bridge fire salvage and reforestation...

," /' USDA -:==a

DECISION NOTICE

AND

FINDING OF No SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)

BRIDGE FIRE SALVAGE AND REFORESTATION PROJECT

USDA Forest Service Dixie National Forest

Powell Ranger District Garfield County, Utah

INTRODUCTION

The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Bridge Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project documents a proposal to treat an area within the Dixie National Forest by salvaging dead and dying timber, increasing downed woody material for soil stabilization purposes, and reforesting burned conifer s tands. Several alternatives were considered, of which two were selected for detailed analysis in the EA. These were (I) the Modified Proposed Action and (2) No Action. The Mod ified Proposed Action is a revision of the Proposed Action that was described in a Scoping and Opportunity to Comment document made available to interested parties on September 30,2010. The reaso ns for changing the Proposed Action are described below in the "Altematives Considered" section of thi s document. This Decision Notice ancl the accompanying FONSI are based on the results and findings of the EA, a review of the Response to Public Comments and a review of the Dixie National Fores t Land and Reso urce Management Plan (Forest Plan). The EA is available for public review at the Powell Ranger District located in Panguitch, T, and on the Forest Service website at http://fs. usda.go v/dixie.

PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of thi s project is to accelerate the recovery of the project area from the impacts of the Bridge Fire. Associated with this purpose are four distinct needs. There is an immediate need to recover the economic value of bumed timber before the commercial vaJ ue of the wood is lost to deterioration. There is a need to s tabilize soils to minimize excessive runoff and erosion. There is a need to accelerate the long-teml restoration of forest conditions. Finally, there is a need to provide for public safety from hazardous fire-killed trees near designated open roads and trails.

- Decision Notice and FONSI Page 1 of 13

http://fs.usda.gov/dixie

USDA ~

PROJECT LOCATION

The Bridge Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project is located approximately 8 miles southwest of Bryce Canyon City, UT along Forest Road 30087 (East Fork Road) on the Paunsaugunt Plateau. The project area is 3,732 acres defined mostl y by the perimeter of the 2009 Bridge Fire, and is within the Powell Ranger District of the Dixie National Forest in Garfield Coun ty. The project area is located east of FR 30087 within the East Fork of the Sevier River drainage, bounded by Bridge Hollow to the south and FR 30185 (Whiteman Bench Road) to the north. The eastern boundary follows the National Forest boundary with Bryce Canyon National Park. There are several existing roads located within the project area. Elevation within the project area ranges from 7,800 to around 8,700 feet. The project area includes all or parts of Sections 4,5,8,9,16, 17, 18 , 19,20,29,30, and 31 ofT37S, R4W, and Section 36 ofT37S, R4.5W of the Salt Lake Baseline Meridian.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The Modified Proposed Action

The Modified Proposed Action has four separate activities: salvage/sanitation harvest, soil stabilization treatment, reforestation, and hazard tree removal. The Modified Proposed Action is a modification of the original Proposed Action described in the project's Scoping and Opportunity to Comment document dated September 30, 2010. The modification was the result of the discovery that two units slated for salvage harvest had been adversely affected by rain events in the summer of 201 O. As a result, these units were removed from the areas proposed for harvest. They are, however, included in the areas considered for non-harvest activities. The four activities included in the Modified Proposed Action are described below.

1. Salvage/Sanitation Harvest

Merchantable fire-killed trees and trees in a high risk condition of dying on 473 acres of burned sites would be felled and removed using ground-based skidding methods. A high risk condition of dying is defined as (1) live trees with 80% or more of the pre-fire live crown damaged by scorch and/or consumption, (2) fire damaged live trees showing evidence of post fire bark beetle infestations, and (3) live trees infected by dwarf mistletoe or other diseases. Any live trees infected with dwarf mistletoe capable of infecting planted seedlings (within 2 tree lengths or 100 feet of seedlings) would be harvested, felled or girdled for snag recruitment. Mechanized harvest should only occur on slopes less than 40 percent. Unmerchantable material at public accessible landings would be made available for fuel wood or biomass. Any remaining material at landings would be pile burned or scattered after fuel wo,)d removal. An estimated volume of 6, 123 CCF 1

is expected to be recovered . See Appendix A for Figure 2: Modified Proposed Action Map: Salvage/Sanitation Harvest.

I CCF: a hundred cubic feet. A cub ic foot is a unit of true volume that measures I x I x I fecI.


