actions. This Order directs agencies to further comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and other pertinent statutes. Based on the Wildlife Specialist Report, the Proposed Action is compliant with the National Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the USFWS to promote the conservation of migratory birds. The Wildlife Specialist Report considered impacts to migratory birds in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements and executive order through the process and intent of the National Memorandum of Understanding and the Utah Strategy, developed between the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Wildlife Specialist Report determined that no adverse impacts to migratory birds resources are expected as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. Endangered Species Act of 1973 The Proposed Action will not adversely affect any Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate species or habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of As stated in the Biological Assessment of Threatened and Endangered Plant Species, there are no Federally Proposed plant species known to occur on the Fishlake National Forest. In addition, no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any habitat or individual Threatened or Endangered plant species will occur. The project area lacks suitable habitat and is outside the known range for the Threatened or Endangered plant species known to occur on the Fishlake National Forest. As stated in the Soils/Hydrology Specialist Report, no Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate aquatic species occur in the cumulative effects area that would be affected by the Proposed Action. Therefore, no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any habitat or individual Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate aquatic species, as a result of implementing the Proposed Action, will occur. As stated in the Wildlife Biological Assessment and Wildlife Specialist Report that were completed for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate wildlife species, the Proposed 17 Fishlake National Forest

20 Action would have no effect on the California condor, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Utah prairie dog or Mexican spotted owl individuals or their critical habitat and the effects of the Proposed Action would not affect any listed wildlife species. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Implementation of the Proposed Action will have no effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. After review of the Proposed Action, the Fishlake Forest Archaeologist determined that the Proposed Action has little to no concern for the cultural/heritage resources program. The Forest Archaeologist determined that no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to cultural/heritage resources, as a result of implementing the Proposed Action, would be expected to occur. A letter from the Utah State Historic Preservation Office also concluded the Proposed Action would have no effect on any known cultural resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Native American tribes were contacted and they expressed no concerns about the Proposed Action. Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended The Fire/Fuels Specialist Report determined that implementation of the Proposed Action is in compliance with the Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. All appropriate smoke emission production reporting rules will be adhered to as stated in the Utah Smoke Management Plan and all Utah Department of Air Quality standards will be followed. Pile burning will comply with the Utah State air quality standards. Prior to prescribed fire implementation, the Fremont River Ranger District will obtain approval from Utah Smoke Management. Pile burning will follow an approved burn plan. Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended The Water/Soils Specialist Report determined that implementation of the Proposed Action is in compliance with the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended. No streams, lakes, springs, or seeps occur in the project area (Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report as summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA). There are no floodplains or municipal watersheds within or near the project area (Ibid). Rationale for this determination is included in the Water/Soils Specialist Report. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management This executive order entitled Floodplain Management requires the Forest Service to provide leadership and to take action to (1) minimize adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains and reduce risks of flood loss, (2) minimize impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and (3) restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values 18 Fishlake National Forest

21 served by flood plains. In compliance with this order, the Forest Service requires an analysis be completed to determine the significance of proposed actions in terms of impacts to flood plains. The Water/Soils Specialist Report determined that implementation of the Proposed Action is in compliance with Executive Order No streams, lakes, springs, or seeps occur in the project area (Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report as summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA). There are no floodplains or municipal watersheds within or near the project area (Ibid). Rationale for this determination is included in the Water/Soils Specialist Report. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands This order entitled Protection of Wetlands requires the Forest Service to take action to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. The Water/Soils Specialist Report determined that implementation of the Proposed Action is in compliance with Executive Order No streams, lakes, springs, or seeps occur in the project area (Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report as summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA). There are no floodplains or municipal watersheds within or near the project area (Ibid). Rationale for this determination is included in the Water/Soils Specialist Report. Travel Analysis Process Forest Service Handbook (FSH) Travel Planning Handbook directs that a Travel Analysis Process (TAP) be completed for projects to inform the deciding official of travel management issues. The does not propose any changes to the current Fishlake National Forest Motorized Travel Plan; therefore, a TAP is not necessary to perform. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice Executive Order entitled Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations requires Federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low income populations. This decision is in compliance with Executive Order because based on public comments there is no indication that the would adversely or disproportionately affect American Indians, other racial minorities, or low-income groups. 19 Fishlake National Forest

