FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTa123.g.akamai.net/.../11558/www/nepa/54453_FSPLT2_026208.pdf ·...

DECISION NOTICE

and

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Environmental Assessment for

Leroux Creek Aspen Management

U.S.D.A. Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests

Grand Valley Ranger District Mesa County, Colorado

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (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 to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

1

The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Leroux Creek Aspen Management project, prepared June 2010, documents the analysis of a vegetation management project that will harvest timber in the Leroux Creek area of the Grand Mesa National Forest, Grand Valley Ranger District, Mesa County, Colorado. Specifically, the Leroux Creek Aspen Management Project occurs in T.12 S., R.93W., Sections 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35 and 36 and T.12S., R.92W., Sections 19, 30, 31, and 32, 6th Principal Meridian, Delta County, Colorado. The purpose of this Decision Notice is to document the management alternative I have selected for the Leroux Creek Aspen Management Project and the rationale for my decision.

Introduction

The purpose of this proposal is to:

Leroux Creek Aspen Management Purpose and Need

Regenerate through commercial clear cutting aspen stands that are impacted by Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD).

Promote a diversity of structural stages among the aspen stands within the Leroux Creek analysis area.

Increase the patch size of regenerating aspen stands and breakup the landscape “patchiness” of past harvest activities.

Contribute towards providing commercial forest products to local timber industries.

This action is needed because currently the Leroux Creek analysis area is dominated by mature to over-mature aspen stands that are in a declining condition due to insects and diseases. In 2008, US Forest Service insect and disease aerial surveys indicated that approximately 34 percent (2,423 acres) of the aspen cover type in the analysis area were impacted by sudden aspen decline (SAD). SAD is the rapid deterioration of aspen stands, in terms of crown dieback and stem mortality, attributed to the following group of biotic agents: Cytospora canker (usually caused by Valsa sordida), aspen bark beetles (Trypophloeus populi and Procryphalus mucronatus), poplar borer (Saperda calcarata), and bronze poplar borer (Agrilus liragus) (Worrall et al., 2007). In stands with heavy mortality attributed to SAD, Worrall et al. (2007) found sucker densities at or below the range typical of uncut stands, indicating that there has been little to no suckering response to the overstory mortality. There is a need to regenerate aspen stands before the ability of root suckering is lost.

SAD does not appear to affect young immature aspen stands (early seral development stages). Early seral aspen stands in a healthy and vigorous condition comprise only a small portion of the Leroux Creek analysis area. Additional cohorts of young aspen are desired to diversify the ecosystem. It is desirable to harvest stands adjacent to the regenerated units that were cut in 1992. This will create larger patch sizes of regenerating aspen for future late seral interior wildlife habitat.

Aspen is a commercial timber species that is processed by local timber industries. A

2

commercial timber sale would contribute to local timber industries and serve as a means to economically regenerate aspen stands.

I have reviewed the EA and Project Record, including Response to Comments, the Biological Evaluations, and the Biological Assessment. It is my decision to implement Alternative 3 as described below and depicted on Map 1, which is included below.

DECISION

Alternative 3, will treat approximately 1243 acres (Tables 1A and 1B). Approximately 16,130 CCF on 580 acres will be offered for sale. The sale of forest products may occur in one or more timber sales, based on market conditions and operability. Approximately 663 acres will be regenerated using prescribed burning. The even-aged silvicultural system of clearcutting (coppice regeneration) will be implemented. To access aspen harvest units and accommodate the hauling of logs, 1.1 miles of road reconstruction will occur on NFSR 128.1J, 2.2 miles of temporary road will be constructed, .8 miles of new specified road will be constructed, and 2.9 miles of closed roads will be re-opened. Approximately 5.9 miles of roads used in operations will be closed and/or obliterated after the timber sale is complete. If some or all of the sale units are operated in the winter the need to build or re-construct certain roads or sections of roads listed above may be eliminated.

Since the inception of this EA, the mortality rate has increased dramatically in several of the planned cutting units, making certain portions inoperable for a commercial timber sale. Therefore it may be necessary to offer units of both the Duke Basin II and the Leroux Creek portions of the analysis area together in one timber sale to improve marketability and timeliness of getting treatments accomplished. In areas which are excluded from commercial timber sales, commercial firewood sales or biomass sales may be utilized to salvage and encourage regeneration in those areas.

Design Criteria: In addition to the standard direction found in timber sale contract provisions, the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook for Best Management Practices (FSH 2509.25 Chapter 2) and standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan (pages III-9a through III-188), I have decided to implement the following project design criteria that are specific to the Leroux Creek Aspen Management project.

Air Quality

• Prescribed burning will be conducted in a manner that complies with State of Colorado air quality guidelines. Treatment of slash left after timber harvest may include burning of piles or broadcast burning.

Cultural Resources

• Cultural resource sites will be avoided and protected during all phases of project implementation. Locations of known cultural resource sites needing protection will be shown on internal working maps not subject to disclosure and identified on the ground if necessary by the cultural resource specialist.

T.11S. R.93W.T.12S. R.93W.

T.11S. R.92W.T.12S. R.92W.

128.0

128.1C

128.1F128.1J

128.1G

128.1B

2720

.0

UW20

03

2732.0

2730.0

2719.0

2733.0

2754.0

2720

.0

7

6

8 9

2

5

1

31

30

19

18

4

32

11

3136

35

26

20

17

29

14

3

36

25

24

12

13

23

16

32

35

10

21

34

27

25

10

28

15

15

22

3

30

34

26

33

33

LegendAnalysis AreaPrivate2001 Roadless Inventory2008 Roadless InventoryWaterbodiesStreamsSudden Aspen DeclinePast Harvest ActivitiesLeroux Creek TSDuke Basis II TSPrescribe BurnOpen RoadsOpen TrailsReopen Closed RoadsRoad ReconstructionTemporary Road ConstructionSpecified Road Construction

.

Leroux Creek Aspen ManagementMap 1: Alternative 3

0 1 20.5 MilesT:\FS\NFS\GMUG\Project\GVRD\2400LerouxCreekAspenMgmtEA\GIS\gis_cmck\dn_map1 cmck alternative map 3/23/09 kt update 9/3/10

ATTENTION: Due to the nature of aerial surveys, this map should only be used as a partial indicator of sudden aspen decline (SAD) and should be validated on the ground for actual location. SAD locations are where tree mortality or crown dieback was apparent from the air. However, intensity of damage is highly variable and not all trees in shaded areas are dead or have crown dieback. This product is reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. GIS data and product accuracy may very. They maybe: developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were crea ted, may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace, GIS products based on new inventories, new or revised information, and if necessary in conjunction with other federal, state or local public agencies or the public in general as required by policy or regulation. Previous recipients of the products may not be notified unless required by policy or regulations. For more information, contact GMUG National Forest at 970-874-6600.

