Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Transcription

1 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project (under the authority of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act) USDA Forest Service Payette National Forest New Meadows and Council Ranger Districts Adams County, Idaho April 2011 Responsible Official: Michael R. Williams Acting Forest Supervisor Payette National Forest McCall, Idaho (208)

2 BACKGROUND The Payette National Forest proposes to conduct the Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project on National Forest System lands in the New Meadows and Council Ranger Districts in Adams County, Idaho. The project proposes to treat fuels to reduce wildland fire threats to forest resources, adjacent private property and public infrastructure, provide for increased public and firefighter safety, and to restore forest ecosystem health. Rural homes and private property in the Weiser River area are at risk should a crown fire and intense surface fire occur during dry summer conditions. Land ownership in or near the project area also includes Idaho State land, and private properties. The project area is just north of the location of the 2003 Hall Fire, which started on private property and burned 1,792 acres of Forest Service land. The communities of Evergreen and Woodland, Idaho (located within the project area) were designated by the Department of Agriculture as communities of high risk to wildfire (Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 3, January 4, 2001, pp ). The community of Pine Ridge is located approximately one mile north of the project area. Additionally, U.S. Highway 95 and a major power transmission line bisect the project area. Reducing risk to this infrastructure is important to both local and out-lying communities. This project was developed under the authority of P. L , the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L ) contains provisions to expedite hazardous fuels reduction and forest restoration projects on Federal lands that are at-risk of wildland fire and/or insect and disease epidemics. The HFRA aims to streamline the analysis process, thereby reducing the time and expense required to complete hazardous fuels reduction projects. The law provides guidance for developing environmental analyses and alternatives for hazardous fuels projects. For example, only the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives are required to be analyzed. Criteria for projects to be authorized under the HFRA are described in section 102(a) (1)(5). The Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project also implements goals and objectives of the National Fire Plan and the Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan of 2003 (hereafter referred to as the Forest Plan). It also responds to recommendations of the Adams County Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Mitigation Plan of January 26, 2004 (hereafter referred to as the County Mitigation Plan). An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared that documents the analysis and discloses the potential environmental effects of the Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project. This assessment is tiered to the analysis in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for the Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2003) which guides resource management of the Payette National Forest. PROJECT AREA The project area lies southwest of New Meadows, Idaho, and adjacent to the Weiser River - US Highway 95 corridor between Pine Ridge and the Fruitvale - Glendale Road in T18N, R1W, Sections 12, 13, 24, and 25 and T18N, R1E, Sections 6-8, 17-20, 28-32, Boise Meridian (see maps, Attachments 1 & 2 of this document). It covers approximately 6,990 acres, including 163 acres of state land and 493 acres of private lands. The project area is located in Forest Plan Management Area 3 - Weiser River and is currently designated as Management Prescription Category (MPC) Commodity Production Emphasis within Forested Landscapes. The draft Wildlife Conservation Strategy (anticipated to be finalized in late 2011) changes the MPC for the project area to MPC Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Forested 2

3 Landscapes. The silvicultural analyses anticipate this projected change and the effects analyses were completed for both MPC 5.1 and 5.2. PURPOSE and NEED The purpose of the proposed action is to treat forest fuels to reduce the risk of undesirable wildland fires on National Forest System lands near private property, to reduce potential fire behavior by reducing forest fuels, and to maintain areas of lower fire risk. The need for the proposed action is to reduce risk to life, property, fire suppression crews, and other forest resources by reducing hazardous fuels. Current Condition Natural regeneration has created sufficient ladder fuels to allow fire to move from the surface into the crowns of trees. Ladder and surface fuel loadings are at high levels that would result in high fire intensity and tree mortality. Ladder fuels vary in density across the project area from 300 to 800 trees per acre. Surface fuel loadings across the project area range from 4.5 to 15 tons per acre of less than 3-inch (diameter) material that is the primary carrier of fire. Stand densities with tree crowns touching cover approximately 60 percent of the project area and contribute to the risk of crown fires. Fire-resistant overstory trees (ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir) are at greater densities than historically occurred, and a shift in species composition (away from these seral species to more grand fir) also has occurred. Desired Condition The desired condition in the project area is reduced ladder and surface fuel loadings and canopy densities. Canopy densities are reduced to a spacing of approximately feet between tree crowns with an emphasis on retaining the larger tree size classes and old forest structural features, and promoting historical species composition. Ladder fuels are removed from the base of overstory trees and reduced by understory thinning, leaving an estimated 1-8 tons per acre or less in the less than 3-inch (diameter) fuel class following treatment. Surface fuel loading is reduced by a combination of underburning, piling and pile burning, or removal. PROPOSED ACTION The Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project will create and maintain an area of reduced fuel loading and wildfire hazard on National Forest System lands adjacent to private property in the Weiser River area. The proposal is to treat approximately 3,744 (total) acres by commercial thinning and timber harvest, precommercial thinning, and prescribed burning (Attachments 3 & 4). This fuel treatment is designed to reduce the risk of potential wildland fire damage to National Forest resources, private and public property and infrastructure, and increase public safety and the effectiveness and safety of firefighters should wildland fire occur. The proposed action will treat the forest overstory by thinning and removing timber on approximately 1,556 acres using tractor, jammer, skyline, and helicopter outside of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). RCA buffers, based on potential vegetation group (PVG), will be 240 feet on each side of perennial streams and 120 feet on each side of intermittent streams. Timber harvest volume is anticipated to be approximately 6.4 MMBF. These 1,556 thinned and harvested acres also will treat the understory by thinning to reduce stand densities and ladder fuels. The proposed action applies prescribed fire to a total of approximately 3,744 acres (the 1,556 acres treated by commercial and non-commercial thinning and harvesting, and approximately 2,188 additional acres treated by noncommercial understory thinning). A combination of slash treatments, including excavator piling and burning, hand piling and burning, broadcast/underburning, removal, biomass utilization or other methods (depending on site-specific conditions) will be used. Ignitions will be by hand and/or helicopter. Prescribed burns are planned generally for the fall but may occur from early spring to late fall 3

