PLUMAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DECISION DECISION RATIONALE MT. HOUGH RANGER DISTRICT

Transcription

1 DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT STORRIE AND RICH FIRE AREAS INVASIVE PLANT TREATMENT PROJECT U.S. FOREST SERVICE, PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST, MT. HOUGH RANGER DISTRICT PLUMAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DECISION Based upon my review of the Storrie and Rich Fire Areas Invasive Plant Treatment Project (Storrie IPT) Environmental Assessment (EA), I have decided to implement Alternative A, the Proposed Action, which would treat existing and newly discovered invasive plant infestations on up to 200 acres annually, using a combination of manual, mechanical, cultural, and chemical methods. Implementation of chemical treatments would not exceed 100 acres annually and would not include aerial spraying. This project is part of the Plumas National Forest Fire Restoration effort. Fire settlement funds received by the Forest Service provide a unique opportunity to restore ecosystem health, function, and resilience within the affected areas. Alternative A will address the concern for invasive plant impacts on biodiversity and ecological processes by adaptively managing known infestations and evaluating expanding and newly arising invasive plant occurrences for treatment. Invasive plants proposed for treatment include: barbed goatgrass, hoary cress, spotted knapweed, yellow starthistle, squarrose knapweed, Canada thistle, Scotch broom, Dyer s woad, tall whitetop, Himalayan blackberry, and medusahead. These actions are proposed to be implemented across the watersheds affected by the Storrie (2000) and Rich (2008) wildfires on the Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest. DECISION RATIONALE Invasive species were identified by the Chief of the Forest Service as one of the four greatest threats to forest health (for more information, see Invasive plants can have strong negative effects on wildland values. They reduce the quality and quantity of habitat for wildlife and fish by reducing forage, shelter, and cover. Rare native plants can be directly displaced by spreading invasive plant infestations. Invasive plants can also reduce an ecosystem s capacity to provide clean water, productive soils, and defensible space for fire management. They can also degrade recreational opportunities by impeding access and impacting scenic qualities. The no action alternative was considered, but is not being selected because the existing invasive plant infestations left untreated would continue to expand along roadsides, in forest Page 1 of 13

2 openings, along riparian corridors, into meadows, and within other areas of suitable habitat for native plants and wildlife. Invasive plant species pose a serious threat to ecosystem function because of their ability to displace native species, alter nutrient and fire cycles, decrease the availability of forage for wildlife, and degrade soil structure. Invasive plants are spreading at an alarming rate in California and current inventories show that invasive plants are known at approximately 776 locations and are adversely impacting at least 200 acres within the watersheds affected by the Storrie and Rich Fires, including at least 90 acres on National Forest System (NFS) lands. The location, severity, and management of the Storrie and Rich Fires have created a very high risk for continued invasive plant introduction and spread within the watersheds affected by the fires. During both fires and the subsequent Chips Fire, fire suppression and high burn severity resulted in considerable ground disturbance, leaving favorable conditions for the establishment and spread of invasive plants. Furthermore, all three of these fires occurred near high traffic areas, such as roads, trailheads, campgrounds, and facilities, which were heavily infested with invasive plants. Approximately 85 percent of known invasive plant infestations within the project area occur within 500 feet of high traffic areas. These infested areas can act as source populations for invasive plant introduction and spread into adjacent, un-infested high value areas, including the nearby Bucks Lake Wilderness and the proposed Red Hill Special Interest Area (SIA). I am concerned that the spread of invasive plants has resulted in the displacement of native plant species, impacts to wildlife habitats, alteration of natural fire regimes, reduction of forest biodiversity, and impacts to recreation and scenic beauty. Invasive plants migrate, establish, and spread rapidly and unpredictably. Some species spread at rates of eight to twelve percent per year. New invasive plant species and new infestations of known species are discovered every year on NFS lands. Timeliness of action is important because the potential adverse effects, difficulty, and cost of controlling invasive species increase with the scale of infestation. If infestations are treated when small, a greater variety of treatments are possible with a higher likelihood of success. Treatment is more likely to be effective if infestations are treated when they are still small. Flexibility in treatment strategy is important because the efficacy of treatment methods varies depending on the biology of the target species and the size and location of the infestations. New and existing infestations may not respond predictably to treatment, they may shift or grow rapidly, and new invasive plant species and infestations can represent currently unforeseen threats to wildland values. Therefore, the Forest Service desires the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions and respond rapidly to invasive plant threats that may be currently unknown. Having greater flexibility in treatment options would allow us to minimize impacts on the ecosystem. The selected alternative, Alternative A, addresses these concerns by: Using integrated manual, mechanical, cultural, and, when necessary, chemical control measures to increase the extent and effectiveness of invasive plant treatments. Page 2 of 13

