Decision and Reasons for the Decision

Transcription

1 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact USDA Forest Service Mt. Adams Ranger District Gifford Pinchot National Forest Skamania County, Washington T5N R9E Sections 1-3, 9-14 T5N R10E Sections 6-8, 12, 17, 18 T6N R9E Sections 1, 2, 7-10, 12, 14-17, 19-28, T7N R8E Sections 2, 12, 13, 25, 36 T7N R9E Sections 3-5, 7-10, 17-22, 25-29, Willamette Meridian Decision and Reasons for the Decision Background The Gifford Pinchot National Forest prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for Coyote Thin. The proposed action in the EA is to cut and remove trees via thinning on approximately 3,800 acres. The purpose of a large planning project is to address resource needs at a landscape level and for efficiency. The planning is comprised of three subwatersheds, including the Upper and Lower Trout Lake Creek and Cave-Bear Creeks watersheds within the Mt. Adams District. The primary purposes of the project include timber harvest (including incidental salvage), and restoration for wildlife, botanical, and aquatic habitat. The need to restore and accelerate timber growth and yield in even-aged, dense stands exists in the Trout Lake Creek and Cave-Bear watersheds. These are some of the watersheds that were artificially regenerated following timber harvest in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s. Specific needs include the continued production and utilization of forest resources within the Matrix allocation and restoration of latesuccessional components (large multi-species trees, variable tree densities, snags and downed coarse wood) in late-successional reserves and riparian reserves. Restoration opportunities were also identified in the watersheds including improvement of the forest conditions relative to their land allocations, restore/improve forests where there are health issues, restore/improve the condition of special vegetative habitats, improve huckleberry production, reduce road density, restore stream channels, reduce wildfire risk in the Trout Lake Wildland/Urban Interface, augmenting snag and downed log presence in plantation stands, thinning small trees to improve meadow habitat within a few plantations, replacing culverts to allow for fish passage, and provide society the benefits of wood products and provide economic benefits. The preliminary EA for this project was completed in November 2012 and identified resource needs and management objectives (EA, pages 8-12) for this project that are intended to move the toward the desired future conditions of the landscape, as identified in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended, and actions Page 1

2 recommended in the Cave-Bear Creeks Watershed Analysis (1997) and Trout Lake Creek Watershed Analysis (1996) as necessary to attain the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Decision Based upon my review of the analysis and alternatives, I have decided to implement the proposed action (Alternative B). All design features/mitigation measures that apply to this decision are included in Attachment 1 to this decision notice. Alternative B proposes to commercially thin conifers on approximately 3,800 acres of mid-seral forest plantations and fire-regenerated stands. Silvicultural prescriptions vary from moderate to heavy thinning. The majority of the stands will be harvested using ground-based equipment (~3,000 acres) The remainder would be harvested using skyline/cable (~ 700 acres) and helicopter logging (~100 acres). Thinning will be a mix of moderate and heavy thinning. Moderate thinning would result in a target Curtis relative density of 30-40, leaving trees per acre and 40 to 60 percent canopy cover. Heavy thinning would result in a target Curtis relative density of 25, leaving trees per acre and percent canopy cover. Relative density as described by Robert Curtis (1982) is a measure combining average tree diameter and total basal of tree cover, to determine a simple index of stand density. All thinning would include elements to vary spacing and promote spatial variability (e.g. diameter limits, species limits, skips, and gaps) on a landscape level. To facilitate harvest operations, log landings and skid roads would be needed in strategic locations throughout the units. Logging slash would be either machine or hand piled. Where fire is a risk, piles would be burned or slash pulled back away from travel corridors. Existing Forest Service system roads needed for timber haul would be maintained. Maintenance may include brushing, grading, and ditch cleaning. Reconstruction may also occur to replace failing culverts and restore the travel surface. Major haul routes include Forest Service roads 24, 60, 86, and 88. Secondary routes include Forest Service roads: 2420, 6000, 6020, 6030, 6035, 6610, 8600, 8620, 8631, 8810, 8821, 8831, 8841 and Danger trees would be felled along the haul routes used for the timber sale. Downed trees would be left in place or made available to the public for firewood. These actions provide for safe travel and correct conditions that can cause chronic sediment delivery to streams. No new system roads would need to be constructed to implement this project. Temporary roads, which are rehabilitated immediately after logging, would be needed. There would be 10.9 miles of temporary road constructed along routes of prior ground disturbance (former temporary roads and decommissioned system roads). An additional 10.5 miles of temporary road would be constructed in new locations. Slight modifications in the length and locations of planned temporary roads are expected during sale layout and implementation. Options to extend the operating season are included in the decision. The normal operating schedule is July 15 through September 30. If conditions remain dry at the end of September, the operating season may be extended for as long as the dry conditions persist. Additionally, slightly less than half of the stands may be available for over-the-snow logging and winter haul, if Page 2

