DECISION. Tub Run Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Page 1 of 14

Transcription

1 DRAFT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TUB RUN RUFFED GROUSE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT U.S. FOREST SERVICE GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON NATIONAL FORESTS EASTERN DIVIDE RANGER DISTRICT CRAIG COUNTY, VIRGINIA DECISION An Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluating a no action alternative and two action alternatives for the Tub Run Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Project has been completed. Based upon my review of the Project EA, I have decided to implement Alternative 1. The Selected Alternative includes the following activities: Early Successional Habitat Creation Commercial harvest of 25 units on approximately 531 acres of mixed hardwood / pine stands implementing four different silvicultural prescriptions. This includes 400 acres of regeneration harvest and 131 acres of thinning/group selection. Construct 29 landings (approximately 8 acres) to provide adequate space for safe and efficient logging, loading and hauling operations. Following completion of their use, these areas would be revegetated using native seed to prevent erosion and provide wildlife habitat and forage. All 25 units proposed for harvest will utilize a ground-based logging system (such as a rubbertired skidder) to remove the timber. Woody Biomass Removal Woody biomass removal will occur on 531 acres of timber harvest as part of a research project with Virginia Tech. The planned harvests in this project will provide an experimental design that would allow a range of biomass harvest levels to be examined. The proposal is for each sale; one unit could be harvested at 90% removal (or as close as achievable), one unit at 80% biomass removal, one at 60% removal, one at 40% and one at 0%. Precommercial Thinning - Implement pre-commercial thinning through crop tree release on approximately 235 acres across 25 stands in the seedling-sapling seral stage. Most of the stands range in age from 21 to 39 years old. Crop tree release will be accomplished using chainsaws or hand tools to remove competing vegetation near favored trees. This treatment will favor dominant oak crowns thus improving crown development on trees exhibiting good mast production potential. Manual Site Prep - Conduct manual site preparation using chainsaws and supplemental planting on approximately 410 acres of regenerated stands including approximately 10 acres of group selection openings in two thinning units as needed. Northern red oak, white oak or American chestnut species would be planted in these regenerated areas if there is a lack of competitive hard mast regeneration. Page 1 of 14

2 Road Maintenance Road maintenance includes brushing, ditch pulling, blading, culvert replacement and gravel placement and would occur on the Forest system roads listed below. The following FSRs would receive some or all of the above maintenance activities. 3.7 miles of FSR miles of FSR miles of FSR miles of FSR System Road Construction Construction of approximately.75 miles of new permanent road. Tub Run Middle (FSR 50371) would be extended.75 miles to access 2 harvest units (units 9 and 10) and provide future access to this section of the management area. This newly proposed system road will cross through a small area of identified old growth. Temporary Road Construction Build approximately 2.85 miles of temporary roads in 16 segments. These roads would be revegetated, bermed and closed to all vehicle traffic after all proposed activities requiring access are completed. Table 1. Proposed temporary road construction lengths for each Unit. Unit 4.18 mi Unit mi Unit mi Unit mi Unit mi Unit mi Unit mi Unit mi Unit mi Unit mi Unit 5.33 mi Unit mi Unit 6.11 mi Unit mi Unit 9.23 mi Unit mi Prescribed Fire Conduct prescribed burning on approximately 600 acres across 2 burn blocks after commercial harvests are completed in those blocks. Burn block 1 and burn block 2 each total 300 acres and are comprised of both harvest areas and areas not planned for harvest. The objectives for the 2 burn blocks, totaling approximately 600 acres, are to promote advanced oak regeneration in harvested areas, set back oak competitors like yellow poplar, and red maple, reduce fuel loading in areas outside the harvested units, enhance forage throughout the burn block, and encourage yellow pine regeneration. This would be accomplished primarily with the use of backing fire tactics. A higher intensity burn is required to accomplish yellow pine regeneration objectives. Firing tactics would primarily include flanking fire with backing fire to a lesser degree. These could be growing season or dormant season burns. The decision will be primarily based on which seasonal burn will best limit overstory mortality. There will be a need for multiple prescribed burns in these areas to meet the silvicultural and wildlife objectives over a 5-10 year post-harvest period. Construction of approximately 0.5 miles of dozer line/handline would be required to augment existing containment lines, like roads and streams, for these burning blocks. Existing fire barriers like roads and streams will be used for burn block containment lines wherever possible to minimize further disturbance from fire line installations. Page 2 of 14

