Preacher Dewey 1 Decision Notice

Transcription

1 USDA Forest Service Decision Notice Preacher Dewey Environmental Assessment North Fork Ranger District Clearwater National Forest Clearwater County, Idaho I. INTRODUCTION The North Fork Ranger District of the Clearwater National Forest prepared the Preacher Dewey Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the environmental effects of proposed forest management activities including timber harvest and associated road work, access management, watershed improvement, hazardous fuels treatment, heritage resource protection and interpretation, and a Forest Plan water quality standard amendment. The Preacher Dewey project area is located in the Orofino Creek drainage. The project study area is in portions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, T36N, R6E Boise Meridian and a portion of Section 33, T37N, R5E, Boise Meridian, Clearwater County, Idaho, approximately 1.5 air miles east of Pierce, Idaho (see attached map). II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The Forest Plan direction for Management Area E1, along with recommendations and other resource needs are reflected in the Preacher Dewey purpose and need statements, which are described on pages 3-4 of the EA. A summary of the Project Purpose and Needs is to: A. Water Quality: Reduce chronic sedimentation to streams to assure old and new activities do not cause permanent or long-term damage to beneficial uses. To adhere to this direction, there is a need to decommission excess roads and stabilize system roads not needed for the next 10 to 20 years. Many of these old roads are native surfaced and rut easily when wet. Rutting not only damages the road leading to high maintenance costs, but it channels water, increasing erosion and sedimentation that enters area streams. B. Vegetation: Restore timber stand productivity and resiliency and promote age class diversity to provide optimum, sustained production of wood products and to promote the perpetuation of white pine. C. Hazardous Fuel Reduction and Control of Wildfire: Reduce fuel buildup on National Forest lands to the extent that Forest Plan goals and standards will be met, and wildfires will be limited in size, scale, and severity. D. Access Management: Provide for a diversity of recreation opportunities within the project area (motorized and non-motorized) and manage it through design, education, and enforcement to protect other resource values. Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) riding is a form of recreation that has been increasing on the North Fork Ranger District. No designated OHV routes other than open roads have been established within the project area. The Forest Plan provides direction to designate routes for off-road vehicle use in accordance with management area goals and the new Travel Rule (see page 13 for rule discussion), which requires the establishment of a system of roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use. Preacher Dewey 1 Decision Notice

2 E. Heritage Resource Protection and Interpretation: Provide for the security and interpretation of historic mining artifacts and sites. The National Historic Preservation Act and the Forest Plan requires identification, protection and preservation of historically significant sites or items. F. Forest Plan Amendment: Update fish/water quality standards in Appendix K of the Forest Plan for Clearwater Gulch Creek to better meet the Clean Water Act standards of supporting fisheries and reflect better information on fisheries collected in stream surveys. In consideration of the Clean Water Act, plus Forest Plan direction to not cause sustained damage to fish habitat, these standards should be changed to Low Fish; B channel, because cutthroat trout have been found in Clearwater Gulch Creek. III. TRIBAL CONSULTATION The Forest Service initiated consultation with the Nez Perce Tribe on March 19, The project was initially discussed with Tribal Archeologist, Patrick Baird on March 24, Additional meetings with the Nez Perce Tribe to discuss this project were held on April 1 and October 23 of 2009 and February 18 and June 15 of IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The Preacher Dewey Project first appeared on the Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in the fall of The Forest Service conducted public scoping to identify concerns with the Preacher Dewey proposed actions. A notice describing the project and soliciting comments was placed in the Lewiston Tribune of Lewiston, Idaho on March 26, Scoping notices were sent to the Clearwater County Commissioners, Federal and State agencies, and interested individuals on March 25, 2009; thirteen responses were received from the March 2009 notice. In addition, the project was discussed with the Pierce City Council, local OHV groups, and the active miner in the project area. On May 25, 2010 a legal notice requesting comment on the Preacher Dewey EA was published in the Lewiston Tribune, along with mailing a copy of the EA out to the Preacher Dewey mailing list. These contacts resulted in five EA comment letters being received. The project was also listed on the Clearwater National Forest s website ( and the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). V. DECISION After careful consideration of the analyses, applicable laws, and public comments, I have decided to select Alternative 3 for implementation. This decision is based on information contained in the project record including the EA and the effects analysis described in EA Chapter 4, the resource specialist reports, the management requirements of the applicable laws and policies, the mitigation measures and design features described below and the comments received during the public involvement process for this project. These activities will be implemented using the stewardship contracting authority, the timber sale contract or other service contracts. A summary of Alternative 3 and its design features, mitigation measures and monitoring requirements follows. A. Alternative 3 Details Harvest timber through a variety of logging methods on about 757 acres, Preacher Dewey 2 Decision Notice

