˙WPCą ‹č†zc;ۅBšķe:6BGĒ?$Ũ?Øc'°/1§\-oŗ;zĄ&"ĖČĢá´ ļ;ë/k/ŲŸžøbŧÎĄ 3Ņī5âd7a¨ė'Eį4‰ÍčŌS‘Ú7WTĻ“Nîv_ĪXZŋûËĄāÍ ēlؙÉčë rSRŊŪįnž×÷×>“ŠšÜ<‰sĶ~,æƒ-  Öėģ+œPí*<ĒÍ#L4F˙ėRVg&CĒí,:¸['ŧhŠö‘¯ā.OU]"ÁQâķēW]•ōU  ¤ØN |&ĨÍPŨ"tĶCSė9¸K1^„ō>ü_ķ ÍÚŠLu‡ŠGp%ôŽ"÷_xš>ŸÚE¸^õv'†›ķß47û†5^ÜŊ]]Ö É2™‹ļņ_Z<]“MŊœhũ÷ŌXQy\ūšƒpįŸNĩáx<Px4bAš° úš8õ0JĪg¯úÃŽ¯-đMŅG,…õØ,Un” û˜Ë œ0‹ĻiĪi"Ųfo|SŦøx¸ožˆtĨæ˙b z —~!j”819?JĘŗÅâ†{iW*Ë;đ¤Ôŗ||ķD`">MąšŠ žŠ'|œ ŲĻ÷X,ŊøãŖGĖąÕ Õ #!–UNˇ %N    ^ w4#7F mHHHH 0__ 0Šėfv Bx D3•aČ 0†Ū Bdfaƒf™a›˜Lexmark Optra LaserPrinter ,<úú< ,0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularXHÁŖ[&áÃi[&Ŧžr ‚ŦŅr3|xd˙U‹˙ĀĀĀJC˙˙.HdrFtrFiltrix StyleÔ  ÔĶ  ĶĶĶĶĶĶ  ĶJ@˙˙.NormalFiltrix StyleÔ  ÔĶ  ĶĶĶĶĶĶ  Ķ d'˙˙dxdTBL_0001F@˙˙*CellFiltrix StyleÔ  ÔĶ  ĶĶĶĶĶĶ  Ķ dTBL_0002TBL_0003Ô_ÔŅX°ŅŅX°ŅŌX°ŌŌX°ŌŅ8€dBXdėdČ8ŅÔ_ÔĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĶ  ĶNEPA/NFMA€TRAINING€BOOKLET€šĶ  ĶĖĖĶ  Ķđ đHOW€TO€WRITE€LEGALLY€DEFENSIBLE€ENVIRONMENTAL€ASSESSMENTSđđ€šĶ  ĶĖĖĶ  ĶMARCH,€1993€šĶ  ĶĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖĖā ° āā  āā ` āā ¸ āā  āā h āā Ā āā  āDain€Maddox€-€RO€-€Natural€Resources€Ėā ° āā  āā ` āā ¸ āā  āā h āā Ā āā  āLeslie€Auriemo€-€USDA€-€Office€of€GeneralĪCounselĖā ° āā  āā ` āā ¸ āā  āā h āā Ā āā  āVince€Vukelich€-€USDA€-€Office€of€GeneralĪCounsel€ĖĖĖĖĐ  Ŧ-T+/ ĐĖōōĶ  ĶINTRODUCTIONĐ Dė ĐĶ  ĶķķĖā ° āThis€NEPA/NFMA€training€booklet€was€developed€to€assist€Region€9€Forests€in€NEPA/NFMAĪcompliance.€€While€the€booklet€covers€all€aspects€of€NEPA,€its€main€focus€is€on€the€analysis€and€documentationĪnecessary€for€legally€defensible€Environmental€Assessments.€€This€book€is€not€a€legal€treatise€on€NEPA€andĪNFMA.€€Rather€it€offers€practical€helpful€hints€on€how€to€produce€legally€defensible€Environmental€AssessmentsĪÔ_Ôin€an€efficient€mannerÔ_Ô.€€Where€applicable,€various€parts€of€Environmental€Assessments€are€included€as€examplesĪfor€the€reader.€€We€hope€this€booklet€will€be€helpful€for€you€as€you€write€Environmental€Assessments.€ĖĖĖĐ  | $  ĐI.ā ° āōōGENERAL€INFORMATIONĐ X Đķķ€Đ Dė Đō ōA.ā ° āThe€National€Environmental€Policy€Act€(NEPA)€is€an€environmental€disclosure/Đ 0Ø ĐÔ_ÔdecisionmakingÔ_Ԁtool.€€ķ ķThe€NEPA€process€provides€a€blueprint€for€a€decision€maker€to€follow€when€consideringĐ Ä Đthe€environmental€effects€of€various€proposed€federal€actions.€ĖĖā ° āđ đ...€the€NEPA€process€is€intended€to€help€public€officials€make€decisions€that€are€based€on€anĪunderstanding€of€environmental€consequences,€and€take€actions€that€protect,€restore,€and€enhance€theĪenvironment€...đđ€(40€CFR€1500.1(b)).€ĖĖB.ō ō€€The€twin€aims€of€NEPA€Ô_ÔareÔ_Ô:Đ ” <  Đķ ķ€Đ „ ,  Đā ° ā1.€€€ā  āConsider€the€environmental€impacts€of€a€proposed€action€and€its€alternatives.€Đ p   ĐĖā ° ā2.ā0  āInform€and€involve€the€public€in€the€consideration€of€the€effects,€the€alternatives,€and€theĐHđ €%€% Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔdecisionÔ_Ô.€ĖĖC.ā ° āō ōTwo€Levels€of€Decisionsķ ķ€-€There€are€only€two€levels€of€decisions€(February€6,€1989):€€programmaticĐ  ´ ĐForest€Plan€decisions€and€site€specific€project€decisions.€ĖĖā ° ā1.ā  āō ōōōForest€Plan€Decisionsķ ķķķ€-€An€approved€Forest€Plan€is€the€product€of€a€comprehensive€noticed€and€Đ Ô| Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔcommentÔ_Ԁprocess€established€by€Congress€in€the€National€Forest€Management€Act.€€The€Ėā ° āā  āapproval€of€a€Forest€Plan€establishes€direction€so€that€all€future€decisions€in€the€planning€area€Ėā ° āā  āwill€include€an€interdisciplinary€approach€to€achieve€integrated€consideration€of€physical,€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔbiologicalÔ_Ô,€economic€and€other€sciences.€€The€Forest€Plan€provides€direction€to€assure€the€Ėā ° āā  ācoordination€of€multiple€uses€(outdoor€recreation,€range,€timber,€watershed,€wildlife€and€fish,€and€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwildernessÔ_Ô)€and€sustained€yield.€€The€Chief€of€the€Forest€Service€has€held€in€administrative€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔappealsÔ_Ԁthat€Forest€Plan€approval€results€in:€ĖĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔaÔ_Ô)ā ` āEstablishment€of€forest€multiple-use€goals€and€objectives€(36€CFR€219.11(b));€Đ $Ė ĐĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔbÔ_Ô)ā0 ` āEstablishment€of€forest-wide€management€requirements€(standards€and€guidelines)€toĐ ü¤ Đfulfill€the€requirements€of€16€U.S.C.€1604€applying€to€future€activities€(resourceĪintegration€requirements€36€CFR€219.13€to€219.27);€Đ ` €%` €% ĐĖā ° āā  āc)ā ` āEstablishment€of€management€areas€and€management€area€direction€(management€area€Đ Ŧ"T # Đā ° āā  āā ` āÔ_ÔprescriptionsÔ_Ô)€applying€to€future€activities€in€that€management€area€(36€CFR€219.11);€ĖĖā ° āā  ād)ā ` āDesignation€of€suitable€timber€land€and€establishment€of€salable€timber€sale€quantity€(36€Đ p%#& Đā ° āā  āā ` āCFR€219.14€and€36€CFR€219.16);€ĖĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔeÔ_Ô)ā ` āMonitoring€and€evaluation€requirements€(36€CFR€219.11(d));€Đ 4(Ü%) ĐĖā ° āā  āf)ā ` āÔ_ÔNonwildernessÔ_Ԁmultiple-use€allocations€for€those€roadless€areas€that€were€reviewed€underĐ  *´'+ Đ36€Ėā ° āā  āā ` āCFR€219.17€and€not€recommended€for€wilderness€designation;€ĖĖā ° āā  āg)ā ` āProject€and€activity€level€decisions€if€they€are€specifically€identified€in€the€Record€of€Đ ŧ-d+/ Đā ° āā  āā ` āDecision€and€Forest€Plan€and€disclosed€for€NEPA€purposes€in€the€FEIS.€Ėā ° āā  āTo€comply€with€NEPA,€an€environmental€impact€statement€is€done€for€the€Forest€Plan.€€The€Ėā ° āā  āForest€Plan€EIS€is€programmatic.€€A€programmatic€EIS€is€a€document€disclosing€the€ā (# āĐ 0Ø Đā ° āā  āenvironmental€consequences€of€a€program€or€plan€which€guides€or€prescribes€the€use€of€Ėā ° āā  āresources,€allocates€resources,€or€establishes€rules€and€policies€in€contrast€to€disclosure€of€the€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔenvironmentalÔ_Ԁconsequences€of€a€site€specific€project.€ĖĖā ° āā  āForest€Plans€are€similar€to€zoning€ordinances€in€that€they€establish€the€long€term€goals€or€the€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔdesiredÔ_Ԁfuture€condition€for€the€area;€and€they€establish€the€standards€and€guidelines€under€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwhichÔ_Ԁthis€future€condition€can€be€achieved.€€However,€in€most€cases,€Forest€Plan€EIS's€do€not€Ėā ° āā  āinclude€the€site€specific€details€to€support€project€decisions€necessary€to€move€the€land€toward€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁdesired€future€condition.€€Site€specific€environmental€analyses€must€be€conducted€to€ensure€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔcomplianceÔ_Ԁwith€the€National€Environmental€Policy€Act.€ĖĖā ° ā2.