For projects categorically excluded under NEPA, document that there are no Watershed PDF 11 states, “If available on site, post treatment soil cover will.
20 pages
224 KB – 20 Pages
PAGE – 1 ============
Salmon Reforestation Project NEPA Categorical Exclusion Checklist NEPA Categorical Exclusion Checklist For projects categorically excluded under NEPA, document that there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action that warrant further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Forest, District: Project Name: Project Leader: Klamath National Forest, Salmon/Scott River Ranger District Salmon Reforestation Marissa R. Jones Environmental Coordinator: Lauren McChesney Location Description Salmon River Ranger District, 4 miles northeast of Forks of Salmon, CA and 2 Y2 (District, Distance to miles northwest of Sawyers Bar, CA Nearest Town): Legal Description: Township (T) 40 North (N), Range (R) 11 West (W), Sections 7-10, 15-21, and 30; T41N, R12W, Section 35; T40N, R12W, Sections 10-24 and 27-31, Mount Diablo Meridian; T10N, R8E, Sections 4-6 and 8-9; T11N, R8E, Sections 28 and 32-33, Humboldt Meridian. Gross acres (project area): 14,779 Net Acres (actual ground disturbance): __ 9_0_5 __ Project Purpose: The purpose of this project is to promote reforestation and reduce fuel loading in areas to be planted on National Forest System lands burned during the Salmon Complex (part of the Forks Complex). These activities will help facilitate establishment of desired conifers in existing plantations and natural stands lost during this fire. Retaining and promoting growth of Late Successional Reserve habitat will require protection and maintenance of the existing stands of late-successional forest, as well as managing young stands for the development of future successional habitat. The proposed treatment is needed to facilitate establishment of forest cover and diversity within the burned plantations and natural stands and reduce the amount of hazardous fuels created by fire-related tree mortality. This project will maintain, protect and eventually restore conditions of late-successional and old growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for associated wildlife. Treatments designed to provide these habitat conditions support the objectives for the LSR and Crapo Drainage. Description Proposed Action: The proposed action was designed to meet the purpose and need for action. The proposed action will treat about 905 acres within the 14,779-acre fire perimeter. The Forest Service has evaluated site-preparation needs on acres proposed for replanting. About 7,560 acres of plantation were within the fire perimeter. Of those 7,560 acres, 2,680 acres were evaluated for replanting due to the vegetation burn severity. Of these 2,680 acres evaluated with a high degree of burn severity, approximately 905 acres (Plantation and Natural Units) are being proposed for replanting. Determining factors for selecting these acres for planting consisted of aspect, site potential, competing vegetation, location on the landscape, potential for natural regeneration, and Land and Resource Management Plan allocation. The large reduction in acres resulted from a landscape-level evaluation, rather than a unit-specific perspective. 1
PAGE – 2 ============
Salmon Reforestation Project NEP A Categorical Exclusion Checklist The proposed treatments include approximately 395 acres of site preparation and planting and approximately 510 acres of planting only (including 170 acres oflnventoried Roadless Areas) for a total of 905 treated acres. The Salmon Salvage Project units are proposed to be planted regardless of the salvage harvest. Appendix B contains a list of project design features that will be implemented to minimize the effects of the project on resources. Site Preparation (395 acres) Site preparation for the 395 acres will reduce fuel loading and prepare the area for planting by windrowing dead material followed by burning. Windrowing consists of piling material in a long line oriented to optimize drying in the wind and consuming more readily. Where they exist, healthy conifers and hardwoods will be left on site. Brush and dead and dying trees will be removed to prepare the site for planting. The proposed action for site preparation are listed in the examples in 36 CPR 220.6(e)(5)(ii), “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. Planting trees or mechanical seed dispersal of native tree species following a fire, flood, or landslide,” and 36 CPR 220.6(e)(6)(iv) “Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction. Prescribed burning to reduce natural fuel build-up and improve plant vigor. ” Planting (905 acres) Tree planting (or reforestation) would be by hand methods, using either bare root or container stock. Within treatment stands, planting would only take place in those areas previously stocked with conifers. Since the terrain is very rocky and contains numerous unplantable sites, reforesting by hand will provide for the desired spatial variability within treatment stands and across the project area. Tree species used for planting will roughly correspond with historical stand composition, varying by forest type. An average of 130-200 trees per acre is to be planted in a mosaic distribution. The proposed action for site preparation are listed in the examples in 36 CPR 220.6(e)(5)(ii), “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. Planting trees or mechanical seed dispersal of native tree species following a fire, flood, or landslide.” Additional planting survival techniques may be used to increase survival of planted trees. These techniques include, but are not limited to: vexar tubing for browse prevention, shade blocks for improved microsite conditions and hand grubbing (to release for survival). Access: Access for this project will be accomplished by use of roads on the National Forest Transportation System. T bl 1 A a e . cres an d t t rea men tb “t )YUDI num b er. Unit Unit Number Acres Treatment IRA Number Acres Treatment 297 130 Plant only y 286 27 Site prep and plant 298 24 Plant only y 294 33 Site prep and plant 323 16 Plant only y 303 64 Site prep and plant 2 IRA N N N
PAGE – 3 ============
Salmon Reforestation Project NEPA Categorical Exclusion Checklist Total Plant Only in IRA 170 304 41 Site prep and plant N 284 47 Plant only N 305 26 Site prep and plant N 285 16 Plant only N 314 8 Site prep and plant N 295 25 Plant only N 324 3 Site prep and plant N 296 10 Plant only N 325 9 Site prep and plant N 300 3 Plant only N 326 35 Site prep and plant N 307 30 Plant only N 340 6 Site prep and plant N 308 24 Plant only N 342 17 Site prep and plant N 308 2 Plant only N 350 50 Site prep and plant N 308 2 Plant only N 351 27 Site prep and plant N 311 26 Plant only N 359 49 Site prep and plant N Total Site Prep and 312 2 Plant only N Plant 395 Total Acres 316 1 Plant only N Treated 905 323 10 Plant only N 329 27 Plant only N 329 20 Plant only N 345 13 Plant only N 347 17 Plant only N 352 6 Plant only N 353 58 Plant only N Total Plant Only 340 T bl 2 C t ‘ I Exl ‘ t a e Ł a egor1ca us1on ca egor1es: Ch k h C 0 IE I 0 h I’ h ec t e ategonca xc us1on category t at app11es to t e proJect: For full description of each category and examples refer to FSH 1909.15, Chapter 30. (9/30/1 0) 32.11 Categories 32.12 Categories Established by the 32.2 Categories (Decision Memo, Established by the Chief (CE Case File or DM is not Comment, and Appeal are Required) Secretary required, but may be recommended) 7 CFR 1 b.3(a)(1) 36 CFR 220.6(d)(1) 36 CFR 220.6(e)(1) 7 CFR 1 b.3(a)(2) 36 CFR 220.6(d)(2) 36 CFR 220.6(e)(2) 7 CFR 1 b.3(a)(3) 36 CFR 220.6(d)(3) 36 CFR 220.6(e)(3) 7 CFR 1 b.3(a)(4) 36 CFR 220.6(d)(4) -/ 36 CFR 220.6(e)(5) 7 CFR 1 b.3(a)(5) 36 CFR 220.6(d)(5) -/ 36 CFR 220.6(e)(6) 7 CFR 1 b.3(a)(6) 36 CFR 220.6(d)(6) 36 CFR 220.6(e)(7) 7 CFR 1 b.3(a)(7) 36 CFR 220.6(d)(7) 36 CFR 220.6(e)(8) 36 CFR 220.6(d)(8) 36 CFR 220.6(e)(9) 36 CFR 220.6(d)(9) 36 CFR 220.6(e)(11) 36 CFR 220.6(d)(10) 36 CFR 220.6(e)(12) 36 CFR 220.6(e)(13) 36 CFR 220.6(e)(14) 36 CFR 220.6(e)(15) 36 CFR 220.6(e)(16) 3
PAGE – 4 ============
Salmon Reforestation Project NEPA Categorical Exclusion Checklist I I I I 36 CFR 220.6(e)(17) 31.3 Cateqories Established by Statute 42 USC 15942 -Energy Act 2005–0il and Gas Leases 16 USC 6554-HFRA-Silvicultural Assessments HR 1105, Div. E, Title IV, Sec. 423. LTBMU-Hazardous Fuel Treatment 31.4 Statutory_ N EPA Exce_Qtion 16 USC 6236 -Organization Camp Special Use Authorization Table 3. Forest Plan Management Area (MA) Acres and Proposal Consistency: List applicable MAs. Check Y [ Y] N [NH . N T I . d R dl A es or 0 or consistency_. ote 1 m an nventone oa ess rea. Management Pages in Acres Percentage of Acres Percentage y N Area Forest within Project area Proposed for of Project Plan* Project (%) Treatment area(%) Area within Project Area MA2-4-70 to 4-567 4 0 0 ..J ” Wilderness 75 MAS-4-82 to 4-3,312 22 150 1 Special 94 Habitat (Late ..J Successional Reserve) MA 10-4-106 to 3,016 21 153 1 Riparian 4-114 ..J Reserves (RRs) MA13-4-120 to 562 4 9 0.1 Recreational 4-122 ..J River MA 15-4-126 to 7,036 48 562 4 Partial 4-127 Retention ..J Visual Quality Objective (VQO) MA 17-4-131 to 181 1 31 0.2 General 4-132 ..J Forest Private N/A 4.7 0.001 0 0 Lands n/ Within a Project Area Inventoried 4,130 28 170 1.1 Road less ..J Area** * Page numbers from the July 29, 2010 version of the Forest Plan. Accessed online at httQ.:I!www. fs. usda. gov!main!klamath!landmanagement!Q.Ianning. **An Inventoried Roadless Area Briefing Paper is available for further discussion of treatment within the Portuguese IRA. 4
