Decision Memo. Background

Transcription

1 Decision Memo Firecracker Annie Salvage & Timber Stand Improvement USDA Forest Service Superior Ranger District, Lolo National Forest Mineral County, Montana Background Figure 1: View from Unit 10 in the Firecracker Annie project area. Trees affected by insect infestations can be seen in the middleground. The purpose of this salvage and timber stand improvement proposal is to apply treatments to stands affected by overstocking and Mountain Pine Beetle infestation. Several units proposed for treatment had strips salvage logged along the road using cable systems (no equipment off of the road) under the 2010 Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Decision Memo. The harvest activities being proposed for Firecracker Annie would extend those salvage strips to stand-level treatments with subsequent activities as needed to restore healthy, productive forests. This project is located in the Cold Creek, Ann Arbor Gulch and Fourth of July Gulch drainages of the Dry Creek watershed about seven air miles south of St. Regis, Montana within T17N R28W Sections 21, 22, 27, 33 and 34 and T16N R28W Section 4. (See Figure 2 for location of the project area and activities.) Page 1 of 15

2 Figure 2: Map of Firecracker Annie Project Area & Activities Page 2 of 15

3 Decision On approximately 235 acres (see Table 1), I have decided to remove all merchantable lodgepole pine and, in most units, remove associated suppressed firs to achieve conditions needed to move stand trajectories toward the desired condition of healthy, productive forests. Most units will result in eration harvests with other species retained (usually larch or Douglas-fir) in varying amounts. Following harvest activities, units will be either underburned or piled and burned to encourage natural eration or to prepare the site for planting. All units will have tops yarded for processing at landings to manage the fuel load within the units. Approximately 1,600 feet (0.3 miles) of temporary road will be constructed to facilitate harvest operations and decommissioned once project activities are completed. I considered conducting prescribed mixed severity burning on an additional 265 acres that contains a significant amount of dead lodgepole pine trees; however, due to concerns about how this activity would affect whitebark pine, a sensitive species, I have decided to not implement the mixed severity prescribed burning at this time. Table 1: Summary of Activities, Prescriptions and Harvest Systems by Unit Unit Est. Acres Yarding Prescription Designation Activities 4 33 tractor seedtree Retain larch Yard tops/slash/burn/natural 4S 9 skyline seedtree Retain larch Yard tops/slash/burn/natural 4T 5 tractor seedtree Retain larch Yard tops/slash/burn/natural 5 8 tractor sanitation Remove lodgepole Yard tops/slash damaged/burn 7 5 tractor seedtree Retain larch Yard tops/slash/grapple pile/burn piles/natural 8 3 cable shelterwood Retain larch Yard tops/slash/grapple pile/burn piles/natural 10C 3 cable seedtree Retain larch Yard tops/slash/burn/natural 10S 45 skyline seedtree Retain larch Yard tops/slash/burn/natural tractor seedtree Retain larch Yard tops/slash/burn/plant wbp tractor seedtree Retain larch Yard tops/slash/burn/natural tractor seedtree Retain larch Yard tops/slash/burn/natural 16 excaline seedtree Retain larch Yard tops/slash/burn/natural 14S Retain Doug-fir > 15 14T 15 8 tractor seedtree Retain larch Retain Doug-fir > skyline seedtree Retain larch Retain Doug-fir > 15 Page 3 of 15 Yard tops/slash/burn/natural Yard tops/slash/burn/natural

