Decision Memo ANF Radio Towers Project I. Decision to be Implemented A. Description of the Decision B. Purpose of the Decision

Transcription

1 Decision Memo ANF Radio Towers Project USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region Allegheny National Forest Bradford and Marienville Ranger Districts Pennsylvania I. Decision to be Implemented A. Description of the Decision Our decision is to install four integrated fixed radio towers on the Allegheny National Forest (ANF) to provide additional radio coverage for its employees. The four radio sites are located in Warrant 5269, Kingsley Township, Forest County (Stony Point), Warrant 3085, Hamlin Township, McKean County (Westline), Warrant 3699, Corydon Township, McKean County (Dry Brook), and North Strong Warrant, Millstone Township, Elk County (Clarion River). Two of the radio sites are located on the Bradford Ranger District and two are located on the Marienville Ranger District (see attached map). The Forest Service currently has five radio towers on the ANF. Because of the topography of the ANF, with nearly level plateau tops and deep valleys, radio coverage is difficult to obtain in the valleys. A recent study indicated that the current ANF radio system provides coverage over about 60 percent of the forest, and improvements and increased radio coverage could be made by adding additional towers. The radio sites will improve radio coverage across the ANF providing additional safety for Forest Service employees working on the ANF and the public. The integrated fixed radio towers would require no foundation, no excavation, and minimal clearing. The radio towers are self-contained with an un-guyed articulated tower 100 feet tall and would be powered using solar energy (panels). The towers would be transported by truck and, if necessary, towed to the tower sites. Less than an acre of National Forest System land would be used for each tower site. Minimal clearing (tree felling and possible removal) may occur to allow for operation of the solar panels. Installation of the towers should occur within the next five years depending on available funding. B. Purpose of the Decision Three of the radio sites are located in Management Area 3.0 Even-aged Management and one, Stony Point, is located in Management Area 2.2 Late Structural Linkages. The following goals and objectives were identified in the Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (or Forest Plan) for this proposal: Improve the safety and economy of Forest Service facilities and operations and provide greater security for the public and employees (Forest Plan, p. 15). II. Reasons for Categorically Excluding the Decision Decisions may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment when they qualify for one of the categories identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1b.3 or one of the categories identified in 36 CFR 220.6, and there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative environmental effect. A. Category of Exclusion This project falls within category of exclusion 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 220.6(e)(3). This category allows, Approval, modification, or continuation of minor special uses of National Forest System lands that require less than five contiguous acres of land. This falls within the categories of actions for which

2 a project or case file and a decision memo are required. Therefore, in accordance with the court ruling (Sequoia Forest Keeper v. Tidwell, 11-vc LJO-DLB (E.D. Cal.)), the Forest Service provided public notice, comment, and opportunity for administrative appeal. Individuals or organizations wishing to appeal must meet the information requirements of 36 CFR B. Relationship to Extraordinary Circumstances 1. Proposed, Threatened, or Endangered Species or their Critical Habitat and Sensitive Species The Endangered Species Act requires that Federal activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of any species federally listed or proposed as threatened or endangered, or result in adverse modification to such species designated critical habitat. There is no critical habitat for any federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species on the ANF. Potential effects of the decision on federally listed species have been analyzed and documented in a biological assessment/evaluation (BAE). Analysis indicates that there would be a no effect determination for the small whorled pogonia, northeastern bulrush, northern riffleshell, clubshell, snuffbox, sheepnose, rayed bean, and rabbitsfoot and a may affect but not likely to adversely affect determination for the Indiana bat. This decision would not adversely modify or destroy critical habitat or jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. Concurrence for these determinations were received as part of the concurrence on the 2007 ANF Forest Plan dated January 31, A Review of New Information (RONI) pertaining to the white-nosed syndrome affecting bats has been prepared. Findings in the RONI include no change in the listed determination for the Indiana bat. Forest Service Manual 2670 requires analysis of potential impacts to sensitive species, those species for which the Regional Forester has identified population viability is a concern. On December 14, 2011, the Regional Forester approved the updated Regional Forester s Sensitive Species (RFSS) list for the ANF. Potential effects of this decision on sensitive species have been analyzed and documented in the BAE. With implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Pennsylvania BMPs, the analysis indicates that there would be no impact to 66 of the RFSS. For 14 RFSS (little brown myotis, northern myotis, tri-colored bat, northern goshawk, timber rattlesnake, Hooker s orchid, wild quinine, mountain woodfern, white fawn-lily, American ginseng, checkered rattlesnake plantain, and great spurred violet), this decision may impact individuals, but will not cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. 2. Floodplains, Wetlands, or Municipal Watersheds Floodplains: Executive Order requires avoiding adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Floodplains are defined by this order as,... the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood-prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent [100-year recurrence] or greater chance of flooding in any one year. This decision is not located within or near floodplains; therefore, there would be no floodplain-related impacts. Wetlands: Executive Order requires avoiding adverse impacts associated with destruction or modification of wetlands. Wetlands are defined by this order as,... areas inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. 2