PAGE – 5 ============
Salmon Reforestation Project NEP A Categorical Exclusion Checklist T bl 4 A a e . cres o fM anagement A reas s IY (MA) b T T reatment l ype Treatment Type (Acres) Management Area Plant Only Site Prep and Plant Plant Only-IRA MATotal MA 2-Wilderness 0 0 0 0 MA 5-Special Habitat, LSR 122 28 0 150 MA 10-Riparian Area (Hydrologic) 20 74 58 153 MA 13-Recreational River 9 9 MA 15-Partial Retention VQO 165 286 112 562 MA 17-General Forest 24 7 31 Grand Total 340 395 170 905 Determination of Extraordinary Circumstances for the Proposal (36 CFR 220.6(a)): The following resource conditions (Table 5) were considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS1’2: T bl 5 R a e esource C d’. C ‘d d D on abons ODSI ere to etermme Whth Et d’ e er x raor mary t arcums ances E’ xast. Resource Conditions If Present, the following Findings are Reference material supporting finding of no extraordinary made: circumstance: Proposed, Threatened, or y No P, T, E or S wildife No effect to NSO or sensitive Endangered Terrestrial Wildlife species or critical habitats species. No habitats will be Species or Their Designated or will be adversely affected affected. Proposed Critical habitat, or FS by this proposal. No sensitive wildlife species extraordinary circumstances exist for this resource condition. Proposed, Threatened, or y No P, T, E or S Fish, No effects to SONCC Coho Endangered Aquatic Species or Amphibians or salmon or their critical habitat are Their Designated or Proposed Macroinvertibrates or expected. Critical habitat, or FS sensitive critical habitats will be aquatic species . adversely affected by this proposal. No extraordinary circumstances exist for this resource condition. 1 FSH 1909.15 Section 30.3(2). 2 The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion (CE). It is the existence of a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions, and if such a relationship exists, the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist (36 CFR 220.6 (a) (2). 5
PAGE – 6 ============
Salmon Reforestation Project NEP A Categorical Exclusion Checklist Proposed, Threatened, or N No P, T, E or S plant Klamath National Forest Short Endangered Plant Species or Their species will be adversely Form BAISE for Threatened, Designated or Proposed Critical affected by this action. Endangered, Proposed and habitat, or FS sensitive plant No extraordinary Sensitive Plant Species, Survey species circumstances exist for and Manage Report, and Noxious this resource condition. Weed Risk Assessment. Floodplains, wetlands or N No floodplains, wetlands No floodplains, wetlands or municipal watersheds or municipal watersheds municipal watersheds are within will be adversely affected the project area. by this action. No extraordinary circumstances exist for this resource condition. Congressionally designated y No Congressionally Although 567 acres of Wilderness wilderness, wilderness study areas, designated areas will be are within the project area, none or National Recreation Areas adversely affected by are proposed for treatment. this action. No extraordinary circumstances exist for this resource condition. Inventoried Roadless Areas y I RAs will not be IRA Briefing Paper; adversely affected by Forest Supervisor’s Memo of May this action. No 29,2014 extraordinary circumstances exist for this resource condition. Research Natural Areas N RNAs will not be No Research Natural Areas are adversely affected by within the project area. this action.OHV use not allowed in wilderness/no routes exist No extraordinary circumstances exist for this resource condition. American Indians and Alaska N Implementation of the No American Indian religious or Native religious or cultural sites Proposed Action would traditional cultural properties are not adversely affect known to be within the project American Indian religious area. or cultural sites. No extraordinary circumstances exist for this resource condition. Archaeological sites, or historic N No archeological sites or No archaeological sites or historic properties or areas sites eligible for National properties are known to be within Historic Register listing the project area. will be adversely affected by this proposal. No extraordinary circumstances exist for this resource condition. 6
PAGE – 8 ============