3 Reducing costs by eradicating new infestations early, before they have spread across large areas. Reducing impacts to other natural resource values caused by ineffective treatments that result in continued establishment and spread of invasive plants. Alternative A will allow the Forest Service to treat known existing infestations within the watersheds affected by the Storrie and Rich fires, as well as to rapidly eradicate, contain, or control newly-discovered infestations where they threaten wildland values or pose a high risk of spread to un-infested areas. The Proposed Action will allow the Forest Service to establish a prioritization and treatment protocol to adaptively manage known infestations and to evaluate expanding and newly-arising invasive plant occurrences for treatment. During the scoping and comment periods, some commenters expressed opposition to the use of herbicides. The Plumas National Forest is committed to an integrated pest management (IPM) approach that utilizes the least impactful methods to achieve effective control. Generally, chemical treatment is considered after other methods are deemed ineffective or infeasible. Personal experience has taught me that a variety of treatment tools are needed to be effective on a large landscape. The Storrie IPT project incorporates four treatment types (manual, mechanical, cultural, and chemical), five priority levels (depending on factors including the size, location, and potential for adverse impacts of the infestation), eleven target invasive plant species, and five chemicals under an Annual Implementation Review process. Forty-two project design features have been developed by an interdisciplinary team to protect specific resources and human safety during treatment (EA, Table 6, pages 22-26). This project utilizes a conservative approach with regards to herbicide use. Neither aerial herbicide application nor direct application to water will be used. The five herbicides proposed for use in this project were deliberately selected based on information regarding their limited toxicity to non-target organisms. Many herbicides were not selected for the Proposed Action because of lack of information, or concerns over potential effects to non-target species. The five carefully selected herbicides, along with the forty-two project design features which specify how treatments will occur, will minimize the risk to non-target organisms. These project design features include avoiding spraying herbicides when pollinators are the most active (while an invasive plant is in bloom or during the middle of the day) and drift restrictions such as applying within two feet of target plants, to minimize drift onto water or non-target areas (EA, Table 6, pages 22-26, PDF #4, #36). The project design features for the Storrie IPT Project are consistent with the draft Pollinator-Friendly Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Federal Lands recently developed by the US Departments of Agriculture and Interior (available online: draft BMPs were recommended by a Presidential Memorandum to promote the health of honey bees and other pollinators. Although these draft BMPs are not yet required, this project will adhere to all of the pollinatorfriendly BMP recommendations regarding herbicide use. I am proud to say that the project design features for this project had already incorporated all of the recommendations included in these draft BMPs, demonstrating that the original proposal had included appropriate safeguards for pollinators. Page 3 of 13