USDA ~

The proposed salvage would use a combination of designated roads, motorized trail s and temporary roads. Des ignated roads and motorized trail s totaling 12.98 miles would be used for hauling and accessing sa lvaged timber. Haul roads used during harvest activities would be maintained through regularly scheduled blade grading. Portions of haul roads may be improved to mcet current Fo rest standards. Harvesting \ovould require constructing 3.07 mil es of temporary roads utili zi ng existing road beds cu rrently present on the ground from roads closed by the Motorized Travel Plan and 0.45 miles of new tempora ry ro ad construction. All 3.52 miles of tempora ry roads would be closed once harvest is cOITlplete.

2. Soil Stabilization

Standing dead trees on 770 acres of burned forested areas that are not harvested or need ed for wildlife snag retenti on would be fell ed by hand or with mechani zed equipment. The 770 acres include the 473 acres where harves t is proposed, and up to 297 acres of burned areas outside of harvest units. The tree boles would be left intact on the gTound and the limbs would be lopped and scattered for the purpose of stab ilizing soi Is and providing shade shelter for pl an ted conifer seedlings.

3. Reforestation

Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir seedlings would be manually planted within 770 acres of high and modera tely burned areas, harves ted si tes and other fores t stands within the 3,732 acre project area that experienced a loss of tree stocking below minimum sta ndards as outlined in the LRMP. See Figure 3: Proposed Action Mop. Reforestation in the EA for potential planting areas. Site preparation and reforestation activitics include:

• Any live trees infected with dwarf mistletoe capable of infecting plantcd seedlings (within 2 tree lengths or 100 fcet of seedlings) in retorestation areas would be felled or girdled for snag recruitment.

• Manual planting methods would include hand sca lping a 2'x 2' area for site preparation and auger or hoedad planting of co ntainerized conifer seedlings.

• Tree seed lings from local secd of conifer species mix simil ar to the oliginal stand would be planted. The species planted would be a mixture of pond erosa pine and Douglas-fi r, depending on elevation, aspect and slope. Microsite planting: Plant on the nOl1h side of logs, stumps and other dehris where possible. Sites for planting would be selected on the basis of maximiz ing expected seedling survival.

• Planting spacing would be irregular to develop a clumpy stand structure. • Approximately 300 trees per acre would be planted on all refo restation sites. The

objective is to have ISO to 200 trees per acre surviving after five years.

• No new road construction or reconstruction is required to impl ement reforestation

activities. The exis ting tl'ansportation system is sufficient to implement the activiti es .


USDA ~

4. Hazard Tree Salvage

Hazard trees are defined as trees that ere already dead or in a high risk condition of dying, and that are within 150 feet of designated road s or trai Is. Hazard trees would be felled within burned areas. Merchantabl e hazard trees would be s(1lv(1ged. Non-mcrchantable hazard trees would be contour-felled. Limbs would be lopped and scattered to a depth of less than 24 inches. No new road construction or reconstruction is required to implement hazard tree salvage activities. The existing transportation system is sufficient to implement hazard tree salvage activities.

Project Design Features

The following design features are components of the Modified Proposed Action.

Project Design Features

Wildlife

WL-l: Maintain a minimum average of 300 snags per 100 acres (greater than 18 inches diameter breast height (dbh) and 30 feet tall) in mi xed conifer cover type. Maintain an average 01'200 snags per 100 acres (greater than 18 inches dbh and 30 feet tall in ponderosa pine cover typ::. If the minimum snags are unavailable , green trees should be substituted. If the minimum size is unavai lable , then the largest trees on site should be substituted.

WL-2 Trees designated as wildlife leave trees or as wildlife snags will be designa ted for retention.

WL-3 Ifraptor nests are discovered prior to or during treatment operations, a biologist will be consulted to establish a nest zone buffer and, if appropriate, restrict activities within the nes t zone during occupancy.

WL-4 In harvest areas manage snClgs for groups of clumps where possible , according to the intent of the LRj'v!P Northern Goshawk amendment.

WL-S Project area has been identified by district wildli fe biologist as preferred elk and mule deer fawning habitCIl. Harvest activities within all harvest units should be restricted during the active fawning and calving period. This period nOllllally occurs from May 1 till June 30.

WL-o Unit 13 is loca ted within a GoshClwk Post Fledgling Area. Management activities should be restricted during the active nesting period. The active nesting period will normally occur between March I" and September 30'h

Hydrology and Soils

HS-l : Sale administration will comply with all applicable Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCP's) (FSH 2509.22) during project layou t Clnd implementation. The project file contains a list of specific SWCP's and instructions for contract preparation.

