Decision Notice Finding Of No Significant Impact

Transcription

1 Decision Notice Finding Of No Significant Impact U. S. Forest Service Southern Region Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area Golden Pond, Kentucky Environmental Assessment for Prior Creek Project June 2007

2 DECISION NOTICE Introduction The environmental assessment (EA) for the Prior Creek Project at LBL documents the analysis of two action alternatives considering different approaches and distribution for management on the same land, and the no-action alternative. The project has been open to scoping comments since June 2006 and a 30-day notice and comment period was completed in March This decision is based on the results and findings of the EA, a review of Appendices and the Project Record, including the Response to Comments. The EA is available for public review at the Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area (LBL) administrative headquarters in Golden Pond, Kentucky. Decision Based on comments from public scoping, input received during the 30-day public comment period, and the analysis in the Prior Creek EA, it is my decision to implement Alternative 2, using the associated design criteria of the LBL Land and Resource Management Plan (Area Plan) and those depicted in Section 2.2 of the Final EA. In summary, this decision authorizes the following: 1. Restores upland habitat for a total of 8,755 acres General Forest, Administrative, Core Area, and Oak-Grassland Restoration Demonstration Area (OGA) prescriptions 2. Woodland habitat thinning on approximately 1,800 acres on dry and xeric sites 3. Twenty-two miles of single track trail construction 4. Construction of approximately six interpretive pull-offs 5. Placement of around 50 coarse woody pieces/mile in 11.5 miles of streams in the project area 6. Construction of a small, five acre impoundment near the mouth of Prior Creek 7. Use of an existing water control structure on the unnamed creek south of Prior Creek 8. Construction of a two-mile trail with two observation blinds 9. Closure of 3.25 miles of legal roads, and obliteration of around 17 miles of system and non-system roads 10. Construction of 2.4 miles of temporary roads and 5 temporary crossings, to be rehabilitated upon completion of the project. 2

3 Implementation of the actions in this decision will be prioritized by the Area Supervisor based on funding, available workforce, and land capabilities. The Rationale for the Decision 1. When compared to the other alternatives, Alternative 2 will best meet the purpose and need for this project as described in the EA. 2. Alternative 2 best ensures desired upland habitats are restored while dispersed recreational and environmental educational activities and wildlife viewing are emphasized. 3. Alternative 2 is compatible with the environment and public safety, and is considerate of the impacts on surrounding communities. 4. Public concerns and comments were used to develop, analyze and compare alternatives (EA Chapter 1, page 6) Alternative 2 responds to the issues of this EA, including forest and watershed health, recreational and environmental educational opportunities, soils and water resources, wildlife management, threatened and endangered (T&E) species, heritage resources, scenery management, air quality and socio-economics. 5. Environmental documents used in the making of this decision include the Area Plan, Area Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, and Record of Decision, as well as the EA and related documents for this project. 6. My conclusion is based on a review of the record that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. (EA Chapter 3, pages ) Other Alternatives Considered: Four alternatives were considered for this project. One of those alternatives was not analyzed in detail for a variety of reasons as documented in the EA. The three alternatives that were considered in detail are described below, including the no action and two action alternatives. Alternative 1 - No Action The proposed management actions would not be implemented. Current management activities in the area would be continued. Management activities already approved under other environmental documents would continue to be implemented. Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action This alternative proposes to restores upland habitat for a total of 8,755 acres within General Forest, Administrative, Core Area, and Oak-Grassland Restoration Demonstration Area prescriptions. The key components of the alternative are: Construction of a 22-mile, non-motorized, single-track (approximately 18 inches wide), multiple-use, designated trail system (MUT) for hiking and biking 3

