Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Bighorn NVIRONMENTAL SSESSMENT National Forest E A FOR THE CRATER RIDGE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT MEDICINE WHEEL RANGER DISTRICT July 2015 Data Accuracy – The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. Geographic Information System (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. They may be developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS product for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace GIS products without notification. For more information, contact: Bighorn National Forest, 2013 Eastside 2nd Street, Sheridan, WY 82801; (307) 674-2600. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents Summary Table 1 List of Acronyms and Definitions of Road Terms Used in the Document 2 Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 3 Introduction 3 Proposed Action 3 Location 4 Purpose and Need 4 Decision Framework 6 Results of Public Involvement 6 Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives 14 No Action Alternative, continue current management 14 Alternative 1, vegetation management and FSR 112 closed at point 1 14 Alternative 2, vegetation management and FSR112 closed at point 2 16 Alternative 3, vegetation management and FSR112 closed at point 3 17 Design Features for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 17 Monitoring 22 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail 22 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 23 Key Issue 1 – Elk Security 24 Key Issue 2 – Recreation Opportunities 26 Key Issue 3 – Roadless Characteristics 28 Non-key Issue 1: Soils, Water Quality, and Fisheries 36 Non-key Issue 2: Landscape Aesthetics/Scenic Integrity 42 Non-Key Issue 3: Wildlife 47 Non-Key Issue 4: Forest Regeneration 61 Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations 67 Chapter 4 – Coordination and Consultation 68 Preparers and Contributors 68 Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Contacted 69 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 71 Appendix A – Water Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) Design Criteria Applicable to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 75 List of Figures and Tables Figure 1. Map of project area and proposed actions under alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 7 Figure 2. Analysis area boundary for recreation effects. 27 Figure 3. Crater Ridge project area and the Little Bighorn Roadless Area. 29 Figure 4. Portion of the Crater Ridge project area in the RACR inventory boundary. 33 Figure 5. Analysis area for landscape aesthetics and scenic integrity. 42 Table 1. Key and non-key issues identified for the Crater Ridge vegetation management project and analyzed in chapter 3. 8 Table 2. Proposed timber treatments by unit for the Crater Ridge vegetation management project. 14 Table 3. Proposed actions for existing Forest Service roads under the Crater Ridge vegetation management project. 15 Table 4. Design features for alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 17 Table 5. Monitoring to be conducted for the proposed action 22 Table 6. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the effects analysis. 23 Table 7. Effects of the alternatives on existing elk security in the project area and immediate vicinity. 25 Table 8. Comparison of the effects of closing FSR 112 by alternative. 28 Table 9. Roadless characteristics and their condition in the project area. 30 Table 10. Soil types in the project area and their limitations to timber harvest and regeneration. 37 Table 11. Past, present, and foreseeably activities in the project area that have the potential to effect soil, water quality, and fish resources. 39 Table 12. Existing scenic integrity in the project area. 43 Table 13. Desired scenic integrity in the project area. 44 Table 14. Difference between existing and desired scenic integrity in the project area. 44 Table 15. Wildlife species – summary of status on Forest and affected environment 49 Table 16. Species Distribution of the pre-harvest and post-harvest regeneration. 63 Table 17. Timing of reforestation after the 1990’s group selection harvests. Data from the 52 reforestation plots taken in 2014 64 Table 18. Comparison of group selection regeneration design criteria between 1990’s harvest and current proposal 65 2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project SUMMARY TABLE What actions are The Bighorn National Forest is proposing approximately 900 acres of proposed? commercial timber harvest in mixed conifer and spruce-fir stands us- ing group selection, single tree selection, and shelterwood harvest methods. In addition, Forest Service Road (FSR) 112 would be gated at one of three points (see map on page 7) and closed year-round to motorized vehicles. Why? The purpose of the project is to improve forest health and resilience in mixed conifer and spruce-fir stands by improving species diversity and managing stand densities, to offer commercial forest products, and to increase existing elk security. What other actions None. would meet the same need? What would it mean The current species distribution (more subalpine fir than other spe- to not meet the cies) would not change unless there was a fire, blowdown, or in- need? sect/disease epidemic. Existing stands would become less resistant to insects and disease. No commercial timber would be made available, and existing elk se- curity would not change. What factors will be The environmental assessment did not identify any significant envi- used when making ronmental effects from the proposed action. Any adverse environmen- the decision between tal effects of the proposed action are weighed against the benefit of alternatives? improved forest health and vegetation conditions and the increase in existing elk security. Are there any ways Design features (see table 4) would mitigate adverse effects. to mitigate adverse effects? What monitoring is Pretreatment and during treatment: Monitor protection of cultural re- required? sources, scenic integrity, and sediment control near Cub Creek. Post treatment: Determine down dead woody fuel loading; monitor new invasive species occurrences, changes in scenic integrity, refor- estation in final harvest units, protection for raptor nests; and, inspect road closure gates, assess incidences of blowdown. 1 Medicine Wheel Ranger District Bighorn National Forest LIST OF ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS OF ROAD TERMS USED IN THE DOCUMENT EA – environmental assessment Decommission – permanently removes a road or portions of a road from the Forest NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act Service road system. The roads in the Crater EIS – environmental impact statement Ridge project area would be decommis- FEIS – final environmental impact statement sioned by removing culvert(s), ripping the roadbed to a depth of 8 inches, applying RACR – Roadless Area Conservation Rule grass seed to the area, and scattering FSR – Forest Service road wood/rock debris onto the road for a sight MIS – management indicator species distance. SOPA – schedule of proposed actions Prehaul maintenance – normally includes the surface blading of a lightly rutted road, NOPA – notice of proposed action rebuilding existing drainage structures and ID team – interdisciplinary team in some cases the removal of vegetation from the roadbed. C&H – cattle and horse Reconditioning – includes such items as NFS – national forest system surface blading of the road surface, plating USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over rocky areas with soil or aggregate, re- WYNDD – Wyoming Natural Diversity Da- building existing drainage structures or if tabase needed the construction of new features (rolling dips, culverts, etc.). Reconditioning CFR – code of federal regulations is used to address heavier maintenance than SHPO – state historic preservation office what is expected with prehaul maintenance. Closed road – means a road is not open for Temporary road – a short-term transporta- general public use. Closed roads are nor- tion facility developed and operated for a mally physically closed by means of a road limited period of time. It will cease to exist closure gate, rock barriers, soil mounds or as a transportation facility after the purpose logs. In some cases, closed roads are only for which it was constructed is completed posted as being closed with a sign or post on and occupied land is reclaimed and managed the ground. A closed road is not shown on for natural resource purposes. the forest map or the motor vehicle use map. 2 2015 Environmental