upper white river integrated resource...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service September 2010

Upper White River Integrated Resource Project

Decision Notice andFinding of No Significant Impact RochesterGreen Mountain National ForestTowns of Town of Rochester; Windsor County, VTTown of Braintree; Orange County, VT

White River


Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Rochester Ranger District Green Mountain National Forest Towns of Granville, Hancock and Ripton; AddisonTown of Rochester; Windsor County, VT Town of Braintree; Orange County, VT

For Information Contact: Project

Rochester Ranger DistrictGreen Mountain National Forest

99 Ranger RoadRochester, VT 05767

(802) 767FAX (802) 767

E-mail:jstrand

Responsible Official: District Ranger

Rochester and Middlebury Ranger Districts99 Ranger Road

Rochester, VT 05767(802) 767

FAX (802) 767E-mail:gdsmi

Integrated Resource Project

Finding of No Significant Impact

Addison County, VT

For Information Contact: Jay Strand Project Team Leader

Rochester Ranger District Green Mountain National Forest

99 Ranger Road Rochester, VT 05767

(802) 767-4261, ext 522 FAX (802) 767-4777

[email protected]

Official: Greg Smith District Ranger

Middlebury Ranger Districts 99 Ranger Road

Rochester, VT 05767 (802) 767-4261, ext 513

FAX (802) 767-4777 [email protected]

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political affiliation, sexual orientation, and marital or familial status (not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication or program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at 202/720-2600 (voice or TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write the USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, Washington, DC, 20250-9410 or call 202/720-5964 (voice or TDD). The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

This document can be made available in large print. Contact Jay Strand (802) 767-4261, ext. 522; or Email: [email protected]



TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... 3 1. DECISION NOTICE ........................................................................................................ 4 1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 4 1.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................. 5 1.3 DECISION AND RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION ................................................... 6 1.3.1 Decision ................................................................................................................... 6 1.3.2 Rationale .................................................................................................................. 6 1.3.3 Management Actions ................................................................................................ 7

1.4 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...................................................................22 1.4.1 Alternative A: No Action ...........................................................................................22 1.4.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action ................................................................................23

1.5 FINDINGS REQUIRED BY LAW AND REGULATION ................................................23

2. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) .......................................................30 2.1 CONTEXT- 40 CFR 1508.27(a) ..................................................................................30 2.2 INTENSITY- 40 CFR 1508.27(b) (1-10) ......................................................................30

3. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ......................................................................................35 3.1 APPEAL RIGHTS .......................................................................................................35 3.2 IMPLEMENTATION DATE ..........................................................................................35 3.3 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL AND CONTACT ...............................................................35

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AND TIMBER MANAGEMENT TREATMENTS .......... A-1 APPENDIX B: MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................................................................... B-1



DECISION NOTICE and

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT for the

UPPER WHITE RIVER INTEGRATED RESOUCE PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

USDA Forest Service Green Mountain National Forest

Rochester Ranger District Towns of Granville, Hancock and Ripton, Addison County, VT

Town of Rochester, Windsor County, VT Town of Braintree, Orange County, VT

September 2010

1. DECISION NOTICE

1.1 INTRODUCTION This document describes my decision, and the rationale for the implementation of the management activities proposed for the Upper White River Integrated Resource (UWR) Project located on the Rochester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF). The Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are based on an environmental assessment that documents the analysis of the proposed action and alternatives to meet the purpose and need for the UWR Project. The UWR Project was designed to implement the 2006 GMNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), meet Forest Plan goals and objectives, and to move the project area Management Areas closer to their desired future conditions. The Upper White River Integrated Resource Project Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) dated September 2010 was prepared by an interdisciplinary team (IDT) of Forest Service resource specialists following the implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It describes the project purpose and need, the alternatives considered for detailed analysis, and the potential environmental effects for each alternative. The UWR Project consists of integrated resource management activities including those that improve wildlife and fish habitat, enhance forest health, provide timber products, control non-native invasive plants, restore soil and water conditions, increase recreation and scenery viewing opportunities, address travel system needs (trails and roads), and protect or enhance heritage resource sites within the upper White River watershed. The UWR project area is located primarily in the towns of Granville, Hancock, and Ripton with the remaining portions in the towns of Rochester and Braintree, VT. The vast majority of proposed activities included in the Final EA are on National Forest System lands administered by the USDA Forest Service, although it also includes a small amount of wildlife work on adjacent private land. The Final EA analyzes three alternatives including the No Action alternative (Alternative A), the Proposed Action (Alternative B), and an alternative that retains the Bowl Mill Snowmobile Trail (Alternative C). I believe this range of alternatives adequately addresses the project purpose



and need, the issues raised during the initial scoping process, and the comments received during the required 30-day comment period. Three additional alternative actions were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis in the Final EA. The description of these alternatives and rationale for not analyzing them is discussed in Chapter 2, pages 40 to 42 of the Final EA.

1.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public issues and management concerns related to the Proposed Action were identified by reviewing Forest Plan direction for the UWR project area and by contacting interested and affected members of the public, and Forest Service employees in a process called “scoping” as called for in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508, specifically 1501.7 on scoping). The UWR Project was formally initiated in November 2007 with a public meeting held in Hancock, VT. Individuals, organizations, towns and agencies were invited to learn about the Forest Service desire to implement management activities within the UWR project area. Potential management opportunities were identified through the exchange of ideas between meeting participants. These ideas were expanded upon throughout the spring and summer of 2008 with a series of public workshops and meetings, and field visits to the UWR project area. During this same time period, Forest Service staff collected more detailed inventory information to further explore management activity options. Members of the public and Forest Service staff developed more detailed potential management activities through this collaborative process. The Forest Service narrowed the list of potential project activities based on these efforts and presented them at a public meeting held in Hancock, VT in December 2008. Additional feedback provided by the public during and after the December 2008 meeting resulted in the Proposed Action detailed in the UWR Integrated Resource Management Project Scoping Information document dated April 2009. This Scoping Information was mailed or emailed to approximately 300 individuals, organizations, towns and agencies for a 30-day comment period ending May 26, 2009. It was also posted on the GMNF website at the same time as the mailing. Notification of the project has also been published in the quarterly GMNF Schedule of Proposed Actions since January 2007. Public comments received during the initial scoping period resulted in just one (1) issue that was used to develop an alternative for detailed analysis in the Final EA: “The Forest Service should retain the Bowl Mill Snowmobile Trail (NFST 772) on the National Forest Trail System”. There were an additional seven (7) resource related minor issues that did not result in alternatives, but are associated with resources that are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Final EA and/or filed in the UWR project planning record. The Upper White River Integrated Resource Project Content Analysis - Response to Scoping Comments dated February 2010 was prepared to disclose how all comments were addressed during this phase of the analysis process. The Upper White River Integrated Resource Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment: 30-Day Comment Document was made available to an extensive list of individuals, agencies, and organizations in February 2010. The Preliminary EA was also available on the GMNF website. The public was notified by a legal notice in the Rutland Herald on February 24, 2010 triggering an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary EA and the proposed management activities for a 30-day period from February 25 to March 26, 2010.



There were 19 timely comments received for the Preliminary EA. Although no new major issues were identified from these comments, there were many parts of the EA that we were clarified or improved as a result of their content. The Upper White River Integrated Resource Project Content Analysis – Response to Preliminary Environmental Assessment Comments was prepared to disclose how all comments were addressed in this final phase of the analysis process. All public suggestions, input, and feedback provided during project development; and formal comments received during the initial scoping and Preliminary EA comment periods were all factors that I considered when making my decision for the UWR Project. Further details related to the public involvement process and the issues identified for the analysis are found on pages 20 to 24 of the Final EA.

1.3 DECISION AND RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

1.3.1 Decision This decision is based on the results of the analysis documented in the UWR Project Final EA, project planning record, and comments received during initial scoping (April 2009), and the Preliminary EA 30-day comment period (February 25 to March 26, 2010). It is my decision to select Alternative C for implementation. The Final EA fully describes the selected actions and their site-specific locations on pages 26 to 40, and Figure A-2. My decision also includes the adoption of mitigation measures that were developed to address resource concerns associated with Alternative C (see Appendix B).

1.3.2 Rationale Both action alternatives considered for detailed analysis in the Final EA (Alternatives B and C) meet the purpose and need for the project, and are within acceptable environmental and social thresholds. However, after review of the Final EA and supporting documentation found in the UWR project planning record, I feel Alternative C best addresses the issues and concerns raised during the analysis process and balances the needs of the resources within the UWR project area. Alternative C was developed to address public concerns regarding potential negative impacts resulting from the proposed decommissioning of the Bowl Mill Snowmobile Trail (NFST 772) and its removal from the National Forest trail system. Comments provided to the Forest Service included the following rationale to retain this trail on the system:

• It is an important alternative trail that provides some “thru the woods” experience rather than on a road corridor.

• It provides a shorter route for users desiring to proceed south and by-pass the longer loop on the West Hill Road and NFSR 101.

• While this trail doesn’t get a lot of use, it costs the Forest Service little or nothing to leave it open.

Alternative C addresses these concerns, since the trail will remain on the National Forest trail sytem.



Alternative C also meets the purpose and need for all other resource areas as provided for in the UWR project area including habitat diversity, timber, fisheries, non-native invasive plants (NNIP), soil and water, recreation, visuals, transportation, and heritage (Final EA, pp. 7 to 19).

1.3.3 Management Actions Alternative C includes the following specific management actions; these activities are summarized in Table 2 at the end of this section:

1.3.3.1 Habitat Diversity Table A-1, Appendix A provides a summary of wildlife habitat treatments included in my decision. Refer to Figure A-2 (Activities Map) for wildlife habitat treatment locations. Refer also to the Timber Section 1.3.3.2 in this decision document for a more detailed discussion of the harvest treatments associated with habitat diversity. Diversify the Composition and Ages of Forest Types to Improve Wildlife Habitat The harvesting of timber will diversify the composition and ages of forest types, which will improve wildlife habitat throughout the project area. This decision includes the following activities: 1. Increase early successional (regenerating) habitat through clearcut and shelterwood

harvesting on approximately 357 acres. 2. Enhance species composition and increase softwood habitat through approximately 859

acres of single-tree selection harvesting in hardwood, mixedwood, and softwood stands. 3. Remove non-native tree species by 1) clearcutting approximately 74 acres of softwood

plantation to convert to native softwoods; and 2) land clearing on approximately 50 acres of softwood plantation to convert to permanent upland openings, mostly adjacent to existing small openings (part of the 107 acres of new permanently upland openings to be implemented – refer to the Restore and Expand Existing Permanent Upland Openings in this section).

Diversify Aspen Habitat Regenerate aspen clones within approximately 107 acres of existing softwood, hardwood, and mixedwood habitats with the clearcut harvest method in order to provide early successional aspen habitat in support of the wildlife preferring this unique and limited habitat feature. Deer Winter Areas Wintering habitat for white tailed deer will be maintained and enhanced by encouraging vegetative conditions for both cover and browse habitats. Permanent upland wildlife openings containing grasses and forbs will be provided within and adjacent to deer wintering habitats to provide forage in early spring (refer to the Restore and Expand Existing Permanent Upland Openings in this section of the decision document). Additionally, treatments of stands as they are described in the Timber section (i.e., single tree selection with gaps, shelterwood with reserve trees, and clearcut) within or near identified deer wintering habitat boundaries will encourage softwood regeneration for cover, and hardwood and aspen regeneration for browse. In these stands of various sizes and shaped units, the diversity of forest type composition and age classes will improve habitat conditions for wintering deer.



Shortages of early succession hardwood vegetation and other key aspects of deer wintering habitat, such as softwood composition within the project area will be improved and moved closer to Forest Plan and habitat management unit (HMU) analysis objectives (Final EA in Chapter 1, Tables 1.3 and 1.4, p. 9). Restore and Expand Existing Permanent Upland Openings Continue to restore 41 stands of existing upland openings for a total of 314 acres. Of this total, 36 stands (285 total acres) will be accomplished through mechanical mowing; cutting with chainsaws, brush saws, or hand tools; prescribed burning; or a combination of these treatment methods. Each stand will receive one to three treatments over a period of 5 to 7 years with some stands receiving multiple treatments in the same year. The treatment type, the number of treatments and the timing of treatments will depend on existing conditions compared to desired vegetative composition and structure identified for each stand. The 5 remaining stands (29 acres total) have regenerated beyond normal maintenance capabilities and will be restored using large mechanical cutting devices capable of grinding young tree and shrub growth more efficiently. An additional 3 permanent upland opening stands (C45/S103, S106 and S107, 31 total acres) will be restored with apple tree release treatments. Additionally, the proposal includes the harvest of timber stands adjacent to existing openings to increase the size and adjust the shape of several small openings into fewer large openings. This management is intended to increase habitat diversity for wildlife utilizing the early successional habitats within the project area. An additional 107 acres of new opening habitat will be created in this way. Once established, these newly created permanent upland openings will be restored as needed using the same treatment methods to be implemented for existing upland openings. The decision also includes allowing 10 permanent upland opening stands (mostly old log landings) totaling about 11 acres that are not routinely maintained to revert to forest until or unless they are needed as landings or for other purposes. It has proven to be more cost effective to manage larger and more concentrated groupings of openings with good access than small openings that are widely scattered throughout the landscape. Apple Tree/Soft Mast Release and Pruning Release and prune apple trees occurring in 31 stands across the project area totaling 491 acres. The total affected lands receiving this treatment is much less than the total stand acreage as the treatments will consist of removal of small saplings and pole size trees under 7 inches diameter breast height (DBH) near or under the canopy of the individual apple trees. The work of removing pole size and sapling trees will be completed using hand tools such as bow saws, chain saws, and other portable cutting devices designed for removal of woody vegetation. The release of individual apple trees and small orchards throughout the project area by cutting trees immediately surrounding the apple trees will provide the needed light for the apple trees to live and produce their fruits. Release and prune apple trees scattered over approximately 2 acres of private land owned by Jeff Peck south of C73/S2 (north of SR 125 and west of the Texas Falls Road, FR 39).



