Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Region April 2012 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Upper Santeetlah Cheoah Ranger District Nantahala National Forest Graham County, North Carolina

2 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Upper Santeetlah USDA Forest Service Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest Graham County, North Carolina Decision and Rationale Decision Based upon my review of the alternatives, I have decided to select Alternative D of the Upper Santeetlah Environmental Assessment (March 2012 EA). The Selected Alternative will: Regenerate approximately 292 acres in 17 separate areas (between 11 and 25 acres in size) by the shelterwood with reserves harvest method. In this two-aged regeneration method, the mature stand is partially cut. The residual uncut trees will average 15 to 25 square feet of basal area per acre to meet wildlife and visual quality objectives, unless otherwise noted in section 2.5. The amount of basal area left averages 20 trees per acre if all the trees were 14 inches in diameter. These residuals may be left as individual trees or in clumps ranging from ¼ to 1 acre in size. Regenerate about 19 total acres in 2 areas by the group selection harvest method. Approximately 1/6 of the area will be harvested in groups. The groups will be approximately 1 acre in size, which will allow shade tolerant to shade intolerant species depending on the location in the group to regenerate. The rest of the mature stand will be thinned down to approximately 60 square feet of basal area to facilitate the growth and development in the remainder of the stand. Conduct pre-harvest or post-harvest site preparation treatments with herbicide and handtools on all acres receiving shelterwood with reserves and group selection harvesting to encourage desirable species. Conduct enrichment plantings, depending on the composition of regeneration, to encourage desirable species. Release naturally regenerated hardwoods on harvested acres using either glyphosate or triclopyr herbicides. 2 Apply herbicide to undesirable woody species in skid trails and skyline corridors within the shelterwood with reserves harvest units to extend the period of time in which these areas are in herbaceous vegetation. Utilize handtools and/or herbicides to remove competing vegetation and less desirable trees on 88 acres in four areas to improve the composition, structure, condition, and growth of the stands. These stands range from approximately 15 to 55 years old. Improve the quality of habitat for the northern flying squirrel by treating vegetation on 412 acres in 44 areas. These stands range from approximately 15 to 25 years old. The purpose of this treatment is to increase the growth of selected species, to maintain, or increase, the proportion of species that are a component of preferred northern flying squirrel habitat, and to provide additional downed woody material. Treatments will utilize handtools and/or herbicides to remove competing vegetation and less desirable trees in order to free the selected trees from competition. Approximately 75 trees per acre will be released. Implement dormant season prescribed burning on approximately 1,342 acres in compartment 43 and a small portion of compartment 42 to enhance conditions for a wide range of species, such as golden-winged warbler, by increasing the herbaceous layer and by creating more open understory and midstory conditions. In addition to the wildlife benefits, a portion of the shade tolerant understory and mid-story will be top-killed which will provide an opportunity for species such as oaks to develop in the understory. Plant red spruce at various locations near the Cherohala Skyway and Huckleberry Knob. The total area planted will be up to approximately 35 acres. The current state of hemlock in this area leaves a very small component of conifers for the federally

3 endangered Carolina northern flying squirrel. Natural canopy gaps will be targeted for planting. The sites will be prepared for planting by treating competing vegetation (up to 8 dbh) with herbicides or manual cutting to allow for optimum sunlight during the development of the red spruce. Restore fish passage in four locations: Wolf Branch at Forest Service Road (FSR) 81F, Sand Creek at FSR 81F, and two crossings of an unnamed tributary at 81C. The restoration will include replacing existing culverts with bottomless culverts, bridges, or similar structures. Remove a debris dam from Santeetlah Creek. The debris dam is causing resource damage by altering the flow of the creek. Debris removal will be accomplished with an excavator or similar piece of equipment supervised by a Forest Service Fisheries Biologist. All applicable permits will be obtained prior to implementation. Locate and treat non-native invasive plants (NNIP) with herbicides. Conduct a combination of treatments including prescribed fire and mowing to manage and maintain the desired condition on approximately 37 total acres on Huckleberry Knob, Little Huckleberry Knob, Hooper Bald, and Bob Bald. Disk, fertilize, lime, and seed log landings after harvest activities are complete. One quarter mile of old woods road in compartment 45, stand 18, will be converted to a linear wildlife opening. All existing wildlife openings (fields and linear) in this project area will be maintained, as practicable. Apply oak pre-harvest treatments by treating the midstory and understory shade tolerant species with herbicide on approximately 101 acres. Slash down approximately a three acre area of dead hemlocks and plant red spruce seedlings to replace the evergreen habitat components for the Carolina northern flying squirrel. Construct approximately 1.7 miles on three separate roads in Compartments 45 and 53 to access timber harvest units. Construct a 0.45 mile section of specified road to access the Swan Cabin. Construct a total of approximately 1 total mile of temporary roads in Compartments 43, 45 and 54 to facilitate harvest activities. After harvest activities are complete, the roads will be stabilized, blocked to vehicular traffic, and revegetated. Daylight approximately four miles of Forest Service Road 81H (Stewart Ridge Road) by removing vegetation for a width of 15 feet on both sides of the road. Decommission approximately 8.6 miles of roads (outlined in Table in EA). Place 3.1 miles of Forest Service Road 2564A in storage. Repair several areas under the Cherohala Skyway that have been damaged by large concentrations of water to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Due to the presence of a federally listed lichen in particular areas, a Forest Service botanist will be present when any work is performed near these populations Remove dead hemlock hazard trees in this watershed within tree height of forest roads, trails, and recreation areas that pose a safety risk to forest users. Designate 976 acres of designated small patch old growth according to the following table. Table DN-1: Designated small patch old growth Comp. (acres) Proposed Small Patch Stand(s) Small Patch Acres 44 (370) 44-1/ (1,595) 45-2/ (573) (1,097) 47-9/ (1,777) (1,555) 49-8/11/ (619) (1,119) (795) 52-3/ (1,103) (1,046) 54-22/