4 when conditions permit. Fire may be applied to tree wells in winter or early spring to reduce fuel accumulation and reduce the potential for tree mortality during broadcast burning. Applications of fire are proposed to occur over the next 15 years, and maintenance burning is proposed every 5-10 years to maintain desirable fuel conditions. All burning will protect, restore, and conserve habitat of migratory birds, will consider noxious and/or invasive plant species, will follow Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and will adhere to air quality regulations. Specifically, vegetation management and fuel reduction treatments are: Overstory Treatments o Commercial Thin-Free Thin (CT-FT) 1,253 acres o Shelterwood with Reserves (SWR) - 24 acres o Commercial Thin/Mature Plantations 279 acres. Harvest Systems Tractor/Jammer acres Tractor 798 acres Jammer acres Skyline - 87 acres Helicopter acres Skid trails and landings will be reclaimed after vegetation management activities are complete, unless retained for future use. Understory Treatment o Non-commercial thinning approximately 3,744 acres. Prescribed Burning o 1,556 acres (treated by commercial and non-commercial thinning) o Approximately 2,188 additional acres (treated by non-commercial understory thinning). Road-related activities include: Road maintenance for timber haul routes on 30.9 miles of road in the project area and 10.4 miles outside the project area. Road reconstruction is planned to re-open 4 miles of existing road in the project area. Maintenance and reconstruction may include blading, rolling dip construction, and brushing. Approximately 1.4 miles of new road construction (in two segments) and 0.1 miles of temporary road construction. Long-term road closure, including scarifying road surfaces, water barring, and removal of stream crossings, will be applied to the 1.4 miles of new road construction. The 0.1 mile temporary road will be decommissioned (obliterated) by ripping compacted road surface, revegetating disturbed areas, placing coarse woody debris for long-term soils productivity and erosion control, and re-contouring after completion of project activities. Decommissioning approximately 6.2 miles of unauthorized road using methods that include: removing culverts, restoring stream banks, ripping compacted road surface, revegetating disturbed areas, placing coarse woody debris for long-term soils productivity and erosion control, and if deemed necessary, re-contouring. 4

5 DECISION On January 13, 2011, the Payette National Forest released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that proposes to amend the 2003 Forest Plan to include a Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WCS) for the Forested Biological Community. A key finding of the WCS environmental analyses is the need to conserve remaining large tree and old forest stands and to promote long-term development of those conditions, particularly in lower elevation pine forests. The draft WCS amendments to the Forest Plan prioritize activities for the next 10 to 15 years to maintain or restore habitat for wildlife species in greatest need of conservation. The WCS also identifies where these activities are needed most. The goal of the WCS is to maintain or restore forested habitats that provide for a diversity of terrestrial wildlife species, consistent with overall multiple-use objectives. The short-term emphasis is on restoring habitats associated with species of greatest concern, such as low- to mid-elevation ponderosa pine forests, which provide white-headed woodpecker habitat. In addition, the WCS proposes to move all forested acres to a restoration emphasis. The volume of timber and other outputs will likely change very little, but the treatment types and locations will adjust to meet these new objectives. The draft WCS amendments to the Forest Plan (hereafter referred to as the draft WCS) are anticipated in late The Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project is undertaken under the authority of HFRA, and the project area is within a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). As such, project activities including mechanical thinning, timber harvest, and prescribed burning could be exempted from the requirements of the draft WCS (USDA Forest Service 2011, pp. 35). However, this project has been designed to be consistent with the scientific analyses on which the draft WCS is based, so an exemption for WUI projects from its requirements is unnecessary. [For more information see Chapter 3, Section , draft Wildlife Conservation Strategy (January 2011)]. Therefore, based on my review of the proposed action with respect to the draft WCS, the environmental effects analyses presented in the Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (EA), and public comments, I have decided to proceed with Alternative B the Proposed Action (described in the EA in Chapter 1, pp. 5-6) and hereafter referred to as the Selected Alternative. The Selected Alternative was designed to respond to the purpose and need described above and in Chapter 1 of the EA, the National Fire Plan, and local, regional, and national priorities to treat at-risk WUI areas. I have reviewed and considered all potential effects, both positive and negative, disclosed in the EA. The EA, specialist reports and project record for the Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project are incorporated by reference. My decision also includes implementation of project Management Requirements (described in the EA in Table 2-1, pp ; Attachment 5 of this document), Mitigation Measures (Table 2-2, pp ; Attachment 6 of this document), and Monitoring Plans (Summary Table 2-3, p. 48; and Appendix G). OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Implementation Date The Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project will begin in mid (calendar year) Commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning, brush disposal, and road decommissioning is anticipated to occur over a 4 year period. Prescribed burning is planned for every 5-15 years following initial application of fire to maintain fuel reduction efforts. Fuel Reduction Treatments Commercial Thin-Free Thinning 5