3 acceptable conditions exist. Over-the-snow operations would not be required in a timber sale, but would be an option to extend the operating season. All road construction, reconstruction and heavy maintenance needs would have to be done during the normal operating schedule, but general road maintenance (such as brushing and blading) could occur outside of that window. This decision also includes several non-commercial activities including small tree thinning, tree planting, road closures and decommissioning, culvert replacements and stream restoration. Small tree thinning (<5 inches diameter at breast height) would occur in the stands around the Cave Creek Wildlife Special (301777, , , , and ). Slash would be scattered away from pale blue-eyed grass populations to maintain meadow habitat. Snags and downed logs would be created within stand located within the Cave Creek Wildlife Special allocation and adjacent to pale blue-eyed grass and mardon skipper habitat. No tree removal would occur. Tree planting would occur with conifer and hardwood seedlings in a portion of the created gaps and heavy thinned s within the Late-Successional Reserve, Riparian Reserves, and Cave Creek Wildlife Special allocations. Tree planting in created gaps elsewhere may occur to augment natural regeneration. Opportunities to plant shade tolerant species in landings and bigger gaps would be considered to increase stand complexity after the harvest is complete and funding allows. Attachment 2 includes a list of Forest Service system roads that will be closed or decommissioned as part of this decision. In addition to those system roads listed in Attachment 2, user-created wheel tracks within stands , , and (fire-regenerated stands) that are further than 150 feet from system roads would be rehabilitated. Those roads proposed for closure are not needed for current use and management by the Forest. Their maintenance level will be changed to Level 1 (closed) in the Forest s Transportation System Database. A closure device (berm, gate, or ripping) would be installed. Those roads proposed for decommissioning are not needed for administrative use in the foreseeable future. They will be removed from the Forest s Transportation System Database. With the exception of Forest Service Road , these actions would not occur until after timber sales activities are complete. During or following previous timber harvest projects on these stands, several streams were or became diverted from their native channels and carved new channels through the forest or along roads. Some of these re-routed streams have become deeply incised and continue to erode and produce excessive sediment downslope. As part of this decision these streams would be diverted back into their original channels. Restoration work would consist of minor earthwork and/or onsite log placements to divert the streams to their original channels. To discourage rediversion of the streams, the undesired channels would be blocked with soils and/or logs, and roughened with slash and woody debris. Specific locations include: the stream northeast of stand ; the stream south of stand ; two locations within stand at Forest Roads and ; and, the western stream within stand Page 3

4 Additionally, stream crossings on Forest Road between stands and would be restored to their natural channels. These are low gradient stream crossings to be rehabilitated using heavy equipment where necessary to reshape the stream channels within the existing road prism. The purpose would be to ensure the streams are well enough established at the crossing so that they don t divert down the roadway or ditch at some point in the future. No work would be done outside the road prism. The decision includes replacing three culverts to allow for fish passage or water flow during flood events. While these culverts are currently functional for hydrology, these culverts have outlets that are not suited for fish passage. These culverts would be re-installed and/or replaced. Specific locations include: The crossing of Little Goose Creek and Forest Service Road at milepost There are 4.8 miles of habitat are upstream of this crossing. The crossing of Cave Creek and at milepost There are 3.9 miles of habitat are upstream of this crossing (perhaps more habitat given the condition created by beavers). The crossing of Skull Creek and FR at milepost There are 2.1 miles of habitat are upstream of this crossing The commercial thinning and other actions described in Alternative B, could be implemented as early as the summer of 2013, but are more likely to occur in 2014 and later. These actions will be implemented through multiple contracts (e.g. service, timber sale, and stewardship) or by Forest Service staff. Some contracts may take several years to complete. Rationale for the Decision The actions described in Alternative B will meet the objectives of restoring and accelerating timber growth and yield of artificially regenerated, even-aged, dense stands in the Trout Lake Creek and Cave-Bear Watersheds and restore late-successional ecosystems in stands in Late- Successional Reserves and in Riparian Reserves. The action provides commercial timber for sale, which meets the objective of managing the stands within the lands designated as Matrix in the Northwest Forest Plan for the continued production and utilization of forest resources, principally timber, water, dispersed recreation, and wildlife. Alternative B strikes a thoughtful balance between cost effective operations and essential resource protections. The Forest recognizes the challenges timber purchasers face in the current economic markets. The interdisciplinary team made a concentrated effort to identify criteria to extend the operating season by evaluating over-the-snow operations. In addition, my decision to select Alternative B incorporates restoration opportunities included in the project that will meet multiple objectives such as improving special vegetative habitats (including unique riparian s, wildlife meadows and special species habitat), improve the production of huckleberries, and reduce wildfire risk. Selection of Alternative B will reduce fragmentation of late successional forests and increase deer and elk forage. One other objective included with this decision is road decommissioning and/or road closure. Road decommissioning and closure will reduce road-related sediment delivery, reconnect discontinuous riparian habitats, and remove barriers to wildlife and aquatic life. Page 4

