Upper Creek Project Environmental Assessment (EA) Within the Grandfather Ranger District, Burke and Caldwell Counties
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
United States Forest National Forests in North Carolina 109 E Lawing Dr Department of Service Pisgah National Forest Nebo, NC 28761-9827 Agriculture Grandfather Ranger District 828-652-2144 File Code: 1950-1 Date: February 1, 2006 Dear Interested Citizen: I have signed the Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Upper Creek Project Environmental Assessment (EA) within the Grandfather Ranger District, Burke and Caldwell Counties. The DN discusses in detail my decision and rationale for reaching it. Copies of the DN and FONSI are enclosed. The November 2005 EA has been modified and clarified to correct typographic errors and address issues and concerns raised by members of the public during the 30-day notice and comment period and to be more responsive to new information. The January 2006 EA is the result of this effort and is available on our web site (http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/nepa.htm) or upon request. This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11. A written appeal, including attachments, must be postmarked or received within 45 days after the date this notice is published in The McDowell News. The Appeal shall be sent to National Forests in North Carolina, ATTN: Appeals Deciding Officer, PO Box 2750, Asheville, North Carolina 28802. Appeals may be faxed to (828) 257-4263. Hand-delivered appeals must be received within normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Appeals may also be mailed electronically in a common digital format to: [email protected]. Those who meet content requirements of 36 CFR 215.13 may appeal this decision. Appeals must meet content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. For further information on this decision, contact Greg Van Orsow, Project Leader, Grandfather Ranger District at 828-652-2144 or Michael Hutchins, Pisgah National Forest NEPA Coordinator at 828-682-6146. Thank you for your continued interest in management of the Pisgah National Forest. Sincerely, /s/Joy W Malone JOY W. MALONE District Ranger Enclosure Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper Upper Creek Project Decision Notice United States Department of And Agriculture Southern Region Finding Of No Significant Impact Forest Service Grandfather Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest Burke and Caldwell Counties, North Carolina February 2006 Upper Creek Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact Upper Creek Project USDA Forest Service Grandfather Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest Burke and Caldwell Counties, North Carolina Decision and Rationale prohibits it or where no-harvest standards for perennial or intermittent stream crossings occur. Decision Following harvest, revegetate roadbed into alternating patches of clover/warm season Based upon my review of the alternatives, I have vegetation to restore the grass/forb condition. decided to select a modified Alternative C (Selected ¡ Plant individuals or groups of persimmons Alternative) of the Upper Creek Project and/or native crabapple trees in log landings and Environmental Assessment (EA – see Section 2.2.3, in the existing/expanded wildlife field adjacent to Chapter 2) on the Grandfather Ranger District, Stand 95-27. Pisgah National Forest and the Project Design ¡ Utilize native plants in wildlife habitat Features listed in Section 2.4, Chapter 2 and improvement and roadside erosion control; Appendix F of the Upper Creek Project EA. The ¡ Maintain holly, black gum, and dogwood soft Selected Alternative will: mast species during timber stand improvement; ¡ Retain white oak, red oak, and hickory hard mast ¡ Harvest about 345 acres using the two-age species within harvest stands where present; and regeneration harvest prescription and 40 acres ¡ Use Glyphosate herbicide to control a total of using the clearcut with reserve tree prescription. about five acres or less of the following invasive ¡ Construct about 0.25 mile of temporary road. exotic (non-native) plants along the following ¡ Use and maintain the existing road system. roads prior to disturbance activities: ¡ Designate 296 acres of small patch old growth by compartment and an estimated 475 acres of Table DN-1: Location of Invasive Exotic Plants Control – medium patch old growth near Horsepen Creek. Selected Alternative ¡ Site preparing and subsequent release, if needed, Japanese Tree-of- Princess in all stands being regenerated using herbicides Forest plume grass heaven tree and manual methods. Service (Miscanthus (Ailanthus (Paulownia ¡ Prescribe burn approximately 350 acres within Road sinensis) altissima) tomentosa) Compartment 90, and a portion of stand 107-02 4096 X X if weather conditions allow. 