6 The purpose of commercial thin-free thinning is to improve the health and growth of stands that are denser than desired and where there is a wide range in age, density, or species composition. Free thinning allows flexibility to use different thinning methods for varying stand conditions. Free thinning is accomplished primarily by low thinning (removing trees from the lower crown classes) with some crown thinning (removing trees from the dominant and co-dominant crown classes). Low thinning reduces ladder fuels and lowers canopy bulk densities. Crown thinning separates crowns in the overstory to reduce the risk of crown fires. Free thinning opens the canopy to prevent fire from spreading between crowns by spacing leave trees at approximately feet between crowns. This method also leaves healthier, fire tolerant trees in stands dominated by seral species such as ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch. Small openings of less than two acres may be created in areas that are dominated by grand fir but will not exceed 20 percent of a stand. A minimum of 5-10 trees per acre will be left in all openings. Artificial regeneration is prescribed in patches between one to two acres if no suitable seed trees are present and natural regeneration is not successful. This allows the conversion of small patches that are outside of desired condition for species composition to be converted to seral tree species. Specifications for this treatment are: Seral species (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch, in that order of preference) are favored over non-seral species, and preference is given to larger diameter trees. Healthier trees are favored as leave trees over diseased trees. Trees with higher crown ratios, good form, and other indicators of vitality are favored as leave tress. Trees free of mistletoe are favored over infected trees. When possible, trees with mistletoe rating of class 0-3 are favored over trees with a rating of class 4-6. In some cases, trees of mistletoe rating of class 4-6 are left for wildlife objectives. Trees may have a crown separation of less than feet on a maximum of one quadrant. Where practical, if a group of trees are clumped with no other trees within feet of their crowns, the clump may be treated as one tree and not be thinned. Where feasible, some clumps composed of both commercial trees and non-commercial regeneration are retained for wildlife and visual objectives. Where aspen are present, conifers will be removed within the aspen stand to improve stand integrity. Small patch cuts of less than 0.5 acre will be placed to stimulate aspen regeneration. Shelterwood with Reserves In this silvicultural treatment, some or all shelter trees are retained after regeneration for goals other than regeneration, including large tree and snag recruitment. The larger, more fire resistant ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and western larch will be retained. Approximately trees per acre are left and the stand allowed to naturally regenerate following treatment. Commercial Thin/Plantation This prescription is applied to plantations that are approximately 30 to 40 years old and were planted predominately with ponderosa pine. These older plantations contain larger trees with an average diameter of 11 inches at breast height (dbh) and will have approximately 70 trees per acre (25 feet spacing) after thinning. Thinned material will be lopped, scattered, mechanically removed from the units, hand or excavator piled and burned, or broadcast burned (depending on the slope) to reduce fuel loading. Understory Treatment Understory treatments will occur in areas treated by commercial and non-commercial thinning, in plantations, and in prescribed fire areas. A majority of the fire-resistant tree species will be retained, while generally removing non-seral tree species such as grand fir. Where available on southerly aspects 6