4 Unit 17 18S Est. Acres Yarding Prescription Designation Activities 11 skyline seedtree Retain larch Yard tops/slash/burn/natural 7 skyline seedtree Retain larch Yard tops/slash/burn/natural Design Features/Mitigation Measures Aquatics (Hydrology & Fisheries) 1. Standard INFISH buffers will be used on all streams and wetlands found in the project area. Units 7, 8, 12 and foot buffers for all streams. Unit 10S 150 foot buffer if perennial and 100 foot buffer if intermittent; 150 foot buffer for spring. All other wetlands and springs 100 foot buffer. 2. Montana Best Management Practices (BMPs) for forestry will be applied. Haul routes will be thoroughly examined to determine where BMPs are needed. Soils 3. For skid trail and excaline trail locations, construction, use and rehabilitation, operations will be limited to periods when soils are dry. Soil moisture would be evaluated at the bottom of the root-tight layer if one exists or within the top 6-12 inches of the soil surface. Equipment will be allowed to operate on slopes averaging 35% or less, and would also be allowed to operate on slopes of 35-40% (less than 100 feet in length) as approved by the Timber Sale Administrator (TSA) or Soil Scientist. Where they exist and are safe, existing skid trails will be used unless approved by the TSA. Operation of skidding equipment off of designated trails would be minimized, and skid trails to be used during harvest activities would be designated by the TSA. At the end of operations, slash greater and less than 3 inches in diameter will be left on skid trails and excaline trails to a depth of 2 to 3 inches to improve soil health and reduce erosion. 4. All existing soil wood (wood in an advanced state of decay) will be left unless it is deemed a hazard to equipment operations. Large woody material would be left at rates specified in the 2006 Lolo Coarse Woody Material Guidelines. 5. Existing landings will be re-used to the extent possible. Site preparation to a depth of 4-6 inches would occur. Site preparation may include de-compaction and/or scarification. Weed treatments would occur as needed with seeding using Lolo Seed mixes appropriate for the site. Slash, mixed sizes greater and less than 3 inches diameter, will be placed over approximately percent of the landing to a depth of approximately 2-3 inches where available. Most slash would be in direct contact with the soil surface. 6. New temporary roads and excavated skid trails will be located where they can be successfully rehabilitated. To the greatest extent possible, avoid the nose of ridges, shallow soils, open grasslands/scablands. Top soil and slash would be stored along the temporary road or Page 4 of 15

5 excavated skid trail to the greatest extent possible and pulled back over the road surface during decommissioning. The temporary road or excavated skid trail surface will have site preparation to a depth of at least 6 inches. Site preparation may include recontouring, decompaction, and/or scarification. Slash, mixed sizes greater and less than 3 inches diameter, would be placed over approximately percent of the temporary road or excavated skid trail to a depth of approximately 2-3 inches where available. Most slash will be in direct contact with the soil surface. Weeds 7. Clean off-road equipment (power or high pressure cleaning) of all mud, dirt, and plant parts before moving into the area. 8. Skidtrails, skyline corridors and landings must be approved prior to use. Where possible, locate skidtrails, skyline corridors and landings where there are no obvious standing weed infestations. 9. Temporary roads will be treated with herbicide prior to final road obliteration. 10. If gravel or other material is hauled for road surfacing, it will be from a site (pit) that has been previously treated for weeds and is currently weed free. 11. Seed disturbed sites with native seed mixtures or appropriate Lolo seed mixtures. 12. Straw used for road stabilization and erosion control would be certified weed-free or weed seed-free. 13. The haul roads and landings would be treated with herbicide after harvest activities are concluded and haul is complete. 14. Monitor for the presence of new weed infestations within these treatment areas in conjunction with other future monitoring and /or inventory activities. Recreation 15. Trail 203 will be designated as protected improvement in the contract. Decision Rationale/Determination The desired future condition for the Firecracker Annie units is to have moderate to fully stocked stands of healthy, vigorous shade-intolerant seral species including larch, white pine, and lodgepole pine with some ponderosa pine on southerly aspects and whitebark pine at the higher elevations. The stands in Firecracker Annie are higher elevation lodgepole pine-dominated with mixtures of larch and Douglas-fir. Mountain pine beetles have killed a significant proportion of the trees over 8 inches diameter at breast height. The stands have been overstocked since initiation over 100 years ago, resulting in high down wood accumulations due to mortality from both suppression and bark beetles. Therefore, intermediate treatments (such as commercial thinning) will not result in improved stand conditions in most units due to the suppressed condition and small live crowns of the trees. Shade-tolerant late seral grand fir, subalpine fir, and western hemlock are well established in the understory. Ground cover is dominated by beargrass with various mixtures of huckleberry, menziesia, and other grasses and forbes. Page 5 of 15