4 In addition, the project design features for this project have incorporated all nine recommendations from the publication How to Protect Honeybees from Pesticides (Clemson University, Department of Pesticide Regulation 2012). The IPM approach requires integration of multiple program components (prevention, early detection/rapid response, mapping, control, re-vegetation and monitoring) with site-specific selection of treatment methods based on factors including effectiveness, feasibility, ecological impact, and safety. Control will only occur when careful consideration indicates that leaving an invasive plant infestation unchecked would result in more damage than controlling it with available methods. For all chemical treatments, project design features, such as stream buffers, drift restrictions, limits on treatments, and limited operating periods, will be implemented to protect resources and human safety (EA, Table 6, pages 22-26). Furthermore, assuming that initial chemical treatment is effective, the amount of herbicide used per acre would be expected to decrease over time and follow-up treatments using non-chemical methods would likely become more feasible. Herbicides will be applied in accordance with: 1) product label directions; 2) California Department of Pesticide Regulation requirements; 3) Forest Service best management practices for water quality; and 4) Forest Service direction found in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2150) and Handbook (FSH ). While chemical treatment is the last resort for treatment options, it is an important tool for meeting this project s purpose and need. With over 90 acres of priority infestations in known locations on NFS lands many of which are adjacent to roads it would be substantially less effective and less safe for workers to treat all infestations by manual or mechanical treatment alone. Manual treatments cannot keep pace with the growth of the larger infestations, and certain invasive plant species cannot be effectively treated with methods other than herbicides. Because so many of the known infestations are situated along roads, treatment methods that maximize efficacy and efficiency are safest for workers. By adhering to product labels and project design features, herbicides can be used safely, effectively, and efficiently for treating invasive plant infestations. In addition to the Finding of No Significant Impact, documented below, the three factors contributing to my decision were: 1. The IPM approach uses the least impactful methods to achieve effective control. Manual, mechanical, and cultural treatments will be used whenever these treatments would be effective and feasible. Generally, chemical treatment is considered an option after other methods are deemed ineffective or infeasible. 2. Project Design Features (PDFs) have been developed by the interdisciplinary team to protect resources including: human health and safety, water quality, recreation, cultural sites, natural resources, and botanical and wildlife species including insect pollinators. To ensure that human health and critical ecosystem functions are protected during chemical treatments, PDFs were developed that will: a) set safety guidelines, including safe handling of chemicals and public notification prior to treatment; and b) limit the scope of certain treatments near critical resources including rare plants, sensitive wildlife species, cultural resources, and recreational use areas. These PDFs provide clear Page 4 of 13

5 direction for protecting resources, while still allowing enough flexibility that new and expanding infestations can be effectively and rapidly treated. 3. An Annual Implementation Review process has been established, whereby an interdisciplinary team will evaluate the proposed implementation plan each year before treatments occur. An annual treatment plan will be developed and reviewed by resource specialists to ensure that proposed treatments are within the scope of this Decision Notice. Notification on the Forest website will occur to ensure that landowners, partners, regulatory agencies, the Pacific Crest Trail Association, and Tribes are aware of the proposed treatments. The Storrie and Rich Fire Areas Invasive Plants Treatment EA documents the environmental analysis and conclusions upon which this decision is based. I have considered the environmental effects of the action as well as the comments received from the public and believe that the potential for adverse effects resulting from this project are minor in relation to the ecological damage including reduction of forest biodiversity and habitat for native species that would result from no action. Despite opposition from some of the public in regards to the use of herbicides, I am confident that the treatments proposed have integrated safeguards, have been carefully evaluated, and will provide the most effective treatment of invasive plants with the least risks possible. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The project proposal was listed in the Plumas National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions on April 9, 2012 and was updated periodically during the analysis. People were invited to review and comment on the proposal during the scoping period which was held from April 9 to May 11, Over 200 individuals, organizations, groups, or tribes were contacted with project information initiating the scoping period. Project proposal information was sent to mining claimants; mining organizations, companies, and groups; local agency officials such as Plumas County Board of Supervisors and California Department of Water Resources; organizations including Back County Horseman s Association and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics; Native American Tribes; special use permittees; and adjacent land owners. The Forest Service consulted with individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this EA. Seven comments were received during the scoping period-five from adjacent land owners, one from the Pacific Crest Trail Association, and one from the California Department of Transportation. Issues raised during scoping are described in the EA (pages 7-10). As a result of scoping, we agreed to notify the Pacific Crest Trail Association of herbicide treatments occurring near the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) and to avoid treating with herbicides near the PCT during the high-use season (July 15-August 15). The EA was circulated for public comment in February Twelve comment letters were received from adjacent land owners during the 30-day public comment period. These comments were considered and addressed in the Response to Comments contained in Appendix F of the EA. All comments received during any of the public involvement Page 5 of 13