Create Down Woody Debris Habitat Cut and remove trees growing near select historical sites within 18 stands covering about 20 acres (also see Heritage section). Trees cut to maintain these structures will be left on site to improve habitat for small mammals, reptiles and amphibians by providing down woody material to be used for travel ways, feeding, and cover.

1.3.3.2 Timber My decision includes a variety of timber harvest treatments on a total of 1,645 acres within the project area to provide forest products to the local and regional economies, improve forest health and diversity, and to move the existing forest habitat composition and age class toward the objectives as provided in the Forest Plan and HMU analysis. Table A-2, Appendix A summarizes the harvest treatments, number of harvest acres for each Compartment/Stand and the actual treatment acres for each harvest method. Refer to Figure A-2 (Activities Map) for harvest treatment locations. It is important to note that the design of the harvest treatments for C74/S9 and S14 address concerns associated with potential impacts to the visual quality and sensitive soils near the

Texas Falls Special Area and Texas Falls Nature Trail: a. C74/S14 (single tree selection with gaps): There will be no timber harvest within the

Texas Falls Nature Trail loop. In addition, a 100 foot buffer of no timber harvest will be maintained along the exterior portion of the Nature Trail.

b. C74/S9a and 9b (shelterwood with reserves; single tree selection with gaps): There will

be no shelterwood with reserves treatment within 500 feet of the Nature Trail. There will be a no harvest buffer 100 feet from the trail; and the zone between 100 and 500 feet from the trail will be harvested with the single tree selection with gaps method (C74/S9c).

Harvest Treatments The following is a summary of the harvest treatments and methods within the UWR project area: 1. Uneven-aged Harvest Treatments

There are a total of 859 acres of uneven-aged harvest treatments included in my decision.

a. Approximately 859 acres of single tree selection will be conducted in hardwood,

softwood and mixedwood stands. This harvest method removes selected single trees and groups of several trees at a time from three different size classes (poles 6 to 10 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH), small sawlogs up to 16 inches DBH and larger trees greater than 16 inches DBH. Basal area (BA) will be reduced to about 70 square feet per acre for hardwood stands, to about 100 square feet per acre in mixedwood stands, and to a range of 100 to 120 square feet per acre in softwood stands. The cutting and removal of these trees will create small gaps in the forest canopy about 1/10 to 1/5 acre in size. This action will produce sawtimber and pulpwood products, and reduce overall stocking of trees to appropriate levels for small amounts of sunlight to reach the forest floor. This will favor mostly regeneration of shade tolerant species of



trees in the understory like sugar maple, beech, hemlock, spruce and fir; and create a stand of trees of different sizes and ages.

Where inclusions of aspen may occur or where shade intolerant species like paper birch or black cherry exist; the gaps created with this method will be slightly larger, creating gaps in the canopy no larger than a 1/4 acre. This will favor the growing of aspen and desirable shade-intolerant hardwood that requires more sunlight. This method will be applied to hardwood stands (comprised of beech, birches, maples, and ash); mixedwood stands (comprised of hardwoods mixed with white pine, spruce, fir and hemlock); and in softwood stands (comprised of mostly spruce, fir, white pine and hemlock).

2. Even-aged Harvest Treatments

There are a total of 679 acres of even-aged harvest treatments included in my decision.

a. Approximately 322 acres of thinning will be conducted in hardwood, softwood and

mixedwood stands by removing individual trees to provide pockets of sunlight, growing space for improving growth on reserved trees while enhancing forest health through salvage of some dying trees. Basal area will be reduced to about 70 square feet per acre for hardwood stands, to about 100 square feet per acre in mixedwood stands, and to about 120 square feet per acre in softwood stands.

b. Approximately 147 acres of shelterwood with reserve trees will be completed in hardwood and mixedwood stands. Shelterwood harvests regenerate low quality stands and mature stands that are declining in productivity. Approximately two-thirds of the trees will be removed within these stands leaving about 30 to 40 square feet of BA per acre in residual hardwood or mixedwood stands for seed and shelter trees. About 40 to 60 square feet of BA per acre will be left in softwood stands. The remaining trees provide seed and shaded “shelter” to the new crop of understory trees. No overstory removal is planned. The remaining portion of the stand is retained at least 20 percent into the next rotation of the new stand, usually 40 to 60 years and could be removed at that time during the first thinning of the new stand as larger sawtimber. These shelterwood stands will be separated by forested conditions and manageable stands.

c. Approximately 16 acres of two-cut shelterwood will be completed in one hardwood stand and one mixedwood stand. Shelterwood harvests of this type regenerate low quality stands and mature stands that are declining in productivity through a series of two cuts. Approximately two thirds of the trees will be removed within each of these stands with the first cut leaving about 30 to 40 square feet of basal area per acre in residual hardwood or mixedwood stands for seed and shelter trees. About 30 to 40 percent of existing BA per acre will be removed in softwood stands. The remaining trees providing seed and shaded “shelter” to the new crop of understory trees may be harvested in about 3 to 5 years following initial harvest if compatible with other resources and after regeneration has been established. These shelterwood stands will be separated by forested conditions and manageable stands. The two-cut shelterwood will include approximately 16 acres of overstory removal in these stands. Overstory removal harvests will be applied only after the first shelterwood cut is applied as described above and when adequate regeneration has been secured and documented by stocking surveys (about 3 to 5 years from initial harvest). Most seed and shelter trees left after the first harvest will be removed at this stage and BA reduced



to about 10 to 15 square feet per acre. The overstory removal will encourage the growth of trees that were regenerated during the original shelterwood harvest by allowing full sunlight to reach the young trees in the understory.

d. Approximately 194 acres of clearcuts will be completed to 1) convert non-native softwood plantations or mixedwood stands to native softwood stands (87 acres); and 2) regenerate the aspen/birch type (107 acres). These clearcut stands will have most trees removed leaving about 10 to 15 square feet of BA per acre in desirable trees. In addition, patches of trees will be left uncut within about 10 percent of the stands to meet other wildlife, visual, soil and water Forest Plan standards and guidelines. These stands will be separated by forested conditions and manageable stands.

3. Land Clearing

There are a total of approximately 107 acres of land clearing to create permanent upland openings included in my decision.

4. Estimated Timber Volume

The amount of sawtimber and pulpwood that could be produced from all uneven-aged, even-aged and land clearing treatments is estimated to be about 14,199 hundred cubic feet (CCF) or 8.657 million board feet (MMBF). The breakdown of wood products is approximately: a. 9,662 CCF of sawtimber b. 4,537 CCF of pulpwood

Another measurement some may be more familiar with is: a. 5,785 thousand board feet (MBF) of sawtimber b. 5,743 cords of pulpwood (divide pulp wood volume by 2 to get an MBF equivalent)

Connected Actions Connected actions are management activities that are automatically triggered by other actions. The following activities are connected actions within the UWR project area as a result of timber harvest treatments. Table A-3, Appendix A summarizes stand improvement (TSI) and tree planting activities included in my decision. Table A-4, Appendix A summarizes site preparation for natural or artificial regeneration for stands receiving regeneration cuts. Refer to Figure A-2 (Activities Map) for post-harvest treatment locations: 1. Post-Harvest Activities (Stand Improvement, Site Preparation, Stocking Surveys, and Tree

Planting):

a. Stand Improvement: There are approximately 202 acres of stand improvements to improve the composition, structure, condition, health and growth of young even-aged stands included in my decision. These stands are generally less than 25 years old, created from past even-aged regeneration harvests. Within these stands, crop trees of desired species will be selected on a spacing of about 16 by 16 feet. Less desirable competing trees touching the crowns of the crop trees will be cut away to allow for better growth of selected crop trees intended to become a component of future commercial harvest.



b. Site Preparation: There are approximately 1,196 acres of site preparation to provide for

natural or artificial regeneration of harvested stands included in my decision. Following harvest by the shelterwood, single/group selection, and clearcut methods; saplings of tree species 1 to 6 inches DBH that may be bent or broken, not commercially valuable, or less desirable will be cut within one year following the harvest. This preparation of the site allows more space and sunlight for the establishment of more desired timber species.

c. Stocking Surveys: Tree stocking surveys will be conducted following the first and third year of harvest to monitor regeneration success in all stands to be treated with the clearcut, shelterwood with reserves, and single tree selection harvest methods.

d. Tree Planting: Following the clearcutting of the monoculture plantations and site preparation activities, a mix of native softwood species will be planted on a 4 by 4 foot spacing on about 87 acres to help convert the sites from non-native to native species more rapidly. These stands will be managed to provide resilience and adaptability to potential changing climate or from introduction of non-native forest pests. The mix of native softwoods will improve cover and forage availability within a deer wintering area.

2. Transportation Network:

a. Existing town roads, NFS Roads and previously constructed temporary haul roads will be

used for log trucks where necessary to access log landings associated with harvest activities. There are 28 known existing log landings (refer to Figure A-2, Activities Map for locations), and old skid roads and trails within and adjacent to harvest treatment areas from past harvest activities. These existing log landings, and skid roads and trails that meet current Forest Plan S&Gs will be used again for harvest activities when mutually agreed upon by the timber purchaser and the Forest Service.

b. Although the existing timber harvest infrastructure will be used whenever possible, there

will also be a need to construct new log landings, and skid roads and trails to access all areas included for harvest. Specific locations for new landings, and skid roads and skid trails will need to be mutually agreed to by the timber purchaser and the Forest Service in order to meet Forest Plan S&Gs, and current timber sale contract standards for logging. It is anticipated that up to 15 new log landings will need to be constructed to complement the existing infrastructure associated with harvest activities.

The construction of temporary haul roads, and any improvement and/or maintenance needs associated with the existing transportation network to support timber harvest activities are discussed in the Transportation section. Mitigation measures to address resource concerns associated with the construction and use of new log landings, skid roads, and temporary haul roads are provided in Appendix B. Refer to the Harvest Zone Map located in the project planning record for site locations when considering specific mitigation measures associated with these activities.

Implementation of Harvest Treatments (Timing) The harvesting to be implemented within the project area will be packaged in a series of various timber sales which will be conducted within a 5 to 7 year period, of which some sales may be Stewardship contracts. This project lends itself to several timber sales of various sizes ranging from ten to hundreds of acres. The size and the way the harvests are implemented will be



determined by market conditions, interest and collaboration for Stewardship contracts, and feedback from timber purchasers.

1.3.3.3 Fisheries Refer to Figure A-2 (Activities Map) for fisheries habitat treatment locations included in my decision. Placement of Large Woody Debris (Stream Habitat Restoration) Cut a total of about 154 trees along stream-side areas and add them as large woody debris (LWD) into sections of Clark, Deer Hollow, and Patterson Brooks within the project area (total stream length of approximately 2 miles). By doing so, stream processes and LWD functions such as creating pools, adding protective cover, trapping and sorting of spawning gravel can be restored. The work will involve the following: 1. Clark Brook - Cut and place about 69 trees into sections of the stream along 0.89 miles

(4,720 linear feet) 2. Deer Hollow Brook - Cut and place about 21 trees into sections of the stream along 0.28

miles (1,500 linear feet) 3. Patterson Brook - Cut and place about 64 trees into sections of the stream along 0.81 miles

(4,260 linear feet) Of the trees to be felled, about half will be a minimum of 12 inch diameter at breast height (DBH) with the other half between 8 to 12 inches DBH. The primary placement of trees will be accomplished through directional felling. A grip hoist or log carrier may be used to assist in placing the trees in desired stream locations. Heavy equipment will not be used in the placement of LWD. All work will conform to Forest Plan S&Gs, including returning equipment access and egress points to pre-project conditions (mulching and re-vegetating if necessary) immediately after completion of the project. Provide Fish Passage Replace or retrofit three culverts along existing NFS Roads to provide upstream fish passage in Deer Hollow Brook (NFSR 50), White River (NFSR 101) and Gulf Brook (NFSR 101). Fish passage improvement work at culverts may require the use of heavy equipment where access and stream size will render such activities feasible and necessary. Project work will include completion of detailed existing condition assessments, designing of retrofits to existing structures or replacement crossing structures in the same location, and constructing the retrofits or replacements. Replacement structures will be bottomless arch culvert designs or bridges. Bowl Mill Project Maintenance The following maintenance activities will be conducted on the sections of the mainstem of the White River: Reach 1 (lower): 1. Reconstruct rock vanes and riffle lines where needed 2. Stabilize erosion along the banks to prevent channel avulsion 3. Augment riparian plantings to improve vegetation density



Reach 2 (middle): 1. Reconstruct failed cross vane to increase pool formation and energy dissipation at the

upstream end of Reach 2 2. Maintain rock revetment and LWD placements 3. Replace or reconstruct rootwad revetment 4. Reconstruct rock vanes and riffle lines where needed 5. Augment riparian plantings to improve vegetation density Reach 3 (upper): 1. Maintain boulder cross vanes to prevent channel incision that could threaten the integrity of

the rip rap stabilization along the banks Project maintenance will be on NFS and private lands, and will only be done in cooperation with landowners and partners that participated in the original project implemented in 2000 to 2003. Forest Service funds may be used for project maintenance on private lands under the Wyden Amendment Authority which allows federal funds to be spent on private lands where there is a benefit to a National Forest watershed. Project implementation will begin in the summer when stream conditions are favorable for stream and fish habitat restoration activities. Depending on the availability of funding and labor, implementation will likely occur over a 3 to 5 year period.