3 Within proposed regeneration harvest areas, broadcast burn for fuel reduction and site preparation and reforest with planted suitable species, including white pine, larch, ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, Construct 0.9 miles of permanent road contained in three separate segments, Reconstruct 0.07 miles of existing roads, and recondition existing roads used for harvest. Develop for logging access about 0.9 miles of temporary road and recontour them following use, Reduce roadside hazardous fuels (without timber harvest) on 23.2 miles of road. Pre-commercial thin 272 acres, Decommission 33.2 miles of existing roads. Place 7.8 miles of existing roads into Intermittent Stored or Term Service. Accomplish eight stream improvement projects including installation of a fish passage culvert at Clearwater Gulch on the 5160 road, installation of a mining sediment trap in Clearwater Gulch, six system roads with drainage improvements and/or culvert replacements (including all of road 5160-M) and provide for revegetation of sites, Provide skid trail decompaction on up to 75 acres. Develop 4.4 miles of non-motorized interpretive trail, OHV Access and Development: o Decommission 0.8 miles of OHV routes, o Convert 1.7 miles of decommissioned roads to OHV trail, o Convert 2.2 miles of motorcycle trail to allow OHV use, o Develop 1.4 miles of new OHV trails, o Develop four OHV trailheads, Implement a number of road access management actions listed in Appendix A of the EA. Amend the Forest Plan to raise fish/water quality standards for Clearwater Gulch Creek. B. Alternative 3 Design and Mitigation Measures: The following is a list of design and mitigation measures developed to eliminate or reduce to acceptable levels the effects of the proposed activities. A majority of these are derived from site specific best management practices (BMP) from the Idaho Forest Practices Act and Stream Channel Alteration Handbook, with comparable practices from the FS R1/R4 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH ) that are all described in the Preacher Dewey EA Appendix F. Fish, Soil and Water Quality: 1. PACFISH default buffers will be used to define timber sale unit boundaries. No timber harvest will occur within 300 feet of fish-bearing streams, 150 feet of perennial non-fish bearing water, and 50 feet of intermittent streams. Ignition points for prescribed fire will be located outside of the PACFISH riparian buffers. 2. Best Management Practices as found in Rules Pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act Title 38, Chapter 13, Idaho Code, and Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook, FSH will be applied to prevent non-channelized sediment delivery from harvest units to streams in the Preacher Dewey Project area. 3. An average of 17 to 22 tons/acre of downed woody material (> 3 inches) will be left in each unit to maintain soil stability and productivity. In addition, at least 17 tons/acre of standing trees will be left for future wood recruitment and structural diversity. The intent is to retain Preacher Dewey 3 Decision Notice

4 large woody debris and not the smaller volatile fuels in order to avoid creating a fuel hazard. Snags (dead standing trees), which are not a safety hazard to harvest or burning activities, will be retained and down woody material will be left for wildlife and long-term site productivity. 4. To further reduce landslide or erosion hazard potential, areas of units with the following characteristics will be avoided: wetland areas and moist seeps situated on slopes, slumps, curved and/or buttressed tree boles, soil creep, tension cracks, etc.; hydrophytic vegetation, indicating saturated soil conditions during at least a portion of the year, identified by areas where water is concentrated and may have high landslide risks; and sensitive soil or headwall slopes in excess of 55%, such as located in unit Skid trails, landings and yarding corridors will be located and designated to minimize detrimental soil effects. Tractor skid trails will be spaced at least 50 feet apart, except where converging on landings, to reduce the area of detrimental soil disturbance. This does not preclude the use of feller bunchers if sub-soil disturbance can be avoided. 6. All landings and skid trails used and showing detrimental soil impacts in units 101, 107, 108, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128 and 129 will be obliterated following use in order to improve soil productivity and meet Regional soil quality standards. Obliteration actions include decompacting, recontouring, and placement of slash and large (>3 ) woody material over exposed soil. Harvest activities will emphasis using existing skid trails and landings where other resources are not compromised. 7. To reduce the erosion hazard potential from ground based activities, on timber sale units 101, 102, 108, 109, 117, 118, 119, 12, 121, 122, 125, 128, 129, 131, and pre-commercial thin units A, B, C, E and F, no excavated skid trails disturbing the sub-soil will be allowed. 8. To reduce ground disturbance, no ground base logging (including mechanical falling) will be allowed on slopes over 40 percent, unless mitigating measures, such as operating on adequate compacted snow, are approved by the soil specialist. 9. Following use, all temporary roads constructed for the Preacher Dewey project will be restored to original slope contours and large woody debris (>3 ) scattered onto the disturbed soils. If recontouring a temporary road is delayed for valid contractual reasons, it will be put into a stable condition consisting of out sloping, water barring and/or seeding. Temporary roads will be closed to the public. 10. During road decommissioning or conversion to intermittent stored service, Best Management Practices will be used to minimize sediment delivery to streams. 11. Interpretive trail development may remove patches of brush within the PACFISH riparian area to expose interpretive sites or at stream crossings. Conifer tree removal will be limited to trees 6 dbh or less, except that no tree removal will be allowed within 10 feet of the stream banks to maintain bank stability. Trees within 10 of streambanks and trees greater than 6 may be pruned up to 10 in height to improve viewing distances. 12. For roadside fuel treatment activities within RHCAs: (a) Use of harvest machinery will be required to stay on roads. (b) Removal trees will be 6 dbh or less. (c) No trees will be removed within 10 of any stream bank to maintain bank stability. (d) Trees within 10 of streambanks and trees greater than 6 may be pruned up to 10 in height to reduce ladder fuels. Preacher Dewey 4 Decision Notice