ā  āō ōProject€Decisionsķ ķ€-€This€is€the€final€environmental€review€decision€before€project€Đ @č  Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔimplementationÔ_Ô.€€In€NEPA€terms,€this€is€when€the€irretrievable€commitment€of€resources€is€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmadeÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° āā  āProject€decisions€are€the€focus€of€this€training€booklet.€ĖĖā ° ā3.ā  āō ōIntermediate€analysesķ ķ€-€There€are€a€variety€of€resource€reports€and€analyses€that€may€occur€Đ Ėt Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔbetweenÔ_Ԁthe€Forest€Plan€decisions€and€project€decisions.€€However,€regardless€of€how€detailed€orĖā ° āā  āthorough€these€analyses€may€be,€they€do€not€replace€either€the€Forest€Plan€decisions€or€project€Ėā ° āā  ādecisions.€ĖĖā ° āā  āThe€Eastern€Region€of€the€Forest€Service€has€developed€an€integrated€resource€management€Ėā ° āā  āanalysis€strategy€to€assist€in€the€identification€of€specific€projects.€€One€major€component€of€IRM€Ėā ° āā  āis€Opportunity€Area€Analysis.€The€purpose€of€opportunity€area€analysis€is€to€identify€a€list€of€Ėā ° āā  āpossible€projects€for€the€opportunity€area€through€an€interdisciplinary€approach.€€These€possible€Ėā ° āā  āprojects€may€or€may€not€result€in€a€proposal.€€If€such€a€project€proposal€is€eventually€made,€the€Ėā ° āā  āproject€will€receive€a€site€specific€NEPA€analysis,€and€a€decision€document€will€be€prepared€Ėā ° āā  āprior€to€project€implementation.€€The€list€of€possible€projects€is€nonexclusive.€€New€projects€may€Ėā ° āā  ābe€added€to€the€list€at€a€later€date€as€new€information€develops.€€Other€projects€originally€on€the€Ėā ° āā  ālist€may€never€be€implemented.€€In€essence,€the€result€of€opportunity€area€analysis€is€a€Ėā ° āā  ānonbinding€list€of€possible€projects,€the€purpose€of€which€is€to€provide€some€idea€of€future€Ėā ° āā  āprojects€for€the€area.€ĖĖā ° āā  āOpportunity€area€analysis€does€not€require€compliance€with€the€National€Environmental€Policy€Ėā ° āā  āAct€because€no€decision€is€being€made€at€this€stage.€€The€result€of€opportunity€area€analysis€is€Ėā ° āā  āonly€a€non-binding€list€of€possible€projects.€ĖĖĖĐ  )Ā&* ĐII.ā0 ° āōōō ōENVIRONMENTAL€IMPACT€STATEMENTS,€ENVIRONMENTAL€ASSESSMENTS,€ANDĐ X ĐCATEGORICAL€EXCLUSIONS€ķ ķķķĐHđ°€%°€% ĐĖĖA.ā ° āAssuming€we€have€a€federal€project,€one€of€the€first€decisions€we€need€to€make€is€whether€to€prepare€Đ  ´ Đā ° āan€environmental€assessment,€environmental€impact€statement€or€categorical€exclusion.€ĖĖā ° ā1.ā  āEnvironmental€Assessments€-€The€purpose€of€an€environmental€assessment€is€to€determine€Đ Đx Đā ° āā  āwhether€or€not€an€environmental€impact€statement€must€be€prepared.€€Environmental€impact€Ėā ° āā  āstatements€must€be€prepared€when€there€is€a€major€federal€action€significantly€affecting€the€Ėā ° āā  āhuman€environment.€€Thus,€after€analyzing€the€environmental€impacts€in€an€EA,€we€can€either:€Ėā ° āā  ā1)€determine€that€the€project€may€be€a€major€federal€action€significantly€affecting€the€human€Ėā ° āā  āenvironment€and€begin€the€EIS€process;€or,€2)€make€a€Finding€of€No€Significant€Impact.€€The€Ėā ° āā  ādecision€resulting€from€the€analysis€in€the€EA€is€documented€in€a€Decision€Notice€if€a€Finding€of€Ėā ° āā  āNo€Significant€Impact€is€made.€ĖĖā ° ā2.ā  āEnvironmental€Impact€Statements€-€NEPA€requires€that€an€environmental€impact€statement€be€Đ Ä Đā ° āā  āprepared€when€there€is€a€major€federal€action€significantly€affecting€the€human€environment.ŧā ° āā  āĖā ° āā  āThe€agency€may€determine€without€doing€an€EA€that€an€EIS€is€necessary.€€A€notice€of€intent€to€Ėā ° āā  āprepare€an€EIS€should€then€be€published€in€the€federal€register.€€The€decision€resulting€from€Ėā ° āā  āthe€analysis€in€the€EIS€is€documented€in€a€Record€of€Decision.€ĖĖā ° ā3.ā0  āCategorical€Exclusion€-€Ô_ÔA€categorical€exclusionÔ_Ԁis€a€category€of€actions€which€do€not€individuallyĐ 8 Đor€cumulatively€have€a€significant€effect€on€the€human€environment€and€which€have€been€found€toĪhave€no€such€effect€in€procedures€adopted€by€a€federal€agency.€40€CFR€1508.4.€€The€proceduresĪadopted€by€the€Forest€Service€are€located€in€FSH€1909-15.€€These€procedures€set€forth€specificĪtypes€of€actions€which€may€be€categorically€excluded.€€Even€if€our€proposed€action€is€one€thatĪmay€be€categorically€excluded€(as€defined€in€FSH€1909-15),€we€must€be€assured€that€there€are€notĪextraordinary€circumstances€surrounding€the€proposed€action€which€may€result€in€the€proposedĪaction€Ô_Ôhaving€a€significant€effect€onÔ_Ԁthe€human€environment.€€This€conclusion€regardingĪđ đextraordinary€circumstancesđđ€must€be€documented€in€the€Decision€Memo€and€supported€by€aĪproject€file.€(Note€however,€that€certain€categories€of€actions€do€not€have€to€be€documented€in€aĪDecision€Memo).€€See€FSH€1909.15€(31-1).€Đ €%€% ĐĖB.ā ° āōōThe€Decision€making€Processķķ€Đ  "H # ĐĖā ° ā1.ā  āDetermine€whether€the€proposed€action€is€one€which€may€be€categorically€excluded€as€set€forth€Đ x$ "% Đā ° āā  āin€FSH€1909.15.€ĖĖā ° ā2.ā  āIf€the€action€is€one€which€may€be€categorically€excluded,€determine€whether€there€are€Đ <'ä$( Đā ° āā  āextraordinary€circumstances€such€that€the€proposed€action€may€have€a€significant€environmental€Ėā ° āā  āeffect.€€If€there€are€such€extraordinary€circumstances,€the€action€may€not€be€categorically€Ėā ° āā  āexcluded,€and€an€EIS€or€EA€is€necessary.€ĖĖā ° ā3.ā  āIf€the€action€is€not€one€which€may€be€categorically€excluded,€determine€whether€the€action€is€Đ Ø+€)- Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔsuchÔ_Ԁthat€we€would€automatically€want€to€prepare€an€EIS€without€first€doing€an€EA.€€In€otherŧā ° āā  āwords,€the€effects€of€the€proposed€action€may€be€such€that€we€know€even€without€the€analysis€of€Đ °-X+/ Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔanÔ_ԀEA€that€the€action€may€have€significant€effects€on€the€environment.€ĖĖā ° ā4.ā  āIf€we€do€not€know€without€the€benefit€of€an€EA€that€the€proposed€action€is€one€that€may€have€a€Đ 0Ø Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔsignificantÔ_Ԁeffect€on€the€human€environment,€do€an€environmental€assessment.€€If,€as€a€result€ofŧā ° āā  āthe€EA,€we€determine€that€the€effects€of€the€selected€alternative€may€have€a€significant€effect€on€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁhuman€environment,€prepare€a€notice€of€intent€to€prepare€an€EIS.€€Otherwise,€prepare€a€Ėā ° āā  āFinding€of€No€Significant€Impact€and€a€Decision€Notice.€Đ  āˆ ĐĖĖĶ  ĶPROPOSAL€€GRAPHIC€(Sent€hard€copy€-€did€not€scan)šĶ  ĶĖĖĖĐ  āˆ ĐIII.ā ° āō ōōōDEFINING€THE€PURPOSE€AND€NEED€FOR€THE€PROPOSED€ACTIONķ ķķķ€Đ X ĐĖĖA.ā ° āō ōōōOrigin€of€proposed€actionsķ ķķķ.€Đ  Č ĐĖā ° āThe€Forest€Service€must€ō ōōōauthorizeķ ķķķ,€ō ōōōfundķ ķķķ,€ō ōōōrecommendķ ķķķ€or€ō ōōōimplementķ ķķķ€an€action€for€there€to€be€a€Đ ü¤ Đā ° āÔ_ÔproposedÔ_Ԁaction€that€triggers€NEPA.