7 in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir dominated stands, an average of one clump per acre of young Douglasfir will be left to provide cover for flammulated owls. Prescribed Burning Prescribed fire is planned for approximately 3,744 acres (1,556 acres treated by commercial and noncommercial thinning, and approximately 2,188 acres by non-commercial understory thinning). A combination of excavator piling and burning, hand piling and burning, broadcast/underburning, removal, diversion of fuels to biomass utilization or other methods, depending on site-specific conditions. Ignitions by hand and/or helicopter. Prescribed burns generally in the fall but may occur from early spring to late fall. Fire may be applied to tree wells in winter or early spring to reduce fuel accumulation and reduce the potential for tree mortality during broadcast burning. Applications of fire over the next 15 years with maintenance burning every 5-10 years to maintain desirable fuel conditions. All burning will: o protect, restore, and conserve habitat of migratory birds; o consider noxious and/or invasive plant species; o follow Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines; o adhere to air quality regulations. Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) Buffers The following RCA widths are used for streams and are based on potential tree height (Forest Plan page B-36): Perennial streams 240-foot slope distance (two site-potential tree heights) from the ordinary high water mark. Intermittent streams 120-foot slope distance (one site-potential tree height) from the ordinary high water mark. Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands foot slope distance (one site-potential tree height) from the ordinary high water mark. No mechanical treatment or prescribed fire ignition will occur within RCAs. However, prescribed fire is permitted to move through RCAs and understory thinning may occur within RCAs. Harvest Systems Tractor harvest systems will be used in areas with road access and slopes less than 45 percent. All tractor skidding will be restricted to designated skid trails. Jammer skidding will be used in portions of tractor units with slopes over 45 percent; jammers will remain on existing roads or designated skid trails. Operators are required to winch logs to the skidders. Feller-buncher operations, mechanical site preparation, and excavator piling operations will only be allowed when soil moisture is below 20 percent (when soil is dry to the touch, and does not form a ball when pressure is applied by hand). Skyline harvest systems will be used where slopes exceed 45 percent or where tractor or jammer harvest systems are not feasible due to potential impacts. Helicopter harvest systems will be used where tractor, jammer, or skyline harvest systems are not feasible due to lack of access from existing roads or designated skid trails. Additional harvest requirements and restrictions are listed in EA Table 2-2, Mitigation Measures (Attachment 6 of this document). 7

8 Activity Fuel Treatment Slash will be hand-piled, jackpot burned, or broadcast burned as determined by the Payette National Forest Central Zone Fire Management Officer (FMO), West Zone FMO and the New Meadows and / or Council District Rangers. In tractor units, brush disposal will be done by lop and scatter, chunking, excavator piling and burning, jackpot burning, broadcast burning, removing brush for biomass utilization, whole-tree yarding, or yarding of tops. Chip piles will not be left on landings. Underburning may occur to reduce activity-generated fuel loading where low fire intensity could be prescribed. To reduce detrimental soil disturbance, slash piles will be placed in previously disturbed areas if coarse woody debris requirements are met. Excavators will be used only when soil moisture is less than 20 percent. Firewood gathering is permitted in the project area. Slash piles will be available to the public for firewood until burned. Road Management and Decommissioning The 2003 Gaylord North Project Record of Decision (ROD) authorized the decommissioning of approximately 7.9 miles of road (pending availability of implementation funding) within the Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project Area. Decommissioning of these roads is not included as part of the Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project Decision. The Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project proposes to decommission approximately 6.2 miles of unauthorized roads. Methods to be used include removing culverts, restoring stream banks, ripping compacted road surface, revegetating disturbed areas, placing coarse woody debris for long-term soils productivity and erosion control, and if deemed necessary, re-contouring. For timber haul, road maintenance will occur on approximately 30.9 miles within the project area and 10.4 miles outside the project area. Road reconstruction will occur on 4 miles within the project area. There will be approximately 1.4 miles of new road construction and 0.1 miles of temporary road construction. The 1.4 miles of new road construction will be closed to public use after project activities with long term road closure actions including scarifying the road surface, water barring, and removal of stream crossings. The 0.1 mile temporary road constructed will be decommissioned (obliterated) by ripping compacted road surface, revegetating disturbed areas, placing coarse woody debris for long-term soils productivity and erosion control, and re-contouring after completion of project activities. Permitted Livestock Grazing Management Specific actions and precautions will be taken to minimize effects on permitted livestock grazing, as specified in the Mitigation Measures (Table 2-2 of the EA, pp ; Attachment 6 of this document). These include: coordinating with Fire Management during prescribed burning activities. Insuring that permittees are informed of prescribed burning plans and areas prior to implementation; protecting range improvements within project area. Specifically, maintenance of a fence running from Beaver Creek to Edmonton s Property (should project activities knock down a portion of fence, it will be put back in functioning order); installing at least a 16 foot permanent cattle guard near existing corral to minimize livestock dispersal; insuring that a passable route (approximately 24 inches wide) free of large wood, and other obstructions remains on the decommissioned road segments in Section 18 to allow for livestock herding and movement (on 3 segments of road proposed for decommissioning); 8