1.3.3.4 Non-Native Invasive Plants Table 1 shows the activities included in my decision related to the control of existing non-native invasive plant (NNIP) populations within the project area. Table 1: NNIP control activities.

Site (where) NNIP to

control (what) Activity (how) Timing (when) Comments

1) C74/S102 Common buckthorn

Cut stem herbicide application or girdle in winter

Anytime during UWR project implementation; may need repeat treatments

Mainly one large bush

2) FR101A Goutweed

Target-specific herbicide application (spot spray)


Infestation is in trail, en route to C74/S101 and C75/S101

3) FR 101 Japanese knotweed

Cut stem herbicide application

Anytime during UWR project implementation, unless it's at entrance to a landing or skid road/trail; may need repeat treatments

Relatively discrete patches



Treat prior to use as log landing; may need repeat treatments




Table 1: NNIP control activities.

Site (where) NNIP to

control (what) Activity (how) Timing (when) Comments

5) FR 208 (Town of Granville Jurisdiction)

Japanese knotweed


Anytime during UWR project implementation unless it will be used for logging (see design criterion); may need repeat treatments

Relatively discrete patches; this is the same location as the soil/water and heritage project

















10) Near Bowl Mill by the White River

Japanese knotweed



Probably there; definitely upstream

11) FR 93 Multiflora rose

Cut stem herbicide application or hand pull



12) C56/S13 Wild chervil

Hand pull by large group (e.g., VYCC)

Prior to use as log landing; likely to need annual treatment for at least 3 yrs

Infestation is at landing

1.3.3.5 Soil and Water Soil and water resource improvement work to be implemented with other resource project activities within the project area includes: 1. Closure and revegetation of roads no longer needed (see Transportation Section 1.3.3.8)



2. Restoration of a drainage along FR 208 in conjunction with road improvement (see Transportation Section 1.3.3.8), cultural resource enhancement (see Heritage Section 1.3.3.9), and NNIP control (see NNIP Section 1.3.3.4) activities

3. Improvement of aquatic organism passage in streams as they cross Town and Forest road infrastructure (see Fisheries Section 1.3.3.3)

4. Control of NNIP in riparian areas (See NNIP Section 1.3.3.4)

1.3.3.6 Recreation Retain the Bowl Mill Trail (NFST 772) for Snowmobile Use The Bowl Mill snowmobile trail (NFST 772) will remain on the National Forest trail system with the following trail standards: 1. Class 3 snowmobile trail (one lane) 2. 6 to 8 foot tread width; up to 10 foot clearing width (1 foot either side of tread) 3. <15 percent grade (general) 4. Short pitches to 25 percent (up to 200 feet) A section of the existing 1.4 mile trail will be relocated to avoid passing through a wetland area near its terminus with NFSR 101E. The trail relocation will occur within a zone 100 feet either side of the trail reroute depicted in the Figure A-2 inset (specific route to be determined during actual layout). The trail relocation will consist of about 0.2 mile of new construction reducing the existing overall trail length by about 0.2 mile (with the total retained trail length equaling about 1.2 mile). Although the reroute is intended to avoid the wetland area, the new location will attempt to retain views of the wetland if possible. Additional work needed to address the existing deferred maintenance of the trail consists of drainage improvements (i.e., one culvert, side ditching, and leadoff drainage), routine vegetation and hazard tree removal, and signing. Snowmobile Trail Decommissioning Refer to Figure A-2 (Activities Map) for snowmobile trail decommissioning included in my decision. Two trails will be decommissioned that are managed for snowmobile use within the project area: 1) Rice Tract Trail; NFST 794 (1.4 miles), and 2) Baker Brook; NFST 795 (0.6 miles). Decommissioning activities will include stabilizing the trail treads where needed from erosion and sedimentation and removal of trail signs. The trails will be allowed to revegetate naturally over time.

1.3.3.7 Visuals Refer to Figure A-2 (Activities Map) for visual management treatment locations included in my decision. Vista Maintenance and Creation Maintain three existing vistas that were originally created by harvesting mature stands of timber to allow for continued viewing of the scenic landscape in all seasons. Each of these vistas is one acre in size within the following stands along NFSR 100 (C75/S7), and NFSR 101 (C57/S32



and C58/S32). The small poles, seedlings and saplings will be cut by hand, lopped and scattered and left to lie close to the ground to decompose naturally. In addition to vista maintenance treatments, numerous vegetation and wildlife treatments to be implemented along existing Forest roads and trails in the UWR project area will add opportunities for viewing scenery. Maintenance of existing permanent openings, creation of new permanent openings, and apple tree release all offer benefits to the scenic landscape that are expected to be perpetuated over time with continued maintenance. Shelterwood and clearcut harvest treatments to be implemented along roads and trails will also offer temporary opportunities for viewing the scenic landscape.

1.3.3.8 Transportation Refer to the UWR Travel Analysis (UWR project planning record), and Figures A-1 and A-2 for the location of the existing road network and key transportation related activities included in my decision. Improve Safety on Forest Roads 1. Improve signing on FR 39 (TH 2, Texas Falls Road) for motorized mixed use through the

existing road cooperative agreement with the Town of Hancock to improve safety for the shared use of FR 39 (TH2) / FT 739 (C100) during the winter snow season. Improvements, with Town approval, will include placement of motorized mixed use signing along TH 2 that will be managed cooperatively for snow season use.

2. Remove and replace non-compliant traffic and route marker signing on all project area NFS roads.

Align NFS Road Infrastructure with Current and Future Predicted Transportation Needs The assignment of an Operational Maintenance Level (OML) to roads provides guidance on how it should be managed and maintained. In summary, OML 3, 4 and 5 roads are managed and maintained for passenger vehicles; OML 2 roads are managed and maintained for high clearance 4-wheel drive vehicles; and OML 1 roads are closed to vehicles although they can occasionally be opened as intermittent service roads. More detailed descriptions of OML 1 to 5 roads can be found in the UWR Travel Analysis (p. 9); the Forest Plan, p. 153; and in FSH 7709.58. 1. Improve a section of NFS Road 39 (mile 2.66 to 2.83) from Operational Maintenance Level

2 (4 wheel drive) to Operational Maintenance Level 3 (auto). Improvements will include spot graveling, road template shaping, water bar, culvert, and ditching work, brushing, and other similar road maintenance activities. Work will also include a pull-off / turnaround area at the end of the road.

2. Increase parking area capacity at mile 0.9 on NFSR 39 (winter and summer parking) in cooperation with the Town of Hancock. The existing parking area will be enlarged to better accommodate trailers and increase overall capacity for both winter (snowmobile) and summer (horse) uses. The lot will be increased in size to the east by approximately 40 feet and to the south by approximately 30 feet. The work will involve excavation of the hillsides to the east and south and a retaining wall along the east hillside. The lot surface will be paved to match the existing surface.



3. Provide a small parking pull-off area on NFS land off FR 55 near the intersection with FR

208 and on the south side of the road in cooperation with the Town of Granville. Some of this work will be within the Town road right-of-way, but some additional clearing and road construction will be required on NFS land. The area of road surface for parking to be added will be sufficient for parking up to six (6) vehicles alongside the south side of the road (FR 55).

4. Change the Objective and Operational Maintenance Level (OML) of the following NFS

Roads: a. 39A: Change from OML 2 (mile 0.0 - 0.20) to OML 4 (mile 0.0 - 0.03) and OML 1 (mile

0.03 - 0.20) to align with existing conditions and future predicted budgets. No construction improvement work required.

b. 39E: Change from OML 2 (mile 0.0 - 0.30) to OML 2 (mile 0.0 - 0.07) and OML 1 (0.07 - 0.30) to align with existing conditions and future predicted budgets. No construction improvement work required.

c. 49: Change from OML 2 (mile 0.0 - 2.70) to OML 2 (mile 0.0 - 1.81) and OML 1 (1.81 - 2.70) to align with existing conditions and future predicted budgets. No construction improvement work required.

d. 100: Change from OML 4 (mile 0.0 - 3.19) to OML 3 (mile 0.0 to 3.19) to align with existing conditions and future predicted budgets. No construction improvement work required.

5. Convert NFS Roads 55D and 55E to parking features of FR 55 to align with existing conditions and future predicted budgets. Conversion does not require any specific construction activity, only continued maintenance.

6. Decommission the following NFS Roads to align with existing conditions and future predicted budgets: a. 50C (entire length of 0.1 mile) b. 50D (entire length of 0.1 mile) c. 50E (entire length of 0.3 mile) d. 55 (mile 3.11 to 4.41) e. 56 (entire length of 0.5 mile)

All decommissioning will be for road segments outside the Wilderness boundary (segments within Wilderness will be addressed in a separate NEPA analysis document). Decommissioning will include reinforcing existing physical barriers or constructing new ones to prevent unauthorized motorized access. It also includes some minor reshaping of the road entrance or ending to allow for pull-off parking / turn-around space for one or two autos. Decommissioning of NFSR 55 will also include removal of several existing road culverts and restoration of stream channels.

7. Re-inventory area NFS Road gates and replace as needed adding updated retro-reflective gate safety and travel management signing.

8. Make improvements to the turning radius from FR 55 onto FR 50 to improve the ability for log and chip van hauling during vegetation management activities off FR 50. Improvements will include some clearing and excavation of the northeast side-hill at the FR 55 / FR 50 intersection, ditching, spot graveling, grading, and brushing work. The impacted area will be less than one-half of an acre.



9. Make improvements to the turning radius from FR 55 onto FR 207 (TH 11) to improve the

ability for log and chip van hauling during vegetation management activities off FR 207. Improvements will include some clearing and excavation of the northeast side-hill at the FR 55 / FR 207 intersection, ditching, spot graveling, grading, and brushing work. The impacted area will be less than one-half of an acre.

10. Add existing road off NFSR 50 to south between 50C and 50D to NFSR system as 0.2 mile

long NFSR 50G (OML 1 - gated) to provide timber and wildlife opening access. This existing road will be improved for vegetation management activities and then placed on the National Forest System of Roads as an OML 1 - gated road. Improvement work will include spot graveling, road template shaping, water bar, culvert, and ditching work, brushing, and other similar road maintenance activities.

11. Add existing road off NFSR 55 to south and somewhat west of the FR 50 intersection to the

NFSR system as 0.06 mile long NFSR 55F (OML 3 - auto) to provide continued dispersed recreation opportunities along FR 55. This is an existing road and dispersed recreation area that was never added to the NFSR system. No improvement work is required, only continued maintenance.

12. Construct temporary short haul roads to new and existing landings to provide access for

timber management. Previously used temporary roads will need to be reopened to access existing landing locations that meet current standards for use. Temporary roads will be restored to pre-sale conditions after use according to Forest Plan S&Gs as a part of the timber sale contract to prevent unauthorized motorized use. Skid roads leading from these temporary roads and log landings will be closed off at the completion of harvest activities to prevent unauthorized vehicle use into the Forest.

Increase Cooperation with Local Governments on Management of the Forest and Town Road Infrastructure as it Relates to Forest Access

1. Improve FR 207 (TH 11, Rob Ford Road) through the existing road cooperative agreement

with the Town of Granville to reduce soil erosion and unauthorized off-road 4 wheel drive and ATV activity in wildlife clearings and provide clearer access for town residents and Forest land management activities. Improvements, with Town approval, will include spot graveling, road template shaping, water bar, culvert, and ditching work, brushing, and other similar road maintenance activities.

2. Improve FR 208 (TH 12, West Hill Extension Road) through the existing road cooperative agreement with the Town of Granville to reduce soil erosion and unauthorized off-road 4 wheel drive and ATV activity and provide for temporary timber management access to NFS land between FR 55 and FR 50. Improvements, with Town approval, will include spot graveling, road template shaping, water bar, culvert, and ditching work, brushing, and other similar road maintenance activities. Improvements will also include restoring the small stream just south of FR 50 and providing an appropriate stream crossing structure for the road. These actions will also return the small stream channel to a more natural state, and improve its water quality.