€€Some€proposals€are€initiated€by€the€Forest€Service€such€as€a€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔproposedÔ_Ԁtimber€sale€or€campground€development€project.€€In€this€instance,€the€Forest€Service€is€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔproposingÔ_Ԁan€action€necessary€to€ō ōōōimplementķ ķķķ€the€Forest€Plan.€Đ Ä l ĐĖā ° āSome€proposals€are€initiated€by€outside€parties€requesting€authority€to€use€public€lands,€such€as€a€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔspecialÔ_Ԁuse€permit€or€mineral€lease€application.€€If€the€Forest€Service€decides€to€act€on€such€a€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔproposalÔ_Ô,€the€Forest€Service€will€propose€an€action€necessary€to€ō ōōōauthorizeķ ķķķ€a€use€on€public€lands.€Đ x  ĐĖā ° āđ đA€proposal€exists€at€that€stage€in€the€development€of€an€action€when€an€agency€...€has€a€goal€and€is€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔactivelyÔ_Ԁpreparing€to€make€a€decision€...€and€the€effects€can€be€meaningfully€evaluated.€(40€CFR€Ėā ° ā1508.23)€ĖĖB.ā ° āō ōōōPurpose€and€Need€for€the€proposalķ ķķķ.€Đ Ŧ ĐĖā ° āAll€proposed€actions,€Ô_Ôregardless€ofÔ_Ԁwho€initiated€the€proposal,€are€being€proposed€for€a€reason.€€The€Ėā ° āNational€Environmental€Policy€Act€speaks€of€these€reasons€in€terms€of€the€purpose€and€need€for€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔproposedÔ_Ԁaction:€ĖĖā ° āā  āā ` āā ¸ āā  āPurposeā Ā āā  āWhat€Ô_ÔdoÔ_Ԁyou€want€to€accomplish?Đ 8 ĐĖā ° āā  āā ` āā ¸ āā  āNeed€ā h āā Ā āā  āWhat€are€you€trying€to€get€relief€from?Đ h ĐĖā ° āWith€Forest€Plan€implementation,€often€times€the€đ đpurposeđđ€is€the€desired€future€condition€of€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔspecificÔ_Ԁarea,€and€the€đ đneedđđ€is€the€existing€condition€of€the€area.€€Specifically,€most€proposed€Ėā ° āactions€are€advanced€because€they€move€some€portion€of€the€Forest€from€its€existing€condition€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtowardÔ_Ԁthe€Desired€Future€Condition€as€defined€in€the€Forest€Plan.€ĖĖā ° āThe€Desired€Future€Condition€usually€consists€of€some€specific€vegetative,€recreational,€wildlife,€or€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔecosystemÔ_Ԁgoal(s)€for€a€specific€portion€of€the€Forest.€€These€goals€vary€by€management€area.€For€Ėā ° āexample,€some€Forest€Plans€have€goals€to€convert€from€one€vegetative€type€to€another€(softwoods€to€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔhardwoodsÔ_Ô);€other€goals€may€be€to€provide€more€habitat€for€wildlife€species€that€require€forest€Ėā ° āinteriors€with€minimal€human€intrusion;€still€other€goals€may€be€to€provide€for€additional€developed€Ėā ° ārecreation€on€national€forest€lands.ĖĖā ° āThe€existing€condition€is€simply€a€summary€of€the€current€condition€of€the€land€and€the€present€uses.€€Ėā ° āThe€existing€condition€is€the€place€from€which€the€action€must€be€taken€to€move€the€land€to€the€Ėā ° āfuture€condition.€€The€existing€condition€(or€the€affected€environment)€also€serves€as€the€baseline€for€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁeffects€analysis€in€the€environmental€documents.€Đ  *ŧ'+ Đā0 ° āWhen€describing€the€purpose€and€need,€one€should€first€describe€the€goal€or€purpose€for€the€specific€ā @ā# āarea.Ī(Ô_ÔdesiredÔ_Ԁfuture€condition).€Then€the€need€or€existing€condition€of€the€area€should€be€described.€Finally,Īthere€should€be€a€discussion€of€how€the€proposed€action€will€move€the€area€from€its€existing€conditionĪtoward€the€Desired€Future€Condition.€€Here€is€an€example€of€the€purpose€and€need€associated€with€aĪproject€the€Forest€Service€wants€to€implement.€Đ °€%°€% ĐĖā ° āā  āThe€proposed€action€is€to€harvest€800€acres€of€red€pine€on€stands€x,€y,€and€z€on€the€Lonesome€Ėā ° āā  āDove€District€of€the€Big€Sky€Forest.€Pine€was€planted€in€the€1930's€to€help€convert€abandoned€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔerodingÔ_Ԁfarmland€back€to€stable€forests.€€However,€the€pine,€which€is€not€indigenous€to€the€area,€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔisÔ_Ԁnot€doing€well€and€is€infested€with€insects.€€The€purpose€is€to€move€the€area€toward€the€desired€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔfutureÔ_Ԁcondition€by€converting€from€pine€to€hardwood€stands.€€The€need€for€the€sale€may€be€to€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔstopÔ_Ԁthe€insect€infestation.€€The€proposed€timber€sale€may€fix€the€problem€by€cutting€the€pine€and€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔlettingÔ_Ԁthe€hardwoods€naturally€regenerate.€€Since€the€Forest€Plan€calls€for€the€conversion€of€all€Ėā ° āā  āstands€of€pine€to€hardwoods,€the€proposed€action€will€be€moving€the€forest€toward€the€desired€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔfutureÔ_Ԁcondition.€ĖĖā ° āHere€is€an€example€of€the€purpose€and€need€where€the€Forest€Service€must€decide€whether€to€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔauthorizeÔ_Ԁa€ski€area€to€expand€its€facilities€on€National€Forest€System€lands.€ĖĖā ° āā  āAlpine€Ski€Corporation€has€requested€that€the€Forest€Service€authorize€an€expansion€of€their€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔexistingÔ_Ԁspecial€use€permit€area.€€The€đ đpurposeđđ€might€be€that€the€Forest€wants€to€increase€the€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔdevelopedÔ_Ԁrecreational€opportunities€on€the€Forest€(a€goal€set€forth€in€the€Forest€Plan).€€The€Ėā ° āā  āđ đÔ_ÔneedÔ_Ôđđ€for€the€action€might€be€the€overcrowded€conditions€at€the€existing€ski€area.€€The€proposed€Ėā ° āā  āaction€is€for€the€Forest€Service€to€authorize€the€expansion€by€amending€Alpine's€existing€special€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔuseÔ_Ԁpermit.€ĖĖā ° āIn€both€cases,€the€proposed€action€will€affect€the€National€Forest€resources€and€uses.€€We€must€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔevaluateÔ_Ԁthese€proposed€changes€in€the€context€of€Forest€Plan€goals.€€Is€this€proposed€action€needed€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtoÔ_Ԁmove€the€forest€toward€the€desired€future€condition€as€defined€in€the€Forest€Plan?€ĖĖC.ā ° āō ōōōDefine€the€Proposalķ ķķķ.€Đ ¨ ĐĖā ° ā1.ā  āDefine€the€proposed€action€in€as€much€ō ōōōsite€specificķ ķķķ€detail€as€possible.€Đ Ü„  ĐĖā ° ā2.ā  āThe€proposed€action€must€be€described€accurately€because€ō ōōōthe€scope€of€the€environmental€Đ ¸!`" Đķķķ ķā ° āā  āō ōōōÔ_ÔassessmentÔ_Ԁķ ķķķ(i.e.,€what€must€be€described€in€the€alternatives€and€effects€sections€of€the€EA)Đ ¨"P # Đā ° āā  āō ōōōdepends€on€the€nature€of€your€proposed€action€and€the€purpose€and€needķ ķķķ.€€For€example:€Đ ˜#@!$ ĐĖā ° āā  āSki€Corporation€applies€for€a€special€use€permit€to€build€a€Ski€resort€on€Site€A.