6 The proposed timber harvest, followed by underburning for site preparation for natural eration and establishment of natural eration of shade-intolerant seral species, meets the desired future condition for these stands. The fuels objective for the commercial harvest treatments receiving a prescribed fire underburn is primarily slash disposal. Secondary benefits are a reduction in crown bulk density and a reduction in surface fuel accumulations. Thinning, in general, will lower crown bulk densities and redistribute fuel loads, thus decreasing fire intensities if the surface fuels are treated. In addition to moving the natural resources towards the desired future condition, this project will also provide fiber to local mills and support the local economy. This project was collaboratively developed with local government, businesses and interested public members to respond to their concerns regarding natural resource management on federal lands. The proposed actions are categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA). The applicable categories of actions are identified in agency procedures as: 1) Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicide or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction (36 CFR 220.6(e)(6)); and 2) Salvage of dead and/or dying trees not to exceed 250 acres, requiring no more than ½ mile of road construction (36 CFR 220.6(e)(13)). These categories of actions are applicable because salvage activities are proposed on less than 250 acres (harvest activities proposed on 235 acres) and less than a ½ mile of temporary road construction is proposed (approximately 1,600 feet/0.3 miles of temporary road proposed). I find that there are no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS. I took into account resource conditions identified in agency procedures that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances might exist: Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species: Wildlife Table 2: Wildlife Species Determinations Species Status Determination* Rationale Grizzly Bear Federally Listed Threatened NLAA All harvest activities would occur in an area unused or seldom used by the species. If bears did use the area during activities and were disturbed, they have ample room to disperse. If the area were used by bears in future years, the forage may have been improved as a result of harvest and burning. Because the treatment area is so small (235 acres) related to the home range of a grizzly bear, effects would be minimal. Page 6 of 15

7 Species Status Determination* Rationale Canada Lynx Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Bald Eagle Bighorn Sheep Black-backed Woodpecker Boreal Toad Coeur d Alene Salamander Fisher Flammulated Owl Gray Wolf Harlequin Duck Northern Bog Lemming Federally Listed Threatened Federally Listed Threatened NLAA No Effect MIIH MIIH MIIH The small amount of habitat converted from stem-exclusion and intermediate foraging habitat into temporarily unsuitable is less than.5 (½) percent. Additionally, temporarily unsuitable habitat continues to grow into suitable lynx habitat. No suitable habitat exists in the project area No habitat exists in the project area and no use of the area occurs No suitable habitat exists in the project area and bighorn sheep have not been observed by MTFWP during surveys in these drainages. No suitable habitat exists in the project area. Harvest activities are limited in comparison with available habitat; at most, only a few individuals would be affected. Riparian habitat areas/streams would be buffered from project activities, thereby avoiding salamander habitat. The project area is unlikely to be used by fishers, especially mature animals, because of its poor quality. No suitable habitat is available in the project area. Incidents of disturbance to wolves may occur; however, wolves could easily move away from harvest activities and would not be further affected. No den sites are known within the project area. No habitat exists within the project area. No habitat exists within the project area. Northern No habitat exists within the project Page 7 of 15

8 Species Status Determination* Rationale Leopard Frog area. Peregrine Falcon Townsend s Big Eared Bat Wolverine MIIH No habitat exists within the project area. Underground habitats, the most sensitive habitat for these bats, are not present in the project area and would not be affected. Foraging opportunities in the project area would not be affected. Wolverines are highly mobile. The small project area would compose limited foraging opportunities based on this mobility. Denning activities would not be affected because project activities would only occur when snow was completely melted allowing access along the roads to the units (late June). The possibility of disturbing individuals is present, but this would be unlikely to affect viability in any manner. *NLAA Not Likely to Adversely Affect; MIIH - May impact individuals or habitat, but will not contribute to a trend toward federal listing; Aquatics Rationale for aquatic species determinations: Streams within the project area were visited and observed to not contain fish within the proposed units. There is no designated critical habitat for fish in the project area. Neither fish nor suitable fish habitat are present in the project area or immediately downstream of activities. Any sediment generated from log haul at stream crossings would not reach fish habitat as it would settle out rapidly in these small mountain stream channels. Implementation of standard BMP s and stream buffer will result in no effect to fish and fish habitat. Table 3: Aquatic Species Determinations Species Status Determination Bull Trout Federally Listed Threatened No Effect West slope cutthroat No Effect Western Pearlshell mussel No Effect Page 8 of 15