Close Unauthorized Non-System Roads Close-off any unauthorized roads and skid trails at or near the main road entrance by: placing large boulders (or similar physical barrier); re-planting some native vegetation; and re-establishing the main road template and/or ditch-line as needed. Until the vegetation is established small, temporary travel management signing may be installed to discourage unauthorized use. Small single car pull-off areas may be created (when needed) at existing unauthorized road entrances where the pull-off can be located by extending the shoulder of the main road (without cuts or fills) and where they will not be separated by ditches or drainage structures. Law enforcement will monitor the various locations for illegal use.

1.3.3.9 Heritage Refer to Figure A-2 (Activities Map) for the general locations of heritage resource site related activities included in my decision. Activities associated with heritage resources within the project area include the following: 1. Provide stewardship for the 25 to 30 historic archaeological sites in the project area that are

within or near to other activities to be implemented (primarily wildlife openings and vegetation management activities) through the controlled removal of encroaching vegetation which is obscuring and/or destabilizing these foundations and features (refer also to Appendix A, Table A-1, pp. A-1 and A-2 for a summary of the stands included for this treatment; associated with the creation of down woody debris).

2. Conduct maintenance and restoration work at several historic cemeteries located within the project area, located on both NFS and private lands, as part of the Forest Service Passport in Time “Remember Me As You Pass By” adult volunteer program. Specifically, work will focus on the Maxham, Lewis, South Hollow, Tatro, and Pettis cemeteries, and include attempts to re-locate one or more other small plots known to local residents. Work will also include the replacement of the fence around the Lewis plot.

3. Continue research and field work with several interested local residents connecting John Deere with the area, specifically to a mill site on the upper Deer Hollow Brook.

4. Provide additional heritage site interpretive information on the GMNF web site regarding historic sites and land-use.

5. Provide commemorative signage for some of the many projects (particularly road bridges) built by the Civilian Conservation Corps 75 years ago.

6. Provide an interpretive walking tour/map of the historic landscape in the Rob Ford/West Hill area.

7. Conduct testing in at least two areas deemed sensitive for the presence of prehistoric Native American sites (within the study area, but not subject to a specific project activity).



Table 2: Summary of Alternative C Management Actions.

Management Action Amount

Habitat Diversity

Increase early successional habitat with regeneration harvests 357 acres

Enhance species composition and increase softwood habitat 859 acres

Remove non-native tree species with clearcut and land clearing 124 acres

Provide aspen/birch regeneration 107 acres

Apple tree/soft mast release and pruning 491 acres Restore existing permanent upland openings (mechanical and/or burning treatment)

29 acres

Restore existing permanent upland openings (mowing, hand cutting and/or prescribed burning treatment)

285 acres

Create permanent upland openings 107 acres

Create down woody debris habitat 20 acres

Timber Resource

Single tree selection with gaps 859 acres

Thinning 322 acres

Shelterwood with reserves 147 acres

Shelterwood with overstory removal (two-cut method) 16 acres

Clearcut to regenerate native softwood 13 acres

Clearcut to convert plantation to native softwood 74 acres

Clearcut to regenerate aspen/birch 107 acres

Total uneven-aged harvest 859 acres

Total even-aged harvest 679 acres

Total land clearing to convert into upland opening 107 acres Total Harvest 1,645 acres

Total Timber Volume 8.657 MMBF

Timber stand improvement 202 acres

Planting 87 acres

Site preparation for natural regeneration 1,196 acres

Fisheries Resource

Large woody debris (LWD) placement (stream habitat restoration) 3 streams; about 2 miles

Fish passage improvements 3 culverts

Bowl mill project maintenance Yes

Non-Native Invasive Plants (NNIP)

NNIP control Yes

Soil and Water

Soil and water resource improvement Yes

Recreation Resource

NFS snowmobile trail decommission

• NFST 794; 1.4 mi.

• NFST 795; 0.6 mi. Total: 2.0 miles

NFS snowmobile trail (Trail Class 3) retained (including 0.2 mile reroute) • NFST 772; 1.2 mi.

Visuals

Vista maintenance and creation Maintain 3 vistas



Table 2: Summary of Alternative C Management Actions.

Management Action Amount

Transportation

Road sign improvement Yes (FR 39)

Road sign replacement All NFS Roads

Improve NFS Road 39 (from OML 2 to OML 3) Yes

Enlarge NFS Road 39 parking area Increase capacity

Construct NFS Road 55 parking area pull-off 6 vehicle capacity Changed Operational Maintenance Level (OML) of NFS Roads:

• NFS Road 39A (OML 2 to OML 1 & 4); 0.2 mi.

• NFS Road 39E (OML 2 to OML 1 & 2); 0.3 mi.

• NFS Road 49 (OML 2 to OML 1 & 2); 2.7 mi.

• NFS Road 100 (OML 4 to OML 3); 3.19 mi.

Yes Total: 6.4 miles

Convert NFS Roads 55D and 55E to parking features of FR 55 Yes

NFS Roads de-commissioned:

• NFS Road 50C; 0.1 mi.

• NFS Road 50D; 0.1 mi.

• NFS Road 50E; 0.3 mi.

• NFS Road 55; 1.3 mi.

• NFS Road 56; 0.5 mi.

Yes Total: 2.3 miles

Replace NFS Road gates and associated signing as needed Yes

Improve Forest Road 55 turning radius:

• At FR 50 intersection

• At FR 207 intersection

Yes

Add NFS Road 50G (OML 1; 0.2 mile) to the NFSR system Yes

Add NFS Road 50F (OML 3; 0.06 mile) to the NFSR system Yes

FR 207 and FR 208 improvements Yes

Close un-authorized roads and skid trails Yes

Heritage Resource

Site stewardship (control encroaching vegetation) 25 to 30 sites

Cemetery maintenance and restoration Yes

John Deere research and field work Yes

Commemorative signing (particularly CCC road bridges) Yes

Site interpretation for the Rob Ford/West Hill area Yes

Site testing At least 2 sites

1.4 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

1.4.1 Alternative A: No Action The No Action alternative provides a baseline for estimating the effects of the action alternatives. Under the No Action alternative (Alternative A) no new management activities would take place. Alternative A, however, does not mean that the existing management activities would cease. For example, existing road and trail maintenance would continue, as would wildlife opening maintenance as long as prior NEPA documentation has been completed. I did not select Alternative A because it does not meet the resource objectives as provided by the UWR Project purpose and need and would not move the project area toward Forest Plan desired future conditions (Final EA, pp. 7 to 19). There would be no increase in habitat diversity associated with forest type composition and age class (Final EA, pp. 63 to 66); no improvement in the abundance and quality of wildlife food and cover (Final EA, pp. 63, 75 and 76); no



availability of forest products for the local or regional economy (Final EA, p. 119), no improvement of aquatic and fish habitat (Final EA, p. 97); no improvement to soil or wetland conditions (Final EA, p. 101), no creation of vistas for viewing the landscape (Final EA, p. 112), no improvements to the transportation (roads, trails and parking) network, and no protection, restoration or maintenance of heritage sites (Final EA, p. 116).

1.4.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action This alternative proposes the same management activities as in Alternative C except that it includes the decommissioning of the Bowl Mill Snowmobile Trail (NFST 772) which is a 1.4 mile trail between NFSR 101E and FR 55 near its intersection with State Route 100. I did not select Alternative B because, after review of the comments received for the UWR Project Preliminary EA and the Final EA, I believe that this alternative would unnecessarily close a snowmobile trail that is important to the local and regional snowmobiling community. Although the reduction of deferred maintenance costs associated with existing trails within the UWR project is an important objective, I believe that NFST 772 can be retained on the trail system and maintained to a safe standard with minimal costs (Final EA, pp. 59 and 60). It has also been demonstrated to me that this trail is an important alternative trail that provides some “thru the woods” experience rather than on a road corridor such as FR 55, and it provides a shorter route for users desiring to proceed south and by-pass the longer loop on the West Hill Road and NFSR 101.

1.5 FINDINGS REQUIRED BY LAW AND REGULATION

This section provides my findings associated with the UWR Project in regards to compliance with appropriate laws and regulations.

1.5.1 National Forest Management Act Compliance Forest Plan Consistency; 16 U.S.C. 1604(i) (Sec. 6, NFMA)

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the development of long-range land and resource management plans, and that all site-specific project activities be consistent with direction in the plans. The GMNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was completed and approved in 2006 as required by NFMA. The Forest Plan provides the direction for all resource management activities on the GMNF. The UWR Project implements the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan has been reviewed in consideration of this project. I have determined that the actions of Alternative C are consistent with the Forest Plan direction (goals and objectives). Specifically, Alternative C will move the project area toward the desired future condition for the Diverse Forest Use (MA 3.1); Eligible Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers (MA 9.4); and Wilderness Study Area (MA 9.5) Management Areas (Forest Plan, pp. 47, 106 and 107, and 110, respectively; and Final EA, pp. 6 and 7). This decision is also consistent with both the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines (Forest Plan, pp. 10-45), and Standards and Guidelines for MA's 3.1, 9.4, and 9.5 (Forest Plan, pp. 48, 108 and 109, and 110 to 112, respectively). This decision tiers to the Record of Decision for the Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) dated February 2006. All of the expected impacts from this project are consistent with, and within the range of, the impacts disclosed in the Forest Plan FEIS.



My decision is based on the best available science, including a review of the record that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. My decision implements the GMNF Forest Plan. As required by NFMA Section 1604(i), I find this project to be consistent with the Forest Plan including goals, objectives, desired future conditions, and Forest-wide and Management Area Standards and Guidelines. Lands Suitable for Harvest; 16 U.S.C. 1604(k) (Sec. 6, NFMA) I have determined that the land on which harvesting will be done is suitable for timber production.

1. The land included for harvesting is on forest land defined as suitable for timber production

(Forest Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-1 to D-3; Forest Plan FEIS, p. 3-280 and Appendix B). This has been verified through on-the-ground examination of the stands proposed for harvest. Documentation of these examinations is found in the UWR project planning record.

2. Technology is available to ensure timber production from the land without irreversible resource damage to watershed conditions. This is documented in Chapter 3 of the UWR Project Final EA (Fisheries and Water, pp. 97 to 99; and Soil and Wetlands, pp. 101 to 106).

3. The lands proposed for timber harvest have not been withdrawn from timber production by an Act of Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest Service.

4. The land has not been deemed inappropriate for timber production due to assignment to other resource uses or considerations of cost efficiency.

Appropriateness of Even-Aged Timber Management; 16 U.S.C. 1604(f) (Sec. 6, NFMA) Even-aged management has been selected as an appropriate method to meet the vegetation management and wildlife objectives in the UWR project area. The following reasons were used to determine the appropriateness of even-aged management: 1. Even-aged silvicultural systems can be applied to suitable lands to provide a variety of

habitat conditions for wildlife and create a balanced distribution of age classes to meet timber objectives (Forest Plan, p. 11).

2. Harvesting trees with the application of even-aged silvicultural methods (regeneration and

intermediate cuts) are appropriate to achieve resource objectives (Forest Plan, p. 24).

3. Forest Plan direction for the Diverse Forest Use MA (MA 3.1) states that “[m]anagement practices will include both even-aged and uneven-aged silvicultural systems…to meet timber, wildlife, ecological, visual, and recreation objectives” (Forest Plan, p. 47). Likewise, Forest Plan direction for the Eligible Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers MA (MA 9.4) specific to Recreational river segments states that “[t]he choice of even-aged or uneven-aged silvicultural systems will depend primarily on the objectives of the Management Areas through which the stream passes” (Forest Plan, p. 109).

4. The selected silvicultural methods for each stand identified in Alternative C are consistent with the rationale for using these methods provided for in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, p.



23; Final EA, pp. 8 to 13, and 27 to 31, and Appendix A). A certified Silviculturist has reviewed and prepared each stand prescription.

Optimality of Clearcutting; 16 U.S.C. 1604(f) (Sec. 6, NFMA) In accordance with Forest Plan direction (Forest Plan, p. 24), I have determined that clearcutting is the optimum harvest method to convert two non-native softwood plantations (C59/S7a and C76/S14), and one mixedwood stand (C59/S28) to native softwood stands for a total of 87 acres, regenerate aspen/birch habitat type (107 acres; C37/S8a, C45/S25, C57/S9a&b, C57/S11a&b, C59/S13a, C59/S23a&b, C60/S14a, C73/S2a, C74/S8a, C74/S13a, C74/S22a&b, C74/S23a&b, and C75/S8), and create permanent wildlife openings (107 acres; C34/S8a, C37/S2, C37/S4a, C37/S9, C44/S17a, C44/S52, C44/S53, C44/S54, C45/S8b, C45/S11, C58/S26a, C59/S5a, C59/S7b, C59/S26a, C74/S1a, C74/S12a, C75/S2, C75/14a, C76/S4a, C76/12a, and C76/S23a) (Final EA, pp. 29 to 31, and Appendix A, Table A-2). Field surveys indicate that aspen clones are dispersed among the dominant northern hardwoods or that aspen is in danger of dying out and succeeding to other forest species due to its old age (UWR Project Final EA, pp. 9, 10, and 63 to 68; and habitat management unit analysis; and sivicultural prescriptions in the project planning record). Clearcutting is the optimum method in these instances to increase the amount of aspen/birch through regeneration and retain these habitat types for wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity (Forest Plan, p. 24). Clearcutting will also take advantage of opportunities to remove diseased, damaged, or high risk portions of these stands (Forest Plan, p. 24; Final EA, pp. 119 and 120, and Appendix A, Table A-2). Clearcutting of aspen stimulates root suckering and increases stocking and early growth. Aspen is a very shade intolerant species and will not regenerate under the shade of other trees. Research has shown that for effective sprouting to occur, there must be full sunlight. Other harvest systems will not provide the conditions needed for optimal aspen regeneration. Shelterwood harvest methods (standard and delayed) were considered. However, these methods would not leave the area in the desired "open" condition to the same extent as clearcutting. The shade of the residual overstory that would remain with these techniques would hinder, and most likely prohibit, the adequate regeneration of the aspen clones found on the site. Clearcutting is the optimal method to convert non-native Norway spruce plantations (C59/S7a and C76/S14) and mixedwood stands to native softwood and improve the condition of these stands that have a high risk of dying (Forest Plan, p. 24). These planted stands of Norway spruce from the first half of the 20th century are currently in a deteriorating condition. It also does not provide the quality winter cover habitat and dense overstory and midstory that native softwood stands offer (Final EA, pp. 8 and 9). Other silvicultural harvest methods would not provide the desired open site conditions needed for rapid conversion of non-native or mixedwood stands to native softwood species (silvicultural prescriptions in the project planning record). Clearcutting is also the optimal method to create permanent upland openings in woodlands (Forest Plan, p. 24). Other silvicultural harvest methods would not be able to create the desired site conditions needed for conversion of existing hardwood, mixedwood or softwood stands to provide for permanent early successional habitat (silvicultural prescriptions in the project planning record).