5 Fire and Fuel Abatement 13. No ignitions will take place within riparian areas, but fire may be allowed to back into these areas with low intensities. 14. Natural fuels and activity created slash will be removed through biomass utilization, chipping, handpiling, jack pot burning, or using the most cost effective, and efficient means appropriate to reduce fuel loadings to acceptable levels. 15. Snags (dead standing trees), which are not a safety hazard to harvest or burning activities, will be retained and down woody material will be left for wildlife and long-term site productivity. 16. Surface fuel loading in treatment areas, both activity generated slash and natural, will be reduced to tons per acre of large woody debris (>3 ), to lower future fire intensities and to achieve long term soil nutrient objectives. 17. Regeneration Harvest Leave Tree Survival: The Preacher Dewey project will strive for a variable tree survival objective for the project as a whole. The project objective will be that most of the legacy (large diameter trees that survived the last stand replacing fire) leave trees will survive the prescribed burns. Fuel reduction measures (limb/top removal or slash reduction around these trees) will be implemented where needed to insure tree survival for the legacy larch, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir. For the non-legacy trees, the objective will be for a majority (>50%) of the leave trees to survive the prescribed burn. This objective could be accomplish through the use of appropriate ignition patterns, fuel moisture and burn timing without any extra fuel reduction measures; however, that evaluation will be made following the project layout. 18. All prescribed burning will be coordinated through the Montana/Idaho Airshed group to determine the appropriate conditions for smoke dispersion. Heritage Resources 19. If additional heritage resources are found during implementation of the project, project activities will cease and the District Archaeologist will be notified and an assessment will be made regarding the effect of continued activities on the newly identified heritage resource. 20. In Units 119 and 122, old mining roads, dams or ditches shall not be used as skid trails or logging roads. If mining roads or water ditches need to be crossed due to management activities it will be done only at selected locations as approved by the project archaeologist. 21. In Unit 121, harvest trees will be directionally felled and skidded away from the mining prospect holes located in this unit. Noxious Weeds 22. Noxious Weed Prevention Best Management Practices contained in Appendix G of the Preacher Dewey EA will be implemented. Road and harvest equipment will be cleaned of loose debris prior to moving on to the timber sale area (contract provision B6.35 or its equivalent) to minimize the spread of noxious weeds. Also, raw soils exposed through project activities will be revegetated as soon as practicable, using certified noxious weed free seed mix and fertilizer (as necessary). Preacher Dewey 5 Decision Notice

6 Recreation Access 23. OHV crossing warning signs will be placed on the 250 road on each side of the junction of the 5173 and 250 roads to warn of the crossing of OHVs across the 250 road to the new connector route to the north or the 5173 road to the south. Also, a diversion or barrier will be placed on the connector trail north of the 250 road to prevent OHVs from crossing the 250 road at a high speed without stopping and looking first. Wildlife 24. Fall trees in pre-commercial thinning stands to avoid established big game trails and reduce impediments to big game travel. Vegetation Manipulation and Timber Harvesting: 25. All proposed regeneration harvest units will be planted with a mix of tree species appropriate for the site to promote species diversity, stand productivity and fire resiliency. As site conditions dictate, the mix will include white pine, ponderosa pine, larch and Douglas-fir. D. Monitoring: The following monitoring activities will continue or be initiated with the Preacher Dewey project: 1. The Timber Sale Administrator or Contracting Officer Representative will make periodic checks on the progress of the sale to compare implementation with desired project outcomes and objectives related to project design criteria above. 2. PACFISH compliance monitoring will be conducted annually by the Forest Fisheries Biologist in conjunction with BMP audits and reported in the annual Clearwater National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Report. 3. The District Soil specialist will assess the amount of activity area impacted by a representative sample of proposed activities following implementation to validate the assumptions made for detrimental soil impacts in this document. 4. The District Silviculturist will monitor treatment areas reforested under this project to insure they met certification stocking levels within five years of harvest. 5. The District Weed Coordinator will monitor for weed spread within the project area, especially around exposed soils in new harvest units and road decommissioning and near private lands. VI. RATIONALE FOR MY DECISION My criteria for making a decision on the Preacher Dewey project was based on how well the management actions analyzed in the EA address the purpose and need of the project and the alternatives consideration of issues that were raised during the scoping process and the EA comment period. I considered Forest Plan standards and guidance for the project area, and took into account competing interests and values of the public. I find that the project purpose and need for action (EA, pages 3-4) is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan (EA page 5-6). Also, the issues identified in the EA (EA, pages 10-15) were developed based on public comments and an interdisciplinary review of existing conditions in the project area and thoroughly cover all issues raised during the analysis. I have reviewed the alternatives analyzed in detail (EA pages 16-29), and have found that they are responsive to the issues and concerns as well as the project purpose and need for action. Preacher Dewey 6 Decision Notice

