Butternut Seed Orchard Project Decision...

Finger Lakes National Forest

Decision Memo- Butternut Seed Orchard

Decision Memorandum

Butternut Seed Orchard Project Decision Memo

USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Finger Lakes National Forest

Hector Ranger District

Town of Hector, Schuyler County, New York

Information Contact:

William Brendecke

Natural Resources Specialist


(607) 546-4470 ext.311

Responsible Official:

Jodie Vanselow

District Ranger


(607) 546-4470 ext. 314

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint

of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202)

720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.



I. SUMMARY

As District Ranger for the Hector Ranger District of the Finger Lakes National Forest

(FLNF), I am authorizing the implementation of the planting of about 100 black walnut

(Juglans nigra) seedlings grafted with butternut (Juglans cinerea) scions that show resistance

to butternut canker and the construction of fencing to protect the seedlings in order to

establish a Butternut Seed Orchard on about 1.5 acres of land managed by the USDA Forest

Service. The project is located on the National Forest System (NFS) land in the Town of

Hector, Schuyler County, New York on the Hector Ranger District of the FLNF (see

Appendix A). The orchard would be located within Compartment 8, Stand 102. This area is

called “Cook Grassland for Wildlife” and is about 39 acres and is classified as a Grassland

for Wildlife; the proposed location is adjacent to Schuyler County Route 1 (Searsburg Road).

II. DECISION TO BE IMPLEMENTED

A. Background and Project Area

Butternut, also known as white walnut, is a native hardwood related to black walnut and is an

important tree to natural ecological communities in New York State. The nuts are preferred food

for squirrels and other wildlife. Butternut nuts and sugar sap were collected and eaten by Native

Americans and early settlers, and the tree was believed to possess medicinal properties. Early

settlers valued the tree because the wood was easy to work with. Butternut trees have been dying

on National Forest Service land and in New York State since the butternut canker disease

(Sirococcus calvigignenti-juglandacearum) was introduced into this country about 40 years ago.

The continued presence of butternut on the landscape is essential to the health and diversity of

New York State’s forests. Other National Forests in the Eastern Region, along with state entities,

have been successful in creating butternut seed orchards composed of grafted seedlings of

butternut canker resistant individuals.

The grafted seedlings we wish to plant come from New York trees that were selected because

they exhibit some resistance to the butternut canker which is killing most butternut trees in the

eastern United States. Scions cut from these trees in January of 2013 will be grafted onto black

walnut rootstock and will be grown in a Forest Service nursery in Wisconsin. After the initial

establishment phase in the Wisconsin nursery, grafted trees will be transferred to the orchard and

planted. It is hoped that, by establishing the orchard, these planted, resistant trees will pollinate

each other in the fenced orchard and produce seeds that can grow trees that are even more

resistant to the butternut canker. In time, these seeds and trees could be used to reintroduce

resistant trees to their native range in an effort to restore butternut back into the ecosystem of

New York.



The location of the planting site is within the Cook Grassland for Wildlife (FLNF Forest Plan

Management Area 1.2). The Cook Grassland for Wildlife area in Hector has a land use history of

former agricultural use. During the Great Depression, much of the land surrounding Cook

Grassland for Wildlife was abandoned and turned over to the government under the Resettlement

Administration Act. Cook Grassland for Wildlife has been maintained by the FLNF as a

grassland through periodic mowing and prescribed fire since 2002 when the FLNF acquired the

property. The grassland is adjacent to private land along the South, East, and West. The majority

of this land has recently been in or is maintained in agricultural use. The area to the North is a

mixed deciduous forest with a Hemlock gorge running West – East through the forest.