3 This decision does not include activities within or near wetlands; therefore, there would be no wetlandrelated impacts. Municipal Watersheds: Municipal watersheds are managed under multiple use prescriptions in forest plans. There are three municipal watersheds on the ANF: Big Mill Creek (Ridgway, Pennsylvania), Silver Creek (Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania), and West Branch Tunungwant Creek (Bradford, Pennsylvania). This decision does not included activities within any of the municipal watersheds on the ANF; therefore, there should be no impacts to municipal watersheds. 3. Congressionally Designated Areas Wilderness: Designated wilderness areas in the Forest Plan are located in MA 5.1 (pp. 116 through 120). This decision is located in MA 2.2 and 3.0 and does not include activities within or near designated wilderness areas. This decision with impacts limited to the immediate area should not affect designated wilderness areas. Wilderness Study Areas: There are two wilderness study areas (WSAs) on the ANF. WSAs in the Forest Plan are located in MA 5.2 (pp. 121 through 125). This decision is located in MA 2.2 and 3.0; however, the proposed Dry Brook tower is approximately 1,945 feet from the Chestnut Ridge Wilderness Study Area (WSA) and would be visible from portions of the Chestnut Ridge WSA. The proposed Dry Brook tower is considered substantially unnoticeable due to surrounding vegetation and other sights and sounds of man-made activities and structures from areas adjoining the Chestnut Ridge WSA. Since the remaining three proposed tower sites have impacts limited to the immediate areas, they would not affect WSAs. National Recreation Areas: The only National Recreation Area (NRA) on the ANF is the Allegheny National Recreation Area (pp. 148 through 152) (located on the Bradford Ranger District). The proposed Dry Brook tower is located approximately 1.7 miles from the Allegheny NRA and would not be visible from the Allegheny NRA due to terrain and intervening vegetation (trees). This decision does not include activities within or near the Allegheny NRA; therefore, this decision would not affect the Allegheny NRA. National Wild and Scenic Rivers: There are two National Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) on the ANF: the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers. This decision does not include activities within MA 8.1 (Wild and Scenic River Corridor) for the Clarion WSR. The proposed Clarion River tower site is approximately 3,878 feet from MA 8.1 and approximately 5,150 feet from the Clarion WSR; therefore, this decision with impacts to the immediate area should not affect either WSR. 4. Inventoried Roadless Areas This decision does not include activities within or near inventoried roadless areas; therefore, this decision, with impacts limited to the immediate area of activity, would not affect inventoried roadless areas. 5. Research Natural Areas This decision does not include activities within or near Research Natural Areas; therefore, this decision, with impacts limited to the immediate area of activity, would not affect Research Natural Areas. 6. Native American Religious or Cultural Sites The Federal government has trust responsibilities to Tribes under a government-to-government relationship to insure that the Tribes reserved rights are protected. Consultation with tribes helps ensure that these trust responsibilities are met. The Forest Service (ANF) has consulted with the Seneca Nation 3

