Bingo, Perkins and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Decision Memo

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service May 2010 Bingo, Perkins and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Decision Memo USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region Green Mountain National Forest Rochester Ranger District Towns of Chittenden Rutland County, Rochester, Windsor County, and Hancock, Addison County, Vermont For Information Contact: Dan McKinley Project Team Leader Green Mountain National Forest 99 Ranger Road Rochester, VT (802) ext. 516 FAX (802) Responsible Official: Greg Smith District Ranger, Rochester and Middlebury Ranger Districts Green Mountain National Forest 99 Ranger Road, Rochester, VT (802) x513 FAX (802)

2 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, and marital or familial 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 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-w, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC or call (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. This document can be made available in large print: Contact Dan McKinley: (802) x516; or dmckinley@fs.fed.us Decision Memo - Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Page 2

3 Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Decision Memo USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Green Mountain National Forest Rochester Ranger District Towns of Chittenden, Rutland County, Hancock, Addison County and Rochester, Windsor County Vermont I. SUMMARY As District Ranger for the Rochester and Middlebury Ranger Districts of the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF), I am authorizing the following: Restoration of stream habitat, function and morphology by removing barriers to aquatic organism passage and placing Large Woody Debris (LWD) in three headwaters streams of the White River: Bingo Brook, Perkins Brook and Joe Smith Brook; Replacement of the culvert on Perkins Brook with a bottomless arch to allow aquatic organism passage through a Cooperative Road Agreement with the Town of Rochester; Decommissioning of 0.07 miles of Forest Road (FR) 42B and restoring natural drainage. The damaged culvert on FR42A (0.05 miles) will be removed and the channel and banks will be restored to natural dimensions. The road will be decommissioned but left in place for future use. A total of 0.12 miles of road will be decommissioned; Removal of two log bridges on FR 142 from Joe Smith Brook; and Relocation of two campsites (Sites #9 and #10) and elimination of site access at Bingo Brook Concentrated Use Area (Bingo Brook). Site 9 will be relocated north of FR 42 and Site 10 will remain south of FR42. At both sites, parking areas will be maintained on the existing access roads. The project is located on National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Towns of Chittenden, Rutland County, Hancock, Addison County and Rochester, Windsor County Vermont (see attached map). II. DECISION TO BE IMPLEMENTED A. Project Area Background and Existing Condition Instream Large woody Debris Stream habitat surveys have been conducted throughout the Forest since Approximately 300 miles of habitat in more than 50 streams have been inventoried and monitored for fish populations and habitat conditions, including the streams proposed in this restoration project. Streams proposed for LWD restoration, including Bingo and Joe Smith brooks were inventoried between 1987 and 2003 to determine existing habitat conditions. Evaluations of these data indicate that most streams do not meet the 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan s (Forest Plan) Objective for fish (stream) habitat (Forest Plan, pp ). More specifically, they are often deficient in the amount of LWD (trees with and without root systems) and instream cover, pool quantity and quality, or have high stream sedimentation levels in spawning or rearing habitat. Decision Memo - Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Page 3