B. Purpose and Need

Butternut is a relatively short lived tree species that is at risk of being functionally extirpated

from New York’s forest by butternut canker. Retaining butternut as a component of our forests is

important because it provides food for wildlife, increases species diversity and contributes to

ecosystem resiliency. Right now, we have the opportunity to restore butternuts to the landscape;

this opportunity is fleeting, however, because many of the resistant butternuts are already

entering a natural phase of decline and conditions are not conducive to natural regeneration. As

the trees continue to age, it will become increasingly difficult to identify and collect scions from

vigorous, canker resistant individuals. The Butternut Seed Orchard will be established as part of

a multi-state effort to reintroduce butternuts to the landscape and will provide vital seed for

restoration efforts. We will be partnering with New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation the New York Nut Growers Association and private landowners to maximize the

genetic diversity planted in the seed orchard.

Effort has already been exerted to identify true butternuts that display canker resistance; Forest

Service employees have identified butternuts displaying canker resistance, collected branches,

and sent the branches for genetic testing at Notre Dame. If this project were not implemented, we

would fail to capture the benefit from this previous input of time and resources. Furthermore,

failure to implement this decision would place the FLNF and New York State at a significant

disadvantage for retaining butternut as a component of the natural forest community because

there would not be a locally available seed source for canker resistant butternuts.

Cook Grassland for Wildlife was selected as the location for the butternut plantation because it is

within the historical range of the butternut and Schuyler County Soil Surveys indicate that the

soil conditions are favorable for the establishment range of a butternut seed orchard. The Cook

Grassland for Wildlife is also located adjacent to County Route 1 which means it is readily

accessible for monitoring, maintenance, and education.

Establishing a butternut orchard supports Forest Plan Goals 2, 6, and 9. Creation of a butternut

seed orchard will restore butternut to the FLNF ecosystem, which will “restore quality, amount,

and distribution of habitats to produce viable and sustainable populations of native and desirable



non-native plants and animals” (Goal 2). It will also “protect rare or outstanding biological [and]

ecological areas” on the FLNF (Goal 6). Finally, it will “demonstrate innovative, ecologically

sound management practices that can be applied to other lands” (Goal 9) and “provide

opportunities for public education on Forest Service management practices” (Goal 9 Objective

1).

Furthermore, the creation of a butternut seed orchard supports Forest Plan Standard 2.3.10

Standard 5 and Forest Plan Guideline 2.3.8 “Rare and Unique Biological Features” Guideline 1.

The Butternut Seed Orchard will result in the “reintroduction of a native plant species” where

local source of seed has been eliminated and will occur in conjunction with cooperation from

research and breeding agencies in the Forest Service (Standard 5). The Butternut Seed Orchard

will also be a silvicultural approach to managing a non-native pest (Guideline 1).

Butternut canker is unique because its destruction of butternut is not total; some butternuts have

shown resistance and ability to recover from the canker. Unlike with other trees afflicted with

non-native forest pests, there is reason to hope that butternuts can be reintroduced to the forest in

a cost effective and sustainable fashion. The time frame for this unique opportunity, however, is

limited, as butternut is a short-lived, early successional species that is declining in the forest

setting as land use patterns change. If we fail to act now, our opportunity to restore butternut to

the Finger Lakes National Forest will be severely diminished.

C. Description of Decision

My decision is to allow the planting of 100 black walnut seedlings grafted with twigs from about

30 different butternuts that appear to be resistant to butternut canker on roughly 1 ½ acres in a

portion of the Cook Grassland for Wildlife which is roughly 39 acres. Implementation is

expected beginning in May of 2013.

Before outplanting nursery stock, a 1.5 acre fence will be constructed. Prior to planting the ~100

planting locations will be identified within the 1.5 acre fence on a ~20ft by ~20ft spacing. On an

as needed basis the interior and a zone around the fence will be mowed to ensure adequate

growing conditions for the butternut-grafted black walnut seedlings. After planting mulch mats

may be used to inhibit encroaching vegetation upon the planted seedlings.

The fence around the trees will be maintained long enough to keep deer from browsing on the

tops or rubbing the young bark off. My hope is that these trees will cross pollinate and produce

seeds which will produce trees even more resistant to butternut canker. The site may be

maintained indefinitely and may be part of a multi-state/agency and Forest Service cooperative

effort.