€The€Forest€Ėā ° āā  āService€accepts€the€application€and€must€decide€whether€to€issue€the€permit.€€The€proposal€is€in€Ėā ° āā  āan€area€of€the€Forest€with€a€management€prescription€that€includes€a€future€condition€that€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔencompassesÔ_Ԁincreased€developed€recreation.€€The€proposed€action€and€purpose€as€stated€by€your€Ėā ° āā  āForest€is€đ đto€provide€a€winter€sports€opportunity.đđ€Because€you€have€stated€your€purpose€as€đ đto€Ėā ° āā  āprovide€winter€sports€opportunity,đđ€you€should€consider€alternative€sites€for€the€Ski€resort€as€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔpartÔ_Ԁof€your€range€of€alternatives.€€If€you€state,€however,€that€your€purpose€is€đ đto€respond€to€Ski€Ėā ° āā  āCorporation's€proposal€and€to€provide€a€winter€sports€opportunity€at€Site€A,đđ€you€may€not€have€Ėā ° āā  āto€consider€alternative€sites€as€part€of€your€range€of€alternatives€since€the€scope€of€your€proposal€Ėā ° āā  āis€limited€to€Site€A.€Đ Ā-h+/ Đā ° ā3.ā  āYou€must€thoroughly€understand€the€nature€of€your€proposed€action.€€Ask€yourself€Đ X ĐĖā ° āā  ā-€what€types€of€decisions€are€going€to€be€made?€ĖĖā ° āā  ā-€is€this€a€site€specific€or€a€programmatic€decision?€ĖĖā ° āā  ā-€do€you€intend€that€this€will€be€the€end€of€our€NEPA€compliance€for€this€proposal?€ĖĖā ° āā  ā-€if€this€is€a€site€specific€decision,€can€the€public€discern€from€reading€this€proposal€where€on€the€€ŧā ° āā  āā ` āĖā ° āā  ā€€Ô_ÔgroundÔ_Ԁthe€actions€will€take€place?€ĖĖā ° āā  ā-€what€previous€decisions€may€limit€the€decision€to€be€made?€ĖĖā ° ā4.ā  āHere€are€two€examples€of€generic€and€site€specific€proposed€actions.€€The€site€specific€examples€Đ @č  Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔalsoÔ_Ԁinclude€purpose€and€need€statements.€ĖĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔAl.Ô_Ôā ` āđ đThe€proposed€action€is€to€permit€a€ski€area€to€expand€on€the€Green€Mountain€NF.Ô_ÔđđÔ_ԀĐ Ŧ ĐĖĶ  Ķvs.šĶ  ĶĖā ° āā  āA2.€ā0 ` āđ đThe€proposed€action€is€to€expand€the€existing€Eagle€Mountain€permit€area€by€430€acresĐ ´\ Đand€approve€construction€of€Ô_Ô8Ô_Ԁnew€trails,€4€lifts,€and€associated€facilities,€a€2,000€squareĪfoot€up-€mountain€lodge€on€Forest€Service€land;€Ô_ÔandÔ_Ԁa€700€unit€hotel,€a€1200€car€parkingĪlot,€and€an€€18€hole€golf€course€at€the€base€of€the€lifts€and€trails.€Đ ` €%` €% ĐĖā ° āā  āā0 ` āThe€purpose€of€this€proposed€action€is€to€meet€demand€for€additional€Ô_ÔdownhillÔ_Ԁskiing€onĪthe€Green€Mountain€National€Forest€and€to€meet€demand€for€more€capacity€at€EagleĪMountain€Ski€Area.€€The€need€for€this€action€is€the€continuing€growth€in€public€demandĪfor€Ô_ÔdownhillÔ_Ԁskiing€in€the€Green€Mountain€National€Forest€region,€and€the€overcrowdedĪconditions€at€Eagle€Mountain.€Đ ` €%` €% ĐĖā ° āā  āBl.€ā ` āđ đThe€proposed€action€is€to€manage€timber€in€the€Fife€Brook€drainage.Ô_ÔđđÔ_ԀĐ Ø€  ĐĖĶ  Ķvs.šĶ  ĶĖā ° āā  āB2.ā0 ` āđ đThe€proposed€action€is€to€clear€cut€stands€2,€12€and€16€and€do€group€selection€cuts€onĐ ˆ#0!$ Đstands€5,€19€and€24.€€This€requires€the€construction€of€.5€mile€of€road€from€Ô_ÔFRÔ_Ԁ219€alongĪthe€ridge€between€Fife€Brook€and€Venice€Brook.€€Ô_ÔIn€addition€toÔ_Ԁthe€road,€three€logĪlandings€and€approximately€1.5€miles€of€skid€trails€will€be€constructed.€€The€logging€willĪtake€approximately€Ô_Ô6Ô_Ԁmonths€to€complete.€Đ ` €%` €% ĐĖā ° āā  āā0 ` āThe€need€for€this€action€is€to€improve€and€maintain€spruce€stands€for€winter€deer€habitatĪand€to€convert€even-aged€hardwood€stands€to€in€Ô_ÔunevenagedÔ_Ԁcondition.€€The€purpose€ofĪthis€timber€sale€is€to€create€vigorous€new€stands€of€spruce€to€replace€those€that€areĪovermature€€and€to€create€a€new€age€class€in€the€hardwood€stands€as€the€first€step€towardĪcreating€an€Ô_ÔunevenagedÔ_Ԁcondition.ā  āĐĀ,h*.` €%` €% ĐĖĐ ˜.@,0 ĐD.ō ōā ° āōōSome€Other€Concepts€To€Consider€When€Defining€Your€Proposalķ ķķķ€Đ X ĐĖā ° ā€€1.ā  āCumulative€Actions€-€Actions€which€when€viewed€with€other€proposed€actions€have€cumulative€Đ 4Ü Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔimpactsÔ_Ԁand€should€therefore€be€considered€in€the€same€analysis.€ĖĖā ° āā  āe.g.€-€The€Forest€has€decided€to€propose€both€the€construction€of€a€campground€and€a€timber€sale€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔinÔ_Ԁthe€Fife€Brook€drainage.€€The€water€quality€of€Fife€Brook€is€an€issue€of€concern€to€the€public.€€Ėā ° āā  āBoth€the€campground€and€the€timber€sale€will€contribute€to€the€sedimentation€of€Fife€Brook.€€Ėā ° āā  āShould€the€campground€and€the€timber€sale€be€considered€in€the€same€environmental€assessment€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔorÔ_Ԁshould€separate€environmental€assessments€be€written?€ĖĖā ° āā  āIf€two€separate€EAs€are€written,€the€cumulative€effects€analysis€in€each€EA€will€have€to€consider€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔbothÔ_Ԁprojects.€€Why?€€Because€a€cumulative€effects€analysis€requires€us€to€consider€other€present€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔactionsÔ_Ԁin€the€area€that€will€have€an€impact€on€the€resource.€Thus,€in€the€EA€for€the€timber€sale,€Ėā ° āā  āthe€water€quality€cumulative€effects€analysis€will€have€to€consider€the€effects€the€campground€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwillÔ_Ԁhave€on€Fife€Brook.€€Contrarily,€the€water€quality€cumulative€effects€analysis€in€the€EA€for€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁcampground€will€have€to€consider€the€effects€the€timber€sale€will€be€having€on€Fife€Brook.€€Ėā ° āā  āThus,€doesn't€it€really€make€more€sense€to€consider€both€projects€in€the€same€environmental€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔassessmentÔ_Ԁsince€they€are€cumulative€actions?€ĖĖā ° āā  āThe€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€Environmental€Assessment€is€an€example€of€combining€actions€(campground€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔrehabilitationÔ_Ԁand€a€timber€sale)€which€are€unrelated€but€may€have€cumulative€effects.€ĖĖā ° ā2.ā  āō ōōōConnected€Actionsķ ķķķ€-€Actions€which€are€closely€related€and€therefore€should€be€discussed€in€the€Đ 8 Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔsameÔ_Ԁanalysis.€€Actions€are€connected€if€they:€€a)€automatically€trigger€other€actions€whichĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmayÔ_Ԁrequire€environmental€impact€statements;€b)€cannot€or€will€not€proceed€unless€other€actions€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔareÔ_Ԁtaken€previously€or€simultaneously;€and€c)€are€interdependent€parts€of€a€larger€action€and€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔdependÔ_Ԁon€the€larger€action€for€their€justification.€ĖĖā ° āā  āÔ_Ôe.g.Ô_Ԁ-€In€order€to€have€the€timber€sale€in€the€Fife€Creek€Drainage,€a€road€must€be€built.