4

Table 1A: Alternative 3, Duke Basin II Timber Sale

Unit Acres Prescription Volume (CCF) Method Slash Disposal

1 18 Coppice cut w/ natural regeneration 500 Ground based system Lop &

scatter


scatter


scatter


scatter


scatter

6 171 Stand Replacement Fire w/ natural regeneration N/A Prescribed Fire N/A


TOTAL 475 7,400

Table 1B: Alternative 3, Leroux Creek Timber Sale

Unit Acres Prescription Volume (CCF) Method Slash Disposal


scatter


scatter


scatter


scatter


scatter


scatter




TOTAL 768 8730

5

If any new cultural resource sites are discovered during implementation, project activities will stop and the archeologist will be contacted immediately. The archeologist will evaluate the site and determine how the site will be protected.

Fuels

• Fuels and range specialists will coordinate grazing management before broadcast burning to increase fine fuels to carry fire through the aspen.

Noxious Weeds

• At present, the only known populations of any State of Colorado-listed noxious weeds are several populations of hoary cress (white top) and absinthe wormwood, along NFSR 128 near the Forest boundary. These are currently being treated. Any new populations of noxious weeds in the sale areas or along the haul road that are identified during harvest activities will be treated using KV or other Funds.

• All treatments of noxious weeds will follow the 2005 Grand Valley Ranger District Noxious Weed Treatment Decision Notice.

• The timber sale purchaser will not move any “Off-Road Equipment”, which last operated in an area that is infested with one or more invasive species of concern, onto timber sale areas without having first taken reasonable measures to make each such piece of equipment free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds.

• Re-vegetate disturbed areas, such as roads, landings, and skid trails, with approved certified weed-free seed mixes to prevent soil erosion and/or establishment of noxious weeds. Seeding is the responsibility of the purchaser and will be accomplished during the first seeding season (mid-September to early November) immediately following completion of activity in an area.

• The Forest Service will designate the seed mixture to be used. Appropriate substitutions may be made at the discretion of the rangeland management specialist based on availability at the time the seed is to be purchased.

Other Facilities and Special Uses

• Conduct timber harvesting activities in a manner that protects fences, cattleguards, ditches, special use water developments, structures, and other facilities within the project area. If questions arise about locations of water developments, the Forest Service representative will coordinate meetings between the timber contractors and water users.

• Install gates or cattleguards in fences crossed by roads or skid trails, if grazing is active on either side of the fence.

6

• The Forest Service will coordinate with the Leroux Creek Water Users Association (LCWUA) before the start of road reconstruction on NFSR 128.1J to give them time to release water from the Brockman Reservoirs.

• The timber sale contractor will allow the LCWUA to access their reservoirs during road construction and timber harvest.

Range

• The allotment boundary fence in unit 11 will not be cut until either a braced temporary gate or temporary cattleguard is installed by the timber purchaser. The allotment fence will be restored promptly after logging to the condition existing immediately prior to logging. Fence repair will be kept current with logging operations.

Recreation Unless waived in writing by the District Ranger and Timber Sale Administrator,

on NFSR 128, Leroux Creek Road, no log hauling will be allowed:

• All day Saturday and Sunday during the two weeks of the combined muzzle loading and archery seasons (these restrictions total 6 days).

• All day Friday through Sunday of the second season (first combined) of big game rifle season (these restrictions total 3 days).

• During July 4th weekend.

• During Labor Day weekends from noon Friday through Labor Day.

• All day on Saturday and Sunday from December 1 through March 31.

• All day Thanksgiving Day and the following Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

• All day December 24 through January 2.

The Forest Service will post appropriate signs and closure orders to regulate public wheeled vehicles and snowmobiles.

During snowplowing operations, the timber purchaser will leave at least four inches of snow on the roads. An alternate groomed snowmobile route is planned for the Leroux Creek Road. At crossings, the timber purchaser will maintain snow cover on the road and open berms to allow safe crossings by snowmobile riders. Turnouts will be plowed open. When snowplowing creates berms along designated snowmobile trails or at the junctions of designated snowmobile trails, the purchaser will remove the berms so that snowmobile riders can safely enter and exit trails.

Silviculture

• Regenerating clearcuts will be protected from excessive livestock grazing through such means as salting away from harvest units, using range riders to keep livestock out of units, resting pastures, using electric fences, or spraying big game repellent (BGR). The method used will be based on the intensity of

7

grazing and will be coordinated between the rangeland management specialist and silviculturist.

• No salt will be placed within harvest units.

• To create good conditions for aspen sprouting, no more than 40 percent to 50 percent of the ground surface will be covered in large cull logs.

Slash Treatment

• Tops and limbs will be lopped and scattered in the harvest units to a maximum depth of 24 inches.

• Cull logs covering more than 50 percent of the ground surface within cutting units will be placed in small piles (not to exceed 8 feet tall) in the unit, used to close temporary roads (not to exceed 50 percent of the ground covered), or piled at landings.

• Slash accumulated at landings will be returned to the unit, used to close temporary roads, or piled if the first two options would result in more than 50 percent of the ground surface within units being covered with large cull logs.

• The Forest Service will burn landing piles if it deems necessary.

• Landing piles will be free of dirt and other noncombustible debris.

• Stumps will be cut to a maximum height of 12 inches.

Snag Habitat and Down Woody Debris

• Maintain 120 to 300 snags per 100 acres, 8 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater (where feasible).

• Prior to beginning project activities, survey for and mark as wildlife leave trees those snags containing nest cavities or other signs of wildlife use.

• Maintain a minimum of 10 tons per acre of logs and other down woody material, where it exists, for species dependent on this material for their habitat. Limbs and tops will be lopped and scattered and not burned in piles.

Soil and Water

• Avoid ground disturbing activities in the water influence zone (WIZ). Activities that minimally disturb the ground and are necessary to achieve management objectives may occur. Cutting of timber may occur within the WIZ. The definition of the WIZ for various water related features is as follows:

8

•

Table 7: Definitions of Water Influence Zones (WIZ)

Feature Outside Edge of WIZ Perennial Streams 100 ft minimum from Stream Bank

Intermittent Streams 100 ft minimum from Stream Bank Natural Lakes* 100 ft minimum from Shoreline

Wetlands >1/4 acre 100 ft minimum from Edge of Wetland Wetlands < 1/4 acre Edge of Wetland

Ephemeral Streams and swales** A 25 foot wide corridor centered on the stream course.

Reservoirs and Ponds 50 ft from High Water Line

Springs/Seeps 50 ft from the source or edge of associated wetland, whichever is greater

Ditches Edge of Right of Way

*Defined as a natural waterbody with surface area greater than 1 acre.

**A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation in the immediate locality (watershed or catchment basin), and whose channel is at all times above the zone of saturation (Briggs, 1996). For the purpose of implementing protection standards the terms swale and ephemeral stream are considered to be synonymous.

• No borrow will occur within the WIZ, nor stockpiling of material nor equipment storage.

• Ensure at least one-end log suspension within the WIZ. Fell trees in a way that protects vegetation in the WIZ from damage. Keep log landings and skid trails out of the WIZ, except for necessary crossings.

• Other than transportation system channel crossings there will be no operations within the WIZ of perennial or intermittent stream channels.

• All perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, reservoirs, and large wetlands within sale area boundaries, and all smaller WIZ features that may be located within cutting units, will be shown on sale area maps and protected under the contract. Ephemeral streams will not be shown on contract maps, however harvest activity will be managed to protect these resources by the direction of the Forest Service Representative.