7 I have reviewed the management direction including the Forest Plan as amended, the Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Plan Record of Decision and the Forest Plan Stipulation of Dismissal, and guidance documentation (EA, pages 5-8) affecting the project area. I find the Purpose and Need to be supported by the scientific information found in these documents. I reviewed the alternatives that were considered, but not analyzed in detail (EA, pages 15-16) to ensure that an adequate range of alternatives was considered and that the range of alternatives considered was thorough and complete, and reflect public comments and concerns. I concur that the range of alternatives brought forward for detailed analysis addresses all the issues raised and that the alternatives not analyzed in detail, received an in-depth evaluation prior to dismissal. I reviewed public comments from the original scoping period as well as those that were received for the EA, and found that no new issues or concerns were raised. In summary, Alternative 3 was designed to respond to all aspects of the project purpose and needs described in Chapter 1 of the EA and to address many public issues and concerns. I believe Alternative 3 best meets the purpose and need of the project by balancing the need for vegetative treatment and fuels reduction activities with the need to improve watershed conditions and fish habitat. It accomplishes this through minimal ground disturbance while: (1) improving tree species composition and productivity; (2) reducing hazardous fuels; (3) managing access to provide OHV opportunities while reducing watershed concerns; and (4) funding a full range of watershed rehabilitation projects that will achieve an improvement in watershed condition. Alternative 3 accomplishes these objectives while maintaining neutral or beneficial effects to overall ecosystem health (EA, pages and ). By using a stewardship contract to implement all or portions of this project, revenue from the sale of timber will be used directly to fund the watershed improvement activities using a goods for services concept, and the improvements will be included within the stewardship contract. A. Alternatives Considered: Three action alternatives, including the selected alternative, and a no action alternative were analyzed in detail and are described in the EA on pages Additionally, I considered four other alternatives that were not analyzed in detail (EA p.15-16), which I discuss below. These other alternatives proposed to: 1. Emphasis Prescribed Fire - Use prescribed fire instead of timber harvest to accomplish the desired vegetative manipulation, which is not compatible with the timber stands within the project area due to the tree mortality it would cause and is not in line with Forest Plan direction for this area, because of the escaped fire risk involved (FP p. III-59). 2. Have No Forest Plan Amendment Not amending the Forest Plan is not a viable alternative because it would not promote improving the degraded Clearwater Gulch watershed and protecting the fisheries as required by the Forest Plan (FP p.ii-27-28) and the Clean Water Act. This alternative was proposed to show what impact the amendment may cause to future management. This comparison is already displayed in the EA on page Implement Watershed Work Without Timber Harvest Not using timber harvest as a management tool on this project would prevent the project from accomplishing the fuel reduction objectives in over-crowded timber stands and areas of excess down fuel loadings and from promoting healthier timber stands to maintain long-term sustained yield as required by the Forest Plan (FP p.ii-25 and III-57). Preacher Dewey 7 Decision Notice

8 An alternative was proposed by the Friends of the Clearwater that would not do any timber harvesting, but would focus on reducing sediment sources and would include other nonsediment producing activities. This potential alternative was evaluated in context of the project purpose and need. It would meet the project purpose/needs for reducing existing sediment sources, managing OHV access, managing heritage sites, and would provide some fuel abatement along roads and in some pre-commercial thin units. However, the proposal would not provide for fuel abatement of existing down fuel or address long term fuel abatement in overcrowded timber stands in need of thinning. It would not address existing detrimental soil impacts, provide for species diversity and long term stand resiliency by promoting seral species and would not work toward improving the health of the trees for long term soil stability. The project Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) determined that a strict no timber harvest proposal would not meet the project purpose and needs and that the commenter s concerns related to watershed and wildlife would be addressed by Alternatives 3 and No New Permanent Road Construction Due to watershed concerns, the public recommended an alternative that would not build any new permanent roads. This alternative was discussed by the IDT who looked at the impacts of leaving the old roads in place versus replacing them with new routes. Obliterating the old roads and not providing any road access into these areas was not considered an option, because access is still needed into the areas for resource management as outlined in the Forest Plan and the Preacher Dewey decision process is the appropriate time to determine the best access management for this area. Based on the IDT review this alternative will not be pursued further, because none of the resources showed a detrimental effect associated with building the roads and in fact showed a benefit (EA p.79). The proposed roads are located on ridge tops or on stable terrain and are intended to replace sediment producing old roads. The two new roads to units 104 and 121 would replace old roads that cross numerous drainages, which would then be decommissioned. The 0.24 miles of new roads proposed to access units 104 and 121 would replace 1.16 miles of mid-slope road that contains 11 culvert water crossing. The new road to unit 128 would allow the area to be skyline logged instead of tractor logged, as was previously done. The 0.68 miles of road proposed to access unit 128 would enable 19 acres of previously tractor logged ground to be skyline logged. All new roads would be closed to all motorized vehicles following use. B. Alternative 3 best meets the purpose and need in the following ways: 1. Long-term sediment reduction to streams: Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 provide the same amount of watershed improvement projects, while Alternative 1 does not provide any watershed improvement and thus imposes a risk of future road failure and watershed deterioration. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 promote varying amounts of vegetation removal to promote healthy forests for short and long term soil stability, while Alternative 1 does not promote any. Alternative 3 rises above Alternative 2, because Alternative 3 does not propose activities in the heavily impacted Preacher Gulch drainage by dropping regeneration harvest unit 101 (29 acres) and the 0.4 miles of road construction needed to access it (EA, p.76-77). Alternatives 3 and 4 are similar in resource effects; however, Alternative 3 generates about $100,000 more stumpage value to pay for the watershed improvement projects (EA p.118) while maintaining a similar no effect watershed impact. 2. Timber stand productivity and age class diversity: Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 are similar in the preservation of the wildlife security area in Preacher Gulch; but Alternative 3 is more desirable, because it will also contribute more to the project area age class diversity. Preacher Dewey 8 Decision Notice