9 identifying an alternative log landing that is not adjacent to an existing corral in the northern portion of the project area. If a suitable alternative cannot be located, insure that the spring box and pipe above the corral are not impacted by timber harvest and thinning activities at the landing. In addition, the EA identified a segment (0.2 miles) of road (on the northeast border of the project area) for conversion to an ATV trail. Under this decision, this road segment will not be converted to an ATV trail and instead will remain in as-is on-the-ground condition, designated as closed on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), and still included on the forest road system inventory. Its occasional use by ATVs by grazing allotment permittees and Forest Service range staff only for livestock grazing allotment management activities and permitted livestock passage will be authorized by specific grazing permits, allotment management plans (AMPs), annual operating instructions (AOIs) and/or special use permits. RATIONALE FOR DECISION The Selected Alternative best meets the project s purpose and need (EA Chapter 1, p. 9), objectives (EA Chapter 1, pp. 9-10), and best responds to key issues (EA Chapter 1, pp ). It will not result in significant adverse environmental effects as documented in the EA and project record, and will not hinder or prevent attainment of desired conditions, standards, guidelines and indicators specified by the Forest Plan. Also, I have considered the information in the draft Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WCS) and possible amendments to the Forest Plan resulting from it. A key finding of the draft WCS is the need to conserve remaining large tree and old forest stands and promote development of these conditions in the future, particularly those in lower elevation pine forests. Historically within the project area, stand replacing fires were rare and generally limited to smaller scale patches of fire-intolerant tree species. Frequent, less severe fires, while occurring at larger spatial scales, generally would kill the smaller and less fire-adapted trees such as grand fir leaving the larger, more fireresistant trees (with the tallest crowns and thickest bark) intact and more widely spaced. The community of Pine Ridge is located approximately one mile north of the project area. The communities of Evergreen and Woodland, Idaho (located within the project area) were designated by the Department of Agriculture as communities of high risk to wildfire (Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 3, January 4, 2001, pp ). Additionally, U.S. Highway 95 and a major power transmission line bisect the project area. Reducing risk to this infrastructure is important to both local and out-lying communities. Other Alternatives Analyzed in Detail In addition to the Selected Alternative, I considered Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, described in the EA, Chapter 2 (pp. 9-10). As stated in the Background section, this project qualifies for authorization under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of Under HFRA, authorized projects are not required to analyze alternatives beyond the Proposed Action. However, the EA fully analyzed the Proposed Action and No Action to better compare the effects of implementing the proposed action with that of taking no action. The consequences of Alternative A - No Action would be continued risk of intense stand-replacing fires due to higher stand densities and dead fuel accumulation in excess of historical levels. The desired fireresilient forest ecosystem could be lost entirely, and risk to public and private property and infrastructure and firefighter and public safety would continue to be at increased risk (and likely would increase over time). 9

10 Under Alternative A, no fuels reduction and wildfire risk reduction in the WUI would be implemented. I did not select Alternative A because it would not reduce fuels and fire risk to forest resources, private property and public infrastructure, and public and firefighter safety, and it would not move the project area toward desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan. Other Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail Two other alternatives were considered in the EA but not analyzed in detail. Prescribed Burning Only No Commercial or Pre-commercial Timber Harvest Primarily based on public scoping comments expressing concerns about mechanical vegetation treatments, the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team considered an alternative that included no mechanical vegetation removal and only prescribed burning to reduce fuels in the project area. Fire behavior modeling (under moderate burning conditions) predicted high levels of tree mortality in all species and structural stages due to the large amount of ladder fuels in the understory and surface fuel loading. Without mechanical removal of ladder fuels prior to prescribed burning, predicted fire effects of this alternative were not acceptable given the risk to private property, private structures, and firefighter exposure and safety. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from further analysis. Timber Harvest within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) Public comments submitted during scoping also expressed concerns about the apparent lack of vegetative management within RCAs. The ID Team considered an alternative that included timber harvest within the RCA buffer areas as well as throughout the project area. Although mechanical treatment in RCAs would reduce fuels and provide more continuous fuel reduction across the project area, it likely would not result in additional benefits to water quality, fish habitat, or soil productivity. This alternative was dismissed from further analysis because of potential inconsistencies with the following Forest Plan Standards: SWST01 (page III-21) Management actions shall be designed in a manner that maintains or restores water quality to fully support beneficial uses and native and desired non-native fish species and their habitat SWST04 (page III-22) Management actions will neither degrade nor retard attainment of properly functioning soils, water, riparian, and aquatic desired conditions except: a) Where outweighed by demonstrable short- or long-term benefits to watershed resource conditions. Public and Tribal Involvement Public involvement for the Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project was initiated in February 2005 with a request to the public to submit issues and concerns about the proposed action. Letters were sent to 228 interested citizens, organizations, agencies, and adjacent landowners. A legal notice requesting scoping comments on the proposed action was published in the Idaho Statesman (of Boise, Idaho) on April 25, The Forest Service received responses from seven parties. The interdisciplinary team (ID team) analyzed the scoping comments for issues and alternative development and to help focus the analysis in Chapter 3. Forest Service responses to those comments are located in Appendix A of the EA. Notification of two public meetings also was included in the letters and the legal notice. Public meetings were held on May 8, 2007 in Council, Idaho, and May 9, 2007, in New Meadows, Idaho to provide additional information and address public issues and concerns. Three individuals attended the public meetings. 10