Salmon Reforestation Project Review: Environmental Coordinator NEP A Categorical Exclusion Checklist Line Officer approval: I have considered the above listed resource conditions and determined there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action that warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS. None of the extraordinary circumstances described in 36 CFR 220.6 (b) exist. I have also considered all other factors listed here and find that all practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted in the design of proposed action. Andrew Skowlund Acting District Ranger: By: 8
PAGE – 9 ============
Salmon Reforestation Project NEPA Categorical Exclusion Checklist INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEW Instructions: List any known extraordinary circumstances, Forest Plan, or other legal concern that may result in the need for this project to be modified or analyzed under an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Provide rationale to support your concern. If there are no extraordinary circumstances, provide rational to support this conclusion. Reference any supporting documents. Wildlife: Sam Cuenca The proposed action will not occur in any Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive species habitats. There will be no effect to NSO habitat. No known sites of survey and manage species are recorded in the project area. The project is consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This project will not affect Management Indicator Species habitats. Initials: SC Date: 51612014 Botany: Danika Carlson Noxious Weeds Summary: The Salmon Reforestation Project is proposing activities that require hand work for site prep and planting, and pile burning of fuels to accomplish project goals. This type of work creates relatively low amounts of ground disturbance, and will leave some openings that could be vulnerable to infestation. Planting previously burned areas may be beneficial in reducing the amount of available noxious weed habitat within the project area over time as the trees grow and canopy cover increases within planting units. Activities that require soil disturbance for implementation have the potential to create habitat for noxious weed species, however project design features have been incorporated into the proposed action to minimize the potential spread of noxious weed infestations that currently exist within the project area. These project design features will be sufficient to reduce the risk of spreading seeds from the project area to other locations on the forest and will reduce the risk of current infestations within the project area expanding beyond their current boundaries. Implementation of mandatory project design features -Equipment Cleaning and Weed Free Materials -in the contract will reduce the risk of introduction of new noxious weeds into the project area. There is a low risk that the Salmon Reforestation Project will cause the introduction or spread of Klamath N.F. listed noxious weeds. Compliance with regulatory direction: There will be a low risk of noxious weed introduction and spread within the Salmon Reforestation Project area. Project Design Standards have been incorporated into the Proposed Action which are expected to reduce the risk of weed introduction and spread. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Manual direction will be met. Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Plant Species The Salmon Reforestation Project is not within the range or habitat of Arabis macdonaldiana, Astragalus applegatei, Fritillaria gentneri, or Phlox hirsuta. No federally listed Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed plant species would be affected by this project. There would be no 9
PAGE – 10 ============
Salmon Reforestation Project NEPA Categorical Exclusion Checklist direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed plant species. Determination: The Salmon Reforestation Project is not within the range of any federally listed TEP plant species. A field review has been conducted, and no potentially suitable habitat has been located. It is my determination that the Salmon Salvage Project will not affect Arabis macdonaldiana, Astragalus applegatei, Fritillaria gentneri, or Phlox hirsuta. Compliance with Regulatory Direction: The Salmon Reforestation Project complies with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and Forest Service Policy (FSM 2670). Sensitive Plant Species Summary: All Sensitive Species in Project Area: The Salmon Reforestation Project is not proposing any activities within or directly adjacent to any of these known sites, there will be no direct effects from reforestation units. There are no known