9 Alternative 3 is better than Alternative 2, because Alternative 3 does not impact the Preacher Gulch wildlife security area with harvest or OHV access (EA, p ) and it contributes just 29 acres less towards age class diversity. Alternative 3 was selected over Alternative 4, because Alternative 3 contributes 60 acres more towards age class diversity (EA, p.28), while Alternative 4 contribution is minimal. In addition, Alternative 4 would have an impact to the Preacher Gulch wildlife security area by constructing a new OHV trail there. 3. Fuel buildup reduction: Alternative 1 would not provide any fuel treatment and thus would contribute towards the short and long term increased in hazardous fuel build up in the project area, instead of reducing it. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 propose the same amount of fuel treatment, except for the harvest acres. Alternative 2 is ranked highest for fuel treatment by providing 1,187 acres of total treatment (harvest, pre-commercial thin and roadside abatement), while Alternative 3 treats 1,158 acres and Alternative 4 treats 1098 acres (EA, p.91 and 93). Alternatives 2 and 3 provide 89 and 60 acres of reforestation for long term forest resiliency, where Alternative 4 does not provide any. 4. Motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities: Alternative 1 would continue to contribute to potential OHV resource impacts; in addition, no non-motorized trail would be established within the project area. Alternative 3 is more desirable than the other alternatives, because even though it proposes to build about the same amount of OHV routes and nonmotorized trail, it proposes to keep OHV use out of the Preacher Gulch drainage, thus reducing new resource impacts. The 31 miles of defined and signed OHV loop routes planned under Alternative 3 are expected to reduce random riding and reduce OHV traffic on the main roads. All of the action alternatives reduce motorized OHV access to improve the watershed and wildlife resources through road storage, road decommissioning, and access changes on the same 49 miles. Of these access changes, 71% of the roads being changed are not being used by OHVs due to being brushed in, 16% have low use (used about 5 years ago), 11% have moderate use (tracks seen or logs cut out), and 2% or 1 mile, which is the old jeep road located in Preacher Gulch, have high use (good chance of seeing an OHV during the summer or hunting season). 5. Historic mining site security and interpretation: Alternative 1 would not provide interpretation of the mining sites, but security of the sites is required by law and would still be enforced. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would provide the same increased level of site security, but vary some in the amount of non-motorized interpretive trail that is developed. Alternative 3 would use 0.4 miles of the non-motorized trail proposed under Alternatives 2 and 4 as OHV trail to avoid impacting the Preacher Gulch area with OHV use. Site interpretation would remain the same for Alternatives Clearwater Gulch Forest Plan Amendment: Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would provide for a Forest Plan amendment to Appendix K which would better protect the fish than the current designation. The amendment would change the water quality standard for Clearwater Gulch Creek to low fish, B Channel, which allows a 36% reduction from full biological potential and would establish cutthroat trout as the indicator fish (EA, p.c-1). The current standard does not put a limit on the reduction of fish habitat as long as beneficial uses are maintained. Alternative 1 would not implement the amendment. C. Alternative 3 Consideration of Issues, Concerns and Comments: Issues were generated internally, by the IDT, and externally, through public comments and Tribal consultation. Preacher Dewey 9 Decision Notice