4 The forested stands in the proposed project area are approximately 75 to 100 years old. This relatively young age indicates that recruitment of LWD greater than 12 inches in diameter will be low for decades to come. To address these deficiencies, the GMNF is proposing to implement habitat restoration in streams by the placement of LWD. Large woody debris greatly influences stream function, channel morphology and aquatic habitats. Using the stream s natural flow regime, woody debris stores, sorts, and distributes sediment; creates habitat features such as pools and riffles; adds habitat diversity; and provides cover. LWD also traps and retains organic matter that is consumed by aquatic organisms and adds nutrients to the aquatic ecosystem. A large number of fish and insect species occupy the pools and riffles created by woody debris. Current scientific literature and research indicates that under natural, properly functioning conditions, upland streams on the Forest should attain LWD quantities of pieces of LWD/mile of stream (Lester 2003). The Forest Plan objective for stream habitat includes managing to provide LWD greater than 12 inches diameter in quantities between 75 and 130 pieces per mile and approximately 100 pieces between 8 and 12 inches diameter per mile (Forest Plan, p. 14). Habitat monitoring conducted by the Forest Service at restoration sites completed in the past few years indicates that LWD placements which approach the expected natural quantities greatly increase habitat complexity and cover, in addition to pool area and quality. Because LWD is a significant pool-forming agent in forested mountain streams, low LWD loadings result in low quantities of pool habitat. Population monitoring of Brook trout, an aquatic Management Indicator Species for upland streams, in restoration sites also indicates that the addition of LWD increased spawning and rearing habitat, resulting in increased trout abundance. Brook and Rainbow trout abundance increased by an average of 50% in LWD project sites compared to untreated control sites across the Forest. Table 2 compares the natural or desired LWD quantities and pool habitat, with the existing conditions for LWD and pool habitat. Table 2. LWD and Pool Habitat. Stream # LWD/Mile Pool Habitat Percent Pool Area Forest Plan Objective % Bingo Brook 52 8% Joe Smith Brook % Forest Plan Objectives establish the desired condition for fish habitat. Amounts of LWD in Bingo and Joe Smith Brooks (52 and 130 pieces/mile, respectively) average 40% of the expected maximum natural LWD quantities. It is expected that 2 to 3 pieces of LWD per 100 feet of stream will be needed to meet the Desired Future Condition. Stream Crossings and Aquatic Organism Passage In addition to instream habitat, the Forest Service has evaluated road crossings (culverts) at streams in the White River watershed. Culverts that are steep or create a waterfall can make it impossible for fish and other stream life to disperse throughout a watershed. Forest Plan direction states that all permanent stream crossings shall be designed to pass water and debris and allow free movement of resident aquatic life (Forest Plan, p. 20.) Perkins Brook stream crossing on Town Highway 30 (access to Bingo Cemetery) in Rochester is a barrier approximately 200 feet from the mouth of the stream. Decision Memo - Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Page 4

5 Culverts that are undersized can alter natural stream flow, sediment transport and woody debris movement. In 2008, during a severe flood, two undersized culverts on Bingo Brook at Forest Roads 42A and 42B caused those roads to be washed out. Forest Road 42B accesses a small area of Diverse Forest Use (DFU), Management Are 3.1, adjacent to Wilderness and private land and could be accessed from a single stream crossing at FR42A. The cost of a stream crossing (bottomless arch) that would pass aquatic organisms, flood flow, debris and sediment (Simulated Stream Crossing Design) was approximately $300,000. Forest Road 42A culvert is undersized and susceptible to debris jams and damage. The culvert is approx 1/3 as wide as the stream and therefore is unable to effectively transport flow, sediment and debris during flood flows. The road previously accessed Camp Site #9 at Bingo Brook. On FR142 two old log bridges cross Joe Smith Brook. Both bridges are collapsed and have the potential to create debris jams that could send flood flows down the road causing erosion and sedimentation. On June 24, 2009, the Forest Supervisor made a decision to replace two bridges on FR 45 at Milepost (MP) 0.4 and MP 2.4, and to replace or repair 3 major culverts on MP 0.1 on FR 42A (repair), MP 0.1 on FR 42B (replace), and MP 5.0 on FR 42 (replace) to improve aquatice organsim passage. The culvert on FR42 will be replaced in 2010, however, with this decision, the culverts on FR42A and FR42B will not be replaced or repaired. Camp Site Relocation Bingo Brook is a popular recreation area on the Rochester District. In the past, the water quality in Bingo Brook had been degraded by over use and improper disposal of human waste. On June 25, 2003, the Rochester and Middlebury District Ranger made a decision to restrict camping in the Bingo Brook area to only ten designated camping sites to protect water quality. Prior to the 2008 flood, FR42B accessed Camp Site #10 and FR42A accessed Camp Site #9. B. Purpose and Need There is a need to restore stream functions and processes and improve aquatic habitat associated with instream LWD. The project area streams do not meet Forest Plan Objectives for desired habitat condition and stream crossings as discussed above. They are deficient in existing quantities of LWD and percent pool area. Stream crossings are incompatible with natural stream processes and/or do not allow free movement of aquatic organisms. The purpose of this project is to restore stream function through creation of instream LWD when trees are placed in the channel to create diverse habitats for fish and other aquatic organisms, and influence stream morphology. It will do this by trapping and storing coarse sediment and spawning gravel, scouring deep pools around the LWD, creating protective cover, and storing organic material in the channel to enhance stream productivity and habitat for fish and aquatic insects. Natural stream processes will be restored by removing undersized culverts and replacing barriers to aquatic organisms with structures that allow upstream movement of resident stream life. Bingo Brook is a popular undeveloped camping area. Two dispersed camping sites are no longer accessible due to road wash outs. There is a need to maintiain the number of Decision Memo - Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Page 5