• WIZ features within cutting units, such as small wetlands, have been identified by specialists. They will be marked on the ground in a manner that allows identification in the winter.

• Ephemeral stream channels will be field checked and marked if appropriate in such as way that the channel can be identified during winter operations and protected prior to treatment.

• Road crossings of perennial streams will be at Forest Service designed crossings only. Temporary roads may cross non-perennial streams provided that either the crossing is constructed in a manner that does not restrict expected flood flows, or it is removed before the end of seasonal operations.

9

• Limit roads, skid trails, landings, and fire lines to the minimum number, width, and total length needed to accomplish the timber harvesting and fuels reduction activities. Use existing roads, temporary roads, skid trails, and landings unless other options will produce less long-term sediment. Reconstruct for long-term soil and drainage stability.

• Design all roads, trails, and other soil disturbances to the minimum standard for their use and to "roll" with the terrain as feasible in order to limit the use of cuts and fills.

• Avoid soil-disturbing actions during periods of heavy rain or wet soils. Operate heavy equipment within harvest or burn units only when soil moisture is below the plastic limit, or is protected by at least one foot of packed snow or two inches of frozen soil.

• Avoid ground skidding on slopes greater than 40%, when the slope length is 50 feet or more.

• Limit the area detrimentally impacted by tractor yarding to less than 15 percent of each cutting unit (WCPH 14.1 - Standard 13). If more than 15 percent of a cutting unit is detrimentally impacted then require the purchaser to rip skid trails.

• Conduct prescribed burning activities to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15 percent of the burned area.

• If piling of slash is done in the landing area, conduct piling to leave topsoil in place and to avoid displacing soil into piles or windrows.

• Active ignition will not be done within the WIZ (defined in Table 7). Prescribed burns will be managed to avoid burning vegetation within the WIZ. Incidental backing fires within the WIZ are acceptable.

• Use changes in vegetation, natural barriers, and manmade barriers or improvements for firelines. If additional fire lines are needed, construct handlines with minimal disturbance. No mechanized firelines will be constructed.

• Locate vehicle service and fuel areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps and areas on gentle upland sites. Mix, load and clean on gentle upland sites. Dispose of chemicals, fuel, oil and containers in State-certified disposal areas.

Travel Management and Roads

• Road Maintenance: National Forest System Roads (NFSRs) will be maintained by the timber sale purchaser commensurate with use. This will include a deposit for surface rock replacement (gravel) on roads with a gravel surface (NFSR 128 and 128.1G). Existing NFSRs currently open for use will also receive pre-haul maintenance depending on their condition and the needs of the project. Pre-haul maintenance will not include road reconstruction or

10

repairs of an extraordinary nature but will include maintenance of drainage structures, grading the road surface, corrections to cut/fill failures, etc.

• If some or all of the sale units are operated in the winter the need to build or re-construct certain roads or sections of roads described in this document may be eliminated.

• Temporary Roads: roads constructed for temporary access into harvest units will be directed by the classic principles of temporary road construction requirements and will be consistent with the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH). As necessary to attain stabilization of roadbed and fill slopes of temporary roads, the purchaser will employ such measures as out-sloping, drainage dips, and water-spreading ditches. These roads serve no long-term need as a road; therefore, they will be closed and obliterated by the purchaser after use.

• Temporary roads will be closed to public use by a closure order, signs, and physical barriers during the life of the timber sale. Temporary roads will be physically blocked at the end of each operating season.

• Obliteration of temporary roads will include: removal of bridges and culverts; elimination of ditches, ruts and berms; recontouring the roadbed; effectively blocking the road to normal vehicular traffic where feasible under existing terrain conditions; and building cross ditches and water bars as staked or otherwise marked on the ground by the timber sale administrator. When bridges and culverts are removed, associated fills shall also be removed to the extent necessary to permit normal maximum flow of water and to restore the channel profile. All fill associated with temporary crossings must be removed below the ordinary high water line.

• Re-construction of NFSR 128.1J will be consistent with the WCPH. Reconstruction activities will include installing hardened fords at East Leroux Creek and Doughty Creek, replacing or installing proper sized culverts to facilitate drainage, and reconstructing or installing dips and ditches to provide surface drainage. In rolling dips that show signs of instability or erosion problems, the bottoms of these structures will be rocked with 1-to-3-inch diameter size rock to reinforce soils and reduce or eliminate rutting and siltation. Wet spots on roads will also be rocked. Sediment filtering practices will be used where roads cross drainages and/or ditches to keep sediment from entering drainages. Erosion control structures will be maintained regularly, concurrent with construction operations. Reconstruction work will be a part of the Specified Road Package.

• Abandoned segments of NFSR 128.1J will be reclaimed in accordance with WCPH 13.4 – Management Measure (12) as a part of the road construction package.

• Construction of new specified roads will be consistent with the WCPH.

11

• Design roads to minimize erosion by avoiding excessive grades (more than 12 percent) for long stretches (more than 200 feet). Construct roads with outslope and rolling grades instead of ditches and culverts, where practicable.

• Design road ditches and cross drains to limit flow to ditch capacity and prevent ditch erosion and failure. Roads will avoid wet slopes by staying above seeps. Where interception of hill or slope seepage is unavoidable, short sections of ditch may be necessary.

• Install cross drains to disperse runoff into filter strips and minimize connected disturbed areas (direct linkage to the stream network).

• Road cuts less than 4 foot vertical will be laid back at slopes no steeper than 1.5:1. Back slopes will be left in a roughened condition. These measures will enhance the establishment of vegetation needed to stabilize cuts.

• Require timber sale purchasers to develop and implement a specific Traffic Control Plan prior to commencing timber sale operations. The Traffic Control Plan will be subject to approval by the timber sale administrator and coordinated with recreation for winter hauling.

• Require timber sale purchasers to furnish, install and maintain all temporary traffic controls that provide Forest users with adequate warning of hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions associated with timber sale activities.

Wildlife / Fisheries

• Follow established procedures regarding protection of soil, water, wildlife and other resources as required in the Forest Plan, Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook and standard timber sale contract provisions. Additional wildlife design features not covered in these documents are as follows:

• Conduct on-going surveys for amphibians and raptors (particularly northern goshawk) prior to timber harvest and road construction/reconstruction or prescribed burning.

• The ponds that are providing leopard frog breeding sites will have leave trees marked for retention. There will be no heavy equipment allowed within 50 feet of these ponds, which will be marked on the sale area map.

• If occupied purple martin nesting habitat is found within timber sale units, retain leave trees in a large clump within the habitat.

• No active or inactive goshawk nests have been found in the timber sale areas. If a goshawk nest is discovered, provide a 30-acre no-harvest buffer. Do not allow activities within ¼ mile of an active northern goshawk nest from March 1 to July 31 if they would cause nesting failure or abandonment (Forest Plan standard and guideline). No more than 25 percent of the post fledging area around the nest will be disturbed until August 30.