4 only, within the OGA portion. Emphasis will be placed on a self-guided trail system for enjoyment and interpretation. Development of a six mile, self-guided auto tour with up to six pull-offs (using existing Roads 201, 174 and 204). Pull-off locations will be approximate during analysis. Construction of a 2-mile, non-motorized, single-track (approximately 18 inches wide) birding trail and up to two accessible observation blinds within Prior Hollow adjacent to the Prior Creek impoundment. Emphasis will be placed on a self-guided trail system for nature-watching and interpretation. Woodland Habitat thinning (single-tree selection and small group selection) of a maximum 1,800 acres (or 20% of the total project area) of currently closed canopy forest (identified during preliminary analysis) on dry and xeric sites to tree densities consistent with oak-grasslands (a reduction from approximately 100 trees/acre to approximately 50 trees/acre in patches on dry and xeric sites). ο 1,145 acres of Woodland Habitat Thinning by traditional timber harvest methods and timber-sale contract cutting. ο 650 acres of Woodland Habitat Thinning by cut-and-leave Timber/Wildlife Stand Improvement cutting. ο Conversion of approximately 10 acres of loblolly pine stands to shortleaf pine. ο Construction of approximately 2.4 miles of temporary road and 5 temporary crossings, to be rehabilitated upon completion of the projects. Construction of approximately 1,000 linear feet of levee using on-site material to impound around 5 acres of open-land at the mouth of Prior Creek and the use of the existing structure on the unnamed creek south of Prior Creek to impound approximately 2 acres. Placement of approximately 50 trees per mile (coarse woody debris or CWD) in the channels of Prior Creek, the unnamed creek south of Prior Creek, and in Crockett Creek (approximately 11.5 miles of treatment). Gating approximately 3.25 miles of legal roads, closure and obliteration of around 17 miles of legal and illegal roads (no cemetery access will be restricted). Alternative 3 Reduced rate of upland habitat restoration Alternative 3 was developed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to offer a reduced scale of forest thinning, stream channel stabilization, and road closures in the Prior Creek area. The project area is 6,105 acres and includes only Oak-Grassland Restoration Demonstration and Administrative Land Allocation Prescription areas. 4

5 Construction of a 22-mile, non-motorized, single-track (approximately 18 inches wide), multiple-use, designated trail system (MUT) for hiking, biking and horseback riding within the OGA. Emphasis will be placed on a self-guided trail system for enjoyment and interpretation. Development of a six mile, self-guided auto tour with up to six pull-offs (using existing Roads 201, 174 and 204). Pull-off locations will be approximate during analysis. Construction of a 2-mile, non-motorized, single-track (approximately 18 inches wide) birding trail and up to two accessible observation blinds within Prior Hollow adjacent to the Prior Creek impoundment outlined below. Emphasis will be placed on a self-guided trail system for nature-watching and interpretation. Woodland Habitat thinning (single-tree selection and small group selection) of a maximum 1,250 acres (or 20% of the total project area) of currently closed canopy forest (identified during preliminary analysis) on dry and xeric sites to tree densities consistent with oak-grasslands (a reduction from approximately 100 trees/acre to approximately 50 trees/acre in patches on dry and xeric sites). ο 600 acres of Woodland Habitat Thinning by traditional timber harvest methods and timber-sale contract cutting. ο 650 acres of Woodland Habitat Thinning by cut-and-leave Timber/Wildlife Stand Improvement cutting. ο Conversion of approximately 10 acres of loblolly pine to shortleaf pine. ο Construction of approximately 0.5 miles of temporary road and 2 temporary crossings, to be rehabilitated upon completion of the projects. Construction of approximately 1,000 linear feet of levee using on-site material to impound around 5 acres of open-land at the mouth of Prior Creek and the use of the existing structure on the unnamed creek south of Prior Creek to impound approximately 2 acres. Placement of approximately 50 trees per mile (coarse woody debris or CWD) in the channels of Prior Creek, the unnamed creek south of Prior Creek, and in Crockett Creek (approximately 10 miles of treatment). Gating approximately 3.25 miles of legal roads, closure and obliteration of around 12.5 miles of legal and illegal roads (no cemetery access will be restricted). Public Involvement The IDT of resource specialists conducted scoping. Scoping is the process used to determine the issues and alternatives addressed in the EA, and to identify significant issues related to the proposed action. 5