6 designated camp sites in order to prevent camping in undesireable locations. C. Description of Decision My decision is to add LWD into sections of Joe Smith Brook (0.5 miles from FR 220) and Bingo Brook (0.8 miles from FR42A) on the Rochester Ranger District (see attached map). The work would involve the use of chainsaws to fall an average of two to three pieces of LWD per 100 feet of stream (approximately 150 trees per mile) from the riparian area into the stream channel so stream processes and LWD function (i.e. creation of pools, cover, spawning areas) can be restored. Of the trees to be felled, half would be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh), the remaining trees will be 8-12 inches dbh. The placement of trees would be accomplished through directionally felling them from alongside the stream into the stream channel. No heavy equipment would be used. The trees would not be anchored in place. Aquatic Organism Passage Through a Cooperative Road Agreement with the Town of Rochester the culvert on Perkins Brook will be replaced with a bottomless arch to allow aquatic organism passage. Stream Crossing Removal FR42B (0.07 miles) will be decommissioned and natural drainage restored because that location will not be used again to cross Bingo. The damaged Culvert at FR42A (0.05 miles) will be removed and the channel and banks restored to natural dimensions. The road will be decommissioned but left in place for future use as a haul road using a temporary bridge or low water crossing (ford) to cross Bingo Brook to access DFU area. The DFU area north or Falls Brook would also be accessed by a temporary bridge or ford. Roads (total 0.12 miles) and abandoned campsites (as needed) will be scarified and seeded with a native seed mix. Enough road fill will be removed to restore stream access to floodplain at both crossings and one rock weir/cross vane will be installed at each site to reduce bank erosion and create deep pools for adult fish habitat. Some riprap may be used to stabilize banks at both sites. The project would require heavy equipment to cross the stream, work along the stream banks and in the stream. Two old log bridges on FR 142 would be removed from Joe Smith Brook to reduce potential for erosion and sedimentation. A small excavator would be used to remove the bridge material and reshape stream banks as needed. Camp Site Relocation Two campsites (Sites 9 and 10) designated as part of the June 25, 2003 Bingo Brook Decision Memo are located on the south side of the brook. Access to these sites will be eliminated following the proposed brook restoration activities. Site 9 will be relocated north of Forest Road 42 and Site 10 will remain south of FR42. At both sites, parking areas will be maintained on the existing access roads (from Forest Road 42 to approximately 35 feet in towards the old sites). Concrete barriers will be removed and boulders will be used to block motorized traffic. Minimal clearing will be completed to make access to the new campsites and small areas will be hardened with native materials (or removed fill). Campsite relocation activities will be completed by hand. Decision Memo - Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Page 6

7 This decision includes implementation of mitigation measures identified in Appendix A of this Decision Memo. This decision is based upon an environmental analysis conducted by Forest Service personnel. This information is located in the project planning record located at the Rochester Ranger District office. III. REASONS FOR CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDING THE DECISION Decisions may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment when they are within one of the categories found at 36 CFR 220.6(e)(7); (d)(4); and (d)(5), 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 Based upon the environmental analysis contained in the project planning record and on experience with similar activities on the GMNF, I have concluded that this decision can be appropriately categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. I have determined that the selected action is a routine activity within the following category of exclusion found at 36 CFR 220.6(e)(7): Modification or maintenance of stream or lake aquatic habitat improvement structures using native materials or normal practices; (d)(4): Repair and maintenance of roads, trails, and landline boundaries; and (d)(5): Repair and maintenance of recreation sites and facilities. B. Relationship to Extraordinary Circumstances The list of seven extraordinary circumstances that were examined for this analysis may be found at 36 CFR 220.6(b). The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion. It is the degree of the potential effects of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist. I have concluded that there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment. My conclusion is based on information presented in this document and the entirety of the project planning record. A summary of the project s potential effects on each resource condition is as follows: 1. Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat, Species Proposed for Federal Listing or Proposed Critical Habitat, or Forest Service Sensitive Species Animals: There are no known occurrences of threatened or endangered (T&E) animal species nor is there any potential or critical T&E habitat within the project area. Consequently, this project will have no effect on federally listed T&E animal species or their critical habitats as a result of this project. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 direction requires analysis of potential impacts to sensitive species, those species for which the Regional Forester has identified population viability is a concern. These species are listed as Regional Forester s Sensitive Species (RFSS). The project area was surveyed for RFSS animals. There is no preferred or potential RFSS animal habitat, and the likelihood of occurrence of RFSS animals is low. Consequently, this project will have no effect on any of the RFSS or their preferred Decision Memo - Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Page 7