9 Botany Whitebark pine, listed as a Northern Region sensitive species, is found in the project area. Units 10 and 11 contain a few whitebark pine trees that may be impacted by logging and/or underburning activities; however, this will not have substantial impacts on the species. Unit 11 will have rust-resistant whitebark pine seedlings planted. Areas containing high occurrences of whitebark pine that were originally proposed for prescribed mixed severity burning were dropped and are not included in this decision. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds: The design features will be sufficient to protect the floodplains and any wetlands that are discovered during project implementation. No ground disturbing activities will take place in any floodplains or wetlands. There are no municipal watersheds in the project area. Congressionally designated areas such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas: Such areas are not located within the project area and are not in close proximity to the project area. No effect. Inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas: Both Inventoried Roadless Areas and Forest Plan roadless management areas have been avoided. No effect. Research natural areas: Research natural areas are not located within the project area and are not in close proximity to the project area. No effect. American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites No prehistoric resources were found in high probability areas (ridges, saddles and a spring). Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas Two historic sites were found during the survey and Montana SHPO agreed both sites are not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. There are no historic sites that need protection. Public Involvement This action was originally listed as a proposal on the Lolo National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in November 2014 and updated during analysis. The SOPA is posted on the Lolo National Forest website at Scoping started November 3, The scoping notice was sent to 153 individuals, organizations, agency representatives and tribes. Comments were received from 12 parties and reviewed by the interdisciplinary team. No issues or concerns were raised to indicate extraordinary circumstances or significant effects that would preclude use of the categorical exclusions. (Supporting documents are in the project file.) Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations This decision is consistent with the Lolo National Forest Land Management Plan. The project was designed in conformance with applicable laws, regulations and policies. National Forest Management Act of Consistency with the Lolo Forest Plan Page 9 of 15

10 The NFMA requires that projects and activities be consistent with the governing Forest Plan (16 USC 1604(i)). The Lolo National Forest Plan (1986) establishes management direction for the Lolo National Forest. This management direction is achieved through the establishment of Forest Plan goals and objectives, standards and guidelines, and Management Area (MA) goals and accompanying standards and guidelines. Harvest activities will occur within Forest Plan management area 16, which is suitable for timber production and allows for commercial timber harvest. This project is consistent with all applicable Forest Plan forest-wide standards. The resource reports in the Project File provide further discussion regarding consistency with applicable standards and laws. 2. Suitability for Timber Production No timber harvest, other than salvage sales or sales to protect other multiple use values, shall occur on lands not suited for timber production [16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (k)1. The Lolo National Forest Plan identifies which Management Areas are suitable for timber production. All timber harvest authorized in this Decision Memo will be located within areas classified as suitable for timber production (MA 16). Stands identified for harvest treatment were examined by a Certified Silviculturist, Soil Scientist, and other resource specialists, who determined the lands are physically suited for timber harvest. 3. Timber Harvest All projects that involve timber harvest for any purpose must comply with four requirements found in 16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (g)(3)(e). (i) Soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged. The Forest Service fully assessed the potential effects of timber harvest on soil and water resources. The analysis is documented within the Soil, Hydrology, and Fisheries reports in the Project File. Soil and watershed conditions will be protected because Design Features (see above) effectively minimize potential impacts. (ii) There is assurance that such lands can be adequately restocked within five years after harvest. All proposed harvest units have been surveyed to assure they can be restocked within five years after harvest based on habitat types, plantability, planned site preparation, and experience on similar sites. (iii)protection is provided for streams, stream-banks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperature, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment, where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat. The application of stream buffers and forestry BMPs (see Design Features for Aquatics) will effectively protect water resources. (iv) The harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the greatest dollar return. The purpose of the vegetation treatment is to address stands impacted by insect/disease and/or overstocking. Harvesting systems were applied to minimize resource impacts and trend stands from existing to desired conditions. Page 10 of 15