5 Acknowledging diverse interests regarding the legacy of forest roads, Alternative B ensures that many of the temporary road segments used for the timber sales are abandoned roads. Use of these road segments in this timber sale provides the opportunity and the necessary funding to restore natural flow paths and allow for revegetation upon completion of the prescribed activities. Other Alternatives Considered Alternative A Alternative A is the no action alternative. This alternative is included in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, (CFR (d)) and provides a baseline to evaluate the action alternatives. In this alternative none of the proposed activities would occur. No thinning treatments, construction and use of temporary roads, slash treatments and restoration would occur. No systems roads would be decommissioned and opportunities for enhancement within the project would not become available in this alternative. In the no action alternative, stands would be left to develop without any direct human manipulation, except for the suppression of wildfires. Sediment delivery from poor road conditions and old abandoned roads would continue. I did not select this alternative because silvicultural and restoration objectives would not be met. With no action, the opportunity to restore and accelerate timber growth and yield in even-aged, dense stands, and to restore late-successional ecosystems in stands in Late-Successional Reserves and in Riparian Reserves, and for the continued production and utilization of forest resources within the Matrix allocation would be forgone at this time. The no action alternative served as a comparison to the effects noted in Alternative B. With limited negative effects we can achieve many of our vegetative and restorative objectives in the project through active management. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study All of the scoping comments received during the scoping comment period were reviewed and it was determined that all of the significant issues could be addressed through design features, mitigations measures, or in the disclosure of effects. There were no other issues raised through scoping that were sufficiently significant to drive the development of another action alternative. Appendix B to the EA details the evaluation of scoping comments. The following alternatives were considered, but eliminated from detailed study. The rationale for their elimination is explained below. Northern Spotted Owl Consultation The team considered an alternative that wouldn t include any actions that may adversely affect the Northern spotted owl. This included stands and This alternative would have degraded less spotted owl habitat than the original proposed action. Upon further consideration, it made sense to modify the proposed action to alleviate these adverse effects rather than to analyze an additional alternative. Page 5

6 Winter Operations The team considered another alternative that would allow haul during the winter season when enough snow was present to operate and haul without negative side effects to soils, streams and winter recreation. This alternative would add 2 months to the average normal operating schedule. The team decided that this component could be added to the proposed action with criteria in place to mitigate any harmful effects, therefore it was not carried forward as a standalone alternative. Public Involvement The proposal was listed in the quarterly Gifford Pinchot National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (now electronically posted on the Gifford Pinchot public website and referred to as the Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System PALS) beginning in February, A description of the proposal was sent to the Forest mailing list including interested individuals, organizations, agencies, and tribes for comment during scoping which was initiated on February 3, During the initial scoping period, the Forest Service received seven comment letters in response to the proposed action. Using these comments, the interdisciplinary team developed the final proposed action, specific design features and mitigation measures, and a list of issues that would be addressed in this analysis. The detailed scoping comments and how they were addressed are listed in Appendix B to the EA. The project has been developed with collaborative involvement from the South Gifford Pinchot Collaborative Group, incorporating members from the local community, and both regional and local advocacy groups. Together the Mt. Adams Ranger District and the collaborative group organized greater public outreach on the project with a press release and public field trip. The field trip to inform and discuss the proposed project with interested entities occurred on September 15, A legal notice announcing the availability of the Coyote Timber Sale Preliminary Analysis for review and comment was published in the Columbian newspaper (newspaper of record) on November 7, The 30-day comment period ended on December 7, Seven individuals and organizations submitted written comments within the comment period. Comments received are summarized along with Forest Service responses in Appendix A to the EA. Page 6