11 The Forest Service conducted a public field trip to the project area on October 16, Nine interested members of the public attended. Scoping comment and consultation request letters were sent to the Nez Perce and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes on April 24, The consultation request form from the Nez Perce Tribe was returned indicating Low Priority Watershed for Tribal concerns at this time - no meeting necessary. Shoshone- Paiute tribal leaders were briefed on the project in Wings and Roots Program government-to-government consultation meetings on May 16, 2007, September 27, 2007, October 14, 2010, and December 9, In these meeting the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation expressed its desire that wildlife (as well as all living things) be considered in such projects (lest too much thinning occur) and had no further comments or concerns. The Nez Perce Tribe also was briefed in quarterly technical staff-tostaff meetings on Nov. 18, 2009 and Feb. 8, The EA was released to the public on March 3, 2011 with publication of a legal notice announcing the start of the 30-day objection period under HFRA and mailing of copies to the seven parties with standing to object. The EA also was posted to the Payette National Forest (public) website. Copies of the EA also were mailed to the Nez Perce Tribe (per request in the quarterly technical staff-to-staff meetings that have been ongoing since Nov. 2009). Five grazing allotment permittees engaged in permitted livestock grazing activities within the project area also were sent copies of the completed EA. Previously, on Feb. 9, 2011, the New Meadows District Ranger and range management staff met with grazing permittees. Their comments and concerns, primarily related to the desire for prior notification of project activities during implementation, decommissioning of specific road segments, and potential project effects on range improvements, were incorporated as project Mitigation Measures in the EA (Table 2-2, pp ; Attachment 6 of this document). OBJECTIONS The 30-day objection period ended April 4, No objections were received. 11

12 FINDING of NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) I evaluated the effects of the project relative to the definition of significance established by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) As required by the CEQ regulations, I considered both context and intensity in making my decision. I have reviewed and considered all potential effects, both positive and negative, disclosed in the Weiser River Fuels Reduction Environmental Assessment (EA) and project record for the Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project which is incorporated by reference herein. I have concluded that that the Selected Alternative will not have a significant effect on the human environment. For this reason, no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared. My conclusion is based on the best available and most relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and potential risk. This determination is based on the following factors, as outlined in 40 CFR Context The Selected Alternative will be limited in geographic application [40 CFR (a)]. Activities associated with my decision will be confined to the project area described in the EA and will be limited to those actions disclosed in this document and its appendices. Further, my decision is consistent with the management area prescription, desired future conditions, and 2003 Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) standards specified for the area (EA, Chapter 1). Intensity 1. My decision would not result in any significant effects. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial [40 CFR (b)(1)]. The context of proposed action was reviewed with respect to society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, affected interests, and the locality. It is my decision that the severity of the negative impacts resulting from the Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project is minor. The only temporary (0-3 years) to short-term (3-15 years) negative impacts for gaining a long-term (greater than 15 years) benefit are the potential for temporary increases in sediment associated with timber harvest and thinning, prescribed burning, and road management actions (including road decommissioning), and short-term effects on wildlife habitat due to vegetation management activities. Temporary to short-term effects of sediment delivery will be minimized due to the application of fisheries and soil and water project management requirements and mitigation measures (EA, Chapter 2, Table 2-1, pp ; Attachment 5 of this document: and Table 2-2, pp ; Attachment 6 of this document). Temporary and short-term impacts to wildlife will be minimized through application of timing restrictions and other wildlife project design features (EA, Chapter 2, Table 2-1, pp ; Attachment 5 of this document: and Table 2-2, pp ; Attachment 6 of this document). Negative temporary and short-term impacts are not expected to affect population viability (EA, Chapter 3.6). Road decommissioning may reduce firewood cutting, thus contributing to snag retention (EA, Chapter 3 - Section 3.6, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, p. 126). 2. The Selected Alternative would not result in substantial effects on public health or safety [40 CFR (b)(2)]. Public health will be protected by keeping emissions expected from prescribed burning to a level below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Smoke may be noticeable particularly during the morning hours, but the effects will be short lived (several hours to several days) and within the Clean Air Act standards. Burning will be coordinated with the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group Smoke Monitoring Unit and will not be conducted when smoke dispersion is forecasted to be inadequate. 12