11 4. Clearcutting and Even-aged Management When timber is to be harvested using an even-aged management system, a determination that the system is appropriate to meet the objectives and requirements of the Forest Plan must be made and, where clearcutting is to be used, must be determined to be the optimum method. a. For clearcutting, it is determined to be the optimum method, and for other such cuts it is determined to be appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant land management plan [16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (g)(3)(f)(i)]: No clearcutting is proposed. Regeneration harvest is proposed and in some instances will result in openings greater than 40 acres. See additional discussion under (d), below. b. The interdisciplinary review as determined by the Secretary has been completed and the potential environmental, biological, esthetic, engineering, and economic impacts on each advertised sale area have been assessed, as well as the consistency of the sale with the multiple use of the general area [16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (g)(3)(f)(ii)]: Full interdisciplinary review has been completed for this project. All treatments meet the multiple use goals and objectives in the Lolo Forest Plan for designated Management Areas. c. Cut blocks, patches or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain [16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (g)(3)(f)(iii)]: Treatment areas are designed to blend as much as possible with the existing terrain. d. Cuts are carried out according to the maximum size limit required for areas to be cut during one harvest operation, provided, that such limits shall not apply to the size of areas harvested as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm [FSM Region I supplement ] , 16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (g)(3)(f)(iv)]: Forest Service Manual (R1 Supplement ) requires a 60-day public review and Regional Forester approval for even-aged eration harvest openings exceeding 40 acres. The following addresses the documentation required in FSM : 1. A concise statement that summarizes why it is deemed desirable to treat units larger than the maximum size specified above by even-aged eration cutting methods. Units are predominantly lodgepole pine with various mixtures of other species. Mountain pine beetles have killed a significant proportion of the trees over 8 inches dbh. The live lodgepole pine is mostly 4 to 10 inches dbh, and the commercial component is a combination of post and pole, sawlog, pulp, and firewood. The stands have been overstocked since initiation over 100 years ago, so intermediate treatments such as commercial thinning will not result in improved stand conditions in most units due to the suppressed condition and small live crowns of the trees. Prescriptions will call for removal of all merchantable lodgepole pine and associated suppressed firs to achieve conditions needed to move stand trajectories toward the desired condition of healthy, productive forests. Most units will result in eration harvests with other species retained usually larch or Douglas-fir in varying amounts. Page 11 of 15

12 Units will be either underburned or piled and burned to encourage natural eration or to prepare the site for planting. The proposed eration harvests will retain the desired long-lived, fire-tolerant larch trees and provide opportunities to erate healthy, vigorous larch and lodgpole pine. The resulting two-storied larch stands can be sustained over a long period of time because they have few major pests, will be resilient to wildfire because of their natural fire tolerance and the low level of fuel post-harvest, will be resilient to changing climatic conditions because of limited inter-tree competition resulting from moderate stocking densities, and will provide patch sizes consistent with those described in literature for these forest types and experienced on this landscape in the past. 2. A statement confirming that each treatment is supported by a silvicultural diagnosis and that a detailed prescription will be written or reviewed by a Certified Silviculturist. Silvicultural diagnosis for each stand was done by a certified silviculturist in Detailed silvicultural prescriptions will be completed in Identification of adjacent stands, their acreage, and their present status of recovery. The unit cluster 4, 4T, and 4S, the cluster 10C, 10S, 11, and 18S, and the cluster 14T, 14S, and 15 will create even-age eration harvest openings of 47 acres, 66 acres, and 67 acres, respectively. The proposed units are not immediately adjacent to any past even-age eration harvest. 4. A statement of when the 60-day public notice began or when it will begin. The 60-day public review period started November 3, 2014 when notice was provided in the Firecracker Annie scoping letter. 5. A list of each proposed cutting unit giving the following information: Table 4: Proposed Cutting Units Contributing to Openings Greater than 40 Acres Area Name Cold Creek Cold Dry Saddle Unit Number 4, 4S, 4T C, 10S, 11, 18S Stand ID Treatment Acres Type of Cutting Method 47 Two-aged seedtree establishment cut with reserves 66 Two-aged seedtree establishment cut with reserves Estimated Recovery Period Before It No Longer Is An Opening, considering all resources Vegetation: Openings are part of the desired future condition (DFC). Considered recovered when reforestation is certified, typically within five years of harvest. Fuels: Openings are part of DFC. Even-age harvest openings are consistent with Page 12 of 15