10 Involvement of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Division of Environmental Quality, the University of Idaho, many other County, State and Federal Agencies, the Nez Perce Tribe, numerous private individuals, environmental organizations and resource companies was sought to provide detailed information for defining the issues, concerns, mitigations and treatment options. A summary of the comments that were received for the Preacher Dewey proposal, and my response to those comments, is attached to this document as Appendix C. The original comment letters and all other comments received are included in the Preacher Dewey project file. The interdisciplinary team s review of the issues and concerns raised during the comment period generated six alternatives to the proposed action (Alternative 2), with two of these new alternatives being evaluated in detail in the environmental assessment as Alternatives 3 and 4 (EA, p ). The other 4 alternatives were considered, but eliminated from detailed study, as I previously discussed, because they did not meet the project purpose or need, or were not consistent with the Forest Plan, laws or regulations (EA, p.15-16). In addition, some of the issues raised were used to refine the scope of the alternatives considered or were developed into design features or mitigation measures (EA, p.12-14). Other issues were raised and discussed in the EA (pages 14-15), but were not evaluated in detail because the alternatives already avoided the issue (such as air quality and old growth habitat) or the issue was not applicable to the proposal (such as dredge mining). I believe the issues and concerns identified throughout the scoping and planning process were fully addressed during the Preacher Dewey alternative development and analysis. VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE FOREST PLAN The Preacher Dewey analysis was guided by the goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and management area direction of the Clearwater Forest Plan (September 1987). National Forest lands (6,735 acres) within the project area consist of Management Area E1, A6 and M2. Management area A6 is the view area as seen from Hemlock Butte Lookout and overlaps the E1 management area. Management area M2 consists of riparian areas that can be found in all management areas. These Management Areas are described below: Management Areas A6 NF Acres Seen Area from Hemlock LO E1 6,735 M2 Inclusions Direction Travel Corridors Manage to maintain and enhance an aesthetically pleasing natural appearing Forest setting surrounding the roads, trails, and areas of concentrated public use (Clearwater Forest Plan, page. III-11). Timber Producing Land Manage to provide optimum, sustained production of wood products and viable elk populations while providing adequate protection of soil and water quality (Clearwater Forest Plan, page. III-57). Riparian Areas Manage under the principles of multiple use as areas of special consideration, distinctive values, and integrated with adjacent management areas to the extent that water and other riparian dependent resources are protected (Clearwater Forest Plan, page. III-69). Preacher Dewey 10 Decision Notice

11 Forest Plan consistency findings were discussed throughout the EA. I have evaluated the selected alternative with Forest Plan goals, objectives, and standards, and have determined that it meets management direction for all resources, including the following: A. American Indian Treaty Rights and Traditional Uses (FP, II-3) The Preacher Dewey project will not alter American Indian treaty rights or traditional uses (EA, p ). B. Fisheries (FP, II-28) - Since there are no expected adverse effects on channel morphology, sediment levels, stream flow, stream temperature, or riparian areas; none are expected on fish habitat (EA, p.85-90). No harvest activities are proposed within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. C. Old Growth Habitat No Old growth or step-down stands are proposed for harvest. An extensive review of stands proposed for treatment was compared against existing old growth data and field reviewed to exclude any old growth or step-down stands from proposed treatment (EA p ). D. Recreation (FP, II-22) The project will improve recreation opportunities for OHV use and non-motorized access by developing trails It will reduce some dispersed camping opportunities by decommissioning roads (EA, p ). E. Soils (FP, II-33) - Soil productivity will be improved in areas previously impacted by extensive tractor logging through the decompaction of skid trails. Units currently exceeding the 15% detrimental soil criteria will use mitigation measures outlined on EA pages and p.74 to insure the treatment activities are not causing the area to increase in soil impacts (EA. p.69-75). F. Timber Management (FP, II-25) Harvest activities will take place in an area designated for timber management. The logging systems and silvicultural systems are appropriate for the site and will allow for prompt reforestation of the site (EA, p.99). Also, the Preacher Dewey timber harvesting is cost effective (EA, p ). G. Water (FP, II-27-29) - The proposed activities will maintain the integrity and equilibrium of all stream systems in the drainage (EA. p.84-85). All activities stay within the thresholds for measurable increases in sediment, ECA and peak flows, so channel stability is expected to be maintained in all project area streams (EA, p.75-85). Use of PACFISH buffers will further protect the streams and sensitive soil areas in addition to BMPs, which will be applied before, during, and/or after management activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into stream sources (EA. p.20). H. Wildlife (FP, II-23) Elk habitat effectiveness will be maintained above the 25% Forest Plan requirement (EA p.101). No old growth is proposed for harvest and snag habitat will be maintained for snag-dependent species (Ea. p.14-15). The project will not have an impact on any threatened or endangered species, including gray wolf (EA p and Decision Notice Appendix B). I. Visual Quality (FP, II-22 and Appendix G) The proposed activities will meet visual quality objectives outlined in the Forest Plan based on the irregular harvest shape, irregular leave tree retention, and the limited seen area from Hemlock Butte Lookout (EA, p ). J. PACFISH - The selected alternative will implement default PACFISH riparian habitat conservation areas and comply with the Clearwater Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as amended by the PACFISH Decision Notice (EA. p.20). K. Size of Openings All harvest units comply with NFMA, FSM and Regional direction for opening size. None of the proposed Preacher Dewey regeneration units will exceed 40 acres in size individually or in combination with existing openings (EA. p.99). Preacher Dewey 11 Decision Notice