7 Finding of No Significant Impact After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined 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 my finding on the following: 1. Adverse and beneficial impacts have been assessed and found to be not significant. The analysis considered not only the direct and indirect effects of the project but also their contribution to cumulative effects (EA, Soils, pages 50-78; Hydrology, pages ; Fisheries, ; Silviculture, pages ; Fuels, pages ; Sensitive Botanical Species, pages ; Noxious Weeds/Invasive Plants, pages ; Wildlife, pages ; Scenery, pages ; Heritage, page 230; Economics, pages ). Adverse effects from the proposed action have been minimized or eliminated through project design and mitigation measures (EA, pages 36-46). My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. Past, present and foreseeable future actions have been included in the analysis. No significant cumulative or secondary effects were identified. 2. I find there will be no significant effects to public health and safety. No public health and safety issues were raised during scoping (EA, Appendix B, Scoping Comments). 3. I find there will be no significant effects on unique characteristics or ecologically critical s, including historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, rangelands, wetlands, or Wild and Scenic Rivers. Heritage resource properties which meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, or have been unevaluated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, were documented within the Area of Potential Effect for units with the Coyote Timber Sale Project (EA, page 230). These sites will all be avoided during project implementation, as defined in the Mitigation Measures/Design Criteria (EA, page 36). There are no other unique characteristics or ecologically critical s in the planning. There are no prime park lands, farmlands, or rangelands within the planning. There will be no impact to wetlands due to the implementation of project design criteria and mitigation measures (EA, page 37-44). Nocut buffers are included for all streams, ponds and wetlands (EA, page 37-44). If any previously unlocated streams or wet s are discovered within a unit upon implementation an appropriate buffer would be determined by a Forest Service representative (in consultation with a fish biologist or hydrologist). There would be no activities along the Upper White Salmon River. None of the disturbance to soils or aquatic resources would reach the Upper White Salmon River and therefore no environmental consequence or cumulative effect to the designated Wild and Scenic River. 4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. No comments were received from the public concerning the scientific controversy over the impacts of the project (EA, Appendix A, Response to Comments). Page 7

8 5. Through implementation of similar vegetation management projects on the Forest, the Forest Service has considerable local experience with the types of activities to be implemented. Thus, I have determined the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. 6. I find this action is one of several similar actions undertaken on National Forest System lands and is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, or represent a decision in principle. The decision implements the Gifford Pinchot Forest Plan, as amended (EA, page 13). 7. I find the cumulative impacts are not significant. Cumulative impacts are addressed in Chapter 3 of the EA (EA, Soils, pages 50-78; Hydrology, pages ; Fisheries, ; Silviculture, pages ; Fuels, pages ; Sensitive Botanical Species, pages ; Noxious Weeds/Invasive Plants, pages ; Wildlife, pages ; Scenery, pages ; Heritage, page 230). 8. I find the action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A cultural and historic resource analysis was conducted and several properties which meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, or have been unevaluated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, were documented within the Area of Potential Effect for units with the Coyote Timber Sale Project (EA, page 230). These sites will all be avoided during project implementation, as defined in the Mitigation Measures/Design Criteria (EA, page 36). 9. I have considered the the degree to which the actions will adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat that have been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (EA, pages 236, 237). The project effect determination for the spotted owl is may affect, not likely to adversely affect. Similarly it was determined that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat. For all other listed wildlife species there will be no effect from the project activities. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service was conducted and a Letter of Concurrence was received from the Service on October 2, There will be no effect from the project activities on any federally-listed fish species due to the large distance between project activities and federally-listed fish, their designated critical habitat and Essential Fish Habitat combined with the small magnitude of downstream sedimentrelated effects expected. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (for inland species) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (for anadromous species) is not required. 10. I find the action will not violate Federal, State, and 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 Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended. Page 8