12

• Logging operations will be prohibited from April 1 to June 15 to provide security habitat during the elk calving season, in the Leroux Creek Timber Sale area.

• Design and construct all new stream crossings to provide for passage and free movement of resident fish and other aquatic life (FSH 2509.25). Work with the Forest Fisheries Biologist to identify and design stream crossings to meet fish and other aquatic organisms’ needs.

Project Implementation Monitoring: Implementation of the Leroux Creek Aspen Management Project will be completed and monitored by qualified Forest Service personnel (silviculturists, timber sale administrators, engineering representatives, pre-sale foresters, certified timber cruisers, hydrologists, soil scientists, wildlife biologists, etc.). Implementation will be documented in such reports as stand prescriptions, marking guides, marking checks, cruise designs, appraisal and contract reports, timber sale administration inspection reports, wildlife survey reports, site-visit reports, project design checklists, etc. The District Ranger will review and approve project development after completion of each major step of implementation (i.e. complete certification reports for timber sale gates 1 to 4).

Specific project implementation monitoring includes:

• The timber sale administrator will monitor timber sale contracts and enforce contract provisions to protect resources in the sale area from adverse impacts.

• The timber sale administrator and engineering representative will monitor road location, road drainage, cut and fill slope stabilization and containment of sediment. Inspections will be ongoing during road construction; and, road maintenance and erosion control monitoring will continue throughout the life of timber sale contract. District personnel will continue to monitor erosion control and closure effectiveness after sale closures.

• Photo reference points will be established in each cutting unit to monitor aspen regeneration by the timber staff.

• The wildlife biologist will continue to monitor habitat conditions and presence of threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive plant and animal species within the analysis area.

• The rangeland management specialist will monitor disturbed areas, such as roads, landings, and skid trails for at least two years for noxious weeds.

• Timber staff will monitor regeneration success in harvest units. First, third, and fifth year regeneration surveys will be conducted. Should the certified silviculturist conclude that additional cultural treatments are required, these treatments will be scheduled.

• The soil scientist will monitor total area disturbed during and after harvest activities to assure that the soil quality objectives have been met.

• The hydrologist, soil scientist and/or fisheries biologist will review BMP’s and water influence zones after all logging related activities are completed.

13

• The timber sale will be monitored according to the Operational Controls detailed in the GMUG National Forest’s Environmental Management System (EMS) Guide (http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug/policy/). The specific environmental aspect/impact combinations that will be monitored are: commercial harvest of green trees for managing stand health on wildlife species (management indicator species, sensitive species, threatened and endangered species, and species of economic interest) and their habitat, including vegetation composition and structure; and, construction or reconstruction of transportation facilities (roads) utilized for resource extraction or recreation activities and their effects on water quality/aquatic habitat, and wildlife species and their habitats.

Sale Area Improvement: The Knutson-Vandenberg Act (P.L. 71-319) provides for the use of excess timber sale receipts (KV funds) to conduct sale area improvement work, including wildlife habitat enhancement. Utilizing this potential funding source, the following activities are approved with this Decision:

• Regeneration surveys in harvest units will be funded by KV collections. If additional cultural treatments (electric fencing, big-game repellent, etc) are determined to be necessary, KV funds could also be used to complete these activities.

• The timber sale area will be surveyed for two years for noxious weeds. Chemical, biological, cultural, and mechanical techniques would be used, as appropriate, to control populations of noxious weeds during this time period.

I selected Alternative 3, for Leroux Creek Aspen Management project because it meets forest-wide general direction from the Forest Plan (page III-2 – III-4) to: manage vegetation in a manner to provide a healthy and vigorous ecosystem resistant to insects, diseases and other natural and human causes; provide commercial forest products to local dependent industries, and utilize the commercial timber sale program to help decrease the risk of insect and disease infestations.

RATIONALE for MY DECISION

I decided to select alternative three because it goes further than the proposed action (Alternative 1) in providing improvements to structural diversity, treating SAD, providing timber to local industries, and providing late seral interior wildlife habitat as addressed in issues 1,2,3,and 5, respectively (EA, page 5). Specifically, in alternative 3 structural diversity and efforts to provide late seral habitat would be improved by increasing the average size of openings from 30 acres to 53 acres in size, with the largest opening being 88 acres. Alternative three also allows for more SAD acreage to be treated (1,126 acres verses 444 acres), and contributes more timber volume to local forest products industries (16,130 ccf verses 12,300 ccf).Affected aspen stands need to be treated promptly while their root systems are still healthy enough to insure a vigorous sprouting response once trees are cut.

Alternative 3 includes prescribed burning as a method of regenerating aspen in difficult to access areas. As a result, alternative 3 will allow for more treatment of SAD affected

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug/policy/�

14

aspen stands in this watershed. While the success of such operations is not certain, this alternative allows evaluation of using fire as a method of regenerating affected aspen stands. Fire may prove to be a viable option in difficult to access areas or in severely degraded stands which hold little commercial value due to high defect and decay.

I did not select Alternative 2, the no action alternative, because this alternative would not contribute to Forest Plan direction to provide commercial forest products to local dependent industries, and to manage forest stands in a healthy and resilient condition.

The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions from January 1, 2009 through the present. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment from March 24, 2009 through May 27, 2009. The agency published a Legal Notice of the Proposed Action, Opportunity to Comment in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel on March 28, 2009.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the project was presented at two public meetings: May 19, 2009 at the Western Slope Environmental Resource Council Public Lands Forum and June 30, 2009 at the GMUG National Forest’s Aspen Ecology and Management Workshop

A summary of public comments and responses to these comments are in Appendix A. All public comment letters are located in the project record.

Using the comments from the public and other agencies, (see Issues section), the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address.

Based upon public comment and internal discussions the following key issues were identified for consideration in the EA (page 4) by the interdisciplinary team:

1. Structural Diversity 2. Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD) 3. Timber 4. Water Quality 5. Management Indicator Species 6. Threatened/Endangered/Proposed/Candidate/Sensitive Species

A total of three Alternatives were considered in the EA. These alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3) were considered in detail in the EA because the two action alternatives addressed the purpose and need, significant issues, met NEPA regulations, and met Forest Plan management objectives, and a “No Action” alternative was considered as required by law. The following is a brief summary of the alternatives related to Leroux Creek Aspen Management project.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternative 1 This alternative is the proposed action described in the EA. It is the initial proposal developed to meet the purpose and need. Alternative 1 is described in further detail below and displayed on Map 2 in the EA.

15

Harvest 444 acres of mature aspen under two commercial timber sales: Duke Basin II and Leroux Creek timber sales. The harvest prescription would be coppice cut (clearcutting) with natural regeneration. The harvest of this timber was expected to produce approximately 12,300 CCF of timber products. The method used to remove timber would be by tractor or other ground based systems

Principal access would be from National Forest System Roads (NFSRs) 128 128.1G, and 128.1J. NFSR 128.1J would need 1.1 miles of reconstruction to improve drainage and creek crossings. New specified road construction would total 0.8 miles and new temporary road construction would total approximately 2.2 miles. Approximately 2.9 miles of closed road would be reopened.