sites adjacent to or along access routes into any proposed Salmon Reforestation Project units, there will be no indirect effects from reforestation activities. Determination: It is my determination that the Salmon Reforestation Project will not affect Cypripediumfasciculatum, Cypripedium montanum, or Phaeocollybia olivacea. Compliance with Regulatory Direction: The Salmon Reforestation Project complies with Forest Service Policy (FSM 2670). The Salmon Reforestation Project complies with Klamath National Forest LRMP Standards and Guidelines for Sensitive plant species. Survey and Manage This Survey and Manage fungi species, Cantharellus subalbidus, is listed as a category D, manage high priority sites. There are two populations of this species known to occur within the project area. The Salmon Reforestation Project is not proposing any activities within the known occurrences of this species in the project area. Summary: Survey and Manage Species in Project Area: The Salmon Reforestation Project is not proposing any activities within or directly adjacent to any of these known sites, there will be no direct effects from reforestation units. There are no known sites adjacent to or along access routes into any proposed Salmon Reforestation Project units, there will be no indirect effects from reforestation activities. Determination: It is my determination that the Salmon Reforestation Project will not affect Cantharellus subalbidus, Cypripediumfasciculatum, Cypripedium montanum, or Phaeocollybia olivacea. Compliance with Regulatory Direction: Pre-disturbance surveys (Category A&C) and management of known sites required by protocol standards to comply with the 2001 Record of Decision and Standard and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (the 2001 ROD) have been completed for Salmon Reforestation Project. Known sites of Cypripedium fasciculatum and Cypripedium montanum will be protected and the Management Recommendations (USDA 1998) will be met. 10
PAGE – 11 ============
Salmon Reforestation Project NEPA Categorical Exclusion Checklist The project area has been reviewed for species listed as manage known sites and manage high priority sites (Category B, D, or E) and there are no known sites present in locations that may be affected by project activities, Cantharellus subalbidus is present within the project boundary but not within any proposed units (USDA 2013a, Appendix A-1,2,3). The project area is exempt from Equivalent Effort fungi surveys because ground disturbing activities would not occur in stands defined as old-growth (USDA 2006, 2013a). The Salmon Reforestation Project complies with the 2001 Record of Decision and Standard and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines. No extraordinary circumstances exist for T,E,P or Sensitive plant species. Initials: DC Date: 4129/2014 Archaeology : Jason Coats Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no measurable direct or indirect effects to cultural resource properties as there are no cultural resource properties known to exist within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). Two archaeological sites are known to be adjacent to project units; however, this undertaking proposes activities outside of these sites, which would not affect the sites. No resource protection measures would be needed, since the undertaking would not result in any direct or indirect effects to the sites. Cumulative Effects Since there are no direct or indirect effects anticipated for any cultural resources, there will be no cumulative effects. Compliance with law, regulation, policy. and the Forest Plan Whatever alternative is selected, historic properties identified within the project area will be managed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (Regional PA). Management of cultural resource properties according to the provisions set for in the P A is consistent with Forest Plan direction, and is in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. For further information, see Archaeological Survey Report Salmon Reforestation Project CE (ASR #R2014-05-05-2149-0). Because there are no known historic properties located within the APE, no extraordinary circumstances exist relevant to this project which would necessitate documentation of effects in an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This project will not result in any adverse effects to historic properties eligible, or potentially eligible, for the National Register of Historic Places. Implementation of this project is in compliance with all laws, regulations and stipulations set forth in the Forest Plan. Initials: JC Date: 4/28/2014 11
224 KB – 20 Pages