9 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations As required by the National Forest Management Act, this decision is tiered to the 1990 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Management direction comes from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) as amended by the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (1994) (EA, page 13). There will be no significant adverse effects to Forest Service, Region 6 sensitive species. Although there are 37 species that may be impacted, the Wildlife Biologist determined the project will not likely contribute to federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (EA, pages ). No sensitive fish species are present in the planning (EA, page ). Regarding sensitive botanical species, three sensitive species were found in the project. These include the vascular plants Chrysolepis chrysophylla (golden chinquapin), Sisyrinchium sarmentosum (pale blue-eyed grass), and Eriophorum viridicarinatum (greenkeeled cotton grass. The species Chrysolepis chrysophylla was given a determination of beneficial impact (EA, page 158). The species Eriphorum viridicarinatum was given a determination of no impact (EA, pages 158, 159). The species Sisyrinchium sarmentosum was given a determination of may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing (EA, pages 159, 160). To mitigate for the determination of may impact to Sisyrinchium sarmentosum, project design features were included to buffer known sites. I have considered the effects to management indicator species (MIS) as disclosed in the EA (EA, pages ). MIS on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest include pileated woodpecker and other cavity excavating and late-successional species, spotted owl, American marten, elk, deer, mountain goat, wood duck, goldeneye duck, bald eagle, cutthroat trout/steelhead trout and bull trout. The effects to the spotted owl are discussed above under ESA. None of the other MIS species would be adversely affected (EA, pages 116, ). The project is consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives. A complete ACS evaluation that includes a description of the existing condition, important physical and biological components of the watersheds within the planning, and how the action maintains the existing condition or moves it within the range of natural variability was included in the EA (EA, pages ). As a result of that analysis I find that the project meets or does not prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. I find this action is consistent with the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law ) (which amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act). An assessment was conducted by the forest fisheries biologist and it was determined that the project will have no effect/no impact to essential fish habitat for all threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive fish species (EA, pages ). Due to the large distance between the project, federally-listed fish (i.e. Lower Columbia River coho, Lower Columbia River Chinook, Columbia River pink, Pacific eulachon), and designated critical habitat and Essential Fish Habitat (i.e. for pink, coho, Chinook) in the Columbia River, combined with the small magnitude of downstream sediment-related effects, there is no effect expected from the Sale Page 9

10 and, therefore, no consultation required with NMFS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act or under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I find all applicable state and federal requirements associated with State water quality laws and the Clean Water Act (CWA) will be met through planning, application, monitoring and adjustment of Best Management Practices in conformance with the CWA and Federal guidance and management direction. (EA, pages 37-43, and 236) I find this action does not violate other Federal, State, or local laws designed for the protection of the environment. Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. The written appeal must be filed (regular mail, fax, , hand-delivery, or express delivery) with the Appeal Deciding Officer at: Regional Forester, ATTN: 1570 Appeals USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region PO Box 3623 Portland, OR Fax (503) ; appeals-pacificnorthwest-regional-office@fs.fed.us. The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered appeals are: 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. Electronic appeals must be submitted in a format such as an message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), Word (.doc), or portable document format (.pdf). In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification. s submitted to addresses other than the one listed above, or in formats other than those listed or containing viruses, will be rejected. It is the responsibility of the appellant to confirm receipt of appeals submitted by electronic mail. Appeals, including attachments, must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of the legal notice of this decision in the Columbian, the newspaper of record. Attachments received after the 45 day appeal period will not be considered. The publication date in the Columbian is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Those wishing to appeal this decision should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. Implementation Date If no appeals are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of the decision may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th business day following the date of the last appeal disposition. Page 10

11 Contact For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeals process, contact Erin Black, Planning Team Leader, during normal office hours (weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Mt. Adams District (Address: 2455 Hwy 141, Trout Lake, WA 98650; Phone: voice (509) ; Fax: (509) ; Project overseen by: Nancy Ryke January 30, 2013 NANCY RYKE District Ranger Mt. Adams Ranger District Gifford Pinchot National Forest DATE Final approval by: Janine Clayton January 31, 2013 JANINE CLAYTON Forest Supervisor Gifford Pinchot National Forest DATE Date published in the Columbian Newspaper Page 11

12 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC or call (202) (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Page 12