HS-2 The OAS miles of tempora ry road T31 0 used to access unit 12 will be fully obliterated, re-conloLlfed , planted with grass/fo rb mix and con i fer seed lings and if necessary barricaded upon completion of harvest activities. Remove all temporary culverts or crossing structures. When removing culverts, be sure all fill materiClI is removed from below the high water line of the stream. All material that is removed ~hould be placed in a sCIre disposal area . The remaining fi ll material should be left at a stable angle. Remaining 3.07 miles of temporary road wi ll be barricaded and will be ripped and seeded within site distance of designated open roads. The project file cont~i)ls seeding information for contract preparation.

HS-3 Ground-based sk idding equipment will be restric ted to slopes less than 40'/'0. For slopes identitied by sale administrator as greater than 40%, direct ional hand fallillg and retrieval by end-lining and rigging is authorized.

HS-4 All project debri s and temporary crossing structu;-es will be removed from stream course to provide unobstructed passage during high tlo ws.

HS-S Sale administration with zone hydrologist and timber purchaser will ensure landings will not be 10cCl ted within defined stream buffers.

- Decision Not ice and FONSI Page 4 of 13

USDA ~

Project Design Features HS-6 Skid trilil cross ings

USDA -::=-

• USDA ~==

DECISION

Based on 111y revie\v of the Bridge Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project EA , I have decided to implement the Modified Proposed Action, with two additional revisions that are described below, as it best meets (1) the Purpose and Need identitled in the EA .. and (2) the Standards and Guidelines of the Forest Plun tCJI" the Bridge Fire project area.

I al11 revising Action fl l to climinute commercial sanitation harvesting of mistletoe infected live trees. This change has the benctlts of providing additional trees for seed source, shade, wildlife and soil retention.

I am also revising Action # I to require that harvest-generated slash at landings be returned to the harvest units and scattered or used for rehabilitation of skid trails, landings and temporary roads. This requirement will eliminate the opportunity for tlrewood gathering at landings and the need for burning of slash at landings. This revision will provide additional downed material for stabilization of soils in areas where much of the pre-tIre downed woody debris was burned.

The EA and accompanying speciu/ist reports includcd in the project record document the findings and conclusions upon which this decision is based.

RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

In making this decision [ considered comments and concerns from interested individuals and organizations. During the public comment periods, two commenters requested that the analysis consider an alternative that would omit the commercial salvage harvest. Their rationale was that (1) there is no demand for the wood and (2) the ecological impacts of logging are too great. This alternative was considered but was eliminated from detailed study. I believe that this was justified for the following reasons. First , a demand docs exist, as demonstrated by the fact that over the last two years, three similar fire salvage sales have been sold on the Dixie National Forest. Second, the analysis of environmental consequences in the EA demonstrates that the harvest can be implemented without undue harm to the environment and, in fact, will provide environmental benefits, namely stabili ; ation of soils in burned areas and timely reforestation of these burned areas.

One commenter requested that opposing scientific knowledge be considered, including numerous references supplied by the commenter. These references were reviewed and considered, along with other scientific literature that is recognized as relevant to forest management. Based on this review I have determined that the best available science was used to reach conclusions regarding treatment design, road access, and other clements of thi s project.

One commenter requested that the area within the project area that is included in the ·'Citizen's Proposal " for wilderness be eliminatecl t)·om harvest trcatment. As described in Section 3.8.1 of the EA, the project area c10es not include any Inventoried Roadlcss Areas (IRAs). During the most recent Forest Plan revision process, the Forest inventoried and evaluated areas in addition to the IRAs for their wilderness character. This inventory was termed the undevelopecl /unroaded inventory and evaluation. Applying the undeveloped/unroacled inventory criteria, no areas within the project area qualitled t()I" undeveloped/unroaded status. Decisions regarding wiJderness eligibility are made during the Forest Plan revi sion process.


USDA ~

I also considered the analyses described in th~ EA and related specialist reports. Chapter 3 of the EA describes how the Modified Proposed Action and No Action affect various resources within the project area. Based on my review of these effects, I have determined that the Modified Proposed Action best meets the project's purpose and need without having substantial adverse effects on the human environment.

Sum111urizing my reasons for selecting the Modified Proposed Action, this alternative will have the following specific outcomes consistent with the project's purpose and need:

First, the Modified Proposed Action will recover the economic value of burned trees and support loc81 communities by providing salv8geable wood products to the local forest industry. The activities are expected to cre8te or 1118int8in 6 jobs 8nd provide over $1.8 million in income throughout Garfield County, UT.