3 Non-Native and/or Invasive Plant Species Treatments The control of non-native species (NNIS) competing with native vegetation is also a desired activity within the project area. Road corridors and previously disturbed areas can function as reservoirs for invasive plants creating the need for control measures. Treat non-native invasive species along Forest System Roads, totaling approximately 32 acres using a low volume foliar spray of glyphosate (Rodeo) or triclopyr (Garlon 4) to control invasive woody species, such as Tree-of-Heaven, Autumn Olive, Royal Paulownia, and Multi-flora Rose. Treat non-native invasive species over approximately 235 acres in stands ranging from 22 to 40 years of age. Treatment by basal bark application would utilize triclopyr with an adjuvant to control invasive woody species such as Tree-of-heaven, Autumn Olive and Royal Paulownia in these stands. Within this acreage figure, treatment of individual invasive plants scattered over the 235 acres would occur. For example, the 235 acres represents all the acreage in the proposed treatment units, but only individual non-native invasive species would be treated if found in these units. The same applies for the rest of the proposed treatment acres herbicide would be applied directly to individual plants scattered over the treatment area Treat approximately 415 acres with a basal bark herbicide application of triclopyr with an adjuvant or low volume foliar spray of glyphosate to control non-native species, red maple and other undesirable species throughout the regeneration treatments. Within this acreage figure, only individual invasive plants (either non-native invasive species or other unwanted woody vegetation that compete with important wildlife forage species or forest regeneration objectives) scattered over the 415 acres would be treated. The same applies for the rest of the proposed treatment acres herbicide would be applied directly to individual plants scattered over the treatment area. Soil and Water Work- Soil and water work including installing water bars and earthen berms and seeding of native grasses will occur on 1 (approximately 2 acres) mile of old roadbed to address ongoing and prevent further erosion. Some sections of old roadbed that extend near or go into Tub Run will be blocked with berms or boulders to prevent erosion from vehicles. In addition, boulders will be placed in dispersed camping areas located near streams to prevent further erosion in the riparian zone from unauthorized vehicle access. Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures For Alternative 1, all applicable Forest Wide (FW) Standards and Management Prescription Standards described in the Forest Plan would be followed and assisted in the formation of project specific mitigations. These standards provide protection for various resources such as soil, water, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and cultural. These specific applicable Forest Wide standards are listed in Appendix B of the EA. In addition to the adherence to the applicable standards described in the Forest Plan, the following site-specific mitigation measures will be followed with the implementation of Alternative 1. These measures were created in response to public comment and to facilitate the biomass research component of the project: Page 3 of 14

4 Unit 26 was dropped due to low timber volume and concerns related to harvesting in potential Old Growth. Temporary Road construction would require crossing some areas of old growth. Every effort will be made to minimize the removal of large old growth trees as this road corridor is constructed. Units 11, 18 and 20 require the use of fords. The following mitigation measures apply: o Concrete corduroy will be laid on bedrock to raise truck tires out of the streamflow. o Rip rap will be placed as needed to stabilize the streambank entrance. o Approaches will be graveled from both directions to prevent sedimentation (minimum 50 feet). o Silt fences will be installed at least feet next to crossings. o Operations will be allowed in the above three units August 1 November 15. Exceptions could be made based on the volume of streamflow after November 15, but would require onsite concurrence from the Fisheries Biologist and Soil Scientist. o No operations (without exception) during May 15 July 31 time period as that coincides with Spiney mussel and Atlantic pigtoe breeding season. o Units will not receive the maximum biomass removal treatment. Unit 16- No skid trails will be permitted to cross the western most drainage in the unit; timber on the western ridge will go uphill to the proposed landing. Where there are small inclusions of steeper slopes (over 35%) in the harvest units, it will require winching logs to a skid road to mitigate the slope and avoid excessive skid road building. Winches will be required in the timber harvest contract. Each burn unit will be planned in accordance with the Smoke Management Guidelines such that specific parameters are met, including wind speeds and directions. Unit 19- The landing location for this unit will be a minimum of 150 from Tub Run perennial stream and the temporary road ford crossing will come out above the existing road profile to increase distance from the stream. Unit 20- The landing location for this unit will be a minimum of 150 from Tub Run perennial stream. Unit 11- The landing location for this unit will be a minimum of 150 from Tub Run perennial stream. Page 4 of 14