13 Project Design Criteria or Mitigation Attachment 1 Design Features and Mitigation Measures Silviculture Measure riparian no-cut buffers from the outer edge of floodplain on streams or edge of riparian hardwood stands on wetlands, vernal pools or ponds Leave under-represented tree species. To the extent practical, retain hardwood trees in all units. Exceptions would be for hardwood trees growing on temporary road and landing locations Retain the larger trees, maximize snag retention, and protect existing down wood to the extent possible Location (Unit #, Rd. #) Within Riparian Reserves Objective To effectively buffer aquatic influence zone To maintain or enhance diversity, and optimize plant community and stand structural development To provide for future snags, and provide legacy habitat Retain a minimum of 40-50% canopy cover in Riparian Reserves Road Work All road construction, reconstruction and heavy maintenance would have to be done during the normal operating schedule, defined as between July 15 through September 30. General road maintenance (such as brushing and blading) could occur outside that window. Botany A Forest Service botanist will monument Chrysolepis chrysophylla trees and shrubs prior to harvest activities so that they will not be inadvertantly harmed during timber harvest. Within stand, harvest all conifer trees within 50 ft. radius of Chrysolepis chrysophylla; directionally fell timber away from individuals to prevent mechanical damage. South Zone Botanist will mark no-entry zones prior to project activities and mark individual trees at edge of meadow for removal; actions that would alter microtopographic water flow in s hosting Sisyrinchium sarmentosum shall be avoided, partially through buffers, and partially through active consultation with South Zone Botanist during project implementation. Barriers will be installed by a Forest Service botanist prior to project activities, to protect roadside occurrences of Sisyrinchium sarmentosum Install 80 ft. radius no cut buffer centered on Chaenotheca subroscida and Leptogium teretiusculum occurrences All road construction, reconstruction and heavy maintenance To maintain stream shade and provide future woody debris To minimize damage to roads, and to protect natural resources Protect Sensitive botanical species Protect Sensitive botanical species , , Roadside, , , , , , , Protect Sensitive botanical species Protect Sensitive botanical species Provide for well distributed occurrences of native plant species; protect diversity Page 13

14 Center large skip on Chaenotheca subroscida occurrence (190 ft. radius) , , Heritage Retain all mature western redcedar trees within harvest units to the extent possible Protection s will be flagged by the South Zone Archaeologist prior to project activities. In units , , , , Provide for well distributed occurrences of native plant species; protect diversity Protect heritage resources Protect heritage resources Visual Impacts Leave tree paint designation would occur on the tree side facing away from the road. Excess slash would be removed, either moved into unit, piled and burned, or chipped Cut tree stumps would be no higher than 4 inches, uphill side Landings and temporary roads will be minimized and placement reviewed by recreation staff Rehabilitation of landings and temporary roads will not use root wads Aquatics and Soils Standard No-Cut Buffers for Riparian Treatments (not including stands scheduled for heavy thinning): Perennial Fish-Bearing Streams 100 Perennial Non Fish-Bearing Streams 60 Intermittent Streams 60 Intermittent Streams lacking riparian character 30 Ephemeral Streams 15 Ponds 100 Seeps and Springs 30 Vernal Pools - 30 Wetlands greater than one acre - 60 Wetlands less than one acre 30 Within 100 ft. of FR , , and Within 100 ft. of FR , , and Within 100 ft. of FR , , and Within 100 ft. of FR , , and Within 100 ft. of FR , , and To avoid or minimize the short-term visual impacts of logging To avoid or minimize the short-term visual impacts of logging To avoid or minimize the short-term visual impacts of logging To avoid or minimize the short-term visual impacts of logging To avoid or minimize the short term visual impacts of logging To maintain or improve riparian reserve conditions Page 14

15 Standard No-Cut Buffer for Riparian Treatments in stands scheduled for Heavy Thinning: Perennial Fish-Bearing Streams 130 Perennial Non Fish-Bearing Streams 100 Intermittent Streams 100 Intermittent Streams lacking riparian character 30 Ephemeral Streams 15 Ponds 130 Seeps and Springs 60 Vernal Pools 60 Wetlands greater than one acre Wetlands less than one acre - 60 All plantation units (does not include native stands) To maintain or improve riparian reserve conditions No-Cut Buffer for Riparian Treatments in native stands All streams that have not been included in large skips (incorporated into the design of the silvicultural prescription) shall receive a 30 ft. no cut buffer. Ponds, seeps and springs, vernal pools, and wetlands are either incorporated into skips, or buffered on an individual basis. Implement 158 ft. (1 site-tree) no cut buffer along the following numbered streams within the specified units: Stream 0 Stream 2 Stream 1 Stream 0 Streams 0,1,2,3,4 Streams 1, 2 Streams 2, 3 Heavy equipment/trucks will not cross the intermittent stream identified as #6 on the GPS survey map for this stand. The wetland/stream complex at the northwest corner of this stand will receive a 150' no-cut buffer. The two intermittent streams in this stand will receive 100' no-cut buffers to provide additional protection to riparian features. Little Goose Creek, located adjacent to this stand, will receive a 100' no-cut buffer. The wetland and intermittent stream located adjacent to the stand will receive 60 no-cut buffers Stand Stand Stand Stand and Stand To prevent the introduction of invasive species (especially yellow hawkweed) into riparian zones that are currently uninfested Protect riparian features Protect riparian features Protect riparian features Protect riparian features Protect riparian features Page 15