Second, the Modified Proposed Action will quickly provide addition81 C08rse woody debris to burned soils within the burned area. This action will help stabilize forest soils by using felled trees to cover the soil and slovv surface flow of water, reducing loss of topsoil to erosional processes. This action will also provide abundant woody debris to be used for shelter by various wildlife and shade to planted seedlings.

Third , the Modified Proposed Action will accelerate the development of new forest stands by planting conifer seedlings within severely burned st8nds, ensuring desirable tree species will be established.

Fourth, the Modified Proposed Action will provide for public safety by removing haz8rdous trees immediately from forest r08ds and trails.

I did not select the No Action alternative as it does not fully meet the project's purpose and need 8nd in some cases does not meet the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan, including the objectives of the 7 A Wood Production and Utilization management area. Following are the specific issues that led me to reject the No Action alternative:

First, with no action the opportunity to recover the economic value of the burned timber would be lost , resulting in lost opportunities for economic development in the local area.

Second, while coarse woody debris would accumulate as trees falJ down over time, this would occur very slowly, and soil erosion would continue at the cunent high rate for up to ten years. With no action, forest plan goals to secure and maintain favorable water flow through reestablishing soil, hydrologic and vegetative conditions would not be met for m8ny ye8rs.

Third, while vegetative cover would establish under natural conditions over time, due to soil qU81ity and climate, vegetative cover may not rc-establish satisfactorily to the preferred species mix.

Fourth, falling ofh8zard trees along open roadways within the project area could jeopardize public safety for many years, and require recurring maintenance as individual trees fall on forest roads and trails.


USDA ~

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ISSUES

This action was originally listed as a proposal on the Dixi e National Fores t Schedule of Proposed Actions on July 1,20 I 0 and has been updated periodically during the analysis , People were invited to review and cO lllment on the proposal through a Scoping and Opportunity to Comment document mailed to interes ted pal1ics on September 30, 20] 0, The scoping notice was publi shed on October 5, 20 lOin Th e Spectrum, the newspaper of record located In St. George, UT. This initiated a 30-day notice period, Chapter 4 of the EA identifies agencies, organizations, and individuals consulted, A "res pon se to public co millents" located within the project file summari zes written comments and how the Forest Service addressed these comments,

The Forest Service used public comments from the 30-day notice period as the means for identifying issues, In accordance with the Council for Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations (Sec, 1501,7) issues were separated into two groups: key and non-key, Key issues were defined as those direct ly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action (or, in thi s case, the Modified Proposed Action). Non-key issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan , or other higher level decision ; 3) irrelevant to th e deci sion to be mad e; or 4) conjectural and not supported by sci entific or factual ev idence, The Interdisciplinary Team identified no topics raised during comment periods that consti tuted key issues, A I ist of non-key issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-key may be found in the project file,

FINDING OF No SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)

Based on the interdisciplinary environn'1ental analysis, review of the National Environmental Policy Act (N EPA) criteria for significant effects, and my knowledge of the expected impacts, 1 have determined that thi s action does not pose a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Theref(xe, an Environmental Impact Statement is not need ed, Thi s determination is based on the following factors:

I , My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. The effects described in the EA , Chapter 3, SLlppol1 this finding,

2, The degree to which the Modified Proposed Action affects public health or safety. This action does not pose a substantial significant effect on public health or safety. The proposed hazard tree removal wiJl improve public safety, The hazard tree action is described in the b\, Chapter 2, Section 2,1.2,

3, Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically cI"itical areas. The project area has no park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers , or ecologically critical areas that will be affected by the Moditied Proposed Acti on, Nor is the project area within a designated wilderness or an inventoried Roadless Area, The project area has been surveyed for historic and cultural resources and the project wi] I not affect hi storic or cultural resources, Documentation of these findin gs can be found in Chapter 3 of the EA and in speciali st reports included in the project record ,


USDA ~

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. This is based on the analysis of resource specialists and comments from other agencies and the public. Not all of the comments were in support of this project. However, after reviev/ ing the project record and EA , I am confident that the Interdisciplinary Team reviewed these comments and either incorporated them into the Modified Proposed Action or add ressed them in the appropriate resource sections. It is my judgment that there is not an unusual or high degree of controversy associated with this project. There is a difference of opinion concerning whether salvage harvest is necessary or in the public interest. I ha ve determined that it is in the public interest to provide material for the forest industry and to accelerate recovery of forest lands . Public comments and the Forest Service's response to comments are included in the project record.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. There are no known effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks . All of the effects of the Modified Proposed Action are similar to those taken into consideration in the analyses of the Forest Plan and other salvage or harvest projects within the Dixie National Forest. Effects on the huma environment are desclibed in Chapter 3 of the EA .