13 Area Name 4 th of July Unit Number 14S, 14T, 15 Stand ID Treatment Acres Type of Cutting Method 67 Two-aged seedtree establishment cut with reserves Estimated Recovery Period Before It No Longer Is An Opening, considering all resources fire regime and objectives of proposed prescribed burning. Hydrology and Fisheries: Openings are considered recovered immediately because they have inconsequential impact. Soils: Openings are considered recovered immediately because size is irrelevant. Wildlife: Openings addressed as fragmentation issue consistent with historic condition. They are highly dependent on the particular species and scale being considered and not automatically detrimental to all wildlife species. None of the openings would create any large, long term changes in forest cover. e. Such cuts are carried out in a manner consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and esthetic resources, and the eration of the timber resource [16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (g)( 3 )( F )(v )]: Documentation of the effects on other resources is contained in the Project File. Effects of eration harvest and those units that would contribute to openings greater than 40 acres were also considered by resource specialists during analysis. Protection of all resource values is maintained. All sites considered for treatment will use established harvest methods. Treatments are designed to sustain and perpetuate native seral species. Design Features and applicable Best Management Practices will be sufficient to protect soil and water resources. 5. Species Federal law and direction applicable to sensitive species include the National Forest Management Act and the Forest Service Manual (2670). The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) directs that guidelines for land management plans provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multipleuse objectives [16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (g)(3)(b)]. The Lolo National Forest Plan contains standards for sensitive species. The Regional Forester has approved the sensitive species list - those plants Page 13 of 15

14 and animals for which population viability is a concern (FSM ). The analysis and projected effects on all sensitive species listed as occurring or possibly occurring on the Lolo National Forest is documented in the Biological Evaluations contained within the Project File and summarized in the Extraordinary Circumstances section of this document. The findings document that the authorized action will have no adverse impacts on most sensitive species but May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not contribute to a trend toward federal listing for boreal toad, fisher, gray wolf and wolverine. The diversity of plant and animal communities will be maintained, consistent with the NFMA. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 Under provisions of this Act, Federal agencies are directed to seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and to ensure that actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of these species. After thorough assessment of the project, the Forest Service determined that authorized activities will have no effect on bull trout and yellow-billed cuckoo and is Not Likely to Adversely Affect grizzly bear and Canada lynx. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was conducted in accordance with ESA requirements. USFWS concurred with the findings for grizzly bear and Canada lynx (documentation in project file). Migratory Bird Treaty Act On January 10, 2001, President Clinton signed an Executive Order outlining responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds. As displayed in the Extraordinary Circumstances section, the project will have no impacts on migratory birds listed as sensitive by the Forest Service in Region 1. The project will maintain a mosaic of vegetation types and age classes to provide for a diversity of species, consistent with this Executive Order. Montana State Water Quality Standards and Clean Water Act The resource protection measures for Aquatics, outlined in the Design Features section, will protect water quality. Thus the project is consistent with these regulatory requirements. Heritage Program Laws Heritage resource surveys have been completed within the project area. The project is not expected to have any effects on heritage resources because there are no known sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Montana State Historic Preservation Office has concurred with these findings. Recognizing the potential exists for unidentified sites to be encountered or disturbed during project activity, standard provisions for their protection will be included in the contract to implement this project. These provisions will allow the Forest Service to unilaterally modify or cancel a contract to protect heritage resources, regardless of when they are identified. This provision will be used if a site were discovered after project activities had begun. This project is in compliance with the Region 1 programmatic agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Administrative Review Opportunities Decisions that are categorically excluded from documentation in an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are not subject to an administrative review process (pre-decisional objection process) (Agriculture Act of 2014, Subtitle A, Sec. 8006). Implementation Date Implementation of the project is expected to begin in Spring Page 14 of 15

15