4 of Indians (SNI) Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) regarding this decision. No tribal concerns were identified. 7. Archaeological Sites or Historic Properties or Areas Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of a project on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in, eligible for inclusion in, or unevaluated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act also requires federal agencies to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on agency undertakings. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act covers the discovery and protection of historic properties (prehistoric and historic) that are excavated or discovered on federal lands. It affords protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public and Indian lands. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act covers the discovery and protection of Native American human remains and objects that are excavated or discovered in federal lands. It encourages avoidance of archaeological sites that contain burials or portions of sites that contain graves through in situ preservation, but may encompass other actions to preserve these remains and items. This decision complies with the cited Acts. Surveys were conducted for Native American religious or cultural sites, archaeological sites, and historic properties or areas that may be affected by this decision. No cultural resource sites were identified in the surveys. The Forest Service has consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concerning these findings. No other extraordinary circumstances related to the project were identified. III. Public Involvement The following methods were used to inform the public of their opportunity to comment on this proposal: 1) A scoping package was mailed on April 10, 2013 to potential interested parties, including subsurface and adjacent landowners. 2) The scoping package was also posted on the ANF website on April 11, ) A scoping news release was sent to the local media on April 12, ) The project was listed in the ANF schedule of proposed actions beginning with the July 2013 issue. 5) On June 19, 2013, the proposed decision was sent to individuals and organizations that submitted hardcopy comments during scoping period. On July 1, 2013, individuals and organizations that submitted electronic comments were notified by that the proposed decision was available on the ANF website. 6) The proposed decision was posted on the ANF website on June 20, ) A 30-day comment news release was sent to local media on June 26, ) The legal notice for the 30-day comment period on the proposed decision was published on June 26, Three respondents submitted comments during scoping. One respondent expressed support of the proposal. One respondent expressed concern about cell towers and was supportive of minimizing human development in forested areas. Scoping Comment 1-A One respondent had concerns about the proposed location for the Clarion River radio tower site and proposed an alternate location for the Clarion River radio tower site. 4

5 Response: The respondent s proposed alternate location for the Clarion River radio tower site is located on State Game Lands, not National Forest System lands, and based on analysis by our communication specialist, the Forest Service proposed location for the Clarion River radio tower site provides better radio coverage than the respondent s proposed alternate site. The Forest Service considered other sites for the proposed radio tower within the area covered by the proposed Clarion River tower site; however, the proposed site provides the best radio coverage of the sites considered. Two respondents submitted comments during the 30-day comment period on the proposed decision. Their comments are summarized below along with Forest Service responses. Comment 1-A One respondent had concerns about the proposed location for the Clarion River radio tower site and proposed an alternate location for the Clarion River radio tower site. Response: The alternate site proposed by the respondent is located at the site of the former Zimmerman Hill fire tower, which is located off of Forest Road (FR) 228. This site is higher than the proposed location. Based on analysis by our communication specialist, the Zimmerman Hill fire tower site provides coverage that the proposed Forest Service site does not around the Marienville Ranger District office and other areas already covered by existing radio towers on the ANF. Elevation is one consideration when placing a tower; however, location can be more important. The Zimmerman Hill fire tower site does not fill the gaps in the existing coverage as well as the proposed Forest Service site. The Zimmerman Hill fire tower site does not look down into the Clarion River valley as well as the proposed Forest Service site. The Forest Service considered other sites, including the former Zimmerman Hill fire tower, for improved coverage within the Clarion River valley and environs and the proposed site best meets this need. Comment 2-A In general, we recommend that if any new radio towers are necessary, they should be constructed in areas that have already been heavily impacted than in forest areas. For example, constructing a new radio tower in or adjacent to a stone pit or an abandoned oil and gas site with minimal regrowth would be preferred over a forested area. The Forest Service should do everything it can to preserve forested areas from further disturbance considering the ongoing landscape level effects caused by oil and gas drilling. Response: The proposed radio towers are self-contained, do not need foundations, do not need excavation, require minimal clearing and tree cutting, and are solar powered and can be moved to the site with an excavator, if needed. The Forest Service considered alternate sites for the towers and chose sites that provide radio coverage to those areas currently lacking coverage while minimizing impacts. The proposed Clarion River tower is located in a stone pit; the proposed Westline tower is located in an area that currently has oil and gas development; and the proposed Stony Point tower was moved away from FR484 so it would be out of sight of people using FR484 for hiking or horseback riding. The proposed Dry Brook tower is located in an area that currently has oil and gas development and has been identified by the subsurface mineral owner for extensive future oil and gas development. To increase coverage using an alternative site in this area would require putting the tower in Tracy Ridge (Allegheny National Recreation Area) or Chestnut Ridge (Wilderness Study Area). Under the Forest Plan, construction of new facilities is not allowed in the Chestnut Ridge Wilderness Study Area (p. 125). 5