4 Design Criteria Design criteria are outlined in the EA (Section 2.5, Chapter 2). In summary, the design criteria include: No stems greater than 8 dbh will be cut or treated with herbicide during the planting of the red spruce or subsequent release treatments The initial site preparation for red spruce plantings should not allow sunlight on the planting location for the entire day. Indiana bat components of Timber Marking guidelines will be followed. No operation of heavy equipment or timber harvesting may occur within a 1.5 mile radius of known Indiana bat maternity roost sites between April 15 th and October15 th. No live or dead hemlock trees should be cut within the project area, unless it poses a safety hazard. Further examine the prescribed burn area to identify additional areas that could benefit from more intense fire. These areas should be restricted to rhododendron or mountain laurel slicks that are precluding the regeneration of trees or areas of damaged timber. The provenance of red spruce planting material (seedlings and cones) should be relegated to an area within 80 miles of this project area A Forest Serice Fisheries Biologist will be present during in-stream work included in the fish passage and streamflow restoration treatments. Also, any necessary permits will be obtained for these activities. Locations of the federally listed rock gnome lichen will be identified by a Forest Service botanist prior to the Soil and Water Restoration treatments in Whigg Branch to ensure that this species is not affected. At least one herbicide treatment of the known nonnative invasive plants must be completed prior to implementing any proposed activites that involve ground disturbance or increase available sunlight on the ground. New compartment-stands & are underlain by an iron sulfide bearing geologic formation. The North Carolina State Division of Water Quality will be consulted prior to any grounddisturbing activities in these stands. The visual mitigations in the following table will be implemented to meet the Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective (VQO) (LRMP Amendment 5 pages III-79-83) in the MA 4 parts of the project area. Table DN-2: Designated small patch old growth New C-S Treatment* Visual Mitigation SW w/ R RBA on north half of stand SW w/ R RBA across stand, 150 buffer along FSR SW w/ R RBA across stand, or with two inclusions along drainages SW w/ R RBA across stand SW w/ R RBA in east, RBA in west GS No cut buffer of 150 along FSR 81F SW w/ R RBA in western third, and for 200 from edge of road in east SW w/ R RBA for 200 from FSR No cut buffer of 150 GS 1,2,12,16 along FSR SW w/ R RBA in southwest half of stand SW w/ R RBA on east quarter of stand SW w/ R RBA for 200 from south boundary (along ridge) * SW w/ R: Shelterwood with Reserves *GS: Group Selection Four sites were identified as potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Treatment activities will be modified to prevent any impact to these sites. Best Available Science My decision is based on a review of the project record that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing 4