Other Vegetative Manipulation Requirements including Assurance of Restocking; 16 U.S.C. 1604 (Sec. 6, NFMA) Based on my review of the UWR Project Final EA, I find that the selection and location of the proposed activities, the application of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and site-specific design criteria will ensure the vegetative management activities in this project will comply with the requirements of 16 U.S.C. 1604, and the Forest Plan. According to these requirements, projects involving manipulation of tree cover shall: 1. Be best suited to the multiple use goals established for the area, with potential

environmental impacts, being considered in this determination. I find that the Final EA and analysis demonstrate that Alternative C is consistent with the multiple use goals and objectives stated in the Forest Plan. Reference the Final EA, Forest Service Authority, Policy, and Management Direction (pp. 5 and 6); Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action (pp. 7 to 19; and outcomes produced by each alternative: see Alternative A (pp. 25 and 26), Alternative B (pp. 26 to 40), Alternative C (p. 40), and Comparison of Alternatives (Table 2, pp. 42 to 44).

2. Occur on lands where adequate restocking within five years can be assured. All silvicultural

prescriptions for treating stands were approved by a certified Silviculturist and meet direction of the Forest Plan. Review of forest stocking records has clearly shown successful restocking by applying the standard silvicultural and site preparation methods identified in this analysis. Soil conditions, moisture regimes, and present vegetative stocking levels are the same or very similar to other areas on the Forest where restocking has been successful.

3. Not be chosen primarily because they will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest output of timber, although these factors shall be considered. Alternative C was chosen based on a combination of factors including the protection of other resource values, management to achieve Forest Plan goals and objectives, maintaining safe public access, providing recreational opportunities, providing a diversity of vegetative age classes and tree species types, improving forest health and wildlife/fish habitat conditions, protecting soil/water and historic areas, and commodity output needs, as well as economic considerations. Refer to the Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 on pages 3 and 4 in this document. Refer also to the Final EA, pp. 118, and 120 to 121 for details associated with the economic analysis for the project.

4. Be chosen after considering potential effects on residual trees and adjacent stands. To the

degree that they are related to specific UWR Project issues, effects on vegetation are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the Final EA (Habitat Diversity, pp. 66 to 72; Management Indicator Species, pp. 76 to 79; and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (Wildlife), pp. 82 to 84). In particular, the discussion of habitat diversity cumulative effects (UWR Project Final EA, pp. 70 to 72) takes into consideration the actions occurring on, and effects to, stands adjacent to those being manipulated, both on NFS lands and private lands. The general effects of activities on vegetation are disclosed in the Forest Plan FEIS, 3-48 to 3-97).

5. Avoid permanent impairment of site productivity and ensure conservation of soil and water

resources. Reference the Final EA for fisheries and water resources (pp. 97 to 99), and soil and wetland resources (pp. 101 to 106), project mitigation measures (Appendix B), and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.



6. Provide the desired effects on water quantity and quality, wildlife and fish habitat, regeneration of desired species, forage production, recreation uses, aesthetic values, and other resource yields. These considerations are addressed throughout Chapter 3 of the Final EA (pp. 48 to 122).

7. Be practical in terms of transportation and harvesting requirements, and total costs of preparation, logging and administration. I am basing this determination on the fact that the selected activities are consistent with Forest Plan direction and are similar to those that have been or are currently being practiced on the GMNF. All harvest activities are close to existing roads and will require no extraordinary investments or expenditures in order to complete harvest operations (Final EA, p. 32). Refer also to the Final EA for details on the Timber Management and Economic Analysis (pp. 120 and 121).

1.5.2 Endangered Species Act Compliance; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1536, 1538-1540 The Endangered Species Act requires that federal activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of any species federally listed or proposed as threatened or endangered, or result in adverse modification to such species’ designated critical habitat. In accordance with Section 7(c) of this Act, a report of the listed and proposed, threatened, or endangered species that may be present in the project area was reviewed. As required by the Endangered Species Act, Biological Evaluations (BEs) for animals and plants were completed for proposed, threatened or endangered species specifically for the UWR Project. These documents can be found in the UWR project planning record. The conclusions of the BEs analysis are summarized in the Final EA (animals, pp. 81 to 84; and plants, pp. 88 to 92). The BE analysis for animals indicates that it is unlikely that any of the four threatened or endangered species occur on the GMNF due to lack of preferred habitat, or extirpation from Vermont, with exception of the Indiana bat. There are no known mines or caves, no documented history of subterranean "hollows" suitable for bat hibernation, and no roosting habitat in the UWR project area (Final EA, p. 80). There are no federally listed plant species on the GMNF. Alternative C will therefore have no affect on any proposed, threatened or endangered animal and plant species or their critical habitat.

1.5.3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 direction requires analysis of potential impacts to sensitive species, those species for which the Regional Forester has identified population viability is a concern. These species are listed as Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS). The BEs have included the consideration of animal and plant RFSS and the conclusions of the analysis can be found in the Final EA (animals, pp. 81 to 84; and plants, pp. 88 to 92). Although there are no known RFSS animal species that occur within the UWR project area, there is potential habitat for two listed animals: 1) rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) and; 2) the West Virginia white butterfly (Pieris virginiensis). The animal BE concluded that the proposed activities in Alternative C will have no negative impact on the rusty blackbird or West Virginia white, nor would it have impact on any habitat that is required by these species. The BE also found that the project would not likely contribute to a loss of their viability on the GMNF nor cause a trend towards federal listing for any of the RFSS. Likewise, determinations from the plant BE indicate that Alternative C is not expected to cause loss of viability on the GMNF or a



trend toward federal listing for any plants on the RFSS list that do or may possibly occur within the UWR project area.

1.5.4 National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires public involvement and consideration of potential environmental effects. The entirety of documentation for this decision supports compliance with this Act including Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500 -1508).

1.5.5 Clean Water Act The intent of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of waters. The Forest Service complies with this Act through Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, specific project design criteria, and mitigation measures to ensure protection of soil and water resources (Final EA, Fisheries and Water Section 3.7, pp. 95 to 99; and Soil and Wetlands Section 3.8, pp. 100 to 106).

1.5.6 Clean Air Act The Air section of the UWR Project Final EA (Section 3.9, pp. 108 to 110) analyzes the effects of the proposed activities on air quality. This analysis found that National Ambient Air Quality Standards are not likely to be exceeded by activities planned in Alternative C.

1.5.7 National Historic Preservation Act; Archeological Resources Protection Act; and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of a project on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. It also requires federal agencies to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act covers the discovery and protection of historic properties (prehistoric and historic) that are excavated or discovered in federal lands. It affords lawful protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public and Indian lands. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act addresses the discovery and protection of Native American human remains and objects that are excavated or discovered on federal lands. It encourages avoidance of archaeological sites that contain burials or portions of sites that contain graves through “in situ” preservation, but may encompass other actions to preserve these remains and items. The UWR Project is in compliance with these Acts. Alternative C will not have an adverse effect on any historic or potential prehistoric Native American sites within the UWR project area (Final EA, Heritage Section 3.11, pp. 115 to 117; and Appendix B, p. B-5 and B-6).

1.5.8 Wilderness Act The Wilderness Act established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as ''wilderness areas''. These areas are administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave



them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The Act provides for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness. The UWR Project is in compliance with this Act. There are no management activities that will be implemented within the Wilderness Management Area (MA 5.1). Alternative C will not result in any adverse effects to the wilderness resource within the UWR project area (Final EA, Recreation Section 3.1, p. 56; and Appendix B, p. B-2).

1.5.9 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act institutes a national wild and scenic rivers system that includes selected rivers which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. It provides for them to be preserved in a free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments will be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The UWR Project is in compliance with this Act. There are no management activities that will adversely affect the outstandingly remarkable values of the White River that would preclude it from future consideration as a Recreational River as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System (Final EA, Recreation Section 3.1, p. 56; and the UWR project planning record).

1.5.10 National Trails System Act The purpose of the National Trails System Act includes the designation of the Appalachian Trail to help institute a national system of trails for the ever-increasing outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population. It also promotes the preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation. The UWR Project is in compliance with this Act since the Appalachian National Scenic Trail is not located within or adjacent to the project area.

1.5.11 Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) Executive Order 11990 directs the agency to avoid to the extent possible the adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands, and to avoid support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practical alternative. The UWR Project is in compliance with this Executive Order. There will be no adverse effects associated with wetlands from management activities included in Alternative C (Final EA, Soil and Wetlands Section 3.8, pp. 100 to 106; and Appendix B, p. B-4).

1.5.12 Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) Executive Order 11988 directs the agency to avoid to the extent possible the adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid support of floodplain development wherever there is a practical alternative. The UWR Project is in compliance with this Executive Order. There will be no adverse effects associated with floodplains from management activities included in Alternative C (Final EA, Fisheries and Water Section 3.7, pp. 95 to 99; and Appendix B, p. B-4).



1.5.13 Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Executive Order 12898 requires consideration of whether projects would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. This decision complies with this Executive Order. Public involvement occurred for this project, the results of which I have considered in this decision. Public involvement did not identify any adversely impacted local minority or low-income populations. This decision is not expected to adversely impact minority or low-income populations (UWR Environmental Justice Report, project planning record).

1.5.14 Other Relevant Laws I have considered other relevant laws and regulations that this decision may affect. I have fully considered the effects of this decision on the public, as well as the public’s issues and concerns brought forward during the comment periods and feel that these issues have been adequately addressed in the Final EA, its appendices and in this Decision Notice. I have determined that my decision to implement Alternative C of the UWR Project meets all applicable laws, regulations, and policies, as well as Forest Service direction and guidance as outlined in the Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks.

2. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) I have determined that the selected activities described in Alternative C are not a major federal action, individually or cumulatively, and will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not needed. This determination is based on the context and intensity of the activities:

2.1 CONTEXT- 40 CFR 1508.27(a) The analysis of Alternative C was conducted on a localized area with implications only for this area. All irreversible resource commitments and irretrievable losses of resources are limited to the immediate UWR project area and do not have effects beyond the immediate locale. The cumulative effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions combined with the actions of Alternative C are displayed by the various resource sections throughout the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section (Chapter 3) of the Final EA. As a result of the analysis of those effects, I feel that the context of this decision, both from a biological and social standpoint, is localized. I realize that some wildlife species, for example large mammals and migratory birds, and various MIS, range outside of the UWR project area boundary. Considering this, my decision is consistent with the management direction outlined in the Forest Plan, and with the Forest Plan FEIS that analyzed, at a larger scale, the effects of the type of activities that will be implemented through this decision.

2.2 INTENSITY- 40 CFR 1508.27(b) (1-10) Intensity is a measure of the severity of effects and is based on determinations for the following ten factors:



2.2.1 Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. Impacts associated with my decision are disclosed in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section (Chapter 3) of the Final EA. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been taken into consideration when making this determination of significance. Each impact, beneficial or adverse, was considered individually, and no beneficial impact was considered to offset any adverse effect in determining severity and significance. There are no direct, indirect or cumulative adverse impacts that are significant in their effect upon other resources, as they pertain to the relevant issues analyzed in the Final EA. Impacts from this decision are not unique to this project alone. Previous projects having had similar activities and effects were also taken into consideration when measuring severity and significance. 2.2.2 The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. There is no indication based on the environmental analysis and implementation of projects similar to the UWR Project in the past that there will be serious implications to public health or safety. The selected alternative makes extensive effort to address safety issues by including improvements to the transportation (roads, trails and parking) network within the project area (Final EA, pp 36 to 39). Mitigation measures also reduce safety risks associated with timber harvest activities that may impact users of the road and trail network (Final EA, Appendix B, pp. B-1 and B-2). The project does not involve or have any implications to National Defense or Security. 2.2.3 Unique characteristics of the geographic area. The Final EA did not identify any unacceptable impacts to any unique geographic areas. According to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Part 1508.27(b) (3)), unique characteristics are defined "such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas." A cultural resource inventory has been completed for the UWR project area and all known resources will be protected by buffering them from any management activities (Final EA, pp. 116 and 117; and Appendix B, pp. B-5 and B-6). Additionally, the potential for impacting yet undiscovered sites is adequately mitigated in the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and in the standard Forest Service timber sale contract provisions. There are no parklands or prime farmlands within the UWR project area. The wetlands in the UWR project area vary in size and location. There are approximately 21 acres of wetlands greater than two acres in size in or near to the analysis area. Numerous other small wetlands, most under a few tenths of an acre in size, are scattered throughout the analysis area. These small wetlands occur in concave landscape positions, and/or on slopes of less than 10 percent where the soils have a hardpan (water restricting subsurface layer). Design of project activities, adherence to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs), and implementation of mitigation measures will minimize impacts to wetlands and maintain wetland functions (Final EA, pp. 101 to 104; and Appendix B, p. B-4). It is my conclusion that there will be no significant environmental effects to wetland areas, in particular, where commercial timber harvest or trail construction will occur.