22 Finding of No Significant Impact The following is a summary of the project analysis to determine significance, as defined by the Forest Service Handbook _05. Significant as used in NEPA requires consideration of both context and intensity of the expected project effects. Context Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts (i.e., local, regional, worldwide), and over short and long time frames. For site-specific actions significance usually depends upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. The Teeple Springs Vegetation Treatment Project is a project-level analysis. Its scope is confined to addressing the concerns and environmental effects of the project. The context is limited to the locale of the project area. Project activities are limited to that which is defined by the No Action and Action Alternatives on lands managed by the USDA Forest Service in the Teeple Springs Vegetation Treatment Project area. The physical, biological and social effects of this action vary according to the resource area analyzed. Some analyses considered the extent of effects beyond the project boundaries. Activities proposed in the EA are of limited scope and duration, affecting only the immediate area in and around the treatment units. Implementation will occur over a period of three to seven years. Implementation of the project will result in multiple benefits, which include, but are not limited to, improving species and structural diversity, reducing beetle populations and providing wood fiber to the public. The project was designed to minimize environmental effects through inclusion of project Design Features. Features include, but are not limited to, wildlife timing restrictions, providing rest from grazing post treatment, provisions to prevent the spread of noxious/invasive weeds, and actions to minimize soil erosion. Intensity Intensity refers to the severity of the expected project impacts and is defined by the 10 points below. 1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on the balance the effects will be beneficial. 20 Fishlake National Forest

23 Potential Beneficial Effects The EA documents the following beneficial effects of implementing the Proposed Action: This decision will reduce the impacts associated with the spruce beetle infestation (as it relates to the spruce-fir cover type). Removal of infested trees (sanitation) will remove some of the beetles and their larvae reducing some of the population. Reducing density will release trees from competition and allow for faster growth. In addition, less competition will help the trees better defend themselves from beetle attacks. For the mixed conifer cover type, this decision will reduce density thus providing for faster growth and less competition. This will increase resiliency to future beetle attacks. Implementation of this project in the aspen cover type will remove the competition from conifers and initiate a suckering response. By implementing this portion of the project aspen will remain as the dominant cover type and provide cover and increased forage in the future. Implementation within all the cover types will provide wood fiber product to local markets while providing the benefits described in the previous paragraphs. In addition, the project, as a whole, will have varied structure and increased biodiversity providing for increased resiliency to future beetle attacks, better habitat for some wildlife species and a decrease in fuel loading. Potential Adverse Effects The EA documents the following negative effects of implementing the Proposed Action: Spruce-fir Cover type Removal of trees within the spruce-fir cover type can increase the probability of blow down. This is due to the elevation in which they reside, which tends to be shallower soil, increased moisture, and more windy environmental conditions. Spruce also tends to have a shallow root system. A 90 BA density and leaving trees in groups/clumps is expected to minimize blow down. Aspen Cover Type There is a chance of impact from grazers on regeneration. It is expected that the risk is low do to rest from domestic sheep grazing for two or three growing seasons. There is also expected to be a low risk from wildlife browsing; however, if monitoring indicates that aspen regeneration is 21 Fishlake National Forest