6 Comment 2-B The Forest Service should disclose the recent study so the public has a means of verifying the claim that the current ANF radio system provides coverage over about 60 percent of the forest. How recent was the study? Who prepared the study? Also, if there is 40% of the Alleghany that is not covered by the ANF radio system, how much would that percentage decrease after full implementation of this project? Would 100% of the Allegheny have coverage or would it just be 75%? This is important because if the four additional do not substantially increase the coverage, there is the potential for the Forest Service to propose even more towers in the future. The Forest Service should at least be able to approximate how much of the Allegheny would be covered with the additional four radio towers. Response: The study was conducted by Douglas King, Radio Frequency Design Engineer, for the Forest Service in 2010 (study is located in the project file and is available upon request). The Clarion River tower site off FR 383 would increase total coverage by 6 percent. The Stony Point tower site off FR 212 would increase total coverage by 7 percent. The Westline tower site off FR 279 would increase total coverage by 6 percent. And the Dry Brook tower site off FR 153 would increase total coverage by 4 percent. (Please see response to Comment 2-A too.) This would leave about 17 percent of the forest without coverage. The remaining areas without adequate coverage are located primarily along stream channels and include the northern part of Allegheny Reservoir, Sugar Run, Kinzua Creek, South Branch Kinzua Creek, Tionesta Creek, East Branch Tionesta Creek, Tionesta Creek (from Sheffield to Mayburg), Blue Jay Creek, and East Hickory Creek. Additional towers at Gibbs Hill and around Sheffield would each provide 5 to 6 percent of additional coverage. Any additional towers would each provide 2 to 3 percent of additional coverage. There are no proposals for additional towers at this time. Comment 2-C Finally, are there alternative communication options available that would eliminate the need to construct four new radio towers? The Forest Service should explore such options. Response: An alternative would be satellite phones; however, they are expensive, private communications. Each person would have a private link like a cell phone. Therefore, the ANF offices would have to contact each and every person individually to relay information to field personnel. Satellite phones are not suited to reach numerous people or a large area in an emergency. Also satellite phone communications could be blocked by forest canopy, deep valleys, or by being on a steep northern slope. Another alternative would be to provide Forest Service employees with cell phones. Currently, some Forest Service employees on the ANF have government-issued cell phones. However, there would be similar issues with contacting employees in the event of an emergency, etc. as with satellite phones. There are also areas on the ANF that do not have adequate cell coverage. Radio is a broadcast network, allowing fast and frequent communication to numerous parties at one time. This is essential for effective relay of emergenvy and public/employee safety information to personnel in the field. Currently, the Forest Service uses human repeaters to relay out of dead zones during emergencies; however, there will be no communications out of the dead zones prior to an emergency or at other times in those areas. Comment 2-D Stony Point The Forest Service should disclose the impacts of this proposed radio tower on the Stony Point area. Specifically, how would the viewshed, both from Stony Point and looking towards Stony Point, change as a result of constructing a new radio tower? Are there alternative locations available 6