€€The€sole€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔpurposeÔ_Ԁof€the€road€is€to€access€the€timber€sale.€€Since€the€timber€sale€cannot€proceed€without€the€Ėā ° āā  āroad,€and€the€purpose€of€the€road€is€the€timber€sale,€the€two€actions€are€connected€and€should€be€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔconsideredÔ_Ԁtogether€in€one€EA€or€EIS.€ĖĖĐ  ¸!`" ĐPROPOSED€ACTION/€PURPOSE€and€NEED/SCOPING€GRAPHIC€(sent€hard€copy€-€did€not€scan)ĖĖĐ  0Ø ĐRipe€for€Decision€Graphic€(sent€hard€copy€-€did€not€scan)ĖĖĐ  0Ø ĐWriting€the€PURPOSE€AND€NEED€Graphic€(sent€hard€copy€-€did€not€scan)ĖĖĖĐ  Ä ĐPROPOSAL/PROPOSED€ACTION€Graphic€(sent€hard€copy€-€did€not€scan)ĖĖĐ  0Ø ĐSCOPE€Graphic€(sent€hard€copy€-€did€not€scan)ĖĐ  Dė Đō ōĶ  ĶPURPOSE/NEED€AND€PROPOSED€ACTION€EXAMPLEĐ X ĐōōÔ_ÔHAPGOODÔ_ԀPOND€ENVIRONMENTAL€ASSESSMENTķķ€Đ Dė ĐĶ  Ķķ ķĖō ōÔ_ÔHAPGOODÔ_ԀAREA€ANALYSISķ ķ€Đ Ä ĐThis€report€documents€the€environmental€analysis€of€the€proposed€federal€action€in€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_Ԁarea€of€theĪManchester€Ranger€District€of€the€Green€Mountain€National€Forest.€€The€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_Ԁproject€area€is€located€in€theĪcentral€part€of€the€Manchester€Ranger€District.€€It€is€located€in€the€Town€of€Peru,€Bennington€County€(Figure€1).€ĖĖThe€total€project€area€covers€approximately€1,500€acres€of€Federal€land€and€lies€within€an€analysis€area€which€isĪapproximately€3,000€acres€in€size.€€The€analysis€area€includes€non-federal€lands€since€actions€on€these€lands€needĪto€be€considered€when€evaluating€the€cumulative€effects€of€the€proposed€action€and€the€alternatives.€ĖĖō ōōōPURPOSE€AND€NEED€AND€PROPOSED€ACTIONķ ķķķ€Đ l   ĐThe€Green€Mountain€National€Forest€Land€and€Resource€Management€Plan€(LRMP),€through€management€areaĪdirection,€standards,€and€guidelines,€defines€the€goals€and€objectives€of€our€management€activities€within€theĪÔ_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€project€area.€€The€purpose€of€these€management€activities€is€to€achieve€what€we€call€the€desiredĪfuture€condition€(DFC)€of€the€land.€ĖĖThe€following€narrative€describes€the€DFC€for€the€six€major€resource€areas:€developed€recreation,€pondĪmanagement,€deer€winter€habitat€management,€intensive€forest€management,€vegetation€management€within€theĪÔ_ÔHapgoodÔ_Ԁrecreation€area,€and€stream€stabilization€and€fish€habitat€management.€€It€then€describes€the€currentĪcondition€of€each€resource€area€and€how€each€proposed€action€will€move€the€area€toward€its€DFC€(see€alsoĪFigure€2€and€Appendix€B€for€the€location€and€a€description€of€activities€proposed).€ĖĖā ° āDeveloped€Recreation-The€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€Management€Area€(MA€7.1,€338€acres)€(Figure€3)€Ėā ° āprovides€recreation€opportunities€requiring€highly€developed€structures€and€facilities,€including€a€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔvisuallyÔ_Ԁappealing€landscape€and€healthy€forest.€(LRMP€pages€4.141-4.143).€In€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀArea,€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔweÔ_Ԁwant€to:€1)€maintain€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_Ԁas€a€low€density€camping€and€picnic€recreation€site€to€provide€a€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔrecreationÔ_Ԁopportunity€not€found€in€the€state€or€private€sector;€2)€ensure€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_Ô's€facilities€are€of€Ėā ° āhigh€quality€and€provide€recreational€opportunities€for€a€range€of€users,€including€access€for€people€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔwithÔ_Ԁdisabilities;€and€3)€encourage€more€mid-week€use€through€an€array€of€on-site€opportunities€and€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔinformationÔ_Ԁservices€that€identify€recreation€opportunities€on€national€forest€state€and€private€lands.€ĖĖā ° āCurrently,€the€picnic€and€campsites€within€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀRecreational€Area€(MA€7-1)€have€either€Ėā ° ādeteriorated€beyond€the€point€of€maintenance,€do€not€meet€forest€direction€(LRMP€pages€4.135-143),€Ėā ° ādo€not€meet€Forest€Service€developed€recreational€site€standards,€such€as€disabled€visitor€access,€or€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdoÔ_Ԁnot€provide€an€array€of€recreational€opportunities€for€users.€€Also,€there€is€a€need€to€manage€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔexistingÔ_Ԁtree€stands€to€maintain€their€long€term€health.€ĖĖā ° āā  āōōProposed€Actionķķ€Đ T&ü#' Đā ° āā  ā*To€improve€the€current€recreation€facilities€while€restoring/enhancing€the€historical€CCC€Ėā ° āā  āsetting€of€the€1930's€when€the€facility€was€built€as€a€rustic,€low€density,€developed€recreation€Ėā ° āā  āsite,€restore€or€replace€shelters,€toilets,€trails,€signing,€the€caretaker's€dwelling,€bathhouse€Ėā ° āā  ā(Ô_ÔincludingÔ_Ԁshower€installation),€campsites,€picnic€and€beach€areas.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā*To€allow€access€for€people€with€disabilities,€modify€facilities€and€trails€to€allow€for€a€range€of€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔrecreationalÔ_Ԁopportunities€for€these€users.€ĖĐ ´-\+/ Đā ° āā  ā*To€highlight€wildlife€viewing€opportunities,€mature€hemlock€groves,€and€wetlands€to€the€north,€Ėā ° āā  āreconstruct€2€miles€of€the€existing€Pond€and€Deer€Tract€Trails€and€construct€a€112€mile€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmatchableÔ_Ԁwildlife/nature€trail.€ĖĖā ° āō ōPond€Managementķ ķ-The€shallow€nature€of€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€is€causing€it€to€heat€up€quickly€during€the€Đ ° Đā ° āÔ_ÔsummerÔ_Ԁmonths.€€This,€combined€with€heavy€public€use€causes€periodic€unacceptable€water€quality.€€Ėā ° āAs€a€result,€the€Pond€is€closed€to€swimming€during€peak€periods€in€the€summer.€€The€Pond's€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔshallownessÔ_Ԁis€due€to€natural€sediment€loading€from€feeder€streams.€Periodic€draining€and€restoring€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔpondÔ_Ԁdepth€may€be€required€to€maintain€or€improve€water€quality.€ĖĖā ° āPast€activities€to€maintain€water€quality€have€included€annual€drainage€of€the€Pond€in€the€fall€to€flush€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔoutÔ_Ԁsediment€and€prevent€organic€material€build-up€on€the€beach€area.€€It€has€also€included€dredging€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁpond€periodically;€Ô_ÔtheÔ_Ԁlast€time€in€the€1970's.€€Draining€of€the€pond€after€mid-October€has€caused€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔunacceptableÔ_Ԁsedimentation€of€downstream€fish€spawning€areas.€€This€has€been€corrected€by€draining€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔbeforeÔ_Ԁthis€date.