24 being severely impacted from browsing, a fence will be constructed to minimize aspen browse impacts. Wildlife The Wildlife Specialist Report, BA, and BE determined that implementation of the Proposed Action would have no effect or impact on the California condor, Western yellowbilled cuckoo, Utah prairie dog, Mexican spotted owl, greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbit, Townsend s big-eared bat, spotted bat, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, desert big-horn sheep, Brewer s sparrow, vesper sparrow, sage thrasher, Lincoln s sparrow, song sparrow, yellow warbler, or the MacGillivray s warbler. In addition, the Wildlife Specialist Report and BE state that implementation of the Proposed Action may impact northern goshawk, Flammulated owl and three-toed woodpecker individuals and/or their habitat, but impacts would be low and not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. The Wildlife Specialist Report also states that implementation of the Proposed Action may impact Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, hairy woodpecker, Western bluebird and mountain bluebird individuals and/or their habitat, but impacts would be low and they would continue to persist at the Forest, District and Project level where they occur. Water and Soils No streams, lakes, springs, or seeps occur in the project area (Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report as summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA). There are no floodplains or municipal watersheds within or near the project area (Ibid). One stock watering pond does occur in the project area (Ibid). Based upon the Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report, as summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA, impacts from the Proposed Action are expected to be minimal. No detrimental impacts to streams, springs, and/or riparian areas within the project area are expected to occur. In addition, no accelerated hillslope erosion or mass wasting is expected to occur. Recreation/Economics/Visuals The Recreation Specialist Report, as summarized in the EA, determined that impacts to recreational opportunities, associated economics, and visual quality, as a result of implementing the Proposed Action, would be minimal. There are no designated wilderness areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, or draft Unroaded/Undeveloped Areas within the project area (Visual Quality Specialist Report, as summarized in the EA). 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. This Decision will have a minimal effect on public health and safety. 22 Fishlake National Forest

25 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. The project area has no park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas that will be affected by the Proposed Action (Hydrology/Soils Specialist Report). There are no designated wilderness areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, or draft Unroaded/Undeveloped Areas within the project area (Visual Quality Specialist Report). The Proposed Action will not impact any known cultural sites. After review of the proposed action, the Fishlake Forest Archaeologist determined that the Proposed Action has little or no concern for the heritage program. A letter from the Utah State Historic Preservation Office also concluded the Proposed Action would have no effect on any known cultural resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Native American tribes have been contacted and they expressed no concerns about the proposed activities. 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The effects of proposed activities on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. This is based on: the limited context of the project; a long history of forest management including similar treatments; a review of public comments received to date, and the project's analysis. Not all of the comments received were in support of the project; however after reviewing all the comments, project record, and EA, I am confident that the Interdisciplinary Team reviewed these comments, identified the concerns, incorporated the concerns into the No Action or one of the Action Alternatives, created project Design Features, and/or addressed the concerns in the appropriate resource section. An Alternative to the Proposed Action was also developed and considered. Internal and external scoping efforts identified two unresolved conflicts for alternative uses of the available resources associated with this project; (1) temporary road construction may result in adverse impacts to hydrology, soils, wildlife, noxious weeds, and probability of human caused fires being increased and (2) timber harvest may result in adverse impacts to hydrology, soils, wildlife, nutrient cycling, insect activity, tourist/forest visitors, recreational opportunities, visuals, economics, and stand structure. Therefore, an alternative that includes timber harvest with no temporary roads was considered and the No Action Alternative which does not include any timber harvest or temporary roads was considered. 23 Fishlake National Forest

26 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. Possible effects on the human environment that are uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks are minimal or non-existent based on project analysis that employed scientifically accepted analytical techniques, best available information, and professional experience and judgment to estimate effects to the human environment. Proposed activities similar to the Teeple Springs Project have been conducted on many acres across the Fishlake National Forest and other surrounding Forest s. These past projects exhibited environmental effects similar to those predicted to occur with implementation of the Proposed Action including the desired changes in forest vegetation structure and composition. The effects associated with the Proposed Action are recognized, familiar, and predictable. 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 Proposed Action is site-specific and will not set precedence for future actions or present a decision in principle about future actions. This action does not represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. Any future actions that cannot be implemented under administrative authorities must be evaluated on its own merits and effects. The proposed activities are in accordance with the best available science we have to manage forest vegetation. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Based on the analysis and disclosure of effects in Chapter 3 of the EA and in the specialist reports, the Proposed Action will have no significant impacts when considered in combination with other past actions or reasonably foreseeable future actions. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant cultural or historical resources. Native American tribes have been contacted and they expressed no concerns about the proposed activities. No cultural or historic resources would be impacted. The Proposed Action complies with the Natural Historic Preservation Act. As stated in the Cultural/Heritage Resources section in Chapter 3 of the EA, after review of the Proposed Action, the Fishlake Forest Archaeologist determined that the Proposed Action has little or no concern for the heritage program. A letter from the Utah State Historic Preservation Office also concluded the Proposed Action would have no effect on any known cultural resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 24 Fishlake National Forest