16 Cave Creek will receive the standard prescription 100 no-cut buffer and all Stand Protect riparian features other streams within this stand will receive 60' no-cut buffers. There are four intermittent streams within this stand and they are the headwaters of fish-bearing Cave Creek. 100' no-cut buffers will be applied Stand To prevent the spread of noxious weeds; prevent erosion and protect fish species to the eastern-most and western-most intermittent streams. A 100' no-cut buffer will be applied to Cave Creek, which is adjacent to Stand Protect riparian features this stand. All 3 streams within this stand will receive 100' buffers Protect riparian features Beaver Creek and the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek, located adjacent Stand Protect riparian features to this stand, will receive a 100 no-cut buffer. Cave Creek, where it runs along the edge of the stand, will receive a 100' Stand , Protect riparian features no-cut buffer. A 100 no-cut buffer (100 includes the road) will be applied to Cave Stand Protect riparian features Creek. However, if this is not feasible with the landing and road access needs, a 60' no-cut buffer will be applied to Cave Creek and one temporary access route may be constructed to allow harvest in the upper portion of this stand. Standard prescription 100' no-cut buffers will be applied to stream #2 and to Cave Creek. Stream #1 will receive a standard prescription 30' no-cut Stand Protect streams while allowing functional layout design buffer but landings may be built/re-used within this no-cut buffer as long as they are placed along the road. As part of the restoration component of this project, culvert replacements to allow for fish passage are located at: Stand Allow for fish passage a) FR8831, MP1.373 (Little Goose Creek miles of fish habitat upstream) b) FR8620, MP (Cave Creek miles of fish habitat upstream) c) FR8810, MP 3.2 (Skull Creek miles habitat upstream) Landings will be located outside of all no harvest buffers and, where possible, outside the Riparian Reserves boundaries. Landings will be limited to the needed for safe and efficient yarding and loading operations and have proper drainage. Location of go-back trails used for equipment fueling and servicing on steep slopes will be approved by the Forest Service and be located where suitable grade and minimal effects to soils and water quality exist. Topsoils will be set aside and be rehabilitated post use by moving the soil back to the natural contour of the hillslope (re-contour with topsoil on top) Throughout sale All applicable units All applicable units To reduce and control surface soil erosion and sediment delivery to fishbearing streams ; to minimize indirect, sedimentrelated effects to fish To prevent surface soil erosion resulting from timber related ground disturbance Protect topsoil Page 16

17 and placing slash or vegetation on exposed mineral soils. Temporary roads will be located where past logging roads were located and avoid unstable slopes. If a new location would cause less resource effects than using an existing temporary road, then the newer road with less resource effects will be used to harvest the unit with line officer approval, who will work with an aquatics or soils resource specialist. Rock will be applied only where needed to reduce erosion, puddling and compaction. Landings will be located where past landings were located, unless a new location would cause less resource effect or where no past landings were used to harvest the unit. New landings will be located outside of all no harvest buffers. Landings will be limited to the needed for safe and efficient yarding and loading operations and have proper drainage. Temporary roads and landings will be closed and restored after harvest and related activities are complete. Temporary roads and landings that were established for the timber sale will be ripped, de-compacted, or subsoiled to a depth of 18 inches (minimum). The result will be an uneven, rough surface without furrows, and be accomplished immediately following logging activities. De-compaction will encompass the entire landing and the sight distance (to discourage a bypass) from the beginning of the road, no less than 200 feet. The rest of the road will have drainage reestablished. Available logging slash will be placed across the de-compacted surface. No ground-based equipment will be operated on subsoiled portions of roads and landings after de-compaction is completed to prevent re-compacting treated roadways and landings. Post-harvest motorized access to temporary roads will also be prevented. Closure to vehicles is required to prevent subsoiled s from being re-compacted, prevent erosion and sediment delivery, and to allow vegetation to develop. The objective is to rehabilitate s compacted during management activities, accelerate recovery of compacted soils, and facilitate water infiltration and re-vegetation on those disturbed s. These measures will also provide ground cover for exposed soils in order to reduce the potential for offsite erosion and maintain soil organic matter to prevent nutrient and carbon cycle deficits. Pre- bunching will be approved on a unit by unit basis on slopes up to 45% prior to start of operation. The mechanical harvester/feller-buncher will: be limited to slopes less than 45 percent, including short, steep pitches Avoid traveling across the slope and turning on steep slopes. All temporary and landing locations All landing locations All units To minimize new soil and vegetation disturbance To minimize new soil and vegetation disturbance To provide better substrate for vegetative growth and water infiltration following logging and harvest activities and reduce the potential for offsite erosion and maintain soil organic matter to prevent nutrient and carbon cycle To minimize erosion and potential sediment delivery to streams, and oversee the harvest methods Page 17