12 L. Consistency with the Forest Plan Lawsuit Settlement I have reviewed the September 13, 1993, Stipulation of Dismissal agreement between The Wilderness Society et al., and the Forest Service. I find that the Preacher Dewey project complies with the 1993 Stipulation of Dismissal, as follows: 1. Roadless: No timber harvest or road construction activities are proposed in any lands identified in proposed Idaho Wilderness Bill HR 1570, nor in any area selected for wilderness by any member of the Idaho delegation. 2. Allowable Sale Quantity: This project alone or in combination with other anticipated timber sales will not cause the Forest to exceed the 80 MMBF schedule for any of the Fiscal Years affected by this project s timber sales. 3. Old Growth: All stands proposed for harvest have been field verified as not being old growth. All activities of the Preacher Dewey project avoid old growth habitat, and therefore fulfills the Agreement. 4. Water Quality: The proposed activities, including timber harvest, road work, watershed projects, recreation projects, and PCT thinning would cause no measurable increase in sediment to Rhodes, Rosebud or Orofino Creeks (EA.P.83), so it would meet the Agreement. VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS A. Clean Air Act - The Preacher Dewey project complies with the Clean Air Act by coordinating all air quality management activities with the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group. All postharvest site preparation and fuel reduction treatments will be conducted according to the Montana/North Idaho Smoke Management Guidelines (EA. p.7 and 22). B. Clean Water Act, Wetland Protection (Executive Orders and 11990) and Idaho State Water Quality Laws The selected alternative complies with the Clean Water Act by following all federal, state, interstate and local requirements, administrative authority and process and sanctions, with respect to control and abatement of water pollution. These authorities are listed on pages 6-8 of the EA and have been addressed by design of the project and by mitigation measures described in this document and the EA on pages No activities will occur on floodplains or wetlands. C. Endangered Species Act As required by the Endangered Species Act, specific habitat needs for Threatened and Endangered species of wildlife and fish in regards to the proposed project are analyzed and documented in a Biological Assessment (DN, Appendix B)and were evaluated in the EA on pages 13, 37-40, 54-57, 85-87, and The effects analysis determined that the project will not have an effect on any threatened or endangered species including Gray wolf, Bald Eagle, Canada Lynx, Fall Chinook Salmon, Steelhead Trout and Bull Trout. The effects analysis was documented in the biological assessment and was done under the Section 7 counterpart regulations of the Endangered Species Act (Federal Register, December 8, 2003), and is in compliance with those regulations and the March 3, 2004 Alternative Consultation Agreement between the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service. D. Environmental Justice In regards to Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, I assessed the human health and environmental effects of the selected alternative and determined no disproportionate impact to minority or low income populations will occur. Also, the implementation of this project will not subject anyone to discrimination because of race, color, or national origin. The selected alternative complies with Executive Order (EA. p. 119). Preacher Dewey 12 Decision Notice

13 E. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) This law insures that high quality environmental information is available and disclosed to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. Scientific analysis and public scrutiny are essential in complying with NEPA requirements. I have met these requirements by using a knowledgeable and skilled interdisciplinary team to develop and analyze the proposed action and alternatives. Public involvement was important in identifying issues and continued through participation of the public in the EA review. The Nez Perce Tribe, State agencies, special interest groups/organizations, and individuals provided comments to the EA and recommended alternatives to the proposed action that were used to develop Alternatives 3 and 4. I have considered their comments in reaching my decision. A summary of public comments and our responses are attached to this Decision Notice. I find the selected alternative in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. F. National Forest Management Act (NFMA) I find that the selected alternative and its full complement of actions comply with the requirements of NFMA, specifically in complying with the Clearwater Forest Plan. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and accompanying regulations require that several specific findings be documented at the project level. The proposed activity complies with NFMA by meeting multi-resource objectives, meeting timber stand opening requirements and limiting harvest to areas suitable for growing timber (EA). G. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) - No cultural resources will be adversely affected by the proposed action. Cultural resources have been surveyed within the project area. Some sites are located within treatment areas and have specific mitigation measures identified for them on EA page 22. If any additional sites are identified during project implementation, activity will cease and the District Archaeologist will be consulted (EA, p.22). Clearance from the State Historic Preservation Office has been received (Project File). H. Executive Order (February 1999) - Directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. The selected alternative will meet the intent stated in Executive Order #13112 for moderate control, through the implementation of design features (EA, p.119). Weed introduction and spread will be controlled through mitigation measures outlined in the Preacher Dewey EA (EA, p.23). Any follow-up treatments, and all weed treatments will be done in accordance with the North Fork Ranger District Noxious Weed EA (EA, p.7). I. Travel Management, Designated Routes and Area for Motor Vehicle Use Rule 2005 (Travel Rule) One of the items required by the Travel Rule, which affects the Preacher Dewey Project, is that the Travel Rule requires the Forest to a develop a minimum road system to accommodate resource needs. The Clearwater N.F. is accomplishing this in two steps. The first step was the Forest Transportation analysis that was completed in 2008, which identified the main arterial, collector and important local routes needed. The second step is to look at individual project areas and conduct detailed transportation analyze to determine the minimum road system for that project area. The Preacher Dewey project is consistent with the Travel Rule by conducting a transportation analysis of the project area to determine the minimum motorized transportation system needed. The Forest Travel Plan decision is scheduled to be issued in the winter of 2011 and will acknowledge the results of the Preacher Dewey decision. Preacher Dewey 13 Decision Notice