27 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. The action will not adversely affect any Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate species or habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of As stated in the Biological Assessment of Threatened and Endangered Plant Species, there are no Federally Proposed plant species known to occur on the Fishlake National Forest. In addition, no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any habitat or individual Threatened or Endangered plant species will occur. The project area lacks suitable habitat and is outside the known range for the Threatened or Endangered plant species known to occur on the Fishlake National Forest. As stated in the Hydrology report for fisheries, there are no Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Sensitive aquatic species that occur in the cumulative effects area that would be affected by the Proposed Action. Therefore, no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any habitat or individual Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Sensitive aquatic species, as a result of implementing the proposed action, will occur. Four Threatened or Endangered wildlife species are addressed in the Wildlife Specialist Report and in the Biological Assessment (BA); the California condor, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Utah Prairie Dog and Mexican Spotted Owl. The Wildlife Specialist Report and BA determined the Proposed Action would have no effect on the California condor, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Utah prairie dog or Mexican spotted owl individuals or their critical habitat and the effects of the Proposed Action would not affect any listed species. The Wildlife Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation (BE) also determined that implementation of the Proposed Action would have no impact on the greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbit, Townsend s big-eared bat, spotted bat, peregrine falcon, bald eagle or desert bighorn sheep. As disclosed in the Wildlife Specialist Report and BE, implementation of the Proposed Action may impact northern goshawk, Flammulated owl and three-toed woodpecker individuals and/or their habitat, but impacts would be low and not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. The Wildlife Specialist Report also determined that implementation of the Proposed Action would have no effect or impact on the Brewer s sparrow, vesper sparrow, sage thrasher, Lincoln s sparrow, song sparrow, yellow warbler or MacGillivray s warbler. As disclosed in the Wildlife Specialist Report, implementation of the Proposed Action may impact Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, hairy woodpecker, Western bluebird and mountain 25 Fishlake National Forest

28 bluebird individuals and/or their habitat, but impacts would be low and they would continue to persist at the Forest, District and in project area where they occur. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The Proposed Action meets federal, state, and local laws for Threatened and Endangered species, heritage resources, water quality, air quality, wetland protection, floodplain management, migratory birds, and environmental justice as summarized above and/or throughout the EA. The Proposed Action is consistent with the National Forest Management Act and the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (EA Chapter 1). All management activities are in compliance with Management Area direction, including goals and objectives, as described for each resource in the Forest Plan Consistency document and in accompanying specialist reports. This decision does not require any Forest Plan amendments. Conclusion I am confident that the analysis of the Proposed Action was conducted using consideration of the best available science. My conclusion is based on a review of the project record that shows my staff conducted a thorough review of relevant scientific information, considered responsible opposing views, and acknowledged incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. Please refer to the specialist reports in the project file for specific discussions of the science and methods used for analysis and for literature reviewed and referenced. Best Available Science I am confident that the analysis of the Proposed Action was conducted using consideration of the best available science. My conclusion is based on a review of the project record that shows my staff conducted a thorough review of relevant scientific information, considered responsible opposing views, and acknowledged incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. Please refer to the specialist reports in the project file for specific discussions of the science and methods used for analysis and for literature reviewed and referenced. Administrative Review This decision was subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B. A 45-day objection period occurred between April 23 and June 8, No objections were received. This project may proceed 5 business days following the close of the objection period, which was June 8, Contact: 26 Fishlake National Forest

29 27 Fishlake National Forest

30 Map 1: Vicinity Map of the 28 Fishlake National Forest

31 Map 2: Cover Type, Compartment, and Stand Map 29 Fishlake National Forest

32 Map 3: Forest Plan Management Area Map 30 Fishlake National Forest

33 Map 4: Inventoried Roadless Area and Draft Unroaded/Undeveloped Area Map 31 Fishlake National Forest