6 opportunities were considered when making this decision. The Final EA and draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact were made available for public review in August 2015 pursuant to 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B. The objection process is described below under Administrative Review Opportunities. A list of those consulted is available in the Coordination and Consultation section of the EA and further details are provided in the project record at the Mt. Hough Ranger District in Quincy, California. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT As the responsible official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the definition of significance established by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR ). I have reviewed and considered the EA and documentation included in the project record, and I have determined that the Proposed Action, Alternative A will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As a result, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. My rationale for this finding is as follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of significance cited above. CONTEXT For the Proposed Action and alternatives the context of the environmental effects is based on the environmental analysis in the final EA. The geographic area in which effects will occur is the 7th field sub-watersheds affected by the Storrie and Rich Wildfire areas. However, indirect and cumulative benefits extend beyond the treated National Forest System lands. Project treatments will help to avoid or reduce the spread of invasive plants from National Forest System lands onto adjoining non-federal lands, and Alternative A will allow the Forest to treat new infestations when they are small so that the invasive plants will do less ecological damage and the likelihood of adverse effects from treatment are minimized. The selected alternative allows for treatments to occur annually and monitoring of treatment effects and treatment effectiveness will allow the Mt. Hough Ranger District to adapt treatments as needed within the scope of this environmental analysis. INTENSITY Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project record. The effects of this project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to concerns and issues raised by the public (EA pages ). The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR (b). Page 6 of 13

7 1. Impacts that 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 the environmental effects of this project has not been biased by the beneficial effects of the action. All analyses prepared in support of this document considered both the beneficial and adverse effects of the Proposed Action; however, the beneficial effects of controlling or eradicating invasive plants were not used to offset or compensate for the potential adverse effects of the proposed treatments. The impacts associated with the Proposed Action have been considered separately from the beneficial effects, and the beneficial and adverse impacts are not significant (See EA, Chapter 3). 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. The Human Health Risk Assessment (Appendix D) for this project describes in detail the potential for adverse health effects in workers and members of the public from the use of the proposed herbicides. The risk assessment examines the potential heath effect on all groups of people who might be exposed to any of the herbicides proposed for use. The analysis indicates there will be no significant effects on public health and safety. All appropriate laws, policies, and regulations governing the use of herbicide, as required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CA DPR), and the Forest Service Policy pertaining to herbicide use, will be followed, and all Forest Service personnel in charge of projects involving herbicide application will be Qualified Applicator Certified by CA DPR. All contract applicators will be appropriately licensed by the state, Coordination with the appropriate County Agricultural Commissioner will occur, and all required licenses and permits will be obtained prior to any herbicide application. The public will be notified prior to implementation of herbicide treatments through posting of signs at treatment areas and access points, as specified in the project design features (EA, pages 23, Table 6, PDF #11). Alternative A adheres to all laws and regulations regarding herbicide use and includes stringent project design features which will minimize potential hazards to workers and to public health and safety. There will be no adverse effect to water quality because project design features include treatment buffers on all wells, ponds, and springs used for domestic water supplies (EA, page 25, Table 6, PDFs # 26-29). Furthermore, spraying will be prohibited in known blackberry picking sites when blackberries are ripe, to minimize potential adverse effects on forest users (EA, page 23, Table 6, PDF # 12). 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. The Environmental Assessment has analyzed the potential for impacts to unique characteristics of the geographic area. There are no parklands, prime farmlands, or designated wild and scenic rivers within the project area. Wetlands will be protected by the treatment buffers (EA, Table 8 and Table 9, pages 28-29). Ecologically critical areas include portions of the Pacific Crest Trail, Bucks Lake Wilderness, the Chips Creek Inventoried Page 7 of 13