5 Unit 6- The landing location for this unit will be a minimum of 150 from Tub Run perennial stream and the temporary road placement may require silt fence placement in proximity to the perennial stream. Units 12, 18 and 20 There will be no removal of trees less than 6 inches in diameter for biomass purposes inside the riparian zone. Units 12, 18, and 20 - Trees cut within the outer 75 riparian corridor will be winched out. The following additional mitigation measures were agreed upon with regards to the private inholding: No timber will be harvested in Unit 3 within 65 feet of the private ownership. Unit 3 will be the first harvest unit cut out in the timber sale. Unit 3 will receive the maximum level of biomass removal. The ephemeral drain in the middle of Unit 3 will be protected according to BMP standards (25 ft equipment exclusion zone on either side of the channel, only 50% harvest of existing Basal Area). Smaller trees in Unit 3 will be retained where practical (such as service berry) when they will help to provide a visual buffer between Tub Run road and the Private Residence. As available, the right-of-way accessing the private inholding will receive blading and gravel. Underground power/phone/cables going to the private inholding will be identified and protected. Signs will be placed referencing the proximity of private property (approaching private property, etc). Forest Service will contact residents of the private inholding prior to the start of harvesting in Unit 3 and Unit 23 and before conducting the proposed prescribed burns. The perennial stream and pond adjacent to Unit 23 near/in the private inholding will receive a 125 foot no harvest buffer. Page 5 of 14

6 DECISION RATIONALE I have chosen Alternative 1 for the following reasons: Alternative 1 moves the project area towards: (1) attaining Forest-Wide Goals and Objectives identified in the Forest Plan and (2) the Desired Future Condition for Management Prescription 8E1 (Ruffed Grouse/Woodcock Habitat Management Area). With the implementation of Alternative 1, optimum high quality habitat for ruffed grouse and woodcock will be created. This area was designated as 8E1 because ruffed grouse is an economically important small game bird that has experienced population declines throughout its range due to lack of early successional habitat. The implementation of this alternative will provide food, hiding, and nesting cover for a variety of wildlife species. In addition, the design criteria and the mitigation measures listed above and included in this alternative will address and reduce the impacts of the project issues raised during public scoping. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL Alternative 2: This is the No Action alternative. This alternative was not selected because it does not satisfy the primary purpose and need for the proposed action. It does not move the area towards the Desired Future Condition components of providing a minimum of 10% of the prescription area in early successional habitat conditions. Alternative 3: This alternative was created to address concerns raised in scoping about potential adverse impacts from the construction of a new Forest System road (and potential additional public access to the area) and timber harvesting within one watershed. In summary this alternative includes the following: 1. Timber harvest of 23 predominately upland hardwood units which total approximately 399 acres. The silvicultural methods for these stands include 20 acres of shelterwood with reserves, 47 acres of thinning with group selection, and 332 acres of clearcut with reserves. In connection with the harvest, some of these stands (362 acres) would be site prepared for natural regeneration using chainsaws. 2. Pre-commercial thinning (crop tree release) of 235 acres. 3. Utilization of herbicides to control undesirable hardwoods species and non-native invasive species within the harvest areas and crop tree release areas through basal bark application and foliar application as needed (scattered across approximately 665 acres). Treat non-native invasive species as needed along roads with herbicides (approximately 32 acres). 4. Wildlife habitat improvement projects in this alternative would include the seeding of 7 acres of log landings and skid trails with a non-invasive seed mix that would provide beneficial grass-herbaceous-forb habitat for wildlife. 5. As needed dependent on regeneration of specific harvest areas, plant oaks and American Chestnut throughout 362 acres. 6. Conduct 300 acres of prescribed burning in a combination of harvested areas and adjacent unharvested old growth areas in 1 burn block. Page 6 of 14