All activities included in Alternative C that are within stream corridors are consistent with the Forest Plan S&Gs outlined for the protection of these streams. Impacts of relevant activities on streams within the UWR project area are found in the Fisheries and Water Section 3.7 (Final EA, pp. 95 to 99), and Soil and Wetlands Section 3.8 (Final EA, pp. 100 to 106). The White River is identified as an eligible National Recreation River in the 2006 Forest Plan, but has not been congressionally designated. I have concluded that all action alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan in the Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River Management Area and will not affect the outstandingly remarkable values associated with the White River that would preclude it from consideration to be added to the National Wild and Scenic River System (Final EA, p. 56, and UWR project planning record). Ecologically critical areas are those areas that exhibit unique ecological characteristics or, if altered, may affect the viability of threatened or endangered plant or animal species. Botanical and wildlife surveys were conducted throughout the UWR project area and Biological Evaluations (BE) were completed for threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plants and animals (filed in the UWR project planning record). The animal and plant BEs found that Alternative C will not adversely affect any TES (Final EA, TES Wildlife Section 3.4, pp. 81 to 84; and TES Plants Section 3.5, pp. 85 to 92). Refer also to Sections 1.5.2 and 1.5.3 of this decision document for more information related to TES animals and plants. No other ecologically critical areas will be impacted by Alternative C. I conclude that there will be no significant impacts to ecologically critical areas. Based upon these considerations, I conclude there will be no significant effects on unique characteristics within the geographic area. 2.2.4 The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely

to be highly controversial. The selected activities of Alternative C will contribute toward reaching the desired future condition, and goals and objectives outlined by the Forest Plan. The UWR Project Final EA is tiered to the Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) signed by the Regional Forester in April 2006 (Final EA, pp. 5 and 6). Forest-wide effects of actions similar to those of Alternative C have been disclosed in that FEIS. All actions are of a similar type and intensity to activities that have occurred in the past throughout the Forest and in this area, and have not shown to be scientifically controversial to the extent that the quality of the human environment is significantly impacted. Nineteen (19) comments were received in response to the mailing of the UWR Project Preliminary EA for public comment (see Upper White River Integrated Resource Project Content Analysis – Response to Preliminary Environmental Assessment Comments filed in the UWR project planning record). The number of public comments or differing opinions does not, in and of itself, make an issue controversial. Controversy as described above is a dispute within the scientific community. I expect this decision will not be acceptable to everyone. However, based on the comments received, and the involvement of Forest Service resource specialists and experts from other agencies, it is my determination that the effects of the management actions in Alternative C are not thought to represent a scientifically controversial impact upon the quality of the human environment.



2.2.5 The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

The actions included in my decision are similar to many past actions, both in the UWR project area and in other areas across the GMNF. The commercial timber sale will involve common harvesting practices and standard contractual requirements. The Forest Service UWR Project Interdisciplinary Team that conducted the analysis encountered nothing that would indicate a unique or major unknown risk to the human environment. The effects of these actions as disclosed in Chapter 3 of the Final EA are within the range of effects disclosed at a broader scale in the Forest Plan FEIS, are similar to effects of other like actions, and are reasonably predictable. I conclude that there are no unique or unusual characteristics about the area, which have not been previously encountered, that would constitute an unknown risk to the human environment. Comprehensive literature reviews by resource specialists concluded that changes to local conditions from global climate change have been minimal or non-existent to date, and that substantial change is not within the analysis timeframe for this project. The response of tree, herbaceous plant, and wildlife species to proposed management will depend on changes in on-the-ground conditions from timber harvest, prescribed fire, and other activities (Final EA, pp. 71, 79, 92, 99, 106, 110, and 122). Therefore the effects disclosed in the Final EA and project planning record from proposed management is appropriately based on our extensive knowledge of how resources on the GMNF have responded to similar management in recent years. Literature and stocking surveys on the Forest both indicate that harvested areas should regenerate with the desired species and meet the project purpose and need (Final EA, Timber Management and Economic Analysis Section 3.12, p. 122). 2.2.6 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.

This is not a precedent setting decision. Similar actions have occurred previously in the local area and across the Forest. The effects of Alternative C are within the range of effects of these other similar actions and within the range of effects disclosed in the Forest Plan FEIS. All actions are wholly consistent with the Forest Plan, and therefore this is not a decision in principle. This decision does not commit me to actions on lands outside the UWR project area that may have significant effects. I conclude that this action does not establish precedence for future actions with unknown adverse impacts to the environment. 2.2.7 Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but

cumulative significant impacts. The Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section of the Final EA (Chapter 3) discusses the combined effects of this project with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. None of the actions of Alternative C are severe enough to create an unacceptable and significant impact when related to other actions. Based on the disclosure of effects in the Final EA and the Forest Plan FEIS, I conclude that there are no significant cumulative impacts associated with Alternative C.



2.2.8 The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or may cause loss, or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

There are several known Heritage Resource sites (or areas with potential to contain sites) within the UWR project area. Design of management activities, adherence to Forest Plan S&Gs, and the implementation of mitigation measures provide for the protection of these resources (Final EA, pp. 116 and 117; and Appendix B, p. B-5 and B-6). There are no standing historic structures, extensive cultural landscapes, or areas identified by American Indian Tribes as traditional use or sacred areas (Final EA, pp. 116 and 117). Alternative C will have no effect on historic properties, and will provide an opportunity to enhance and stabilize several of the historic period archaeological sites. No significant impacts will occur to any proposed or listed National Historic Place nor will there be any loss or destruction of scientific, cultural, or historic resources (Final EA, p. 116). 2.2.9 The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened

species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The actions of Alternative C will not lead to significant impacts to endangered or threatened species or their habitats (Final EA, pp. 81 to 92; and UWR project planning record). See Endangered Species Act Compliance Section 1.5.2 of this decision document. 2.2.10 Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or

requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The activities of Alternative C are consistent with, and follow the management direction and standards and guidelines mandated by the Forest Plan. The FEIS and Record of Decision for the Forest Plan indicate the consistency of the Forest Plan with laws and requirements imposed for environmental protection. The Final EA (pp. 5 and 6) and this decision document disclose that Alternative C is in compliance with Federal, State and local laws and regulations, and other resource protection requirements. Any required permits will be obtained before implementation occurs. The actions do not threaten a violation of federal, state, or local environmental protection laws.



3. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

3.1 APPEAL RIGHTS This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. The appeal must be filed (regular mail, fax, email, hand-delivery, or express delivery) with the Appeal Deciding Officer at:

Appeal Deciding Officer, Colleen Madrid

USDA, Forest Service, Eastern Region Gaslight Building, Suite 700 626 E. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53203 414-944-3963 (FAX) [email protected] (email) The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered appeals are: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic appeals must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to:

[email protected] In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification. Appeals, including attachments, must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of the legal notice announcing the decision for the UWR Project in the Rutland Herald, (Rutland, VT), the newspaper of record. Attachments received after the 45-day appeal period will not be considered. The publication date in the Rutland Herald, newspaper of record, is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Those wishing to appeal this decision should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. Individuals or organizations who submitted written or oral comments, or otherwise expressed interest in the proposed action, during the 30-day comment period specified at 36 CRF 215.6 (February 25 to March 26, 2010) may appeal this decision. It is the appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient project-specific or activity-specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why the Responsible Official’s decision should be reversed. As a minimum, the notice of appeal must meet the appeal content requirements at 36 CFR 215.14(b).

3.2 IMPLEMENTATION DATE If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, five (5) business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may not occur for fifteen (15) days following the date of appeal disposition.

3.3 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL AND CONTACT I am the Responsible Official for the UWR Project (Gregory D. Smith, District Ranger for the Middlebury and Rochester Ranger Districts, Green Mountain National Forest).



For information concerning the UWR Project, the Final EA and supporting documentation, my decision, and/or the Forest Service appeal process, please contact Jay Strand, Rochester Ranger District, 99 Ranger Road, Rochester, VT 05767; 802-767-4261 ext 522 (voice); 802-767-4777 (Fax); or [email protected] (email). The detailed planning record for the UWR Project Final EA is available for public review at the Rochester Ranger District, 99 Ranger Road, Rochester, VT 05767. /s/ Gregory D. Smith 9/15/2010 _________________________________ ______________________________ GREGORY D. SMITH Date Responsible Official District Ranger Rochester and Middlebury Ranger Districts


Appendix A: Summary of Wildlife Habitat and Timber Management Treatments Page A-1 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AND

TIMBER MANAGEMENT TREATMENTS

Tables A-1 through A-4 provide the wildlife habitat and timber management treatments for Alternative C. Table A-1: Summary of wildlife habitat treatments.

Comp Stand Acres Treatment

Acres Additional Information

Apple tree/soft mast release and pruning: Release and prune all apple trees throughout the stand.

37 6 29 29

37 7 25 25

37 8a,b 19 19

37 9 7 7

45 5 5 5 Partially within inventoried roadless area (IRA)

45 8a,b,r 25 25 Partially within IRA

45 11 8 8

45 16 3 3

45 20 6 6

45 102 24 24 Also included in existing opening restoration

45 103 18 18 Contributes toward existing opening restoration



56 8 18 18 Within IRA


59 5a,b 16 16

59 7a 42 1

59 9 40 40

59 11a 111 26




61 101 20 20 Also included in existing opening restoration; Within IRA


62 101 1 1 Also included in existing opening restoration; Within IRA

74 2 6 6

74 22a,b 75 75

74 23a,b,c 18 18

75 2 7 7

76 21 7 7


Total Acres 617 491

Create down woody debris habitat: Cut and leave trees on site; scatter and/or pile debris for wildlife habitat.

37 2 3 1 Within Eligible Recreational River corridor

37 3a 39 2 Within Eligible Recreational River corridor


45 8r 25 1 Within IRA

45 10 19 1

45 21 46 2




Table A-1: Summary of wildlife habitat treatments.




57 12a 21 1

59 5a 16 1

59 7a 42 1

59 9 40 1

74 1a 50 1

74 22c 75 1

75 1a 4 1

75 2 7 1

75 9 9 1

76 14 14 1 Total Acres 456 20

Clearcut for aspen/birch regeneration (also included in Table A-2: Summary of proposed timber treatments).

37 8a 19 4 Clearcut 4 acres near S102

45 25 10 9 Clearcut 9 acres in stand

57 9a,b 22 10 Clearcut two 5 acre patches for 10 acres total; Place patches on sides of existing clearcut

57 11a,b 45 10 Clearcut two 5 acre patches for 10 acres total. Place patches across road from S102

59 13a 23 14 Clearcut 14 acre patch of S13 on the east side

59 23a,b,c

d,e 75 20 Clearcut in five 4 acre patches throughout the stand

60 14a 26 5 Clearcut 5 acre patch to the north of S101

73 2a 76 5 Clearcut 5 acre patch to the south and west of S18 and east of S101

74 8a 37 3 Clearcut 3 acre patch in south east portion of S 8, north of S102

74 13a 14 2 Clearcut 2 acre patch in southern portion of S14, touching S17.

74 22a,b 75 8 Clearcut two patches of 4 acres each; Locate adjacent to south portions of S27 and S28

74 23a,b 18 10 Clearcut two patches of 5 acres each; Locate adjacent to north portions of S27 and S28

75 8 9 7 Clearcut 7 acres in stand Total Acres 449 107

Restore existing permanent upland opening: Mechanical and/or burn treatment methods.

45 102 24 24 Partially within IRA


76 103 2 2

76 105 1 1

76 106 1 1 Total Acres 29 29

Restore existing permanent upland opening: Mowing, hand cutting and/or burning treatment methods.



37 102 1 1

44 101 13 13 Partially within IRA; Within Eligible Recreational River corridor

44 102 18 18 Within IRA

44 103 21 21 Within IRA







44 108 6 6 Within IRA; Within Eligible Recreational River corridor

45 105 12 12

45 108 1 1


45 110 1 1

56 101 4 4 Within Eligible Recreational River corridor

57 101 7 7

57 102 2 2

58 101 10 10

58 103 3 3

58 104 5 5

59 101 26 26

59 102 1 1

59 103 6 6

60 101 10 10

60 102 17 17

61 101 20 20 Within IRA



74 101 25 25

74 102 15 15

74 103 3 3

74 104 1 1

75 101 17 17

75 102 1 1

76 101 1 1

76 102 2 2

76 104 2 2

78 102 5 5

Total Acres 285 285

Land clearing to create permanent upland opening (also included in Table A-2: Summary of proposed timber treatments); Restore as needed: Mowing, hand cutting and/or burning treatment methods.