7 on already disturbed land that would fulfill the same purpose? We recommend relocating or eliminating this proposed radio tower, especially if it only marginally increases radio coverage in this area of the Allegheny. Response: The proposed Stony Point tower site was moved back from FR484 (approximately 400 feet) so it will not be seen by people hiking or horseback riding on the road. The proposed tower is approximately 2,000 feet from Stony Point and would not be visible from Stony Point (see project file). The proposed tower would be about 20 to 30 feet above tree top level and at this height would be screened from a person s view at Stony Point due to intervening vegetation. Comment 2-E Dry Brook The Forest Service claims that no activities are proposed within or near wilderness study areas or within or near inventoried roadless areas. How close to this WSA is the proposed tower site? This is a concern since one of the features of the Chestnut Ridge WSA are long distance views of the mostly unaltered surrounding landscape. How would the proposed radio tower impact those long distance views? Are there alternative locations available on already disturbed land that would fulfill the same purpose? We recommend relocating or eliminating this proposed radio tower, especially if it only marginally increases radio coverage in this area of the Allegheny and/or has any impacts, including but not limited to visual and scenic impacts, on the Chestnut Ridge WSA. Response: Impacts to WSA are discussed on page 3 of the Proposed Decision Memo and page 3 of this Decision Memo. The proposed tower is approximately 1,945 feet from the Chestnut Ridge Wilderness Study Area (WSA) and would be visible from portions of the Chestnut Ridge WSA, including the Bullis Hollow Trail. However, the proposed Dry Brook tower would not be substantially noticeable due to surrounding vegetation and other sights and sounds of man-made activities and structures from areas adjoining the Chestnut Ridge WSA. The scenery integrity level (SIL) for the area of the proposed Dry Brook tower is moderate, where the valued landscape character appears slightly altered. Guidelines for radio towers from the ANF Scenery Implementation Guide (p. 3) would be followed to minimize impact to scenery and the recreating public. Comment 2-F Clarion River The Forest Service claims that no activities are proposed within or near MA 8.1 (Wild and Scenic River Corridor) along the Clarion WSR. While the proposed radio tower at this site may not be within the wild and scenic river corridor (WSRC), it is near the WSRC. How close is this site to the WSRC? Would the tower be visible from the WSRC? It should be noted that the proposed radio tower would be very close to Painter Run, a stream that was recently evaluated for designation under the Wild & Scenic River Act. See Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix D: Wild and Scenic Rivers. Despite the fact that Painter Run was not designated does not diminish the scenic quality of this area. We recommend relocating or eliminating this proposed radio tower, especially if it only marginally increases radio coverage in this area of the Allegheny and/or has any impacts, including but not limited to visual and scenic impacts, on the Clarion Wild and Scenic River Corridor. Response: The proposed tower is located in an existing stone pit along FR383. It is located approximately 5,150 feet from the Clarion River and would not be visible from the Clarion River (see project file). This was a critical factor in proposing this site. It is also located approximately 3,878 feet from Management Area (MA) 8.1 and with impacts limited to the immediate area would 7

8 not have any impacts to the Clarion Wild and Scenic River corridor (MA 8.1) (see page 3 of this Decision Memo). As noted in this comment, the eligibility process for the revised Forest Plan resulted in finding no rivers or river segments (including Painter Run) eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System (Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix D, 2007, p. D- 6). The proposed tower is located approximately 1,842 feet west of the headwaters of Painter Run in an existing stone pit on the west side of FR383. The area east of the stone pit consists generally of upland plateau with mature forest. Placement of the proposed tower within the existing stone pit adjacent to FR383 would minimize impacts to the area and should not diminish the scenic quality of this area. Since the tower would be 20 to 30 feet higher than the surrounding vegetation, it would only be visible to people within the immediate area of the proposed tower. Comment 2-G Westline As we have suggested for the other proposed radio towers, are there alternative locations available on already disturbed land that would fulfill the same purpose? We recommend relocating or eliminating this proposed radio tower, especially if it only marginally increases radio coverage in this area of the Allegheny. Response: The proposed tower is located in an area that currently has an oil and gas development. IV. Findings Required by and/or Related to Other Laws and Regulations Our decision complies with all applicable laws and regulations. We have summarized some pertinent ones below. Forest Plan Consistency (National Forest Management Act) This Act requires the development of long-range land and resource management plans (LRMP or Forest Plan). The Allegheny Forest Plan was approved in 2007 as required by this Act. The Forest Plan provides guidance for all natural resource management activities on the ANF. The Act requires that all projects and activities are consistent with the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan has been reviewed in consideration of this project proposal. This decision is responsive to guiding direction contained in the Forest Plan, as summarized in Section I of this document. Endangered Species Act See Section II, Item B1. Clean Water Act This Act requires restoring and maintaining the integrity of waters. The Forest Service complies with this Act through the use of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize impacts to soil and water resources. The appropriate state and federal permits will be obtained for this waterway encroachment. The permit would include an erosion and sedimentation plan to maintain water quality. Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) See Section II, Item B2. Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) See Section II, Item B2. Clean Air Act Under this Act, areas of the country were designated as Class I, II, or III attainment areas for Prevention of Significant Deterioration purposes. Class I areas generally include national parks and wilderness areas. Class I provides the most protection to pristine lands by severely limiting the amount of additional human-caused air pollution that can be added to these areas. There are no Class I attainment areas on the ANF. The ANF lies within a Class II attainment area. A greater amount of additional humancaused air pollution may be added to these areas but must still meet Commonwealth and National Air Quality Standards. No areas on the ANF have been designated as Class III attainment areas at this time. 8