€However,€earlier€draining,€in€fact€draining€in€general,€reduces€recreational€use€of€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔpondÔ_Ԁ(fall€fishing,€ice€skating,€autumn€visual€quality).€€There€is€a€need€to€re-evaluate€our€annual€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdrainingÔ_Ԁpolicy€based€on€water€quality,€fisheries€and€recreational€needs.€ĖĖā ° āā  āōōProposed€Actionķķ€Đ ôœ Đā ° āā  ā*To€remove€the€natural€build€up€of€sands€and€gravel€(sedimentation)€that€has€occurred€since€the€Ėā ° āā  āpond€was€last€dredged€in€the€late€1970's,€immediately€dredge€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€and€discontinue€the€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔannualÔ_Ԁdraining€of€the€pond.€€The€intent€of€these€actions€would€be€to€improve€water€quality,€fish€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔhabitatÔ_Ԁand€water-based€recreation.€€Dredging€materials€would€be€disposed€of€within€the€vicinity€Ėā ° āā  āof€the€gravel€pit,€in€the€pit€itself,€and€in€the€adjacent€area€where€dredge€material€has€been€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔdepositedÔ_Ԁin€the€€past€(Figure€2).€ĖĖā ° āā  ā*Discontinue€the€automatic€annual€draining€of€the€pond€now€occurring.€Determine€when€would€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔbeÔ_Ԁthe€best€time€to€drain€the€pond,€based€on€need€established€through€monitoring.€€This€would€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔreduceÔ_Ԁthe€sediment€impacts€now€occurring€on€downstream€fish€habitat.€ĖĖā ° āō ōDeer€Winter€Habitat€Managementķ ķ-Portions€of€the€project€area€are€identified€as€important€deer€Đ Ŧ ĐĖā ° āÔ_ÔwinterÔ_Ԁhabitat€(MA€4.1,€610€acres)€with€specific€management€direction€(LRMP€pages€4.107-4.114).€Ėā ° āHere,€we€wish€to€provide€Ô_Ôlong€termÔ_Ԁsuitable,€stable€habitat€to€meet€deer€needs.€€This€requires€a€mix€Ėā ° āof€forest€age€classes€(LRMP€pages€4.29€&€4.63),€an€increase€in€the€amount€of€softwood€cover€and€Ėā ° āmultiple€age€stands€with€both€overstory€and€understory€softwoods€to€shelter€deer€from€wind€and€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔextremeÔ_Ԁcold.€ĖĖā ° āExisting€age€class€distribution€and€condition€of€softwoods€within€the€MA€4.1€fall€short€of€the€forest€Ėā ° ādeer€management€objectives€(LRMP€pages€4.107-4.114)€and€state€management€guidelines€Ėā ° ā(Management€Guide€for€Deer€Wintering€Areas€Ô_ÔInÔ_ԀVermont,€1990)€(Table€1).€€Improvement€of€ĖĖā ° āsoftwood€age€class€distribution€and€thermal€cover€using€evenaged€and€Ô_ÔunevenagedÔ_Ԁmanagement€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtechniquesÔ_Ԁis€needed€to€bring€wintering€deer€habitat€into€conformance€with€LRMP€direction.€ĖĖĖĖā ° āā  āōōProposed€Actionķķ€Đ ´-\+/ Đā ° āā  āTo€create€high€quality€deer€thermal€cover€in€deer€wintering€areas€(MA€4.1,€610€acres)€by€Ėā ° āā  āencouraging€softwood€regeneration,€creating€multi-storied€softwood€stand€structure€and€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔimprovingÔ_Ԁthe€long€term€vitality€of€softwood€stands:€ĖĖā ° āā  ā*Thin€27€acres€of€red€pine€and€create€not€more€than€5€acres€of€temporary€openings€in€patches€of€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_Ô1/4Ô_Ԁacre€or€less€in€size.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā*Remove€the€hardwood€overstory€trees€in€a€16€acre€stand€that€has€a€hardwood€overstory€and€a€Ėā ° āā  āmixed€softwood/hardwood€understory€as€the€final€phase€of€the€shelterwood€harvest€begun€in€the€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_Ô1980's.€€ThisÔ_Ԁwill€increase€the€vigor€of€the€softwood€understory.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā*Remove€the€overstory€in€an€8€acre€softwood€stand€as€the€final€phase€of€the€shelterwood€harvest.€€Ėā ° āā  āThis€will€increase€the€vigor€of€the€softwood€understory.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā*Thin€a€35€acre€stand€of€immature€white€pine.€€This€will€increase€the€overall€vitality€of€the€stand.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā*On€109€acres,€cut€and€remove€single€trees€or€groups€of€trees,€creating€up€to€30€acres€of€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtemporaryÔ_Ԁopenings€of€1/4€acre€or€less€in€size.€€This€will€encourage€softwood€regeneration€and€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔcreateÔ_Ԁa€forest€composed€of€trees€with€a€mixture€of€ages€and€sizes€suitable€for€deer€cover.€ĖĖā ° āō ōIntensive€Forest€Managementķ ķ-Portions€of€the€project€area€(MA€3.1,€552€acres)€are€managed€to€Đ Čp Đā ° āprovide€a€mix€of€forest€age€classes€and€tree€species€(LRMP€pages€4.29€&€4.63)€in€a€roaded,€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔintensivelyÔ_Ԁmanaged,€but€natural€appearing€environment€(LRMP€pages€4.102-4.106).€This€includes€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔlongÔ_Ԁterm€sustained€production€of€high€quality€sawtimber.€ĖĖā ° āCurrently,€there€are€stands€within€the€MA€3.1€which€require€further€tree€harvesting€to€complete€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔvegetationÔ_Ԁmanagement€activities€initiated€in€the€1980's.€€In€addition,€certain€tree€stands€are€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdiseasedÔ_Ô,€storm€damaged€or€are€not€as€productive€as€desired.€€These€stands€need€selective€treatment€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtoÔ_Ԁimprove€forest€health€and€growth.€€Finally,€we€wish€to€increase€the€amount€of€forest€in€early€age€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔclassesÔ_Ԁto€meet€LRMP€age€class€composition€objectives€and€ensure€sustained€wood€production.€ĖĖā ° āā  āōōProposed€Actionķķ€Đ đ˜ Đā ° āā  ā*€To€create€an€Ô_ÔunevenagedÔ_Ԁstand€and€encourage€softwood€regeneration€beneficial€to€deer€and€Ėā ° āā  āother€wildlife€species,€cut€46€acres€of€an€immature€hardwood€stand€with€a€mixed€hardwood€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔsoftwoodÔ_Ԁunderstory€by€group€selection.€€This€will€result€in€not€more€than€11€acres€of€temporary€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔopeningsÔ_Ԁof€1/4€acre€or€less.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā*€To€maintain€the€softwood€component€in€a€mixed€stand,€clearcut€17€acres€and€replant€with€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔnativeÔ_Ԁsoftwoods.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā*€Cut€37€acres€of€mixed€hardwoods€using€the€delayed€shelterwood€method€to€create€age€class€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔdiversityÔ_Ԁand€encourage€long€term€production€of€large€sawtimber.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā*€Remove€the€overstory€in€a€10€acre€hardwood€stand€as€the€final€phase€of€the€shelterwood€ĖĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔharvestÔ_Ԁto€increase€the€vigor€of€the€understory.