34 8a 24 3 Enlarge S102 east of road by 3 acres

37 2 3 3 Convert Norway spruce plantation to permanent opening; Opening would enlarge C44/S101 south to stone wall

37 4a 28 1 Southern end of stand where Norway spruce occurs adjacent to S2

37 9 7 6 Convert Norway spruce plantation to permanent opening; Retain apple trees

44 17a 57 1 Convert Norway spruce plantation to permanent opening; Opening would enlarge C44/S101 south to stone wall

44 52 1 1 Convert Norway spruce plantation to permanent opening; Opening would enlarge C44/S101 south to stone wall; Within Eligible Recreational River corridor

44 53 5 5 Convert Norway spruce plantation to permanent opening; Opening would enlarge C44/S102; Within IRA

44 54 4 4 Convert Norway spruce plantation to permanent opening; Opening would enlarge C44/S103; Within IRA

45 8a 25 5 Convert red pine plantation to permanent opening; Opening would combine S108, S109, and S110






45 11 8 8 Convert red pine plantation to permanent opening; Opening would combine S108, S109, and S110

58 26a 10 1 Enlarge S103 by 1 acre

59 5a 16 4 Enlarge S102 by 5 acres

59 7b 42 8 Enlarge S101 by 8 acres on east side of road

59 26a 18 3 Create 3 acres of permanent opening at the end of FR100

74 1a 50 18 Convert Norway spruce plantation to permanent opening to enlarge S103

74 12a 13 5 Enlarge S102 to the west and southwest by 5 acres

75 2 7 7 Enlarge S101 by 7 acres

75 14a 12 8 Enlarge S102 by 8 acres

76 4a 32 5 Create 5 acres of permanent opening

76 12a 56 2 Create 2 acres of permanent opening in northwest corner between S106 and S103

76 23a 32 9 Create 9 acres of permanent opening in southern portion by S104, S105 and east of C75/S14

Total Acres 450 107

Table A-2: Summary of timber harvest treatments by compartment and stand [all in Diverse Forest Use MA unless noted (*) to be in Eligible Recreational River MA]. Compartment 34

Stand Acres Forest Type

Harvest Method

Harvest (acres)

8a 24 Hardwood Land Clearing for Permanent Wildlife Opening 3

24a 32 Hardwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 28

29a 9 Hardwood Shelterwood w/reserves 5

Compartment 35 4a 35 Hardwood Single Tree Selection w/gaps 30

Compartment 37 2* 3 Softwood

Plantation Land Clearing for Permanent Wildlife Opening 3

3a* 39 Mixedwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 33

4a 28 Mixedwood Plantation

Land Clearing for Permanent Wildlife Opening 1

6 29 Mixedwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 28

8b 19 Hardwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 15

8a 19 Hardwood Clearcut for aspen/birch 4

9 7 Softwood Plantation


10a 13 Hardwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 11

34a 9 Mixedwood Shelterwood w/Reserves 5

Compartment 44 17a 57 Mixedwood

Plantation Land Clearing for Permanent Wildlife Opening 1

52* 1 Softwood Plantation










Harvest Method

Harvest (acres)

6 57 Hardwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 52

8a 25 Softwood Plantation

Thinning 7

8b 25 Softwood Plantation



11 8 Mixedwood Land Clearing for Permanent Wildlife Opening 8

21 46 Hardwood Thinning 33


24a 10 Hardwood Shelterwood w/Reserves 9

25 10 Mixedwood Clearcut for aspen/birch type 9

Compartment 56 2* 26 Hardwood Thinning 24

3* 23 Mixedwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 17

13a* 7 Hardwood Two Cut Shelterwood w/Overstory Removal 6

Compartment 57 5* 25 Hardwood Thinning 25

9a,b* 22 Mixedwood Clearcut for aspen/birch type 10

11a,b 45 Hardwood Clearcut for aspen/birch type 10

11c 45 Hardwood Thinning 35

12a 21 Mixedwood Two Cut Shelterwood w/Overstory Removal 10



Compartment 58 3* 30 Hardwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 27


7* 82 Hardwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 78




26b 10 Hardwood Shelterwood w/Reserves 7




Compartment 59 5a 16 Hardwood Land Clearing for Permanent Wildlife Opening 4

7b 42 Softwood Plantation



Clearcut for Conversion to Native Softwood 30




13a 23 Mixedwood Clearcut for aspen/birch type 14




28 13 Mixedwood Clearcut for Native Softwood 13






Harvest Method

Harvest (acres)

3 9 Mixedwood Thinning 6



Compartment 73 2b 76 Hardwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 24

2a 76 Hardwood Clearcut for aspen/birch type 5

Compartment 74 1b 50 Softwood

Plantation Clearcut for Conversion to Native Softwood 30




8b 37 Softwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 34

8a 37 Softwood Clearcut for aspen/birch type 3

9a 49 Mixedwood Shelterwood w/Reserves 30

9b,c 49 Mixedwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 19

12b 13 Mixedwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 8

12a 13 Mixedwood Land Clearing for Permanent Wildlife Opening 5

13b 14 Mixedwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 10



22c 75 Hardwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 61



Compartment 75 1a 4 Mixedwood Single Tree Selection w/Gaps 3

2 7 Hardwood Land Clearing for Permanent Wildlife Opening 7

8 9 Hardwood Clearcut for aspen/birch type 7



Compartment 76 1a 43 Mixedwood Shelterwood w/Reserves 30

1b,c 43 Mixedwood Thinning 12





Clearcut for Native Softwood 14


Total Stand Acres: 2,239 acres Total Harvest Acres: 1,645 acres



Table A-2: Overall summary of timber harvest treatments.

Harvest Treatment Treatment

Acres Hardwood single tree selection with gaps to regenerate an uneven-aged stand 588

Mixedwood single tree selection with gaps to regenerate an unevenaged stand 237

Softwood single tree selection with gaps to regenerate an unevenaged stand 34 Total Single Tree Selection with Gaps 859

Hardwood thinning to improve composition, growth and spacing 297

Mixedwood thinning to improve composition, growth and spacing 18

Softwood thinning to improve composition, growth and spacing 7 Total Thinning 322

Hardwood shelterwood with reserves to regenerate a two-aged stand 82

Mixedwood shelterwood with reserves to regenerate a two-aged stand 65 Total Shelterwood with Reserves 147

Hardwood two-cut shelterwood with overstory removal to regenerate an even-aged stand 6

Mixedwood two-cut shelterwood with overstory removal to regenerate an even-aged stand 10 Total Two-cut Shelterwood with Overstory Removal 16

Mixedwood clearcut to regenerate native softwood type 13

Softwood clearcut to convert plantation to native softwood 74

Hardwood clearcut to regenerate aspen/birch type 57

Mixedwood clearcut to regenerate aspen/birch type 40

Softwood clearcut to regenerate aspen/birch type 3

Aspen/birch clearcut to regenerate aspen/birch type 7 Total Clearcut 194

Hardwood land clearing to convert stand into a permanent upland wildlife opening 42

Mixedwood land clearing to convert stand into a permanent upland wildlife opening 15

Softwood land clearing to convert stand into a permanent upland wildlife opening 50 Total Land Clearing 107

Total Uneven-aged Harvest Treatment 859 acres

Total Even-aged Harvest Treatment 679 acres

Total Land Clearing 107 acres

TOTAL HARVEST TREATMENT 1,645 acres



Table A-3: Summary of stand improvement and tree planting activities.

Stand Stand Acres

Forest Type Treatment Method Total Acres

Compartment 45

7 12 Hardwood Crop tree release 12

Compartment 56

5 4 Mixedwood Crop tree release 4 Compartment 58



Compartment 59

7a 42 Softwood Tree planting 30



28 13 Mixedwood Tree planting 13

Compartment 74

1b 50 Softwood Tree planting 30

Compartment 76

14 14 Softwood Tree planting 14

Total Stand Acres 322 acres

Total Treatment Stand Improvement 202 acres

Total Treatment Tree Planting 87 acres Table A-4: Summary of reforestation activities (site preparation for natural regeneration or artificial regeneration following all clearcuts, shelterwoods, and single tree selection harvests).

Forest Type Proposed

Hardwood 782 acres

Mixedwood 303 acres

Softwood 111 acres

Total Acres: 1,196


Appendix B: Mitigation Measures Page B-1 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

APPENDIX B: MITIGATION MEASURES The Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) established Forest-wide and Management Area Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) to mitigate potential adverse effects of management activities (Forest Plan, Chapter 2, Section 2.3; and Chapter 3). The Upper White River Integrated Resource (UWR) Project has been designed to be consistent with all Forest Plan S&Gs. Although S&Gs are usually implemented without any need for repetition in site-specific NEPA documents, there are occasions when clarification specific to a project is needed to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan. Mitigation measures have also been developed specifically for the UWR Project to address resource concerns beyond those addressed by Forest Plan S&Gs. Listed below are relevant S&G clarifications and mitigation measures associated with the UWR Project (Alternative C) by resource area. RECREATION Trails R-1. Where unauthorized trail uses are occurring or are projected to occur, management

actions such as installing travel management signs, constructing physical barriers, public education, and increased monitoring or law enforcement efforts may be implemented to deter those unauthorized uses in the future.

Timber Harvesting along Designated Forest System Recreation Trails R-2. The Forest Service Recreation staff, Timber staff and local VAST Snowmobile Club will

work together prior to preparing sale contracts to work out trail reroutes, snow plowing, signage and timing issues related to the safety and enjoyment of the snowmobile trail system in the project area.

R-3. The Forest Service Recreation staff will attend timber contract pre-work meetings to determine specific trail reroutes, snow plowing, signage and timing needs, and identify respective responsibilities prior to contract implementation.

R-4. Notices will be posted to alert trail users of tree felling, skidding, and haul-truck operations.

R-5. Trail tread will be restored back to pre-harvest conditions following completion of harvest activities.

R-6. Skid road crossings on trails will be perpendicular to the trail tread and have a site distance safe enough to allow visibility for recreation users.

R-7. Skid roads that cross system trails will be “slashed in” (place 6 inches or less diameter tree branches in a random natural appearing pattern along the width of the skid road where it intersects the trail to a height of 2 to 3 feet and a depth of 6 to 8 feet) prior to completion of harvest activities.

R-8. Where feasible, fell trees away from the trail prism to reduce slash immediately adjacent to the trail.

R-9. Retain public vehicle access that currently exists to dispersed recreation sites that also serve as log landings.



Timber Harvesting Adjacent to Wilderness Boundary R-10. The Wilderness Boundary will be marked adjacent to C37/S9, C37/S10a, C45/S5,

C45/S8r, and C45/S102 prior to timber or wildlife unit being marked. R-11. Mark timber within units in C37/S9, C37/S10a, C45/S5, C45/S8r, C45/S102, C61/S102,

C62/S27, and along Patterson and Clark Brooks where stream habitat restoration is proposed so that large trees selected for commercial harvest or trees cut for wildlife/stream habitat have no chance of encroaching into Wilderness during felling operations. Trees whose canopies extend into the Wilderness and/or may have a tendency to fall into the Wilderness will not be marked for cutting.

R-12. No logging slash or other debris will be deposited in the Wilderness. Landings, Temporary Haul Roads and Skid Roads

R-13. Refer to the UWR Project Harvest Zone Map in the project planning record when

considering the following mitigation measures in the event new landings, skid roads or temporary haul roads are needed in association with proposed harvest activities:

• Harvest Zone 1: This area is located within the Texas Falls Developed Recreation Area. Do not locate new log landings or skid roads adjacent to FR39 in Zone 1. Minimize potential conflicts with snowmobile use in this zone as snowmobile parking is located at the northern section of this zone. Use FR 39A as the jumping off place for landings and skid roads. Minimize disturbance with the “host site” located at the northeast corner of FR39A.

• Harvest Zone 2: This area is located within the eastern edge of the Texas Falls Nature Trail 100 foot no harvest buffer. Do not locate skid roads within this “no harvest buffer portion” of the zone.

• Harvest Zone 12: Protect the dispersed camping site at the end of FR39D.

• Harvest Zone 14: The Forest Timber and Recreation staff will work together to ensure any improvement work along NFST 739 that may be needed to facilitate timber harvest activities does not degrad the existing trail standard.

• Harvest Zone 19: The Bowl Mill Snowmobile Trail is located in this zone. This trail may be decommissioned or a portion of it may be rerouted (to avoid a trail located in a wetland) depending on the alternative chosen. This trail may play a role in minimizing potential log truck and snowmobile conflicts on plowed roads in the project area whichever alternative is chosen. Coordinate with the Forest Recreation staff on timing of use.

• Harvest Zone 22: This area includes the popular and scenic Rob Ford Meadows. It is also located within a roadless area. Avoid additional log landings and haul roads in the roadless area.