This decision includes implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring requirements

identified in Appendix A of this Decision Memo. This decision is based upon an environmental

analysis conducted by Forest Service personnel. This information is located in the project

planning record located at the Hector Ranger District office.

III. REASONS FOR CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDING THE DECISION

Decisions may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment

(EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) when they are within one of the categories of

actions found at 36 CFR 220.6 (d) or (e), and there are no extraordinary circumstances related to

the decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative environmental effect.

A. Category of Exclusion

Based upon the environmental analysis included in the project planning record and on experience

with similar activities on the FLNF, I have concluded that this decision can be appropriately

categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS. I have

determined that the selected action is a routine activity within the following category of

exclusion found at 36 CFR 220.6 (e) (5): “Regeneration of an area to native tree species,

including site preparation that does not involve the use of herbicides, or result in vegetation type

conversion. Examples include but are not limited to … Planting seedlings of superior worth in a

progeny test site to evaluate genetic worth.”

B. Relationship to Extraordinary Circumstances

Resource conditions that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary

circumstances related to the proposed action warrant further analysis and documentation in an

EA or EIS may be found at 36 CFR 220.6(b)(1). The degree of any potential effect from the

proposed action associated with these resource conditions determines whether extraordinary

conditions exist. The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not

preclude use of a categorical exclusion.

I have considered the potential effects from the project associated with the resource conditions

listed at 36 CFR 220.6(b)(1), and conclude that there are no extraordinary circumstances related

to the decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative effect on the quality of

the human environment. My conclusion is based on information presented in this document and

the entirety of the project planning record. A summary of the project’s potential effects on each

resource condition is as follows.

1. Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat, Species

Proposed for Federal Listing or Proposed Critical Habitat, or Forest Service Sensitive

Species. None of the above species or conditions are present at the project location.



2. Floodplains, Wetlands, or Municipal Watersheds The project does not incur degradation to

any floodplains, wetlands or municipal watersheds.

3. Congressionally Designated Areas, such as Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, or National

Recreation Areas

Wilderness:

There is no designated Wilderness on the FLNF.

Wilderness Study Areas:

There are no congressionally designated Wilderness Study Areas on the FLNF.

National Recreation Areas:

There are no National Recreation Areas on the FLNF

4. Inventoried Roadless Areas or Potential Wilderness Areas

There are no inventoried Roadless areas on the FLNF

5. Existing and Candidate Research Natural Areas

There are no existing or candidate Research Natural Areas (Forest Plan, pp 60-62) within or

directly adjacent to the project area. This project, with effects limited to the immediate area

of activity, will have no effects associated with any existing or candidate Research Natural

Area resource.

6. American Indian and Alaska Native Religious or Cultural Sites

See Item 7 below.

7. Archeological Sites, or Historical Properties or Areas

There is a historic archeological site in the vicinity, but by design there will no effect to or

cultural resources that occur within the project boundary. This project as described will have

no effect to this resource.

C. Other Resources

In addition to resource conditions that could lead to extraordinary circumstances, I have also

considered the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to other resources such as soil, water,

fisheries, visuals, recreation, and vegetation. The project is not expected to result in any adverse

effects associated with these resources, particularly all applicable Forest Plan standards and

guidelines will be implemented. (Communication with Resource Specialists at Small Projects

Day 11/8/2011)

IV. Public Involvement



This project was listed in the quarterly Finger Lakes National Forest Schedule of Proposed

Actions (SOPA) beginning in January 2012 and will remain in the SOPA until the project is

authorized for implementation.

Public involvement included sending proposed action to the Town of Hector, New York

Department of Conservation (NYDEC) and John and Sue Gregoire. NYDEC and John Gregoire

both supported the project. Telephone and email communication has occurred to the New York

Nut Growers association in regards to the project. All contacted parties and individuals have

given support of the project. In addition, legal notice was posted in the Ithaca Journal on July

19th

, 2012.