8 habitats, and thus is not likely to lead to loss of viability or trend toward federal listing for any animal on the RFSS list. (Wildlife Biological Evaluation, May 24, 2010). Plants: There are no federally listed T&E plant species on the GMNF nor is there any critical habitat within the project area, thus this project will have no effect on federally listed T&E plant species as a result from this project. There is potential habitat for 15 RFSS plants within the project area, Species that could potentially occur in rich hardwoods are summer sedge (Carex aestivalis), Canada horsebalm (Collinsonia canadensis), large yellow lady s-slippers (Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens), meadow horsetail (Equisetum pratense), butternut (Juglans cinerea), ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), and broad beech fern (Phegopteris hexagonoptera). Species that could potentially occur along in riparian areas are shore sedge (Carex lenticularis), meadow horsetail (Equisetum pratense), rough avens (Geum laciniatum), butternut (Juglans cinerea) fall dropseed muhly (Muhlenbergia uniflora) and lesser wintergreen (Pyrola minor). T he one species that could potentially occur in mixed woods is round-leaved orchis (Platanthera orbiculata). A number of other plants on the RFSS list are associated with openings, depending on the type of opening; the two openings in the project area have potential habitat for bronze sedge (Carex foenea), pointed blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium angustifolium) and eastern blue-eyed grass (S. atlanticum). Because of the number of plants that could potentially be affected by project implementation, sites should be visited prior to implementation (see mitigation measures, Appendix A) and any RFSS found should be avoided during implementation. The project is not expected to change their habitat, and so the only potential impact would be if individual plants were harmed during implementation. If site visits occur and any RFSS found are avoided, no effects would be expected Plant Biological Evaluation, May 15, 2010). 2. Floodplains, Wetlands, or Municipal Watersheds Portions of the project area are within the floodplains of Bingo, Perkins and Joe Smith Brooks. The project would increase protection of the floodplains by stream crossing removal, brook restoration and campsite relocation. This decision will have no significant effect to the floodplain resource. This decision will have no significant effect to the wetlands resource. There are no municipal watersheds near the project area (Small Projects Summary, April 6, 2010). 3. Congressionally Designated Areas, such as Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, or National Recreation Areas Wilderness: Wilderness is identified on the Forest as Management Area 5.1 (Forest Plan, p. 49). The Campsite Relocation portion of the project is adjacent to the Joseph Battell Wilderness Area, which is approximately 0.1 mile southwest of the project. This decision, with impacts limited to the immediate area of activity, will not affect the Wilderness Area (Small Projects Summary, April 6, 2010). Decision Memo - Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Page 8