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā*€Thin€96€acres€of€softwood€and€hardwood€stands€to€increase€the€vigor€of€the€stands.€Đ °-X+/ Đā ° āā  ā*€To€salvage€diseased€trees€and€encourage€the€establishment€and€growth€of€young€understory€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtreesÔ_Ô,€cut€29€acres€of€softwoods€by€the€group€selection€harvest€method.€€The€result€of€this€harvest€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwillÔ_Ԁbe€not€more€than€9€acres€of€temporary€openings€in€patches€of€1/4€acre€or€less€in€size.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā*€In€order€to€respond€to€visual€concerns,€convert€30€acres€of€hardwood€stands€near€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀĖā ° āā  āRecreation€Area€from€an€evenaged€condition€to€an€Ô_ÔunevenagedÔ_Ԁcondition€by€removing€the€lowest€Ėā ° āā  āquality€trees€as€well€as€some€of€the€larger€trees€to€allow€the€smaller€trees€to€develop€and€to€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔencourageÔ_Ԁnew€regeneration.€€This€would€be€the€first€of€at€least€two€entries,€spaced€12-15€years€Ėā ° āā  āapart,€to€convert€the€stand€to€a€fully€Ô_ÔunevenagedÔ_Ԁcondition.€ĖĖā ° āō ōÔ_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀVegetation€Managementķ ķ-The€proposed€action€would€manage€hardwood€and€softwood€Đ  8  Đā ° āstands€within€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀRecreation€Area€(MA€7-1)€in€order€to€improve€winter€deer€habitat,€Ėā ° āimprove€the€long€term€health€of€declining€softwood€stands€and€maintain€the€area's€big€tree€character€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔoverÔ_Ԁthe€long€term.€€It€would€affect€84€acres€of€the€Ô_Ô338€acreÔ_Ԁrecreation€area.€ĖĖā ° āā  āōōProposed€Actionķķ€Đ 0Ø  Đā ° āā  ā*€To€encourage€softwood€regeneration€and€result€in€improved€deer€winter€habitat,€cut€84€acres€of€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔsoftwoodsÔ_Ԁusing€the€group€selection€harvest€method.€€This€would€create€up€to€10€acres€of€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtemporaryÔ_Ԁopenings€in€patches€of€1/4€acre€or€less€in€size.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā*€To€create€a€drive-by€view€of€the€wetlands€adjacent€to€the€Peru-Ô_ÔLandgroveÔ_ԀRoad,€open€up€the€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔforestÔ_Ԁunderstory€by€selectively€cutting€individual€trees€within€2€acres€of€a€16€acre€stand.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā*€To€ensure€a€mix€of€tree€species€within€the€camping€areas,€and€to€provide€additional€screening€Ėā ° āā  ābetween€campsites,€plant€an€understory€of€disease€resistant€softwoods€Ô_Ôand€orÔ_Ԁhardwoods.€ĖĖō ōķ ķā ° āō ōStream€Stabilization€&€Fish€Habitat€Managementķ ķ-There€are€several€streams€within€the€project€Đ Tü Đā ° āarea€which€are€important€habitat€for€native€trout€populations€and/or€spawning€and€rearing€habitat€for€Ėā ° āAtlantic€Salmon.€We€want€to€improve€fish€habitat€capability€by€meeting€the€stream€composition€Ėā ° āobjectives€described€in€Amendment€No.€6€of€the€LRMP€(pages€4.37-1€and€4.37-2)€ĖĖā ° āHabitat€surveys€show€project€area€streams€contain€high€levels€of€natural€sediment€and€lack€sufficient€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔstreamÔ_Ԁpool€habitat€for€trout€and€Atlantic€salmon.€€We€want€to€reduce€levels€of€stream€sedimentation€€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔandÔ_Ԁincrease€stream€pool€habitat€through€installation€of€structures€made€of€natural€materials.€ĖĖā ° āIn€addition,€there€is€a€small€tributary€flowing€straight€east€of€the€intersection€of€North€Road€(FR21)€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔandÔ_ԀMad€Tom€Notch€Rd€(FR€22).€€Due€to€a€plugged€culvert,€the€stream€has€changed€its€course€to€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔbedÔ_Ԁof€an€old€gravel€road.€€This€is€resulting€in€erosion€and€sedimentation€which€needs€to€be€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔcorrectedÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° āā  āōōProposed€Actionķķ€Đ @'č$( Đā ° āā  ā*€To€enhance€the€quality€of€existing€pools,€trap€sediment,€stabilize€eroding€banks,€and€increase€€Ėā ° āā  āhabitat€diversity€and€protective€cover€for€resident€and€anadromous€fish€and€non-game€species,ŧā ° āĖā ° āā  āinstall€approximately€100€in-stream€structures€(40€structures€in€Jones€Brook€and€60€in€Floodŧā ° āĖā ° āā  āBrook).€€We€will€create€small€pools€for€fish€habitat€by€installing€logs€along€or€across€the€stream€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔbottomÔ_Ô.€€We€will€stop€erosion€along€stream€banks€and€other€erosion€sites€by€planting€trees€along€Đ ´-\+/ Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔunstableÔ_Ԁstreambanks€and€establishing€riparian€vegetation€at€erosion€sites.€€ĖĖā ° āā  āTo€decrease€the€amount€of€erosion€and€sedimentation€into€downstream€fish€habitat,€we€will€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔrestoreÔ_Ԁthe€culvert€at€the€small€tributary.€ĖĖō ōōōCONNECTED€ACTIONSķ ķķķ€-€Ô_ÔIn€connection€withÔ_Ԁthe€timber€harvests,€various€roads€will€be€used.€€There€Ô_ÔareĐ ôœ Đalready€an€extensive€networkÔ_Ԁof€roads€and€log€landings€in€place€from€previous€vegetation€management€activitiesĪwhich€would€be€reused.€€An€addition€of€Ô_Ô4Ô_Ԁnew€log€landings€and€.2€miles€of€spur€road€would€be€required€toĪimplement€the€tree€harvests€proposed.€€Trees€would€be€removed€using€existing€skid€trails.€€The€timing€of€treeĪharvest€would€be€restricted€(Appendix€G)€to€avoid€conflict€with€recreation€use€at€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€and€Wild€WingsĪSki€Area€and€to€prevent€soil€damage.€ĖĖō ōDECISION€TO€BE€MADEķ ķ€Đ l   ĐThe€district€ranger€will€decide€Ô_Ôwhether€or€notÔ_Ԁto€implement€the€activities€associated€with€each€of€the€six€majorĪresource€areas€within€the€project€area.€The€district€ranger€will€also€decide€under€what€conditions€and€time€framesĪthis€project€would€occur.€ĖĖĖĖĖĐ  Đx ĐIV.ā ° āō ōōōISSUESķ ķķķ€Đ X Đā ° āĖA.ā ° āō ōōōThe€Function€of€Issuesķ ķķķ€-€The€Issues€section€provides€the€basis€for€focusing€the€discussion€on€theĐ 4Ü Đenvironmental€effects€of€the€proposed€action€and€the€alternatives.€€Without€such€an€Ô_ÔissuesÔ_Ԁframework,€the€effectsĪsection€could€go€on€forever€discussing€every€environmental€effect.€€The€Issues€section€provides€a€mechanism€toĪfocus€the€Effects€section€on€relevant€impacts€of€the€proposed€action€and€theā  āā x āā Đ āalternatives.€Đ ü¤ ĐĖB.ā ° āō ōōōIdentify€Issuesķ ķķķ€-€The€purpose€of€this€section€is€to€identify€the€issues€associated€with€the€proposed€action.€Đ Ô| ĐOne€way€of€identifying€issues€is€to€consider€the€possible€effects€of€the€proposed€action.