The 0.8 miles of new specified roads, all temporary roads, and all reopened roads would be closed and obliterated after completion of the timber sale.

Alternative 2 NEPA requires the consideration of a “No Action” alternative (40 CFR 1502.14d) where none of the proposed activities identified under the proposed action would occur. This alternative provides a baseline for comparison to aid in determining the relevance of issues and effects of the proposed projects. Under Alternative 2, no timber sale or other management activities would occur. This alternative would result in no additional incremental effects relative to the issues previously described. For example, there would be no project-induced effects to water quality, special-status species, or visual resources.

I find that implementing Alternative 3, will not have a significant effect on the human environment and is therefore excluded from documentation in an Environmental Impact Statement. This determination is based on the analysis of environmental effects documented in the EA (pages 23 – 73). The following discussion focuses on factors I considered in determining what constitutes “significant” effects on the environment.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

1. Timber management activities will result in some disturbances to water, soils, visuals, wildlife and vegetation. I find these impacts to be not significant because the physical and biological effects are confined to the various treatment areas and to a lesser degree the adjacent lands. With implementation of the design criteria, adverse effects to water, soils, visuals, recreation, wildlife and vegetation are not significant.

2. I find no significant effect to public health and safety because with Alternative 3 design criteria and standard practices (EA pages 11 – 20) either restrict activities to specified time periods of lower use, or include traffic warning signs, or utilize adequate transportation systems, which effectively minimizes the effects on public health and safety.

3. There are no prime farmlands, parklands, wild and scenic rivers, or other ecologically critical areas within the analysis area. State and Federal standards for water quality and soil protection will be met with the implementation of the Watershed Conservation Practices for Best Management Practices, standard

16

timber sale contract provisions, and project design criteria (EA pages 15 – 17). No adverse effects on floodplains or wetlands are anticipated (EA pages 41-53).

4. A reasonable dispute over the nature or extent of the effects presented in the EA has not been raised during public scoping or the public comment period (Response to Comments).

5. The effects of timber sale activities associated with Alternative 3 are understood and well documented in research literature and in monitoring of similar projects. The interdisciplinary team has used the best available science in analyzing the potential effects (EA pages 23 – 73) of the Leroux Creek Aspen Management project. I find that the implementation of Alternative 3, will not involve unique or unknown risks.

6. I find that Alternative 3 is neither precedent setting nor a connected action to other proposed activities (EA pages 23 – 73).

7. Based on the cumulative impacts analysis in the EA (pages 23 – 73), I find the activities associated with Alternative 3 combined with other past, present, and future activities do not present a significant impact.

8. Adequate cultural resource surveys have been performed in accordance with the National Historical Preservation Act. I find no significant impact to heritage resources will occur because eligible sites will be avoided, protected, or excavated and additional heritage resources discovered during harvest activities will be protected.

9. A Biological Assessment (April 2010) has been prepared for the EA in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-205). Alternative 3 was determined to “may affect but not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) the Canadian lynx, a species listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

10. I find Alternative 3 complies with Federal, State and local laws and requirements imposed for the protection of the environment and therefore, there is not a significant impact (EA pages 23 – 73).

Forest Plan Consistency: Alternative 3 is consistent with the overall management direction provided within the 1991 Forest Plan, as amended. Factors that were considered in determining whether this project is consistent with the Forest Plan are as follows:

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

1. The selected alternative assists in reaching multiple use objectives listed in Chapter III, pages 5 to 8 of the Forest Plan (EA pages 2-3,10).

2. The selected alternative responds directly to Forest Plan goals listed in Chapter III, pages 2 to 4 (EA pages 3, 23 – 73). The planned activities will not detract from or jeopardize any of the Forest Plan goals.

3. The selected alternative is consistent with Forest Plan Management Direction, Standards and Guidelines, and with the following Management Area Prescriptions:

17

Management activities will occur within Forest Plan management area 7A and 6B, which has an emphasis on wood fiber production and livestock grazing. Vegetation within 7A and 6B management areas are managed to enhance plant and animal diversity.

6B: Livestock grazing. Under Alternative 3, rangeland will be maintained at or above a satisfactory condition. Semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized and roaded natural recreation opportunities will be provided. Vegetation treatment will enhance plant and animal diversity.

7A: Wood fiber production and utilization on suited timber lands on slopes less than 40 percent. Under Alternative 3, silvicultural treatments of timber stands have been designed to enhance diversity and promote forest health and resiliency. Long-term Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized and Roaded Natural recreation opportunities will not be affected by treatments. Timber harvest will occur on lands suited for timber production or will occur in areas where timber harvest is permitted and is necessary to help achieve other resource management objectives (EA page 32).

4. Silvicultural treatments are consistent with the Forest Plan (EA pages 32-35).

5. In May 2005 the Forest Supervisor on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) issued an amendment that, in part, revised the list of Management Indictor Species (MIS). This list revision was completed under the authority and guidance provided in 36 CFR 219.19 (1982 Rule). Also as part of this amendment, the GMUG used authority provided in 36 CFR 219.14(f) in the 2005 planning Rule (2005 Rule) to make monitoring of MIS populations discretionary. However, on March 30, 2007 the Forest Service was enjoined by the 9th Circuit District Court from implementation of the 2005 Rule. That ruling invalidated the authority provided by 36 CRF 219.14(f).

Revision of the GMUG list of MIS was completed under authorities provided in the 1982 Rule and, therefore, remains valid and in effect. However, since the 2005 Rule has been enjoined and, therefore, authority granted in 36 CFR 219.14(f) invalidated, the GMUG has reinstated MIS requirements per the 1982 planning regulations to monitor both habitat and populations. Regardless of the planning rule in effect, the GMUG has considered and will continue to consider the “best available science” in forest and project level planning, including data and analysis needs for MIS.

The scope of analysis for management indicator species is determined by forest plan management direction, specifically, its standards and guidelines (Chapter II) and monitoring direction (Chapter IV). The GMUG National Forest’s Forest Plan (Forest Plan) establishes monitoring and evaluation requirements that employ both habitat capability relationships and, at the appropriate scale, population data. The analysis completed for this project examined how the project directly, indirectly and cumulatively affects selected MIS habitat and populations and how these local effects could influence Forest-wide habitat and population trends (EA pages 53-62). Further, the analysis indicates that the project contributes to meeting Forest Plan direction as it relates to MIS.

18

National Forest Management Act Consistency: Alternative 3 will harvest timber from National Forest System lands. Under 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(E), I find that Alternative 3 meets the following management requirements:

1. Soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged (EA pages 41-53);

2. There is assurance that the lands can be adequately restocked within five years after final regeneration harvest (EA pages 32 – 33);

3. Streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water are protected from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat (EA pages 41-53);

4. The harvesting system to be used was not selected primarily because it will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber (EA page 31-32); and

Under 16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(F), I find that Alternative 3, meets the following requirements:

5. Clearcut harvests proposed for treating timbered stands are appropriate to meet the objectives and requirements of the Forest Plan (EA pages 34-35).

6. An interdisciplinary review has been completed and the potential environmental, biological, aesthetic, engineering, and economic impacts have been assessed on each timber sale area and the cutting methods are consistent with the multiple use objectives of the general area (EA pages 23 – 73).