9 Wilderness Study Areas: There are no Congressionally designated Wilderness Study Areas on the GMNF. National Recreation Areas: The GMNF contains two National Recreation Areas: the Moosalamoo National Recreation Area and the Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area. The project is not located in or near these areas. This has been validated by map and site-review. This decision will not affect the National Recreation Areas (Small Projects Summary, April 6, 2010). Wild and Scenic Rivers: Although the GMNF does not contain any Congressionally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers, there are many river segments that are eligible to be further considered for addition to the National Wild and Scenic River System. These river segments and their associated corridors are within the Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Management Area (MA 9.4). The project is not located in or near these eligible river segments. This has been validated by map and site-review. This decision will not affect the outstandingly remarkable values identified for any eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers (Small Projects Summary, April 6, 2010). 4. Inventoried Roadless Areas or Potential Wilderness Areas There are no inventoried roadless areas (Roadless Area Conservation Rule or Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless Areas) in the project area. This decision will not affect inventoried roadless areas (Small Projects Summary, April 6, 2010). 5. Existing and Candidate Research Natural Areas There are no Existing or Candidate Research Natural Areas (MA 8.6) in the project area. The closest MA 8.6 land is the Blue Ridge Fen Candidate Research Natural Area, which is approximately 1.2 miles to the southwest. This decision, with impacts limited to the immediate area of activity, will not affect this Candidate Research Natural Area (Small Projects Summary, April 6, 2010). 6. American Indian and Alaska Native Religious or Cultural Sites See Item 7 below. 7. Archaeological Sites, or Historic Properties or Areas This decision complies with the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The proposed location for the relocated campsites, and the road decommissioning were surveyed for potential heritage sites in April There were some historic archaeological sites and features in the project vicinity, but they did not rise to a level of significance that would prevent campsite relocation. There will be no affect to the heritage resource as a result of this project (concurrence from Forest Archaeologist, April 22, 2010). 8. Other Resources Decision Memo - Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Page 9

10 In addition to resource conditions that could lead to extraordinary circumstances, I also have considered the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to other resources such as soil/water, fisheries, visuals, recreation, and non-native invasive species. The project will not result in significant impacts to these resources, particularly because all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines will be implemented (Small Projects Summary, April 6, 2010 and communication documented in the project planning record). Non-native invasive plant species (NNIS) are known to occur within the project area. There is potential for NNIS to be introduced to the site through equipment access. To prevent the introduction of NNIS, equipment used will be cleaned (see mitigation measures, Appendix A) prior to accessing the project area and cleaned again before going to different locations within the project area (Plant Biological Evaluation, May 15, 2010). IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This project was proposed via a scoping notice mailed to 196 interested and/or affected individuals, organizations and agencies on May 10, Three responses were received and were insignifcant (see Section III. Items A and B.) One response suggested a Bingo Brook campsite re-location for a campsite that is not being considered in this project proposal. Another response was general support of the project. The third response asked questions, sought clarifiction, and suggested improvements or corrections. Specifically, the response suggested leaving the deteriorated bridges in place on Joe Smith Brook instead of LWD, asked if the culverts damaged by the 2008 flood were designed to withstand that event, asked about access via a temporary bridge on FR42A, made a suggestion to use a water ford and temporary bridge installation on FR 42A, made a campsite relcation suggestion for Bingo Brook Campsite #9 and inquired about the location of Bingo Brook Campsite #10 (project planning record). This project was also internally scoped with Forest Service staff during Small Projects Day on April 6, No internal issues were identified. V. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OR RELATED TO OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS My decision will comply with all applicable laws and regulations. I have summarized some pertinent ones below. 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. Forest Plan Consistency (National Forest Management Act) The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the development of long-range land and resource management plans, and that all site-specific project activities be consistent with direction in the plans. The GMNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was completed and approved in 2006 as required by NFMA. The Forest Plan provides direction for all management activities on the GMNF. The Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project implements the Forest Plan and is within the Diverse Forest Use Management Area (MA), 3.1. My decision is based on the best available science, including a review of the record that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. As required by NFMA Section 1604(i), I find this project to be consistent with the Forest Plan including goals, objectives, desired future conditions, and Forest-wide and Decision Memo - Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Page 10