14 IX. CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER GUIDANCE A. Healthy Forest Initiative and the National Fire Plan The Healthy Forest Initiative and the National Fire Plan provide over-arching direction to reduce the threat of wildfire and restore ecosystems. Planned management activities within the Preacher Dewey project area have been designed to be consistent with this direction. Particularly, timber harvest and prescribed fire activities will trend the general landscape condition toward manageable fuel models and will optimize opportunities to treat hazardous fuels in identified wildland urban interface lands. B. Integrated Resource Strategy - The Preacher Dewey project was identified through the Northern Region's Integrated Resource Strategy as being within the Clearwater County Wildland Urban Interface and was identified as an aquatic restoration priority Forest-wide. C. Memorandum of Agreement between Forest Service and Environmental Protection Agency - The MOA agrees to identify and implement projects in innovative and cost effective ways to achieve water quality standards on National Forest Service lands. The Preacher Dewey project meets this MOA by promoting watershed restoration projects and stewardship contracting to implement those projects. X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) Based upon my review of the analysis documented in the Preacher Dewey EA, I have determined that this proposal will not have a significant effect on the human environment. It is my determination that an environmental impact statement is not required for implementing Alternative 3, based on the following: A. Context: The setting of the project is in an intensively managed roaded area. The resources affected by the proposal are described in the EA. The Selected Alternative is consistent with the management direction, standards and guidelines outlined in the Clearwater National Forest Plan. Local issues were identified through the scoping process and considered in alternative development and analysis. The project area is limited in size and the activities are limited in duration. Effects are local in nature and not likely to significantly affect regional or national resources. B. Intensity: I have determined the following with regard to the intensity of this project as identified in 40 CFR The analysis considered both beneficial and adverse effects. As described in Chapter 4 of the EA, impacts from this project are minor and range from beneficial to adverse. The adverse effects of timber harvest, OHV trail development, access mangement, road obliteration, and temporary road construction are minor and short term in nature and will not impair land productivity. These effects are short-term noise, human disturbance to wildlife and short term soil disturbance that is not expected to cause soil erosion beyond the project area and is expected to primarily remain on-site. Long term effects are beneficial for most species habitat and forest ecosystem health. Habitat, including the amount and location of forage and cover is improved for most species. All the impacts of this decision are addressed in Chapter 4 of the EA and the BE/BA (DN, Appendix B). 2. There will be no significant effects on public health and safety, because OSHA safety regulations will be met during implementation and Forest Service inspectors will monitor all aspects of implementation to ensure public safety. These types of activities (logging, road work and hauling) have historically occurred on these roads and near developed properties in the Pierce area without creating public safety or health problems. Preacher Dewey 14 Decision Notice

15 3. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area, such as historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas because of protection measures integrated into the design of the project (EA, p ) and based on the discussion of effects found in the EA, Chapter 4. There are no park lands, prime farmlands, roadless areas, ecologically critical areas or wild and scenic rivers within the affected area. There are no adverse effects to wetlands within the affected area due to avoidance and other design criteria. A variety of historic resources are present within the project area. Based on the existing conditions, previous disturbance, project design and mitigation features, and the limits of this proposal, the Preacher Dewey project will have no adverse effect to the integrity of these sites. The project will strive to improve site security through public eduction by interpreting some sites. 4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. The effects of the project are limited to the Preacher Dewey project area. While some people have disagreed with certain parts of the project, no person has provided evidence that the environmental effects of the project have been wrongly predicted; therefore, the effects are not controversial. I believe we have addressed the known significant biological, social, and economic issues sufficiently to avoid scientific controversy over the scope and intensity of effects. Based upon reports and discussions with professional resource specialists, there is agreement by my staff and other professionals and agencies consulted about the effects and conclusions identified in the analysis. I conclude that the effects of this project do not represent a controversial impact upon the quality of the human environment, provided the design features and mitigation measures outlined in the EA are implemented 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment is highly uncertain or involves unique or unknown risks. The actions described in this Decision are not new. The Forest Service has a long history of implementing these activities on this and other areas of the Clearwater National Forest. These actions have been applied elsewhere on similar soil and vegetation types. The effects analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. Chapter 4 of the EA discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the selected actions. Pertinent scientific literature has been reviewed and incorporated into the analysis process and the technical analyses conducted for determinations on the impacts to the resources are supportable with use of accepted techniques and models, reliable data, and professional judgement. 6. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, because it conforms to all existing Forest Plan direction and is applicable only to the project area. 7. These actions are not related to other actions that, when combined, will have significant impacts. Cumulative effects are documented in Chapter 4 of the EA. There is no off-site soil erosion, impacts to the overall watershed or changes to forest vegetation or motorized access that would be cumulative to impacts from other activities. Effects to water quality or wildlife habitat are described in detail in Chapter 4 of the EA and are generally minor and do not cause significant effects when considered with other activities in the general area. (EA, p.72-78,82-84, 87-90, 93-94, 97-99, , , and EA Appendix D). 8. 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 Preacher Dewey 15 Decision Notice