In addition, there has been close communication with the Forest Service Regional 9 Regional

Geneticist, Paul Berrang, since the conception of this project; he has provided all aspects of

technical assistance. Carrie Sweeney, Nursery Manager at Oconto Seed Orchard in White Lake,

WI has also been involved with the planning and scheduling of this project

No external issues have been identified. This project was also internally reviewed by Forest

Service Staff and no concerns have been raised or additional input requiring change to the

original proposal list in SOPA.

V. FINDING REQUIRED BY OR RLEATED TO OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

My decision will comply with all applicable laws and regulations. I have summarized some

pertinent laws and regulations in this section.

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires public involvement and consideration

of environmental effects. The entirety of documentation for this decision supports compliance

with this Act.

Forest Consistency (National Forest Management Act)

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires development of long-range land and

resource management plans, and that all site-specific project activities to be consistent with

direction in the plans. The FLNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was

completed and approved in 2006 as required by the NFMA and provides direction for all

management activities on the Forest. The Butternut Seed Orchard Project implements the Forest

Plan and its consideration is guided by direction for the Grassland for Wildlife Management

Area. (Forest Plan, pp. 44-45)

My decision is based on the best available science, including a review of the record that shows a

thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing

views, and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific



uncertainty, and risk. As required by the NFMA Section 1604(i), I find this project to be

consistent with the Forest Plan including goals, objectives, desired future conditions, and Forest-

wide Management Areas standards and guidelines.

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act requires that federal activities do not jeopardize the continued

existence of any species federally listed or proposed as threatened or endangered, or result in

adverse modification to such species’ designated critical habitat. In accordance with Section 7©

of this Act, a report of the listed and proposed, threatened or endangered species that may be

present in the project area was reviewed. See Section III, Item B.1 of this decision document.

Clean Water Act

The intent of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of waters. The Forest

Service complies with this Act through Forest Plan standards and guidelines, specific project

design criteria, and mitigation measures to ensure protection of soil and water resources.

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)

Executive Order 11990 directs the agency to avoid to the extent possible the adverse impacts

associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands, and to avoid support of new

construction in wetlands whenever there is a practical alternative. See Section III, Item B.2 of

this decision document.

Floodplains (Executive Order 11988)

Executive Order 11988 directs the agency to avoid to the extent possible the adverse impacts

associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid support of

floodplain development wherever there is a practical alternative. See Section III, Item B.2 of this

decision document

Wilderness Act

The Wilderness Act established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of

federally owned land designated by Congress as “wilderness areas”. These areas are

administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave

them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The Act as provides for the

protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for gathering and

disseminating information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness. See section III, Item

B.3 of this decision document

National Trails System Act



The purpose of the National trails System Act includes the designation of the Appalachian

National Scenic Trail to help institute a national system of trails for the ever-increasing outdoor

recreation needs of an expanding population. It also promotes the preservation of, public access

to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of outdoor areas and historic resources of the

Nation. See Section III, Item B.3 of this decision document

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act institutes a national wild and scenic rivers system that includes

selected rivers which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. It

provides for them to be preserved in a free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate

environments will be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.

See Section III, Item B.3 of this decision document.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act addresses the discovery and

protection of Native American human remains and objects that are excavated or discovered on

federal lands. The Act encourages avoidance of archeological sites that contain burials or

portions of site that contains graves through “in situ” preservation, but may encompass other

actions to preserve these remains and items. See Section III, Item B.6 of this decision document.

National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into

account the effect of a project on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included

in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. It also requires federal agencies to afford the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. See Section III,

Item B.7 of this decision document.

Archeological Resources Protection Act

The Archeological Resource Protection Act covers the discovery and protection of historic

properties (prehistoric and historic) that are excavated or discovered on federal lands. This Act

affords lawful protection of archeological resources and sites that are on public and Indian lands.