5 views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk pursuant to 40 CFR (b), , and Rationale The purpose and need for the proposal is disclosed in Section 1.3, Chapter 1 and is to improve the existing condition of the following: wildlife habitat, tree species diversity, timber resources, forest health, watershed conditions, recreational safety and access, and fish passage within the Upper Santeetlah Project area, in accordance with the Forest Plan goals, objectives and direction. The proposed activities move this vicinity of the Forest toward the desired future conditions established in the Forest Plan. In addition, the projects in the alternative will go towards meeting restoration goals for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (see Section 1.3 EA). Alternative D best meets the purpose and need and restoration goals as follows: Direction in the Forest Plan reads, in part, to Assure a regular and sustained flow of habitats across the Forests through space and time for diversity and viability of plant and animal populations. The proposed harvest activities would accomplish the need to increase early successional habitat by increasing the percentage of young forest. Harvest activities will contribute to mixed ages of stands throughout the project area. Silvicultural treatments will prepare and regenerate harvested areas for the development of future stands, and thinning and release treatments to improve tree growth and promote development of young trees. Post- and pre-harvest regeneration and release treatments will improve stand stocking and species composition. Specific activities, such as northern flying squirrel stand improvement and red spruce planting are specifically designed to improve the habitat of the Carolina northern flying squirrel. The Carolina northern flying squirrel is a federally endangered species with a very limited amount of suitable habitat in the southern Appalachians. Prescribed burning is needed to improve wildlife forage, provide a more open understory and midstory for wildlife species, and to reduce the dominance of shade tolerant tree species in the understory and therefore increase species diversity. Existing wildlife food plots and linear food strips are needed to provide grass/forb habitats and shrub habitats for wildlife species requiring those habitats. The proposed activities are in accordance with Forest Plan direction to use vegetative management practices, including commercial and noncommercial timber harvest, to accomplish fish and wildlife habitat objectives (Forest Plan, p. III-24). Forest Plan direction is to provide at least 0.5% of Management Areas 2A and 4D in grass/forb openings. NNIS treatments along roads and areas that extend into forest stands will contribute to restoration of viable native plan communities. Replacing existing culverts and removing a debris dam will improve fish passage and provide for streamflow restoration. The current road to Swan Cabin crosses private property and is difficult to maintain due to the steep grade. The new 0.45 mile road construction will be entirely on Forest Service property and follow a gentler grade. Roads within the project area that are no longer needed for management or administrative purposes will be decommissioned (8.6 miles) or placed into storage (3.1 miles). In reaching my decision, I reviewed the purpose and need for the project and the alternatives considered in detail in the EA. I then carefully weighed the effects analyses of the alternatives analyzed in detail and the public comments received on the EA. The Santeetlah Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) conducted field surveys, database queries, and other localized analyses in order to determine effects the alternatives considered in detail could have on the area s ecology, including threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. During their analyses, they took a hard look at past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could be combined with expected effects from the Santeetlah proposal. I believe they provided me sufficient analyses and conclusions to make a reasoned decision. I believe the Selected Alternative will move resources in the project area towards the desired future condition, achieve the purpose and need for the project, and addresses public concerns. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the Selected Alternative D, I considered three other alternatives in detail: Alternative A No Action, Alternative B and Alternative C,. A comparison of these alternatives can be found in Section 2.4, Chapter 2. Alternative A No Action Under Alternative A, current management plans, such as 5

6 existing wildlife management, wildfire suppression, general road maintenance, and special use authorization operations would continue to guide management of the project area (see Section 2.2.1, Chapter 2). I did not select this alternative for several reasons. This alternative would not have provided and improved wildlife habitat; designated small patch old growth; used herbicides to control/manage non-native invasive populations; controlled/managed competing vegetation; improved water quality and aquatic habitat; or created ESH. I believe active management is needed to move the area towards the Forest Plan s desired future condition. Alternative B This alternative included a free thinning in potential northern flying squirrel habitat designed to remove mast producing species (which encourage the encroachment of southern flying squirrels). This alternative also included one additional stand for shelterwood with reserves harvest. I did not select this alternative because of the possible short term negative effects of the free thinning to Carolina northern flying squirrel. The project s objectives can be accomplished without the additional shelterwood with reserves harvest unit. Alternative D best meets the habitat improvement needs of the Carolina northern flying squirrel and decommissions unneeded roads. Alternative C Alternative C was developed to address concerns associated with the Carolina northern flying squirrel and the free thinning treatments. The free thinning treatment was removed. I did not select this alternative because the project s objectives can be accomplished without the additional shelterwood with reserves harvest unit. Alternative D best meets the habitat improvement needs of the Carolina northern flying squirrel and decommissions unneeded roads. Public Involvement This proposal has been listed on the NFsNC Schedule of Proposed Actions since January The proposal was provided the public and other agencies for comment during scoping that was initiated on April 23, In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the project was discussed at various meetings with interested individuals on November 20, 2008, January 14, 2009, February 20, 2009, April 1, 2009, June 29, 2009, and August 11, Collaborative discussions were held with various groups in regard restoration activities including Carolina northern flying squirrel habitat improvement. Those involved with these discussions included the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, United States Fish & Wildlife Service, and the Nantahala/Pisgah National Forest Restoration Steering Team Wildlife Habitat Restoration working group. Upper Santeetlah 6 A formal 30-day Notice and Comment period began on July 29, 2011, and ended on August 30, A total of 6 members of the public provided written comments on the EA. I carefully reviewed and weighed all comments received during the development of this decision and used them to guide my decision. Comments are addressed in the EA (see Response to Comments, Section, 6.2 Chapter 6). Finding of No Significant Impact After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR ). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base by finding on the following: 1. My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action (Chapter 3). 2. There will be no significant effects on public health and safety and implementation will be in accordance with project design features (Section 2.5, Chapter 2; Chapter 3). 3. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area, because there are no park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas in the project area, nor would it violate local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment (Chapter 3). 4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial because there is no known scientific controversy over the impacts of the project (Chapter 3). 5. We have considerable experience with the types of activities to be implemented. The effects analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk (Chapter 3). 6. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, because the project is site specific and effects are expected to remain localized and short-term (Chapter 3). 7. The cumulative impacts are not significant (Chapter 3). 8. The 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 (Section 3.7, Chapter 3). The action will also not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources (Section 3.7, Chapter 3). A heritage report was completed for this project which found that there were no archeological sites