7. Cut blocks, patches or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain (EA pages 30, 72).

8. Cuts will be carried out according to the maximum size limit requirements for areas to be cut during one harvest operation. NFMA (16 USC 1604 (g)(3)(F)) and Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1921.12e set “size limits for areas to be cut in one even-aged regeneration harvest operation” at 40 acres, with some exceptions. This maximum size limit is 40 acres for aspen in the Rocky Mountain Region except as provided in CFR 219.27(d)(2)(i): larger openings may be permitted where larger units will produce a more desirable combination of net public benefits. Proposals to exceed the 40-acre size can be permitted on an individual timber sale basis after 60 days’ public notice and review by the Regional Forester. The Regional Forester has reviewed this proposal (creating regeneration openings larger than 40 acres) and has granted approval to exceed the 40-acre maximum. The public was also been notified of the proposal during a 60 day scoping period that ran from March 28, 2009 through May 27, 2009. (EA page 33).

9. Timber cuts will be carried out in a manner consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, aesthetic resources, cultural and historic resources, and the regeneration of timber resources (EA pages 23-73).

10. Stands of trees will be harvested according to requirements for culmination of mean annual increment (EA pages 31–32).

19

This decision is subject to appeal by parties who have expressed interest during the analysis process.

APPEAL RIGHTS

A notice of appeal must be in writing and clearly state that is a Notice of Appeal being filed pursuant to 36 CFR 215.7, and must meet all requirements of 36 CFR 215. Appeals must be filed within 45 days of the date of legal notice of this decision in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel.

The publication date of the legal notice in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal (36 CFR 215.15 (a)). Those wishing to appeal should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.

20

Notices of Appeal may be sent to the following addresses:

U.S. Postal Service Address: Appeals Deciding Officer U.S.D.A., Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region P.O. Box 25127 Lakewood, Colorado 80225-0127 Physical Street Address for delivery services or hand delivery (Office hours are 7:30 to 4:30) Appeals Deciding Officer U.S.D.A., Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region 740 Simms Golden, Colorado 80401 E-mail delivery To: [email protected] (Electronic appeals must be in Microsoft Word, Word Perfect or plain text file format.) Facsimile delivery (303) 275-5134

If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, the fifth business day following the close of the appeal filing period.

IMPLEMENTATION DATE

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact Kevin H. Kyle, Silviculturist, 2777 Crossroads Blvd, Unit 1, Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 or by phone at 970-263-5829.

CONTACT PERSON

/s/Connie Clementson 8-24-2010 CONNIE CLEMENTSON Date

Grand Valley District Ranger

mailto:[email protected]�

21

Appendix 1

LEROUX CREEK ASPEN MANAGEMENT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED ACTION

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The proposed Leroux Creek Aspen Management project was provided to the public and other agencies for comment from March 28, 2009 through May 27, 2009. As part of the public involvement process, the agency published a Legal Notice “Scoping/Opportunity to Comment” in the Daily Sentinel on March 28, 2009.

One comment letter was received during the public comment period. Table 1 lists the respondents and the organizations they represent. This document responds to the comments received.

Table 1. Agencies, Individuals, and Organizations Providing Comments on the

Environmental Assessment for the Leroux Creek Aspen Management Respondent Organization (if applicable) Letter Number

Robin Nicholoff and Ryan Bidwell Western Slope Environmental Resource Council, Western Colorado Congress and Colorado Wild 1

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The comment letter has been reviewed and analyzed. Comments have been summarized and are presented by subject area. Comments are identified with a comment number. A response is provided after each comment summary. The full text of the comment letter is located in the project record.

Wildlife Comment 1: The scoping document states that one purpose of the proposal is to “increase the patch size of regenerating aspen stands and break up the landscape ‘patchiness’ of past harvest activities.” What benefits or impacts do larger cuts have on various wildlife species, especially on deer, elk and bear hiding and thermal cover? What does the DOW think of these large cuts?

Response

The Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) and Colorado Department of Natural Resources were mailed the Scoping/Opportunity to Comment document. These two agencies did not provide the Forest Service with any comments.

: Larger patch sizes in the future (when pole size to mature) will provide better hiding cover with excellent foraging habitat for deer, elk and bear. Small patch sizes do not provide the security that is preferred by many larger species of wildlife.

Comment 2: The appropriate number of snags should be left for cavity nesting birds.

22

Response: Snags, 8 inches in diameter at breast height or greater, will be maintained at 120 to 300 snags per 100 acres (Design Criteria “Snag Habitat and Down Woody Debris” EA page 15). Snags containing nest cavities or other signs of wildlife use will be marked as wildlife trees during timber sale preparation activities and protected under the timber sale contract. If occupied purple martin nesting habitat is found within timber sale units, leave trees will be retained in a large clump within the habitat (Design Criteria “Wildlife/Fisheries” EA page 19).

Comment 13: What are current open road densities and how do they conform to Forest Plan standards? The impacts of open road densities and the proposed road construction on MIS species should be disclosed.

Response:

The total road density (open and closed roads) in the Leroux Creek analysis area is .50 miles/square mile. The proposed action would construct or open .17 miles/square mile of road. These roads would only be open to administrative traffic associated with the timber sales. Public travel would be prohibited. The constructed and opened roads would be obliterated after use by the timber sale purchaser.

Open road densities and new road construction are analyzed in the Management Indicator Species (MIS) Assessment. Road densities are primarily considered in addressing effects on Rocky Mountain Elk and determining habitat capability indices (HCI) for this species. Road construction is also considered in the Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation.

Road Density is not detailed within the 6B Management Prescription Guidelines but within the Forest General Direction. The road density portion of the analysis done for the Forest Plan is defined as the average adjusted miles of road and motorized trail per 640 acres. The Forest Direction for Transporation System Management within the Forest Plan states that the 0.5 miles/square mile currently in the Leroux Creek Analysis Area is 80% Road Density/Use Habitat Effectiveness. (0 miles of road is 100% Road Density/Use Habitat Effectiveness. Constructing an additional .17 miles would bring the Habitat Effectiveness rating down to a little over 70%. With the immediate obliteration of the newly constructed roads at completion of the timber harvest and haul, this decrease in habitat effectiveness would be short-lived.

Comment 17: Northern goshawk nests should be identified and protected.

Response: Northern goshawk surveys were conducted during the summer of 2009. No active or inactive goshawk nests were discovered. If a nest is discovered during the timber sale then the nest site would be protected as described on page 19 of the EA under Design Criteria “Wildlife and Fisheries”.

Comment 18: The effect to other bird species that are dependent on mature and decadent aspen should be disclosed in the EA.

Response: The following aspen-associated bird species are analyzed in the BA/BE/MIS Assessment and summarized in the EA (pages 52 – 72): red naped sapsucker, flammulated owl, purple martin, and Northern goshawk.

23

Timing Comment 9: Duke Basin and Leroux Creek Timber Sales should be completed in a timely fashion of 2 years or less. A continuous long-term disturbance in the forest is unacceptable.