8 Roadless Area, the Proposed Red Hill Special Interest Area (SIA), and proposed critical habitat and Critical Aquatic Refuge for Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frogs (SNYLF). In regards to historical and cultural resources, the analysis in the EA (Heritage section, Chapter 3) determined there will be no significant effects on cultural resources, because the project design features 8, 14, and 16 (EA, Table 6, pages 22-26) avoid impacts to these sites or characteristics. In addition, the Annual Implementation Process (described in Appendix C) will involve an invasive plant implementation review team who will ensure that consistent and effective treatment is applied, appropriate project design features are implemented, and necessary monitoring and reporting are completed. The Implementation Review Team will include a heritage resource specialist, among other specialists. This project complies with the provisions set forth within the provisions of Stipulation 7.4 of the Programmatic Agreement Among The USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, And The Advisory Council On Historic Preservation Regarding The Processes For Compliance With Section 106 Of The National Historic Preservation Act For Management of Historic Properties By the National Forests Of The Pacific Southwest Region (USDA 2013a). There are several reaches of rivers and streams in the project area considered eligible for Wild and Scenic River status including reaches along the North Fork Feather River, East Branch North Fork Feather River, Indian Creek (near Belden), Chips Creek, Yellow Creek, and Squirrel Creek (EA, page 47).Management activities within one quarter mile of these river and stream reaches is to be managed consistent with Wild and Scenic designation until a suitability determination is made. Manual, mechanical, and chemical, and cultural treatments under the Proposed Action will not have adverse effects on the outstandingly remarkable values or the free flowing condition of the areas along these stream reaches, managed as Wild and Scenic Rivers, because adherence to stream buffers, best management practices, and project design features will ensure that no sediment or chemicals enter waterways during treatment. Within the Bucks Lake Wilderness the use of herbicides, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport is currently not anticipated based on known locations of invasive plant infestations and will not be undertaken without Regional Forester approval. If new infestations are found in the wilderness, proposed treatments would be selected using an integrated pest management approach and would not likely impact any of the five wilderness characteristics (opportunities for solitude, untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, or unique qualities of the Bucks Lake Wilderness), because of project design features that protect recreational resources (EA, page 23, Table 6, PDF #13). Within the Chips Creek Inventoried Roadless Area, manual, mechanical, chemical, and cultural treatments under the Proposed Action alternative will likely have beneficial impacts on the Chips Creek Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) by providing effective control or eradication of any future infestations to protect roadless characteristics and protect wilderness values for potential future designation under the Wilderness Act. Control or eradication of invasive plant infestations on other areas of NFS lands outside the IRA will also reduce the likelihood of expansion into the IRA. Project design features for the Pacific Crest Trail include: 1) no directed spray or broadcast herbicide application will occur on weekend days between Memorial Day and Labor Day in recreation sites (campgrounds, trailheads, dispersed camping areas, and known blackberry picking sites); 2)prohibiting herbicide treatments on the PCT during peak hiker season from Page 8 of 13

9 July 15 through August 15; and 3) for herbicide treatment within 100 feet of recreation sites (campgrounds and trails including the PCT, trailheads, dispersed camping areas, and known blackberry picking sites), cautionary notice signs will be posted at the recreation site prior to herbicide treatments. The Pacific Crest Trail Association will be contacted prior to any herbicide treatments or closures of the PCT so users could be notified through their public website (EA, page 23, Table 6, PDF #9-11). 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 proposed project follows the management direction in the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1988), as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FSEIS and ROD (USDA 2004 a, b). Potential adverse effects are minimized through design and the incorporation of project design features, to the point where there are few effects to draw controversy. While some public commenters are opposed in general to the use of herbicides, there is no substantive scientific controversy related to the effects of the Proposed Action. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The USDA Forest Service has considerable experience with actions like the one proposed. The analysis shows the effects are not highly uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. The proposed project follows the management direction in the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1988), as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FSEIS and ROD (USDA 2004 a, b). Herbicides will be applied in accordance with: 1) product label directions; 2) California Department of Pesticide Regulation requirements; 3) Forest Service best management practices for water quality (USDA 2011, Appendix A); and 4) Forest Service direction found in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2080, 2150 and 2200) and Handbook (FSH ). Proposed activities are routine in nature, employ standard practices and protection measures, and their effects are well known as described in Chapter 3 of the EA. 6. The degree to which the action may establish 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 any future decisions would require site-specific analysis to consider all relevant scientific information available at that time. The proposed activities are in accordance with the best available science at this time regarding treatments to control the spread of invasive plants and address the risk to native vegetation (EA, pages 1-3, 5-6, and 13-45). 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. Page 9 of 13