18 Not travel or drive while bearing the weight of trees. Not enter into riparian buffers and unstable slopes, unless otherwise specified in unit specific project design features boundary of Unit 14. Excavation of road prism for equipment access, upon verification with a cultural resource specialist, will be minimized and restored when mechanical cutting and harvesting activities are complete Operate on a slash mat of limbs and tops that is deposited directly in front of the machine. Periodic monitoring of ground-based activity on steep slopes will be performed in order to prevent/rectify resource damage that may occur because of mechanical cutting and harvesting machines. Resource damage includes forming of ponds, ruts, or rills; culvert blockages, stream channel instability, and the occurrence of scour or sediment transport and deposition downstream of cross drains. Project activities will be curtailed and corrective action taken, before work is allowed to resume, if resource damage is occurring. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring of BMPs will be documented by the sale administrator and made available to the line officer in order to determine when adjustments need to be made to prevent excessive resource damage. Harvested trees will be felled away from streams, springs, wetlands, or other riparian reserve features, including the no-harvest buffers around these hydrologic features. Exceptions would be trees which are leaning towards these features, or when conditions would not allow safe felling. Any portion of a felled tree that lands in the no-harvest buffer will be left on the ground. Within untreated portions of Riparian Reserves: (a) no trees will be cut and removed, (b) no roads, landings, or stream crossings will be constructed or reconstructed, and (c) no heavy equipment will be operated unless these actions are included in the Environmental Analysis, or unless prior resource specialist approval is obtained. Some small number of trees may be cut within untreated portions of Riparian Reserves for the purpose of utilizing skyline corridors. However, skyline corridor widths will be minimized, skyline corridor spacing would be maximized, and the trees cut for the purpose of creating skyline corridors within untreated portions of Riparian Reserves will be left onsite to contribute to the downed woody debris component. Ground-based machinery will not be operated where soil water content is high enough to cause detrimental puddling, defined as when the depth of Units where mechanical harvester use if authorized All units To minimize erosion and potential sediment delivery to streams To prevent damage to riparian vegetation and soils within Riparian Reserves; to minimize indirect effects to fish and fish habitat To maintain or improve Riparian Reserve conditions To limit the degree of detrimental soil rutting and puddling, reduce the Page 18

19 ruts or imprints is six inches or more (Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2520, R-6 Supplement No ). The objective is to limit the degree of detrimental soil rutting and puddling as well as reduce the potential for sediment delivery to streams. Equipment will operate on a slash mat of limbs and tops that is deposited directly in front of the machine when it travels away from approved skid trails or temporary roads. The slash mat will be made as thick and continuous as practical, without being so thick as to prevent future revegetation efforts, as a means to reduce soil disturbance. Activity would be planned to make as few trips as possible. The objective is to limit soil compaction and displacement, to provide water infiltration and protect the topsoil for vegetative growth. Forest Service will approve landings, skid trails and skyline corridors prior to timber felling. Skid trails will be subsoiled after use where compaction related to the project remains, with exceptions identified by the Forest Service. The soil profile will be shattered to the depth of soil compactions, the surface soil (topsoil) will not be mixed with subsoil, and available logging slash will be placed across the subsoiled surface. This measure will be accomplished immediately following logging activities. All permanent culverts installed on system roads and all temporary road drainage structures (e.g. culverts) that will be left in place into the wet season (October 1-June 30), will be designed to accommodate 100-year flow events. Temporary drainage structures will be designed to meet the base flow condition (approximately 36 inches) if utilized only during the dry season (July 1-Sept 30) and removed prior to the fall wet season. Skid trails will be spaced a minimum of 150 feet apart. Skid trails must be located outside of all no harvest buffers, unless otherwise specified in unit specific project design features, where resource specialists have approved and marked a crossing. Skid trails will be re-established at previous skid trail locations, except where existing skid trails from prior entry are causing detrimental soil or hydrologic conditions that could be further avoided with alternative skid trail location. All units potential for sediment delivery to streams, and minimize sediment-related effects to fish and fish habitat To limit soil compaction and displacement, to provide water infiltration and to protect the topsoil for vegetative growth (and discourage non-natives) To avoid impacts to unknown sensitive resources To protect aquatic resources This will reduce the risk of soil compaction and displacement, minimize erosion and potential sediment delivery to streams, and minimize sediment related effects to fish and fish habitat Page 19