11 Management Area Standards and Guidelines. Specifically, the decision is consistent with the Forest Plan Goals and Objectives, and Forest-wide and Management Area Standards and Guidelines. The fisheries objectives under Goal 2 include the provision to [m]aintain or enhance fish populations through habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration, and stocking programs (Forest Plan, p. 13). Goal 4 is to [m]aintain or restore aquatic, fisheries, riparian, and wetland habitats (Forest Plan, p. 13). Goal 6 is to [m]aintain or restore ecological processes and systems on the GMNF within desired ranges of variability, including a variety of native vegetation and stream channel types, and their patterns and structural components (Forest Plan, p. 14). A Forest-wide guideline for fisheries states, the use of native materials, such as boulders, trees, and root masses, should be emphasized in stream restoration or enhancement projects to harmonize with the surrounding visual setting (Forest Plan, p. 32, Guideline 2). All work would comply with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Fisheries, Soil, Water, and Riparian Area Protection and Restoration (Forest Plan, pp ). Endangered Species Act - 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. In accordance with Section 7(c) of this Act, a report of the listed and proposed, threatened, or endangered species that may be present in the project area was reviewed. See Section III, Item B.1 of this document. Clean Water Act The intent of the Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of waters. The Forest Service complies with this Act through Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, specific project design criteria, and mitigation measures to ensure protection of soil and water resources. Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) - Executive Order directs the agency to avoid to the extent possible the adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands, and to avoid support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practical alternative. See Section III, Item B2 of this document. Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) - Executive Order directs the agency to avoid to the extent possible the adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid support of floodplain development wherever there is a practical alternative. See Section III, Item B2 of this document. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act - See Section III, Item B.3 of this document. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act - 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. See Section III, Item B.6 of this document. National Historic Preservation Act - 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, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. It also requires federal agencies to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. See Section III, Item B.7 of this document. Decision Memo - Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Page 11

12 Archaeological Resources Protection Act - The Archaeological Resources Protection Act covers the discovery and protection of historic properties (prehistoric and historic) that are excavated or discovered in federal lands. It affords lawful protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public and Indian lands. See Section III, Item B.7 of this document. Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 and Executive Order (Non-Native Invasive Species) The Federal Noxious Weed Act requires cooperation with State, local, and other federal agencies in the management and control of non-native invasive species (NNIS); Executive Order (EO) requires all pertinent federal agencies (subject to budgetary appropriations) to prevent the introduction of NNIS. This project s decision meets the intent of this law and EO by incorporating all pertinent Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and mitigation measures to ensure the management and control of NNIS. Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Executive Order requires consideration of whether projects would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. This decision complies with this order. Public involvement occurred for this project, the results of which I have considered in this 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. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES This decision is not subject to an administrative review or appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215. VII. IMPLEMENTATION DATE This decision may be implemented immediately. VIII. CONTACT PERSON Further information about this decision can be obtained from Dan McKinley, Project Team Leader during normal office hours (weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the Rochester Ranger District Office at 99 Ranger Road, Rochester, VT 05767; Phone: (802) ext. 516; Fax: (802) or dmckinley@fs.fed.us. Additional information about the project and this decision can be found on the internet at: andcomplete.htm. IX. SIGNATURE AND DATE /S/ Gregory D. Smith Date: _26 May 2010 GREGORY D. SMITH District Ranger, Rochester and Middlebury Ranger Districts Responsible Official Attachments: Appendix A Mitigation Measures; and Map of the Project Area Decision Memo - Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Page 12

13 Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project APPENDIX A Mitigation Measures The Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) established Forest-wide and Management Area Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) to mitigate potential adverse effects of management activities (Forest Plan, Chapter 2, Section 2.3; and Chapter 3). The Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brook Restoration Project area has been designed to be consistent with all Forest Plan S&Gs. Although S&Gs are usually implemented without any need for repetition in site-specific NEPA documents, there are occasions when clarification specific to a project is needed to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan. Mitigation measures have also been developed specifically for the Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brook Restoration Project to address resource concerns beyond those addressed by Forest Plan S&Gs. Listed below are relevant S&G clarifications and mitigation measures associated with the Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brook Restoration Project by resource area. Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) 1. Botanical surveys of the project area will be completed by the Forest Botanist prior to implementation, and any RFSS identified will be avoided during implementation. Non-native Invasive Plants (NNIP) 2. To prevent the spread of non-native invasive plants, equipment used to implement the project will be cleaned prior to accessing the project area, and if NNIP are present, will be cleaned again before moving to a different location within the project area. 3. Two patches of honeysuckle in C125S24 have been identified with flagging and removed during implementation. Decision Memo - Bingo, Perkins, and Joe Smith Brooks Restoration Project Page 13