7 7. Complete system road maintenance on 6.5 miles of existing road, construct 2.4 miles of temporary road and rehabilitate areas of the old road bed and decommission areas of user created roads totaling about 2 acres. This alternative was not selected because while it meets the purpose and need for action as described in Chapter 1 of the EA, it does not move the project area as far as Alternative 1 toward the Desired Condition for Management Prescription 8E1. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY During scoping for this project several alternatives were suggested by the public. These were considered but eliminated from detailed study. They include the following: No Road Construction An alternative not permitting the construction of new or temporary roads was considered. Very little management could be accomplished using this method. Only 8-9 of the proposed units could be harvested without the use of any temporary road. This would result in the creation of 5-6% of the project area in early successional habitat, short of the minimum 10% objective. Additionally, many of the units that would be accessible are of less value than those requiring temporary road for access, making it more difficult to pay for road maintenance and required reforestation. This would also cause uneven distribution of early successional habitat in the project area. Because this option would not allow the highest priority project areas to be accessed which would fail to meet the objectives set forth by the Forest Plan, this alternative is not proposed as one to be analyzed in detail. Increased Thinning An alternative to focus on thinning as many stands as possible as opposed to regeneration harvests was considered. Many stands could potentially benefit from a thinning (as they are fully to over-stocked) however, this probably should have been done years ago. Many stands are well past the culmination of mean annual increment and past their biological rotation age. This would do little to benefit the declining scarlet oak found throughout the project area that are already well past their average life expectancy of 80 years. Additionally, it would do nothing to increase the early successional habitat in the project area, nor would it be economically feasible as harvest yields from thinning would be low. Biomass harvest would be difficult as whole tree harvest often results in damage to the residual stand when skidded trees are not well limbed. Therefore, this alternative was also not proposed to be analyzed in detail as it did not move the project area towards the objectives set forth in the Forest Plan. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This proposal first appeared on the District s quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in the third quarter of calendar year 2015 as the Tub Run Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project and has appeared on the schedule as such since that time. Scoping was conducted by the Page 7 of 14

8 District Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to determine the issues and concerns related to the proposed action. A variety of individuals and organizations were contacted to determine the scope of the issues and concerns related to the proposed action. Scoping letters were mailed on November 13 th, 2015 to interested and affected agencies, organizations, and individuals informing them of the proposed action and requesting their input. A Legal Notice requesting comments was published in The Roanoke Times newspaper on November 18 th, The Roanoke Times is the newspaper of record for the Eastern Divide District. This project is also listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest. This Schedule is available on the internet at Publics that provided comment during the initial scoping process were engaged during the planning process to provide additional input. Responses to initial comments were provided from the District Ranger requesting additional input and feedback from respondents in September This was essential due to the inclusion of biomass research to the project. Careful consideration and outreach to those that commented was attempted to ensure all project issues were gathered and addressed. I carefully reviewed and weighed the comments received during scoping and during the notice and comment period in the development of this decision and used them to guide my decision. Comments are addressed in Appendix B of the EA. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The significance of environmental impacts must be considered in terms of context and intensity. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human and national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. In the case of a site-specific action, significance usually depends upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Intensity refers to the severity or degree of impact. (40 CFR ) CONTEXT The physical and biological effects of this action vary according to the resource area analyzed. These impacts are primarily limited to the immediate areas impacted by the actions in Alternative 1 in the Tub Run Project Area on the Eastern Divide Ranger District. Both beneficial and adverse impacts of this project have been considered and these activities will not cause a significant effect to the quality of the human environment (EA Chapter 3). INTENSITY The intensity of effects was considered in terms of the following: 1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that, on balance, the effect will be beneficial. Consideration of the intensity of environmental effects is not biased by beneficial effects of the action (EA, Chapter 3). Page 8 of 14