6. I have considered the uncertainty of effects of the project on climate change. There may be short-term alteration to the carb on cycle caused by cutting of the trees, although trees being removed are either fire-killed or will be dead within 3 years and, therefore, will no longer be fixing carbon. If not harvested, they will soon begin to decompose and emit greenhouse gases (GHG). The Modified Proposed Action will sequester carbon in wood products and plants as a living forest is re-established There may be short-tellll GHG emissions from the use of vehicles and machinery during the implementation of the project. Because greenhouse gases mix readily into the global pool of greenhoLlse gases, and this project is extremely small in the global atmospheric CO2 context, the effect of this project on GHG emissions and carbon cycling is minor. The effects on climate are described and analyzed in Section 3.3 of the EA.

7. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The Modified Proposed Action does not represent a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. As referenced in #3 above, the project is not within a designated wilderness or an Inventoried Roadless Area, and will not affect future management of any lanel area that falls into one of these categories. The assessment is site-specific and its actions incorporate those practices derived from current science or envisioncd in the Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and are within the Standards and Guidelines included in the Forest Plan. The effects on wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas are described and analyzed in Section 3.8 of the EA.

8. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. There are no known significant cumulative effects between this project and other projects implemented or planned in the area afTected by


• USDA ~

this project. The EA describes the anticipated cumulative effects. 1 am satistied, after reviewing the EA, that none of the cumulative effects of the Moclified Proposed Action arc signiticant. Cumulative effects are described in Chapter 3 of the EA.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect distdcts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or histodcal resources. There are no kno'vvn di stricts, sites, highways , structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the Nat ional Register of Historic Places that would be significantl y affected by this project. Section 2.5 of the EA provides di sc losures regarding compliance with the National Hi storic Preservation Act.

J O. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to bc cr-itical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The wildlife analysis identified no adverse effects on endangered or threatened species or their habltats and the required Biological Assessment has been prepared. Effects on endangered and threa tened species and other species of concern are described and analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA.

11. \Vhether the action threatens to violate Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the cnvironment. Implementation of the Moditied Proposed Action will not violate any Federal , State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Chapter 4 of the EA identities entities that were consulted during the preparation of the EA. These included environmental management agencies at the local, State, and Federal levels. Section 2.5 of the EA provides discl osures regarding co mpliance with key Federal laws and regulations. The State of Utah' s Public Land s Policy Coordination Office identitied air quality regulations that must be followed. In Section 2.3 of the EA, th e project' s design features identities adherence to the State of Utah Air Quality Rule as a proj ect implementation requirement. In its comments on this project Garfield County identitied no concerns regarding adherence to local regulations. Relevant letters from the State of Utah and Garfield County are included in the project record.

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Thi s deci sion is consistent with the following laws: • Nati onal Forest Management Act • Clean Water Act • Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended • American Antiquities Act of 1906 and Hi storic Preserva tion Act of 1966 • Executive Order J 1990 of May, 1977 (Wetlands) • Executive Order 11988 of May, 1977 (Floodplains) • Executive Orderl21N8 of February, 1994 (Environmental Justice) • Executive Order 13186 of January, 2001 (Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)) • Strategy for Implementing MBTA and EO 13 J 86 on National Forest land s in Utah of

March 2007


USDA -';O

USDA ~

Implementation If no appea l is received, implement8tion of thi s decision Jl18 y occur on, but not before, 5 business da ys from the closc of the uppc81 filing period. If 8n 8ppe81 is recei ved, implementation may not occur fo r 15 da ys following the dutc of appeal di sposition. Implcmentution of this decision is expected to begin during the summer of 20 I I.

Contact A decision record of th e EA is avaiJuble upon public requ est 8t the Powell R8nger District office , 225 East Center Street, Panguitch, Ut8h 84759. For furth er informati on concerning this project and decis ion, cont8ct the Interdisciplinary Te8l11 Leader at the 8bovc add ress or (435) 676-9300.

Robert G. MacWhorter Date

Forest Supervisor

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 ind ividual's income is derived from any public assis tance 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 contac t USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TOO). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or ca ll (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TOO). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.


bridge fire salvage and reforestation...

Documents