6 The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) used legal notices, mailings, the LBL website, internal contacts, phone call-ins, and contacts with other agencies to solicit comment and participation in the analysis, ensure opportunities for public involvement and to inform the responsible official of the issues. The key steps included: 1. The proposal was listed in Land Between The Lakes Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning in July, This list is distributed to numerous individuals and organizations. 2. Beginning June 16, 2006, project information was available on the internet at the following website: or 3. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping in June and July Fifteen letters were received. 4. A project update was sent to scoping responders in November, This update was also posted on the NRA website and included a description of the proposed action, comment summaries, preliminary alternatives and potential issues 5. In addition, as part of the public involvement process we attempted to contact each scoping responder via and telephone to discuss their responses to the scoping letter and project updates. We were able to expand the public involvement process by having telephone and/or conversations with six scoping responders during the months of November and December, In compliance with 36 CFR 215, a description of the proposed action and preliminary alternatives were made available for a 30-day Notice and Comment period via a legal notice published in the Paducah Sun, February 19, An electronic version of the legal notice was sent to all scoping responders. Comments were received from five individuals. Comments received were discussed with the IDT and considered in the EA. The comment summary, including Forest Service responses, is located in the project record. 7. In addition to reviewing each of the comments received from the public, the IDT and the responsible official had many discussions about the proposed action and alternatives. This EA is an outcome of those discussions. 8. Consideration of public comment is not intended to be a vote-counting process in which the outcome is determined by majority opinion; however, relative depth of feeling and interest among the public served to provide a general context for decision-making. FONSI Finding Of No Significant Impact After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR ). 6

7 Thus, an environmental impact statement is not needed. I base my finding on the following: 1. My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. 2. There will be no significant effects on the environment, public health, or safety. (EA Chapter 3, pages ) 3. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area because the individual project elements affect such a small percentage of the land base, and each is compatible with ongoing or past activities in this part of the country and within LBL. (See EA, Chapter 1, pages 2-5) 4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. (See the EA, Section 1.6, page 6 and Chapter 3, pages ) 5. We have considerable experience with the types of activities to be implemented. The effects analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. (See the EA, Chapter 1, pages 3-5; Chapter 3, pages ) 6. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects because the project is implementing the 2004 Area Plan. 7. This action will not result in cumulative adverse impacts when considered in combination with other past or reasonably forseeable actions. (See the EA, Chapter 3, pages ) 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 the proposed action employs methods previously used in the past and will not result in any damage to potential undisturbed cultural heritage resources including potential complex members, as noted in the EA, Section 3.1.4, pages 48-52). The action will also not cause loss or destruction of signficant scientific, cultural or historical resources, and may in fact provide a benefit, because of increased visibility and the identified survey protocol. (See EA, Section 3.1.4, pages 48-52) 9. The action will not affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of (See the EA, Section 3.2.2, pages 73-76) A Biological Assessment/ Evaluation resulted in a determination of no effect or not likely to adversely affect any of LBL s Proposed, Endangered, Threatened or Regional Forester s Sensitive species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this finding, which is documented in a letter dated June 18, 2007 and filed in the project record. 7

8 10. The action will not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Carrying out the proposed action in a way that is consistent with the LBL Area Plan will ensure this. Project Design Criteria Design Criteria, many of which pertain specifically to potential impacts of projects of this nature, are hereby incorporated by reference from Chapter 3 of the Area Plan. Best management practices have been in place for many years and are included within the EA by reference. The project level design criteria tier to the Area Plan, were identified in Section 2.2 of the EA, page 18, and are part of this decision. In addition, to help further reduce potential impacts to the resources in response to concerns raised, the following design criteria will also be implemented: If any unanticipated Threatened or Endangered species are located in the project area during project implementation or monitoring, work will be suspended and a biologist will be consulted to determine a course of action. Tree cutting for stream channel stabilization will be conducted in the winter months when bats will not be present. Findings The decision to select Alternative 2 is consistent with the LBL Protection Act of 1998, the designation of LBL as a National Recreation Area, and is consistent with USFS national policy for vegetation and wildlife habitat management. The selected alternative is also consistent with the vision to demonstrate restoration of Oak-Grassland habitats at LBL and increase dispersed recreational and environmental education, as described in the LBL Area Plan and the accompanying Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) dated December of 2004, utilizing the strategies and design criteria as listed therein. The best available science has been considered. Implementation Date If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may not occur for 15 business days following the date of the appeal disposition (36 CFR 215.9). 8

9