10 The cumulative impacts are not significant. A cumulative effects analysis was completed for each resource area and these analyses concluded that implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant adverse cumulative effects (EA, Botanical Resources, pages 33-36; Invasive Plants, pages 39-45; Recreation, Lands, and Scenic Resources, pages 49-54; Hydrology and Soils, pages 59-66; Wildlife, pages ; Cultural Resources, pages ). All past, present, and future known herbicide treatments are taken into account to limit treatments in any given year near water bodies (EA, page 27, Table 7). Manual, mechanical and cultural treatment areas are extremely small in areal extent. All treatments are subject to project design features that ensure minimal risks of cumulative effects (EA, page 22-26, Table 6). 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. It was determined that there will be no effect to cultural resources from implementing this project, and the Proposed Action does not adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Activities associated with the Proposed Action will comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended and it s implementing regulations 36 CFR 800 and Forest Service Manual The action will not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural or historical resources, because the treatment methods are either nonground disturbing, entail minimal disturbance, or are located in areas with previous disturbance (such as road corridors). The Proposed Action complies with provisions of Stipulation 7.4 of the Programmatic Agreement Among The USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, And The Advisory Council On Historic Preservation Regarding The Processes For Compliance With Section 106 Of The National Historic Preservation Act For Management of Historic Properties By the National Forests Of The Pacific Southwest Region (USDA 2013a). Where treatment activities may involve ground disturbance greater than one cubic meter they will be assessed during the Annual Implementation Process and the District Archaeologist will review project locations to determine if any cultural resources could be affected. If a treatment area is determined to have a potential effect, alternative treatment methods will be selected. For these reasons, the project will cause no loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. 9. 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 Biological Assessments for plant and wildlife species determined that the project will not affect species designated or proposed as threatened or endangered, and will not adversely modify critical habitat for these species. There are no endangered or threatened plant species known to be present within the project area. The only endangered wildlife species known to be present in the project area is the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF). Project design features (EA, pages 25-26, Table 6, PDFs #24, 25, 41 and 42) have established treatment buffers (EA, page 29, Table 9) that provide protection to suitable habitat and Page 10 of 13

11 proposed critical habitat for SNYLF. Because of these project design features and treatment buffers, suitable habitat will be entirely avoided during mechanical, chemical, and cultural treatments. The only treatments that will be allowed within suitable habitat would be manual treatments and a biologist would be present during treatment to watch for individual frogs to avoid trampling (EA, page 26, Table 6, PDF #42). Due to these protective measures, SNYLF will not be affected by any of the activities proposed in Alternative A (EA, page 98). 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The Proposed Action will not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. All applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA (EA, pages 1-2, 68-69, and ). The Proposed Action is consistent with the 1988 Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1988a) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (USDA 2004 a,b) (EA, pages 1-3, 37, 45, 54, 67-69, 111, and 116). FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS In addition to the FONSI, I find that this project is consistent with the standards and guidelines for land management activities described in the 1988 Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (PNF LRMP, USDA 1988a) as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (USDA 2004 a,b). Therefore, this project is consistent with the requirements of the National Forest Management Act of In addition, the Storrie IPT Project complies with the Endangered Species Act (EA, pages ), the Clean Water Act (EA, pages ), the Clean Air Act (EA, page 119), the National Historic Preservation Act (EA, page 119) and other federal, state, and local laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment (EA, pages ). This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and the Final EA were considered when making my decision. I determined these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OPPORTUNITIES This proposed project was subject to the objection process pursuant to 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B. The legal notice of the objection period was published in the Feather River Bulletin on August 5, One objection letter was received. This objection was reviewed by the Reviewing Officer, Acting Forest Supervisor Daniel Lovato. On December 4, 2015, the Reviewing Officer sent the objection resolution letter to the objectors. The following modifications were incorporated into this project: Page 11 of 13

12

13 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, employer, and lender. Page 13 of 13