13 Impacts of increased road use on forest visitors associated with the period of hauling activities will be managed through appropriate signing warning forest visitors of harvest activities, and where necessary by restricting log hauling during high use recreation periods. 3. My decision would not result in any significant effects on any unique characteristics of the geographic area, historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas [40 CFR (b)(3)]. Cultural resource inventories have identified 14 historic properties within the proposed project boundary. The Forest Archaeologist completed and submitted a cultural resource inventory and report to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for review and response. Concurrence of a No Adverse Effect determination was received on June 1, Management requirements, mitigation measures and standard contract provisions will protect these and potential newly-discovered cultural sites/historic properties (EA, Chapter 2, Table 2-1, p. 38; Attachment 5 of this document). Wetlands are protected through management requirements and mitigation measures planned to protect soil and water quality (EA, Chapter 2, Table 2-1, pp ; Attachment 5 of this document: and Table 2-2, pp ; Attachment 6 of this document). Design of treatments and units exclude RCAs and wet areas from equipment entry. There are no parklands, wild and scenic rivers, prime farmlands, or ecologically critical areas within the project area. 4. The Selected Alternative would not result in any effects that are likely to be highly controversial [40 CFR (b)(4)]. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial is considered to be low. Common issues of controversy associated with past Payette National Forest (PNF) projects that involve vegetation management include impacts on large tree structure and associated wildlife habitat, soil productivity, and road management actions that change public access or have negative impacts on water quality and fish habitat. A key finding of the draft WCS is the need to conserve remaining large tree and old forest stands particularly those in lower elevation pine forests. Fuels treatments in the Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project will promote large tree and old forest conditions and wildlife habitat in the long term (EA, Chapter 3, p. 71). Old forests, as defined in the draft WCS, are generally not present in the project area. The project is consistent with the scientific basis and intent of the draft WCS and potential amendments likely to be incorporated into the Forest Plan in late Impacts on soil productivity have been analyzed and management requirements and mitigation measures are included to protect and maintain soil productivity. Road decommissioning (approximately 6.2 miles) will restore soil productivity on approximately 18.3 acres and reduce the amount of the project area in a total soil resource commitment condition from approximately 5.3 percent to 5 percent (EA, Chapter 3 - Section 3.5 Soil Productivity, p. 104). In addition, road decommissioning can be expected to result in long-term overall improvements in water quality, fisheries and aquatic habitat. 5. The effects associated with the Selected Alternative would not result in any highly uncertain, unique, or unknown risks [40 CFR (b)(5)]. My decision will not have effects that are highly uncertain or involve unknown risks. Activities included in this decision have been implemented on the Forest in the past in similar terrain and forest conditions. This project can be considered a routine project for the PNF. While any action carries some degree of 13

14 risk, the proposed action was designed and the analysis summarized in the EA was carefully completed to minimize unique or other risks. In addition, the PNF implementation procedures for timber sales, including sale preparation, administration (stewardship or timber sale contracts), and prescribed burn plans will ensure that the effects will be similar to those predicted in the EA. The effects on the human environment of implementing this project are not expected to be highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks (Chapter 3 of the EA, resource specialist reports). Project management requirements and mitigation measures (EA, Chapter 2, Table 2-1, pp ; Attachment 5 of this document: and Table 2-2, pp ; Attachment 6 of this document) have been developed to ensure that adverse effects to the human environment are reduced or eliminated, and monitoring has been included to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness (EA, Appendix G). 6. My decision does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor does it represent a decision in principle about a future consideration [40 CFR (b)(6)]. The Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project is a site-specific project that does not set precedence for future actions or represent a decision in principle about future considerations. Any proposed future project must be evaluated on its own merits and effects. 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 [40 CFR (b)(7)]. For an action to contribute to cumulative effects there must be an additive or interactive effect. The cumulative effects of the project alternatives and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA and in the resource specialist reports in the project record. The EA discloses that there will be no significant cumulative impacts by implementing the Selected Alternative (EA, Chapter 3, Environmental Effects discussion under each resource section; and Appendix F). 8. My decision would not adversely affect sites or objects listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, nor would it cause the loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historic resources [40 CFR (b)(8)]. As stated in #3 above, cultural resource inventories have identified 14 historic properties within the proposed project boundary. The Forest Archaeologist completed and submitted a cultural resource inventory and report to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for review and response. Concurrence of a No Adverse Effect determination was received on June 1, Management requirements, mitigation measures and standard contract provisions will protect these and potential newly-discovered cultural sites/historic properties (EA, Chapter 2, Table 2-1, p. 38; Attachment 5 of this document). No significant scientific resources will be impacted with my decision. 9. My decision would not adversely affect threatened or endangered species or their habitats [40 CFR (b)(9)]. No threatened or endangered animal or plant species will be adversely affected by my decision. No threatened, endangered, or proposed wildlife species have been observed in the project area. No known threatened, endangered, candidate, or proposed plant or fish species occur in the project area. A Biological Evaluation was completed for Fisheries on June 6, 2007 with a no effect determination. A Biological Evaluation was completed for Sensitive Plants on December 14, 2010 with a no effect determination for all species with the exception of Bank Monkeyflower. A may affect but is not likely to contribute to a trend toward Federal listing was made for Bank Monkeyflower. A Biological 14