• Harvest Zone 23: Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area MA and roadless areas lie adjacent to stands proposed for treatment in this zone. Do not locate additional skid roads, log landings and haul roads in these areas.

• Harvest Zone 25: Wilderness Study Area MA and roadless areas lie adjacent to stands proposed for treatment in this zone. Do not locate additional skid roads, log landings and haul roads in these areas. Locate haul roads and log landings on the east side of FR50.



THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES (Plants) and Rare Plants T-1. To prevent loss of viability of plants on the RFSS list that are associated with wildlife

openings, and to also prevent the spread of NNIP in openings, all openings proposed for maintenance will be surveyed for RFSS plants and NNIP prior to project implementation, and additional mitigation measures will be developed as necessary.

T-2. To prevent loss of viability of plants on the RFSS list and prevent the spread of NNIP, sites associated with proposed fish habitat improvement activities will be surveyed for RFSS plants and NNIP prior to project implementation, and additional mitigation measures will be developed as necessary.

T-3. To prevent loss of viability of plants on the RFSS list and prevent the spread of NNIP, the snowmobile trail reroute on the Bowl Mill Trail (FT 772) will be surveyed for RFSS plants and NNIP prior to project implementation, with additional mitigation measures developed as necessary.

T-4. To avoid contributing to the national downward trend in butternut tree populations (RFSS), no butternut trees will be cut unless it is necessary to do so to implement vegetation management activities safely and efficiently.

T-5. To prevent loss of viability of plants that have potential rare plant habitat in stands proposed for thinning, but not yet surveyed, logging will occur only in winter in the following locations: C57/S5, C58/S24, and C75/S9.

NON-NATIVE INVASIVE PLANTS (NNIP) N-1. Existing wild chervil infestations adjacent to C56/S13 along NFSR 101 will be treated prior

to harvest activities that may disturb the ground within or adjacent to the infestation. Treatment will include hand pulling or cutting off flowering/fruiting stalks before they develop mature seed with the goal of preventing or minimizing the spread of wild chervil into the stand. In the event non-winter work is needed to prepare the stand for harvesting, equipment will be cleaned prior to moving to other sites within the project area.

N-2. To prevent the spread of Japanese knotweed, at least one year of Japanese knotweed control will occur prior to Forest Service use of FR 208 as a logging road.

N-3. In places where proposed road construction, improvement or decommissioning projects overlap with patches of wild chervil or Japanese knotweed, treatment (hand-pulling wild chervil, herbicide treatment of Japanese knotweed) will occur prior to implementation, so that these species are not spread during project implementation.

N-4. For all NNIP controlled, infestations that occur either at the access point for a stand to be logged or near a stream (along which they easily spread) will be prioritized over other sites.

N-5. Where plantations will be converted to openings and stumps removed, annual monitoring and control for NNIP must occur for a minimum of 3 years after work is done to prevent establishment of NNIP that are known to occur in the vicinity.

N-6. All landings must be free of NNIP prior to use or develop mitigation measures based on additional surveys to minimize spreading NNIP that are present (e.g., cutting them back or using the landing only in winter when NNIP seeds aren’t in contact with equipment). The Forest botanist will coordinate with the Timber staff to determine what landings need to be surveyed during the botanical field season (late May through late September) that immediately precedes any needed preparation of landings or use of landings associated with harvest activities.

N-7. New landings, skid roads, or temporary haul roads that may be needed to facilitate harvest activities will be surveyed for NNIP after their use, and control measures will be undertaken as needed to prevent the spread of NNIP into adjacent stands.



SOIL/WETLANDS S-1. Commercial timber harvest activity will be avoided in areas of shallow and/or steep soils,

greater than one-quarter acre in size. Shallow soils are less than 20 to 25 inches deep over bedrock. Steep slopes have a slope gradient of over 50 percent.

S-2. Winter harvesting will be done in most stands to minimize adverse soil impacts. Harvesting will be done when the soils on skid roads are frozen or covered with sufficient snow to reduce erosion, rutting and compaction. A list of stands to be harvested in winter resides in the project planning record (USDA Forest Service 2009). Stands specified for winter harvesting only may be changed to allow summer harvesting if additional field surveys and Forest Service specialist review indicate there would be no adverse effects to resources.

S-3. Bole-only harvesting will be done in all stands, except those that will become wildlife openings, or be converted to native softwood species.

S-4. Prescribed burning will be done only when mineral soil heating would be low. This will minimize soil nutrient losses associated with burns.

S-5. All herbicide treatments for NNIP will involve only the spot spray and cut stem methods. This will minimize the exposure of soil to herbicides.

S-6. Mechanized activities associated with maintenance of wildlife openings will not be done when wet soil conditions are conducive to excessive rutting or compaction of soil.

AIR A-1. Signs warning drivers of potential smoke from prescribed burning will be placed on all

paved roads that may be impacted by nighttime smoke. A-2. The Forest Service (Burn Boss) will implement prescribed burning in a manner that will

allow fuels to combust prior to a valley inversion setting in. VISUALS Trails V-1. Along the Clark Brook Trail, minimize views to placement of trees (large woody debris) in

Clark Brook for fish habitat improvement from people recreating along the trail. Locate large woody debris more than 100 feet away from focal points and concentrations of recreation use where visible from two trail bridge locations and two dispersed recreation camping locations adjacent to Clark Brook.

Wildlife Opening and Vista Maintenance V-2. Recruitment of young trees to enhance the opening or vista is desirable in areas where

visual sensitivity is high or moderate and there is no transition from the adjacent forested stand and the maintained opening. For example, the edge of the opening may be treated differently than the interior. The edge may step down in vegetation types and size to create a transition. If seedlings or saplings have grown in and they would otherwise be cut down during maintenance, consider leaving some trees in clusters. This need not be done in every stand but should be implemented where visual quality is to be enhanced.

V-3. Adjacent to FR 100, retain vegetation adjacent to C60/S101 on the western edge to reduce the appearance of the large opening from the road and in conjunction with the



temporary appearance of the clearcut harvest treatment on the north side of the road in C60/S23b.

Slash Treatments V-4. Where timber harvest takes place adjacent to recreation trails, lop and scatter remaining

slash within 25 feet each side of recreation trails to within 2 feet of the ground. V-5. Where timber harvest takes place adjacent to system roads, pull back remaining slash

from the road edges a minimum of 25 feet, then lop and scatter to within 2 feet of the ground so as not to create an unnatural edge.

Clearcut Treatments along Roads and Trails

V-6. Units that have trails and roads adjacent to them and are prescribed for clearcut harvests

will be designed and marked to meet the visual condition for moderate viewer sensitivity guideline (Table 2.3-3 in Forest Plan). Where the length of harvest along the travelway exceeds 200 feet mark the remaining stand to leave enough trees to create a visual buffer for a minimum of 100 feet depth. Note that clearcuts prescribed for existing plantations would not retain this visual buffer since the goal is to provide ecological restoration and to remove the plantation trees to within the limits of the stands. In C59/S7a, where available, leave native hardwood or softwood tree species as a visual buffer for a depth of 100 feet along NFSR 101.

Shelterwood Treatments along Roads and Trails V-7. Units that have trails and roads adjacent to them and are prescribed for shelterwood

harvests will be designed and marked to meet the visual condition for moderate viewer sensitivity guideline (Table 2.3-3 in Forest Plan). Where the length of harvest along the travelway exceeds the 400 feet for roads and 200 feet for trails, mark the remaining stand to leave enough trees to create a visual buffer for a minimum of 100 feet depth.

V-8. To maintain visual quality along SR 125 and adjacent to a private home located on the east side of C76/S1, the thinning harvest treatment will occur on the west and east side of the stand (C76/1b and 1c) and the shelterwood with reserves harvest treatment will occur in C76/S1a (between the thinning treatments). To minimize the visual impacts from the loss of vegetation cover there will be no site preparation (i.e., cutting saplings less than 1 to 6 inches DBH) following harvest activities within the portion of the stand receiving the shelterwood with reserves harvest treatment. In addition, along the ridgeline of the stand, residual trees will be retained to about 50 square feet of BA per acre. This mitigation will be monitored as a demonstration project to determine its effectiveness to maintain the desired visual quality objectives within high viewer sensitivity areas.

HERITAGE H-1. Historic period archaeological sites will have a buffer zone to protect the site from

disturbance. Ideally this buffer zone is customized to reflect the kind of site, its associated features, level and location of prior use or disturbance, as well as the nature of the proposed project activity. In the absence of a unique/specified buffer, the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation has determined that the default buffer is 200 feet in every direction. Alternately, customization may lead to harvest activities within the site area under circumstances that minimize disturbance and maximize benefit to the site’s



condition. Such measures are agreed to by the Forest Archaeologist and the Sale Administrator.

H-2. Historic period stone walls/fences will not be disturbed from proposed activities. However, where there is a clear need to breach a wall to move between areas where proposed activities take place, the location (preferably a single place) and manner that the walls will be breached will be specified by the Forest Archaeologist and Sale Administrator, working together.

H-3. Expansion of old landings or establishment of new landings requires coordination with the Forest Archaeologist. Refer to the UWR Project Harvest Zone Map in the project planning record when considering the following mitigation measures in the event new landings, skid roads or temporary haul roads are needed in association with proposed harvest activities. Sites that occur within Harvest Zones will be buffered from landing activity:

• Harvest Zone 2: Hnk-022.01 lies along FR 39 in stand C74/S6; Hnk-019.02 is on the boundary between C74/S8 and C74/S16 by aspen CC; Hnk-019.01 along FR 91 in C74/S102.

• Harvest Zone 3: Hnk-015.00 is on the boundary between C75/S1 and C74/S22; Hnk-015.02 is in the northeastern corner of C75/S101.

• Harvest Zone 4: Hnk-015.01 is on the western edge of C75/S23.

• Harvest Zone 7: Hnk-011.01 and -011.02 are in the western and southern portion of the Unit.

• Harvest Zone 8: Hnk-048.00 is along south side of FR 100D in C76/S5; Hnk-050.00 in C59/S102.

• Harvest Zone 10: Gne-004.03 is in C59/S9 along the trail (if the trail is to be used to transport logs, care needs to be taken to avoid Gne-004.02 and -.00, located north along the trail).

• Harvest Zone 11: Hnk-020.01 is in C74/S103.

• Harvest Zone 12: Gne-025.00 is outside Harvest Unit 12, but right at the juncture between the (apparent) access route and FR 39C, in C61/S102, and will be avoided.

• Harvest Zone 13: Gne-025.01 is in C60/S101.

• Harvest Zone 14: Gne-023.01 is in C57/S101.

• Harvest Zone 16: Gne-023.02 is in C56/S3 along FR101D.

• Harvest Zone 17: Gne-021.01 (and perhaps associated sites) on northern edge of C57/S5.

• Harvest Zone 18: Gne-018.02 on eastern edge of unit, east boundary of C58/S3.

• Harvest Zone 20: Gne-006.01 and -.02 are along the trail leading south out of the Unit between C58/S26 and C58/S11. A third site is reported at the “Y” where two trails come together at the northern edge of C58/S11.

• Harvest Zone 21: Gne-005.00 in 59/7 east of FR101G; Gne-005.01 in C59/S7 west of FR101G, along the northern edge of stand (and Gne-005.03 is to the East of the Unit along Trail 773 – another site to protect if transportation is slated for that route).

• Harvest Zone 22: Gne-015.00 (Rob Ford site) in C44/S101 – extra-careful placement of the landing is important here; Gne-029.00 is in C44/S53, and across FR 207/TH11 to the east is Gne-029.01 in C44/S4

• Harvest Zone 23: Gne-010.09 is in C37/S102

• Harvest Zone 24: Gne-010.03 and -.02 are on the west side of the West Hill Road Extension in C45/S105 (and there may be a third site there). Gne-010.04 is north of the Unit, and Gne-010.01 south of the Unit, both also along the road and will be protected (they will be flagged and buffered as part of the road improvement activities).



• Harvest Zone 25: Gne-010.07 is in C45/S11 in the southern portion of the Unit; Gne-010.08 is on the east side of FR 50E in C45/S102.

H-4. There are several historic period Heritage Resource sites along FR 208/TH12/West Hill Extension Road (Granville). These sites will be identified/flagged on the ground by the Forest Archaeologist prior to implementing the road improvement project so they can be avoided/protected.

TIMBER TM-1. To protect existing spruce/fir regeneration in an old log landing along FR 101, no log

landing will be re-established in C56/S5. TM-2. To minimize the increased risk for windthrow within the Granville Reservation, the

following mitigation measures will be applied to proposed timber harvest activities that are adjacent to the west boundary of the reservation:

• Locate the cutting boundary of shelterwood with reserves harvest in C45/S24 at least 300 feet back from the shared property line. This will provide an uncut buffer equivalent to three tree heights of mature hardwood trees along the property line and make wind throw much less likely to occur on state lands.

• Thinning in C45/S21 and Selection harvest in C45/S23 will reserve 80 square feet of basal area per acre along this property line for a width of 100 feet.

TRANSPORTATION TR-1. No ground disturbing activities will be implemented that may affect any road under non-

NFS jurisdiction without prior approval from the respective Town, State or private holder of the right-of-way.

upper white river integrated resource...

Documents