4099 X X ¡ Following harvest activities create one vernal 299 X X pond off the Little Chestnut Mountain Road. 986 X X X ¡ Anchor large woody debris into about one mile Old Way X X X of streambank along Timbered Branch Creek to Ridge enhance aquatic habitat by balancing the 4101 X X X pool:riffle ratio. 982 X ¡ Expand existing one acre wildlife field adjacent to The EA disclosed in Section 2.2.3 for Alternative C Stand 95-27 to 2.5 acres. that: “Hemlock four inches to eight inches in diameter not ¡ Daylight to create a feathered edge of early affected by the hemlock wooly adelgid within stands 93-02, 94- successional habitat for an average additional 02, and 94-01, would be retained during harvest and stand width of 15 feet on each side of FSR 299. This improvement activities to maintain winter roost habitat for daylighting would be done along much of the many bird species, including ruffed grouse”. I have decided length to within 30 feet of the private in-holding not to implement this action and am modifying the but would not be done where topography Decision Notice 2 Upper Creek Project Selected Alternative to now retain all hemlock in the Other Alternatives Considered activity areas. Rationale In addition to the Selected Alternative, I considered two other alternatives in detail: Alternative A – No As stated in Section 1.4 of the EA, the purpose and Action and Alternative B – Proposed Action. A need (objectives) for the proposal is to: comparison of these alternatives can be found in ¡ Balance age-class distribution, improve timber Sections 2.2.1 and 2.5 of the EA. stand conditions, and provide for a continuous supply of timber using silvicultural prescriptions Alternative A – No Action that favor red oak, white oak, and hickory tree Under Alternative A, current management plans, such species where they occur; as wildlife suppression, general road maintenance, and ¡ Reduce competition and improve species special use permit operations, would continue to composition in existing and proposed harvest guide management of the project area. I did not units through herbicide use and manual methods; select this alternative for several reasons. This ¡ Control non-native invasive species through alternative would not have balanced age-class herbicide use; distribution, improved timber stand conditions, or ¡ Improve conditions for wildlife by creating provided for a continuous supply of timber; reduced additional early-successional habitat and competition and improved species composition; enhancing existing fields; reduced non-native invasive species; improved ¡ Reduce existing fuel levels and improve habitat conditions for wildlife; reduced existing fuel levels; and timber stand conditions through prescribed nor enhanced aquatic habitat. I believe it is important fire near Brown Mountain; and these actions be implemented to move the area ¡ Enhance aquatic habitat by balancing the towards the Forest Plan’s desired future condition. pool:riffle ratio along a reach of Timbered Branch Creek. Alternative B – Proposed Action I believe the Selected Alternative will move the In November 2004, Alternative B was designed to resources in the project area towards the desired meet the project’s objectives and identified as the future condition, achieving the purpose and need for proposed action. However, I did not select this the project while addressing the publics concerns. alternative because it would not have designated as (See Appendix H for public comment highlights and much medium patch old growth habitat or wildlife the Agency’s response.) habitat as the Selected Alternative. I believe for this In reaching my decision, I began by once again project area, it is appropriate to designate medium reviewing the purpose and need for the project and patch old growth in the Horsepen Creek area. The all of the alternatives presented in the Environmental purpose of medium patch old growth is to serve as Assessment (EA). I then carefully weighed the permanent reservoirs of biological diversity with the effects analyses of the alternatives analyzed in detail intent to allow restoration of functioning old growth and the public comments received on the EA. The ecosystems at the landscape and Forest scales (Forest Upper Creek Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) conducted Plan, page III-27). The majority of this medium field surveys, database queries and other localized patch is within Management Area 4C, which is research in order to determine the effects the designated as unsuitable for timber production alternatives analyzed in detail could have on the area’s (Forest Plan, page III-77). ecology, including threatened and endangered species. During their analysis, they took a hard look at past, Other Alternatives Not Considered present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions Section 2.3 of the EA disclosed two alternatives I that could