15 Scanned Signature 15

16 ATTACHMENT 1 Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project Vicinity Map. 16

17 ATTACHMENT 2 Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project Area. 17

18 ATTACHMENT 3 Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project - Treatment Areas 18

19 ATTACHMENT 4 Weiser River Fuels Reduction Project - Road Management 19

20 ATTACHMENT 5 Management Requirements (EA Table 2-1). Management Requirements Soil and Water Management actions shall be designed in a manner that maintains or restores water quality to fully support beneficial uses and native and desired non-native fish species and their habitat (Forest Plan p. III-21, SWST01). Apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) as described in Soil and Water Conservation Practices, to all ground disturbing activities (Appendix F, Water Quality Specialist Report; Forest Plan p. III-18, FSM 2530, FSH / Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook USDA Forest Service 1988). In activity areas where current conditions for DD are less than 15 percent, maintain detrimental disturbance levels at 15 percent or less within activity areas following completion of proposed activities. In activity areas where current conditions for DD are greater than 15 percent, move detrimental disturbance levels toward 15 percent following the completion of proposed activities. (Forest Plan p. III-21, SWST02, FSH ). Apply mitigation and restoration measures within the activity area so that total soil resource commitment levels are moved back toward 5 percent or less following completion of the activities (Forest Plan p. III-21, SWST03). Neither degrade nor retard attainment of properly functioning soil, water, riparian, and aquatic desired conditions except where outweighed by demonstrable short or long-term benefits to watershed resource conditions or where the Forest Service has limited authority (such as access roads) (Forest Plan p. III-22, SWST04, FSH 2520). Objective Design and implement management programs and plans that will restore water quality and watershed function to support beneficial uses. Reduce or minimize effects of management activities on soil and water resources. Maintain the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soils to support desired vegetation conditions and soil-hydrologic functions and processes within watersheds. Limit the extent of soil committed to non-productive land uses, such as roads and landings, to the minimum necessary for Forest management. Maintain soil productivity and ecological processes where functioning properly, and restore where currently degraded. Maintain surface and ground water in streams, lakes, wetlands, and meadows to support healthy riparian and aquatic habitats; stability and effective function of stream channels; and downstream uses. Restore and maintain flow regimes sufficient to create and sustain soilhydrologic and water quality conditions; and riparian, aquatic and wetland habitat; and to achieve patterns of sediment, nutrient, and large woody debris routing within their inherent range of capability. Implementation Mechanism Project design specifications, mitigation measures specifications, mitigation measures specifications, mitigation measures Project design, contract specifications, mitigation measures 20

21 Management Requirements Conduct field verification to delineate perennial and intermittent streams, seeps, springs, and bogs for riparian and wetland buffers (FSM 2520). Conduct site-specific analysis or field verification where predictive models were used to identify areas prone to landslide in areas where proposed project activities may substantially alter soil-hydrologic processes. Design management actions to avoid the potential for triggering landslides (Forest Plan p. III- 23, SWST12). Do not authorize storage of fuels and other toxicants or refueling within RCAs unless there are no other alternatives. Storage of fuels and other toxicants or refueling sites within RCAs shall be approved by the responsible official and have an approved spill containment plan commensurate with the amount of fuel (Forest Plan p. III-22, SWST11). Wildlife Report immediately to ing Officer, Sale, District Ranger, and/or Forest Biologist any sightings of threatened or endangered wildlife species in the project area during management activities Maintain or restore forest vegetation in each PVG in each watershed (5th field hydrologic unit) to at least 20 percent large tree size class (Forest Plan p. III-26, WIST01). Implement temporary, seasonal, or permanent area and transportation route closures through special orders to address big game vulnerability and public access needs. Coordinate closures with appropriate state agencies, other federal agencies, and tribal governments (Forest Plan p. III-26, WIOB12). Mitigate management actions within known nesting or denning sites of MIS or Sensitive species if those actions would disrupt the reproductive success of those sites during the nesting or denning period (Forest Plan p. III-27, WIST03). In goshawk territories with known active nest stands, identify alternate and replacement nest stands during project-level planning when it is determined that the proposed activity is likely to degrade nest stand habitat (Forest Plan p. III-27, WIST05). Objective Ensure protection of riparian areas and wetlands. Avoid altering vegetation or hydrologic conditions on landslide prone areas and increasing probability of slope failure. Reduce potential for fuel spills that could affect fish or habitat. Prevent disturbance to threatened or endangered wildlife species. Provide denning, nesting, and foraging habitat. Reduce big game vulnerability. Maintain or improve habitat for MIS or sensitive species. Maintain or improve goshawk habitat on the forest. Implementation Mechanism Level II Riparian Inventory mapping to determine flow regime. Timber sale layout will further verify flow regime and delineations and determine project design. Project design, mitigation measures Project design, contract specifications Endangered Species Act provisions, sale contract, stewardship contract, service contract Project design Project design Project design Project design 21