Response

Since comments for the project were initially analyzed, as mentioned in the Decision section, the mortality rate has increased dramatically in several of the planned cutting units, making certain portions inoperable for a commercial timber sale. It may be necessary to offer units of both the Duke Basin II and the Leroux Creek portions of the analysis area together in one timber sale to improve marketability and timeliness of getting treatments accomplished.

: The Timber Sale Preparation Handbook (R2 Supplement FSH 2409.18_53.41) provides direction on how to establish the timber sale contract period. Considering the volume to be harvested, the amount of required road construction, and the condition of the timber, it is estimated that Duke Basin II Timber Sale will have an initial contract period of 2 to 3 years and Leroux Creek Timber Sale about 5 years. Both contracts would be eligible for contract term adjustments for situations such as prolonged wet weather, fire emergency closures, and other conditions beyond the Purchaser’s control. Leroux Creek Timber Sale would be subject to additional extensions, while Duke Basin II Timber Sale would be “in urgent need of harvesting,” which would limit extensions of the contract period. Operations would not be continuous during the entire period. Depending on the size and efficiency of the logging operations, actual operating time would range from a few weeks to several months.

Silviculture/Regeneration Comment 3: Will cutting unit boundaries conform to clonal boundaries as was recommended in the 1980’s?

Response

Recent DNA research is suggesting many more genotypes actually exist in some aspen “clones” than phenotypic characteristics indicate. Aspen “clones” are now often referenced as aspen “groves” to reflect the presence of multiple genotypes rather than a true clone of just one genotype.

: When the Forest began managing aspen forests, it was recommended that an entire aspen clone needed to be harvested to ensure successful regeneration. This is no longer considered a valid management recommendation. “…clonal boundaries aren’t too important with respect to management of aspen, as we recognize that a clone is not really one large organism, but a group of physiologically independent trees that share the same genotype (similar to an apple orchard). …it is very difficult and expensive to accurately determine the boundaries of aspen clones when they are growing side by side on the landscape (Shepperd 2007)”.

Comment 4: What has been the regeneration response in the old Duke Basin Timber Sale?

Response: In 1992, the Duke Basin Timber Sale harvested 288 acres of aspen. The sprouting response and subsequent growth and survival of aspen sprouts have

24

been tremendous. All of the harvest units were certified as fully stocked five years after harvest. Field reviews in 2008 indicate that these sites are still vigorously growing and fully stocked.

Comment 19: What measures will be taken to deter cattle and sheep overbrowsing on aspen regeneration. We support the fencing of all treated areas to facilitate successful regeneration.

Response: The Leroux Creek C&H allotment is authorized for 1066 cow/calf pairs from June 16 through October 15. Sheep are not authorized on the allotment. Cattle are moved through 6 pastures during the grazing season. Grazing plans are developed every spring and management techniques to control the livestock are put into the plans. Regenerating clear cuts will be protected from excessive livestock grazing through such means as salting away from harvest units, using range riders to keep livestock out of units, resting pastures or using electric fences. The method used will be based on the intensity of grazing and coordinated between the rangeland management specialist and silviculturist (EA page 14).

Comment 5: What has been the regeneration response in other SAD timber sales like Terror Creek and Wolverine? How will this data be used in the Leroux Creek?

Response

In 2008, the Paonia Ranger District sold the Terror Creek Applied Silvicultural Assessment Timber Sale. This research project was designed to determine aspen sprouting response and survival following treatment by clearfell harvesting of aspen stands with varying levels of crown dieback and mortality caused by sudden aspen decline (SAD). The timber sale area included 171 acres of harvest of three sets of low, medium, and high SAD aspen plus uncut control areas. In the winter of 2008-2009 the first set with 39 acres was harvested. First year regeneration surveys indicated that SAD-impacted stands were sprouting following harvest. The stand with the lowest amount of SAD had 17,000 sprouts per acre; the stand with moderate SAD had 8,900 sprouts per acre; and the stand with high SAD had 6,500 sprouts per acre. Additional harvesting and data collection needs to occur before management recommendations are developed but initially it does appear that SAD-impacted stands are responding to clear fell harvesting.

: Wolverine Timber Sale is located on the Norwood Ranger District. This sale was sold in 2008, but as of January 2010, harvest activities had not started.

In 2010, the US Forest Service scientists published results of a multi-year study which looked at SAD affected aspen stands in southwestern Colorado. They observed among other things that plots with high levels of SAD had much higher root mortality, and that total live root length that was approximately 36% less than in healthy plots based on a sampling of shallow soil pits. Root system health is considered key to the regeneration response of aspen stands. The researchers concluded that in stands with very low levels of regeneration and high levels of crown mortality, silvicultural manipulations may not be successful in achieving desired results. There was no difference in aspen regeneration beneath healthy

25

stands and stands which had lost much of their canopy. Considering the health of the root systems and the current levels of regeneration in these high SAD stands, additional removal of infected trees is not likely to have an appreciable effect on regeneration. The researchers offered that perhaps silvicultural operations designed to enhance aspen regeneration in SAD affected stands should focus on stands with moderate to low SAD levels.

With the current market conditions, district timber staff have concluded that in many cases the stands with the highest levels of SAD are no longer commercially marketable. Portions of these stands with high levels of SAD may be dropped from commercial sales offered as a part of the treatment, however as mentioned in the Decision Notice, firewood and other types of sales may be used to harvest many of these areas.

SAD Comment 11: The EA should discuss current research on SAD.

Response: See EA pages 27-29, and 32-39.

Comment 15: It appears that half of the acreage proposed for harvest is outside of areas delineated with SAD. This is inconsistent with the purposed and need.

Response

Regenerating aspen stands impacted by SAD is not the only purpose and need objective (EA pages 2 and 3) for this project. Cutting healthy stands meets the needs to promote a diversity of structural stages, and contribute commercial forest products to local industries.

: As stated on Map 3 of the Scoping/Opportunity to Comment document, “due to the nature of aerial surveys, this map should only be used as a partial indicator of SAD and should be validated on the ground for actual location.” Additional analysis has been completed to determine the extent and severity of SAD within the analysis area (see EA page 36). Stands proposed for harvest all have some degree of SAD.

Soil and Water Comment 6: The EA should disclose how the Forest Service will ensure that standards and guidelines described in the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25) are adhered to. Specifically, what are the setbacks from streams, riparian areas and ponds?

Response: The Forest Hydrologist, Soil Scientist, and Botanist visited the Leroux Creek project area and wrote a report detailing applicable standards and guidelines from the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH). This report is available in the project file and will be provided to the engineers and foresters designing the roads and timber sales. Specific design criteria are listed in the EA under “Soil and Water” on pages 15 – 17, “Travel Management and Roads” on pages 17 – 18, and “Wildlife/Fisheries” on pages 18 – 19. Many of both the WCPH and the specific design criteria are present in standard timber sale contract provisions and the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-03). Additional special provisions will

26

be included in the timber sale contracts where needed. The Contracting Officer checks the contract to make sure that all required protections are included. The Engineering Representative and Timber Sale Administrator enforce the contract provisions. See the “Monitoring” section of the EA on pages 19 – 20.

