AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT of the SOUTH RED BIRD WILDLIFE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Daniel Boone National Forest, Redbird Ranger District As Analyzed by the Interdisciplinary Team for the Environmental Assessment November 2019 This document describes the Affected Environment of the South Red Bird Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project Environmental Assessment (EA) as part of the interdisciplinary team (IDT) NEPA analysis. It 1) defines how the affected environment was compiled for this EA; 2) lists the resources considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis, and 3) describes the South Red Bird Project’s affected environment for each resource that was analyzed in detail. Additionally, individual resource reports are available in the project record. 1 DEFINING THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT FOR SOUTH RED BIRD PROJECT The affected environment of a NEPA document succinctly describes the physical, biological, social, and economic conditions of the environment that could be affected by the alternatives (40 CFR 1502.15) of a project. An affected environment is not required for an environmental assessment (EA); however, we are making it available here as part of the project record to describe the existing condition of the project area, as identified through data collected and analyzed in the planning process. Additional resource-specific details are available in specialist reports in the project record. The IRMS Process: Since 2004, when the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Daniel Boone National Forest (Forest Plan, 2004) was approved, the DBNF has implemented the Integrated Resource Management Strategy (USDA 2009 Revised), a systematic process for determining existing resource conditions, then developing projects on the landscape with the aim to bring the area closer to the desired future condition (DFC) described in the Forest Plan. The South Red Bird Integrated Resource Management Area (IRMA) is such a landscape-level project area, delineated by the South Red Bird Watershed IRMA boundary, a combination of small sub-watersheds or sixth level Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs): the Upper Red Bird Creek, Phillips Fork, Bowen Creek, and Elisha Creek watersheds. The South Red Bird IRMA encompasses approximately 56,000 acres, of which 32,300 acres are National Forest System (NFS) lands, within the Red Bird River Watershed in Clay, Leslie, and Bell Counties, Kentucky. The entire Redbird River Watershed lies within the larger Upper Kentucky River Management Area, which is described in the Forest Plan. This Management Area lies within the Kentucky River basin and forms the proclamation boundary of the Redbird Ranger District. Activities are proposed and analyzed in the EA, and locations of the activities are shown in Figure 1. 1 Figure 1. The Proposed Actions of the South Red Bird Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project. 2 For the South Red Bird Project EA, the affected environment is the existing condition of each applicable category of the IRMS, which corresponds directly to Forest Plan goals and objectives, plus other resources that are influenced by the existing condition or treatments proposed. During the IRMS process, the existing conditions were compiled through terrestrial and aquatic wildlife surveys; annual bird point surveys; forest stand inventories; multiple wildlife and forest stand datasets compiled over several decades; abandoned mine land sampling and tests; recreational trail condition surveys; road and culvert examinations; fuels management surveys; archaeological surveys and reports; soil and water surveys; and other data collection and analyses across resources. The existing conditions were then compared to the Forest Plan’s goals, objectives, and desired future conditions (DFC) for each resource. Where gaps between the existing condition and desired conditions exist, recommendations were developed to move the resource closer to DFC. Where applicable, these recommendations became the activities proposed for this project. Table 1 summarizes the IRMS process by showing one example of how the IRMS tables were used to develop wildlife habitat enhancement projects. Step 1: Identify a Forest Plan Goal or Objective by category (e.g., wildlifeearly seral habitat for wildlife) and study the Forest Plan’s specified Desired Future Condition for each category Step 2: Determine the existing condition from databases and imagery, and collect new data from inventories, sampling, field reconnaissance, plots, etc. Step 3: Compare the existing condition and the desired condition to determine what would be needed to reach DFC Step 4: Make recommendations and propose actions to help move the existing condition toward the desired condition. If needed, incorporate design criteria into the proposed action to protect specific resources or species. Table 2 provides the land-based statistics of the IRMA, such as the number of acres in each Forest Plan Prescription Area located in the project area, and how much (in acres and percentage) of the IRMA will be affected by the proposed action. The South Red Bird IRMS Synopsis (Calvert 2017) compiled all these statistics, findings and recommendations that helped lead to proposed actions for the EA. 3 Table 1. Example of the IRMS process. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Category: Attribute; Comparison of Recommendations Description of Desired Forest Description of Existing and Proposed Condition from the Plan Goal Existing Condition Desired Actions / Design Forest Plan or Conditions Criteria Objective Vegetation: Maintain 5 to 6 % within As of 2017, no early Desired future Action 1: Early Early Seral each 5th level watershed seral/ young forest 0- condition calls for Seral Habitat— Habitat (0- in the 0-10 age class, 10 years old exists on an additional shelterwood 10 years including the effects of the IRMA. Approx. 3.1% to 4.1% treatments old); catastrophic events. Site- 65 acres will be (2,246-2,971 Action 9: Salvage specific stand conditions established in the acres) of early Objective treatments will determine timing of southern portion of seral habitat to 1K – 1.A harvest. Rotations are the Red Bird River achieve this Design criteria: expected to normally watershed through the Objective within Leave butternut range between 140 and Spring Creek the Red Bird trees and pitch pine 190 years. Stands with a Vegetation River 5th level when harvesting or predominance of trees Management Project, watershed. burning. Use that have a shorter life starting in 2019. directional felling expectancy or are in to protect rare poor condition should communities. have shorter rotations. Stands with a predominance of trees that have a longer life expectancy and are in good condition should have longer rotations. 4 Table 2. Land-based Statistics of the South Red Bird Project Area Land Area Approximate Acreage within South Red Bird IRMA Upper Kentucky Management Area: 682,042 acres National Forest System Lands: • Daniel Boone National Forest 708,500 acres • Redbird Ranger District 145,840 acres South Red Bird IRMA 55,755 acres (NFS & Pvt.) • NFS Lands 32,262 acres (4.6% of Forest, 22.1% of District) South Redbird IRMS Sixth Level Subwatersheds: • 051002030201 - Red Bird Creek - Lick Fork • 051002030202 - Red Bird River - Phillips Fork • 051002030203 - Red Bird River – Bowen Creek • 051002030304 - Red Bird River - Flat Creek 1.A Proposed Research Natural Area – Elisha Creek 161 acres 1.C Cliffline Community 6,212 acres • Inside 100’ • 2,086 acres (NFS land above the cliff) • Inside 200’ • 4,402 acres (NFS land below the cliff) 1.E Riparian Corridor 8,721 acres (NFS & Pvt.) • NFS Lands in Riparian Corridor 4,962 acres 1.J Significant Bat Caves 125 acres (2 Rafinesque big-eared bat caves) 1.K Habitat Diversity Emphasis 23,170 acres Lands Unsuitable for Timber Production 310 acres Existing Early Seral Habitat 0 acres Largest age class in IRMA (50-60 years old) Grasslands/ Wildlife openings (including AML and ROW*) 330 acres Total Area in IRMA with proposed treatments 12,375 acres (38% of NFS in IRMA) Total Area in IRMA with no proposed treatments 19,875 acres (62% of NFS in IRMA) *AML = Abandoned Mine Lands; ROW = Rights of Way 5 2 RESOURCES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD FOR ANALYSIS Because the intent of a NEPA document is to concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail (40 CFR 1500.1(b)), elements that are not present or would not be affected are not carried forward for analysis in the EA. 2.1 Air Quality: The Redbird area is rural, located in the Appalachian Mountains of southeastern Kentucky. There are no major metropolitan areas nearby to pollute the air with carbon emissions. Although the South Red Bird Project proposes several activities, only prescribed burning would result in measurable air emissions (smoke). The potential effects of smoke from the Proposed Action have been analyzed in detail in the Redbird Fuels Treatment EA (2012) and can be referenced there. 2.2 Climate Change: When considering the spatial and temporal scale of this project (just over 12,000 acres over 10-15 years), potential impacts from any of the proposed treatments cannot be meaningfully measured. Less than 15% of the IRMA will be cut at varying densities, and none of the units would be completely cleared of vegetation. Reforestation would begin immediately across the area. Initial and follow-up treatments are designed to advance regeneration of native trees. Further, over 62% of the project area will receive no treatment at all, leaving those forested acres to continue sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. 2.3 Congressional Designations (Wilderness, Wild and Scenic River): There are no Wilderness Areas or Wilderness Study Areas in the project area. Also, there are no Congressionally-designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in the South Red Bird Project area. Therefore, no Congressional Designations would be affected by the Proposed Action. 2.4 Environmental Justice: Although low-income and minority populations exist in the area, the proposed action is not expected to have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on these communities.