9 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. There will be no effect on public health or safety. Logging activities will not occur in or adjacent to areas of public concentrated use and potential impacts to the safety of forest visitors will be mitigated (for example notification of burns to private in holders, signage of areas treated with herbicides) (EA, Chapters 2 and 3). 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area, because these characteristics would not be affected by the action. There were no cultural resources, prime farmlands, wild or scenic rivers, park lands, or wetlands identified in the project area (EA, Chapter 3). 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. There is no known credible scientific controversy over the impacts of the proposed action. The best available science was considered in making this decision. The project record demonstrates a thorough review of relevant scientific information, consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk (EA Chapter 3). The harvesting of biomass has the potential for controversy. Mitigation factors are in place to protect sensitive resources and the harvesting is part of a larger research project that will better inform future decisions on the impacts of biomass harvesting on soil productivity. This research is critical since this information is lacking in the Appalachian hardwood systems. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The Agency has considerable experience with actions like the one proposed. The analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk (EA Chapter 3). 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, because the proposed control methods are well established and have been utilized frequently in the past (EA Chapter 2 and 3). The unique harvesting of biomass at higher levels is being allowed as part of research, therefore, not setting a precedent for open use in the future without proper justification and planned mitigation factors. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. The cumulative impacts are not significant. No other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects or activities were identified whose effects could combine with the proposed action and result in a significant cumulative effect (EA Chapter 3). Page 9 of 14

10 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. 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, because there were no found resources in the project area (EA, pages 76-77). The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred with this finding by letter dated 09/10/ The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species act of 1973, because it was determined that the project will not adversely affect any federally listed species and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this finding on October 20, 2016 (EA pages 41-56, and Project Biological Evaluation). 10. Whether the action threatens to violate Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. 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 (EA page 5). After considering the effects of the actions analyzed, in terms of context and intensity, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS Forest Plan Consistency The Forest Plan has been reviewed to determine whether the decision being made is consistent with the present management prescription 8E1 direction, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and other laws and regulations. The action creates optimal habitat for ruffed grouse, woodcock and other wide-ranging area sensitive species and moves the project area toward the desired future condition (Forest Plan, page to 3-128). This action is consistent with the Forest Plan (Appendix B, listed applicable Forest Plan standards). Suitability for Timber Management Coppice with reserves is the selected regeneration method for seventeen of the hardwood dominated units in Alternative 1. Two units will be harvested using a seed tree method to promote yellow pine regeneration and one unit will receive a shelterwood with reserves treatment. Two units will receive a commercial thinning with embedded group selections treatment and one unit will receive patch clearcuts with commercial thinning in the matrix surrounding the patches. Finally, two stands of planted white pine will be harvested using Page 10 of 14

11 the clearcut with reserves method to increase diversity and promote hardwoods. All twenty-five units meet the criteria of being on land suitable for timber production as described by the Forest Plan Appendix B. These lands have undergone a three-stage process that considered physical suitability (site productivity), financial suitability, and consideration of the desired future for various management prescription areas. The Forest Plan also determined that forest stands in Management Prescription 8E1 are suitable for timber production (Forest Plan 3-123). Appropriateness of Even-Aged Management Although shelterwood with reserves is technically a two-aged silvicultural regeneration system, they are considered even-aged management techniques with respect to NFMA. Additionally coppice with reserves, seed tree, clearcut,and patch clearcutting are all considered even-aged management. These regeneration methods are appropriate and generally recommended for prescription area 8E1 of the Jefferson Forest Plan (3-128). Furthermore, even-aged management of these stands will help achieve the Purpose and Need for the project. As described above, an alternative that would utilize increased thinning was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis in the Environmental Assessment. After a review of the Environmental Assessment, the coppice with reserves regeneration method was determined to be the best silvicultural regeneration method to provide the habitat needed to promote ruffed grouse as well as ensure that stands harvested will be regenerated to the desired forest types in the future. Optimality of Clearcutting Clearcutting with Reserves (coppice) is proposed for this project. The 8E1 Ruffed grouse/woodcock habitat emphasis management prescription area specifically recommends clearcutting with reserve trees as the method of harvest. A minimum of 6 trees per acre 9 inches in DBH or greater will be retained following harvest. Clearcutting is widely considered the best way to provide quality ruffed grouse habitat. An important feature of ruffed grouse habitat are stands with a high midstory stem density, which provide protective cover and, ideally, offer good foraging opportunities. Most clearcut stands are optimal for grouse from 6 20 years after regeneration, depending on the site. Consequently, clearcutting has often been advocated as the best silvicultural option for improving grouse habitat (Tirpak et al.). Because of its overall importance to grouse, particularly adults, young forest cover should be considered the cornerstone of ruffed grouse management. Focusing management efforts on improving habitat conditions preferred by adults, will also improve habitat conditions for juvenile birds, and increase the overall carrying capacity of an area for grouse (Tirpak et al.) These young forest stands are used extensively during winter and for drumming in spring because high stem densities provide protection from predators at a time when grouse are conspicuous (Gullion and Marshall, 1968; Schumacher et al., 2001). Additionally, this is the most economically feasible method of harvest for stands of lower quality and will regenerate to the desired species composition after harvest. Page 11 of 14