9 Federal Cave Resources Protection Act - This Act requires securing, protecting, preserving, and maintaining significant caves, to the extent practical. Site features and field review substantiate that no caves are in the project area; therefore, no known cave resources would be affected by this decision. National Historic Preservation Act See Section II, Item B6 and B7. Archeological Resources Protection Act See Section II, Item B6 and B7. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act See Section II, Item B6 and B7. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act See Section II, Item B3. Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) This Order requires consideration of whether or not projects would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. This decision complies with this Act. Public involvement occurred for this project, the results of which we considered in our decision making. Public involvement did not identify any adversely impacted local minority or low-income populations. This decision is not expected to adversely impact minority or low-income populations. National Environmental Policy Act This Act requires public involvement and consideration of potential environmental effects. The entirety of documentation for this decision supports compliance with this Act. Project Design Features None. V. Administrative Review and Appeal On January 17, 2014, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (Pub. L. No ). Section 431 of that Act directs that the 1992 and 2012 legislation establishing the 36 CFR 215 (post-decisional appeals) and 36 CFR 218 (pre-decisional objections) processes shall not apply to any project or activity implementing a land and resource management plan that is categorically excluded.under the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]. On February 7, 2014, the President signed into law the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill) (Pub. L. No ). Section 8006 of the 2014 Farm Bill repealed the Appeals Reform Act (ARA) (Pub. L. No ). The ARA s implementing regulation was 36 CFR 215. The 2014 Farm Bill also directs that the predecisional objection process established in the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2012 shall not be applicable to categorically excluded projects or activities. As a result of these two statutes, the Forest Service will no longer offer notice, comment and appeal opportunities pursuant to 36 CFR 215 for categorically excluded projects. To achieve an orderly shutdown of appeal opportunities under 36 CFR 215, the Chief directed that the Agency accept and consider all timely submitted public comments received in response to a Forest Service legal notice issued pursuant to 36 CFR and published on or before March 5, Similarly, the Appeal Deciding Officer will accept and conduct an appeal review and disposition where legal notice of a decision memo was published in the newspaper of record on or prior to March 5, Since we did not make a decision on this project or published a legal notice of the decision memo in the newspaper of record prior to March 5, 2014, we cannot offer appeal opportunities for this project. These legislative changes and new direction do not limit the public s ability to comment on Forest Service projects and activities. The Forest Service will continue to offer public involvement opportunities for categorically excluded projects as provided for in its NEPA procedures found in 36 CFR 220. The Forest Service will continue to provide notice, comment and pre-decisional objections as provided for in 36 CFR 218 for proposed projects and activities that are documented with an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. 9

10 V. Implementation Date Implementation may begin immediately. VII. Responsible Officials and Contact Person The Responsible Officials are: Robert T. Fallon, District Ranger Macario Herrera, District Ranger Marienville Ranger District Bradford Ranger District Allegheny National Forest 29 Forest Service Drive 131 Smokey Lane Bradford, PA Marienville, PA Questions regarding this decision should be directed to the Responsible Officials or Kevin Treese, District NEPA Coordinator, at (814) This document is also listed on the ANF website at: Robert T Fallon April 10, 2014 ROBERT T. FALLON Date Marienville District Ranger Macario Herrera April 15, 2014 MACARIO HERRERA Date Bradford District Ranger The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (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, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 10