Water influence zones (WIZ) will be protected as described in the design criteria listed in the EA under “Soil and Water” on pages 15 – 17. Table 7 of the EA on page 15 defines the WIZ for different types of features. Cutting units and roads will be located outside the Water Influence Zone (WIZ) of perennial streams except at designed crossings.

Comment 7: Provide a discussion about the activities on the Hubbard Timber Sale as they may relate to the proposed action. Specifically, why were trees logged next to creeks, logging slash left near creeks and stream crossings allowed without culverts.

Response: The Stevens Gulch Environmental Impact Statement, which included the Hubbard #2 Timber Sale, allowed for harvest activities within Management Area 9A (Riparian Areas). As mentioned above, this proposal for Leroux Creek Aspen Management would not permit cutting units within the WIZ of perennial and intermittent streams and wetlands. Further discussion regarding the Hubbard #2 Timber Sale is beyond the scope of this analysis because the management objectives and site conditions for spruce/fir management associated with the Hubbard #2 Timber Sale are different from the aspen management proposed in Leroux Creek. Contact the Paonia Ranger District (970-527-4131) to discuss concerns or questions regarding the Hubbard #2 Timber Sale.

Comment 8: The GMUG should conduct soil compaction surveys to determine whether the sum of all detrimentally compacted soils exceed Forest Plan and Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook standards. The GMUG should also assess whether and to what degree the proposed action will result in further soil compaction in excess of these standards. Similarly, the GMUG should assess the degree to which past and proposed logging is in compliance with Forest Plan and WCPH standards for cumulative surface disturbance.

Response

The amount of area detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced in the old Duke Basin timber sale was analyzed. The extent of temporary roads and skid trails was estimated based on the 2006 NAIP satellite imagery. Approximately 4.2 miles of road and 3.8 miles of skid trail are present throughout the old harvest units. The cuts and fills (which are minimal), as well as the running surface of both the temporary roads and skid trails have good herbaceous ground cover. Although they support effective ground cover species, aspen has, by and large, not regenerated on these corridors. The widths observed on the ground ranged

: The WCPH standard (FSH 2409.25_14.1 – Management Measure (13)) is to limit the sum of detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15% of any activity area. For this project and other timber sales the “activity area” is defined as a timber sale cutting unit (FSH 2409.25_05 – Definitions). The proposed cutting units have not experienced previous harvest activities so the soils have not been impacted by heavy mechanized equipment and there is no cumulative impact to soils from compaction or displacement.

27

from 20 to 25 feet for roads and 12 to 15 feet for skid trails. The total area disturbed ranges from 15 to nearly 18.7 acres which represents 5 to 6.5% of the total harvested area. This is below the WCPH standard of no more than 15% of a treatment area to be detrimentally impacted. It is reasonable to assume that, with careful sale layout and administration, the proposed harvest activities will result in similar, if not less, detrimental impact to the soil.

Fire Comment 16: We are pleased that prescribed fire is being considered however we are concerned about the weather and fuel conditions that will be necessary to successfully burn aspen. What control strategies are being considered?

Response

Recreation

: Aspen does not readily burn due to the moist site conditions and low fuel profiles found under aspen stands. It is likely that all management objectives may not be realized through prescribed burning. In wildfire situations, fire managers often push wildfire into aspen in order to slow the spread of the fire. Using prescribed fire to regenerate aspen is a new management tool being considered and the Forest Service shares the concern about weather and fuel conditions that will be necessary to successfully burn aspen. Management strategies being considered are to time the burn for the fall after frost has killed a portion of the shrubs and forbs. In addition, some grazing pastures may be rested prior to the burn to increase fine fuels. To the extent possible, natural barriers and existing improvements like fences, ATV trails, and roads will be used as control lines. These improvements may need to be cleared by hand using chainsaws. No mechanical fire lines will be constructed.

Comment 10: The EA should discuss the effects of the proposed action on hunting and winter recreation.

Response

Visitors within the immediate area would experience the sights and sounds of timber harvest activities. The activities would occur intermittently in selected treatment units over the lifetime of the proposed project. Visitors seeking solitude and a primitive experience would generally choose not to visit the affected area for the duration of the proposed activities. The recreational setting would be temporarily modified within the timber sale area during project activities, but would not change in the long term.

: A complete report on recreation effects is available in the project folder.

Visitors would encounter logging traffic on area roads. Long-term access opportunities would not change, as new roads would be closed and obliterated once harvest activities have been completed. New roads would be closed to the public for the duration of harvest activities to prevent public motorized access.

Cumulative impacts to recreational opportunities would result from past, existing, and other planned or foreseeable vegetation management activities within the cumulative effects analysis area. Past actions in the analysis area include timber harvest and other vegetation management activities, including associated access

28

roads and skid trails and hazard tree management activities. Evidence of these activities is visible in some parts of the analysis area; however, there have been no apparent impacts on current levels of recreation from these past activities. There are no reasonably foreseeable actions planned that would add to impacts from past and proposed vegetation management activities.

Roads Comment 12: The EA should disclose the amount of truck traffic on the Leroux Creek Road (County Road 3100) and Forest Service Road 128 and potential damage that may occur.

Response

Log trucks carry about 10 CCF per load so the total number of loads can be estimated by dividing the predicted sale volume by 10. Based on aspen timber sales logged over the last five years and the current pool of prospective timber sale purchasers, it is estimated that the amount of log truck traffic would be 4 log trucks per day during the times the purchaser was operating the sale. It is possible but unlikely that the two sales would be operated at the same time.

: The timber sale contract authorizes the use of forest roads for log hauling. Forest Service roads would be maintained by the timber sale purchaser commensurate with use. This includes a deposit for surface rock replacement (gravel) on roads with a gravel surface (NFSR 128 and 128.1G). The timber sale purchaser is also required to obtain any necessary road use permits from the county for county roads.

Comment 14: How will temporary roads be closed? How successful has the Grand Valley Ranger District been at closing roads?

Response

Merchantability/Sale Viability

: Temporary roads will be obliterated by the timber sale purchaser which includes removing bridges and culverts, eliminating ditches, outsloping the road bed, removing ruts and berms, effectively blocking the road to normal vehicle traffic where feasible under existing terrain conditions, and building cross ditches and water bars. Road obliteration is a very successful means to close roads to vehicle traffic, especially when performed immediately after completion of timber sale activities. Within the old Duke Basin Timber Sale, no motorized use is apparent on the old temporary roads; the only evidence of use is related to game and livestock.

Comment 20: The GMUG should consider contingency plans should some or all of the proposed harvest areas prove uneconomical or should sale operators go out of business.

Response

: The Forest Service is very concerned about the economic health of the local timber industry. The Regional Office, the State of Colorado, and the GMUG National Forest are all working with industry to develop new markets, improve utilization, change merchantability specifications, use stewardship contracts, and explore other options to ensure continued availability of timber management tools.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTa123.g.akamai.net/.../11558/www/nepa/54453_FSPLT2_026208.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTa123.g.akamai.net/.../11558/www/nepa/54453_FSPLT2_026208.pdf ·...