See Section III, Item B.7 of this Decision Document.

Federal Noxious Weed Act and Executive Order 11312 (Non-native Invasive Species)

The Federal Noxious Weed Act requires cooperation with State, local, and other federal agencies

in the management and control of non-native invasive species (NNIS). Executive Order (EO)

11312 requires all pertinent federal agencies (subject to budgetary appropriations) to prevent the

introduction of NNIS. This project’s decision meets the intent of this law and EO by



incorporating all pertinent Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and mitigation measures to

ensure the management and control of NNIS

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)

Executive Order 12898 requires consideration of whether projects would disproportionately

impact minority or low-income populations. This decision complies with this order. Public

involvement has occurred (see Section IV), the results of which I have considered in the

decision-making process for this project. No adverse impacts to local minority or low-income

populations were identified.

VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW FOR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES

A 2012 court ruling (Sequoia ForestKeeper v. Tidwell, 11-cv-00679-LJO-DLB (E.D. Cal.))

requires that actions that can be categorically excluded from an Environmental Assessment or

Environmental Impact Statement using categories found at 36 CFR 220.6(e) be subject to public

notice, comment, and opportunity for administrative appeal pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. Only

those individuals or organizations who submitted comments during the formal 30-day notice and

comment period, as specified by a legal notice in the Ithaca Journal newspaper, may appeal this

decision.

No comments expressing concern were received during the comment period for this project.

Accordingly, this decision is not subject to appeal (36 CFR 215.12(e)(1))

VII. IMPLEMENTATION DATE

This decision may be implemented immediately after publication of a legal notice of the decision

documented in this Decision Memo in the Ithaca Journal newspaper (36 CFR 215.9(c)(1)).

VIII. CONTACT PERSON

Further information about this decision can be obtained from Jodie Vanselow, District Ranger

during normal office hours (weekdays, 8:00 to 4:30 pm) at the Hector Office located at 5218

State Route 414 Hector, NY 14841; phone: (607) 546-4470 ext. 3314;fax: (607)546-4474; or e-

mail: [email protected].

IX. Signature and Date

I have concluded that this decision may be categorically excluded from documentation in an

environmental impact statement or environmental assessment, as it falls within one of the

categories identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 7 CFR part 1b.3 or one of the

categories identified by the Chief of the Forest Service in Forest Service Handbook (FSH)

1909.15, sections 31.b or 31.2, and there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the

decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative environmental effect. My



conclusion is based on information presented in this document and the entirety of the Butternut

Seed Orchard Project File.

/s/ Jodie L. Vanselow 9/28/2012

Jodie Vanselow Date

Appendix A – Project Map



Appendix B

Monitoring Plan

The monitoring period will be a continuous process throughout the life of the orchard. The life of

the orchard may be indefinite due to the need for a study area for butternut and/or as a collection

source location. Due to the relative ease of access and future interpretation plan (sign indicating

activity and purpose) the seed orchard will have a continuous regimine of site visitation and/or

monitoring.

Future work within the seed orchard may include replanting if planting stock is unsuccessful

and/or as new butternut cultivars are improved. Planted root stock will be planted at a ~20ftx20ft

spacing and planting survival success will be conducted yearly during the establishment phase

(year 1-10). In addition, evaluation of presence and/or resistance to butternut canker within the

seed orchard will be conducted as a part of this monitoring and will extend to the life of the

orchard.

Orchard life expectancy- the butternut seed orchard may in the future be removed, but several

things need to occur before this happens. 1. The problematic and pervasive behavior of butternut

canker on butternut becomes non-threatening to the regeneration/ long-term survival of butternut.

2. Butternut has been successfully restored and the need of a seed and/or scion collection source

has become obsolete. 3. Maintaining a butternut seed orchard is outweighed by other public

goals and/or Finger Lakes N.F. goals.

Butternut Seed Orchard Project Decision...

Documents

Transcript of Butternut Seed Orchard Project Decision...