7 eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with the report on February 9, 2010, and the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) concurred with the report on September 2, The June, 14, 2011, Biological Evaluation (Section 6.1 Chapter 6) concluded: A. This proposal may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the rock gnome lichen. This proposal would not affect (directly, indirectly, or cumulatively) any other proposed or listed Federal T&E plant species. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service concurred with the determinations of effect on March 20, The Upper Santeetlah Project may impact individuals of the sensitive plants Megaceros aenigmaticus, Peltigera venosa, Cardamine clematis, Glyceria nubigena, Metzgeria temperate, Prenanthes roanensis, Stachys clingmanii, Drepanolejeunea appalachiana, Plagiochila virginica var. virginia, Plagiochila sharpii, Porella wataugensis, and Schlotheimia lancifolia. Such impacts will not lead to a loss of species viability across the Nantahala or Pisgah National Forests or a trend towards federal listing. This proposal would not impact any other Regional Forester s sensitive plant species. B. This project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Carolina northern flying squirrel and the Indiana bat. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service concurred with the determinations of effect on March 20, The Upper Santeetlah Project may impact individuals of the sensitive terrestrial wildlife species Trechus luculentus Unicoi, Scudderia septentrionalis, Trimerotropis saxatilis, Callophrys irus, Speyeria diana, Pallifera hemphilli, Paravitrea placentula, Desmognathus santeetlah, Plethodon junaluska, Plethodon aureolus, Plethodon teyahalee, Myotis leibii, and Sorex palustris puntulatus, but will not impact their viability across the Forest or lead to a trend towards federal listing. The Upper Santeetlah Project will benefit Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis. The project would have no effect or impact on any other federally listed or Regional Forester s sensitive terrestrial wildlife species or their habitat. C. No risk to population viability of any aquatic federally listed or Regional Forester s sensitive species across the Forest would occur as a result of the implementation of the Upper Santeetlah Project. The project would have no effect or impact on any federally listed or Regional Forester s sensitive aquatic species or their habitat. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service concurred with the determinations of effect on March 20, The action will not violate Federal, State, or local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA. The action is consistent with the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment 5. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations My decision to implement the Selected Alternative is consistent with the intent of the long-term goals and objectives listed on pages III-1 and III-2 of Forest Plan Amendment 5. The project was designed to meet land and resource management plan standards and incorporates appropriate land and resource management plan guidelines. Administrative Review and Contacts This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) A written appeal, including attachments, must be postmarked or received within 45 days after the date this notice is published in The Graham Star, the Responsible Official s newspaper of record (36 CFR 215.2). The appeal shall be sent to: National Forests in North Carolina ATTN: Appeals Deciding Officer 160-A Zillicoa Street Asheville, North Carolina Hand-delivered appeals must be received within normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Appeals may be faxed to (828) or mailed electronically in a common digital format to: appeals-southern-northcarolina@fs.fed.us. Those who provided comments or otherwise expressed interest in a particular proposed action by the close of the formal notice and comment period may appeal this decision pursuant to 36 CFR Appeals must meet content requirements of 36 CFR For further information on this decision, contact Steverson Moffat, NEPA Team Leader, at Implementation Date As per 36 CFR 215.9, if no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, the 5 th business day following the close of the appeal-filing period (36 CFR ). If an appeal is filed, implementation may occur on, but not before the 15 th business day following the date of appeal disposition. 7

8 /s/ Lauren B. Stull LAUREN STULL Cheoah District Ranger 4/3/2012 Date 8