12 Ability to Regenerate Stands Regeneration of the stands proposed for even-age management is expected to occur by the end of the 5-year period beginning from the date that logging is completed and the sale contract has been terminated. Regeneration will derive primarily from hardwood stump sprouting, some existing advanced regeneration and to a lesser extent seed production left from residual trees (EA, pages 8-10). Vegetation Manipulation These actions which alter vegetation comply with the seven requirements of 36 CFR (b) and are consistent with Forest Plan Direction. This action is best suited to the multiple use goals established for the area. As previously stated, this action would help achieve the Forest Plan goals of 1) sustain a distribution of early successional habitat conditions interspersed throughout a forested landscape; 2)provide dense stands of saplings in the 5-20 year age group for hiding and thermal cover; 3) provide regenerating stands 3-7 years of age that still have a significant herbaceous component along creek bottoms, damp swales, and lower north or east slopes for brood habitat; and 4) optimize hard and soft mast production. This action would achieve these goals while minimizing impacts to biological (EA, pages 27-59), cultural (EA, page 75-76), aesthetic (EA, page 73-75), and economic (EA, page 78-81) resources. This action assures that all regenerated acres will be adequately stocked with desirable trees species (EA, pages 8-10), as previously described. The action was chosen because, when weighed by the impacts to various resources, this action best moves the project area towards its Desired Future Condition while achieving the Goals and Objectives of the Forest Plan. The potential effect on residual trees and adjacent stands was considered in choosing this alternative (EA, pages 8-10, 27-32). This action will avoid permanent impairment of site productivity and ensure conservation of the soil and water resource through the application of Alternative 1 s design criteria and mitigation measures found on pages of the EA. Analysis of the impacts to the soil and water resource concluded that these impacts are not expected to be significant (EA, pages 56-61). This action will adequately mitigate impacts to the wildlife resource (EA, pages 28-41), and fisheries resource (EA, pages 37-39). This action will also adequately mitigate impacts on the recreation and aesthetic values of the area (EA, pages 74-76). This action is practical in terms of transportation, harvesting, and economics, as previously discussed in this Decision Notice under the Suitability heading above. Page 12 of 14

13 OBJECTION OPPORTUNITIES This project is subject to the pre-decisional objection process pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 218 Subparts A and B. The opportunity to object ends 45 days following the date of publication of the legal notice in The Roanoke Times. The publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection, and those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by another source. Objections will be accepted only from those who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project during scoping or other designated opportunity for public comment. Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on new information arising after designated comment opportunities 218.8(c). The objection must contain the minimum content requirements specified in 218.8(d) and incorporation of documents by reference is permitted only as provided in 218.8(b). It is the objector s responsibility to ensure timely filing of a written objection with the reviewing officer. All objections are available for public inspection during and after the objection process. Written objections, including attachments, must be filed with: Reviewing Officer Joby P. Timm, Forest Supervisor, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke Virginia , (540) (voice). The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered objections are: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic objections must be submitted in a format such as an message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc,.docx) to objections-southern-georgewashingtonjefferson@fs.fed.us. Please state Tub Run Ruffed Grouse Vegetation Management Project in the subject line when providing electronic objections, or on the envelope when replying by mail. IMPLEMENTATION DATE As per 36 CFR , if no objection is received within the legal objection period, this decision may be signed and implemented on, but not before, the fifth business day following the close of the objection-filing period. If an objection is filed, this decision cannot be signed or implemented until the reviewing officer has responded in writing to all pending objections. CONTACT For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Nicholas Redifer, Project Team Leader at /s/ Daniel McKeague 11/29/2016 DANIEL MCKEAGUE Eastern Divide District Ranger Date Page 13 of 14

14 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider. Page 14 of 14