€€This€is€often€mistakenlyĪÔ_Ôreferred€to€asÔ_Ԁscoping;€Ô_ÔhoweverÔ_Ô,€scoping€is€much€broader€than€just€đ đissue€identificationđđ.€€It€is€our€responsibilityĪto€identify€issues,€not€the€publics.€€We€Ô_Ômust€make€a€first€attemptÔ_Ԁat€defining€the€issues.€€Then€we€can€present€aĪsite€specific€proposed€action€and€a€tentative€list€of€issues€to€the€public€for€their€comment.€€Telling€them€what€weĪare€concerned€about,€and€why,€will€stimulate€people's€thinking,€and€we€will€get€better€and€more€informedĪresponses.€ĖĖā ° āConsider€the€following€when€describing€issues:€ĖĖā ° āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ԁ€What€is€of€concern€(benefit,€cost€or€environmental€condition)?ā Č āā  āĐ ¸ Đā ° āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ԁ€When€it€is€of€concern€(time,€duration,€season€of€year)?ā p āā Č āĐ ü¤ Đā ° āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ԁ€Where€it€is€of€concern€in€the€analysis€area?ā  āā p āĐ č Đā ° āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ԁ€How€it€is€of€concern€(cause)?ā h āā Ā āĐ Ô| Đā ° āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ԁ€Why€it€is€of€concern€(related€environmental€effects)?ā p āā Č āĐ Āh Đā ° āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ԁ€Source€of€concern€(person€or€document)?€ĖĖā ° āThese€issues€can€often€be€separated€into€three€general€categories:€ĖĖā ° ā1.ā  āEnvironmental€Đ \ Đā ° ā2.ā  āSocial/Economic€Đ Hđ Đā ° ā3.ā  āUser€wants€-€i.e.€đ đsome€people€would€like€more€motorized€recreation€in€the€project€area.đđ€Đ 4Ü ĐĖā ° āThe€Effects€section€should€focus€on€environmental€and€social/economic€issues.€€The€đ đuser€wantsđđ€€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔcategoryÔ_Ԁdoes€not€need€to€be€analyzed€in€the€Effects€section.€€An€excellent€place€to€address€these€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtypesÔ_Ԁof€comments€is€in€a€đ đResponse€to€Commentsđđ€section€in€the€appendix€of€the€EA.€ĖĖC.ā ° āō ōōōConsolidate€Issuesķ ķķķ€-€Following€public€comment,€the€team€must€consolidate€the€public€comments€andĐ ŧ!d" Đteam€issues€into€concise€issue€statements.€€As€mentioned€above,€the€more€Ô_ÔsiteÔ_Ԁspecific€the€proposed€action,€theĪeasier€it€is€to€develop€concise€issue€statements.€€The€more€specific€the€issue,€the€more€focused€the€analysis.€€ForĪexample:€ĖĖā ° āÔ_ÔlaÔ_Ô.€ā  āđ đThe€public€is€concerned€about€the€effects€of€clearcutting.đđĐ \&$' ĐĖĶ  ĶÔ_Ôvs.Ô_ԀšĶ  Ķā ° āÔ_Ôlb.Ô_Ԁā0  āđ đThe€public€is€concerned€about€the€visual€effects€of€clearcutting€on€the€Ô_ÔGandolfÔ_ԀScenic€Trail€in€ā @t$ āā @t$ ātheĐ  )Č&* ĐFife€Creek€Drainage.đđ€Đ €%€% ĐĖĖā ° ā2a.€ā  āđ đThe€public€is€concerned€about€the€effects€of€timber€harvesting€on€wildlife.đđ€Đ Đ,x*. ĐĐ ŧ-d+/ ĐĶ  Ķvs.šĶ  ĶĖā ° ā2b.€ā0  āđ đThe€public€is€concerned€about€the€effects€on€deer€winter€habitat€of€clearcutting€pine€stands€near€ā @ % āĐ 0Ø ĐFife€Creek.Ô_ÔđđÔ_ԀĐ €%€% ĐĖD.ā ° āō ōōōForest€Plan€Objectives€and€Internal€Management€Concernsķ ķķķ€-€A€common€mistake€is€to€considerĐ ôœ ĐForest€Plan€objectives€and€internal€management€concerns€as€issues.€€Unless€they€have€an€đ đenvironmentalĪcomponent,đđ€most€of€the€time,€Forest€Plan€objectives€and€internal€management€concerns€are€not€issues.€€ForĪexample:€ĖĖā ° āÔ_ÔlaÔ_Ô.ā  ā€đ đSome€Forest€Service€employees€are€concerned€about€meeting€the€age€class€distribution€Đ ” <  Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔobjectivesÔ_Ԁin€the€Fife€Creek€drainage.đđ€ĖĖĶ  Ķvs.šĶ  ĶÔ_ÔÔ_ÔĖā ° āÔ_Ôlb.Ô_Ԁā  āđ đSome€Forest€Service€employees€are€concerned€that€we€can€only€meet€the€age€class€distribution€Đ 0Ø  Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔobjectivesÔ_Ԁby€clearcutting€next€to€private€lands.đđ€ĖĖā ° āā  āThe€first€concern€is€an€internal€management€concern€with€meeting€targets.€€The€second€concern€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔhasÔ_Ԁan€đ đenvironmental€componentđđ€and,€therefore,€is€an€issue.€ĖĖā ° ā2a.€ā  āđ đSome€Forest€Service€employees€are€concerned€about€the€lack€of€site€specific€surveys€for€cultural€Đ ¸` Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔresourcesÔ_Ԁin€the€Fife€Creek€drainage.đđ€ĖĖĶ  Ķvs.šĶ  ĶĖā ° ā2b.€ā  āđ đSome€Forest€Service€employees€are€concerned€about€the€effects€a€timber€sale€would€have€on€Đ Tü Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔculturalÔ_Ԁresources€in€the€Fife€Creek€drainage.đđ€ĖĖā ° āAgain,€the€first€concern€is€an€internal€management€concern€while€the€second€is€an€actual€issue.€ĖĖE.ā ° āō ōōōDismiss€Issuesķ ķķķ€-€All€issues€should€be€addressed,€either€by€the€analysis€or€by€a€reasonable€explanation€ofĐ đ˜ Đwhy€the€issue€is€outside€the€scope€of€the€analysis.€€Document€the€issues€that€are€outside€the€scope€of€the€analysisĪand€explain€the€reason(s)€why€the€issue(s)€is€not€being€carried€forward€in€the€analysis.€€It€is€often€as€important€toĪexplain€why€certain€issues€were€dismissed€as€it€is€to€address€others€in€an€Effects€section.€ĖĖā ° āōōExamplesķķ:€Đ #8!$ ĐĖā ° āōōIssueķķ€-€Some€individuals€believe€that€harvesting€in€the€Fife€Creek€Drainage€will€have€impacts€on€Đ h%#& Đā ° āÔ_ÔcommunityÔ_Ԁwater€supplies.€ĖĖā ° āōōÔ_ÔAnswerÔ_Ôķķ€-€The€Fife€Creek€Drainage€is€located€in€the€watershed€of€the€Pine€River.€€The€river€does€not€Đ ,(Ô%) Đā ° āÔ_ÔserveÔ_Ԁas€a€community€water€supply.€ĖĖā ° āĖā ° āōōIssueķķ€-€Some€individuals€believe€that€timber€should€not€be€harvested€in€the€Fife€Creek€Drainage€and€Đ Ü+„)- Đā ° āÔ_ÔthatÔ_Ԁthe€area€should€be€designated€a€research€natural€area.€ĖĐ ´-\+/ Đā ° āōōAnswerķķ€-€This€issue€was€considered€in€the€Forest€Plan€and€is€beyond€the€scope€of€this€analysis.€Đ X ĐĖā ° āōōIssueķķ€-€Some€people€are€concerned€about€global€warming,€and€feel€we€should€take€this€into€account€Đ 0Ø Đā ° āÔ_ÔwhenÔ_Ԁconsidering€our€proposal€to€cut€trees.€ĖĖā ° āōōÔ_ÔAnswerÔ_Ôķķ€-€This€is€beyond€the€scope€of€the€project€and€is€being€addressed€as€a€national€policy€issue.€€Đ ôœ Đā ° āThere€is€no€national€Forest€Service€direction€at€this€time€to€indicate€that€we€should€modify€our€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔmanagementÔ_Ԁactivities€in€direct€response€to€the€question€of€global€warming.€ĖĖā ° āAvoid€ambiguous€or€vague€words€when€responding€to€comments.€€Use€specific€words€such€as€ĖĖā ° āđ đ...based€on€past€experience...đđ€rather€than€đ đ...€we€think...đđ€ĖĖF.ā ° āō ōōōOptions€ķ ķķķ-€Identify€options€for€addressing€each€issue.€Đ Tü  ĐĖā ° āConsider€different€ways€of€responding€to€each€issue€that€is€within€the€scope€of€analysis.€€These€Ėā ° āoptions€may€vary€from€completely€satisfying€those€people€on€one€side€of€the€issue€to€satisfying€those€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔonÔ_Ԁthe€other€side€of€the€issue.€€This€will€help€you€develop€alternative€actions€and€mitigation€options€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtoÔ_Ԁspecific€actions.€ĖĖG.ā ° āō ōōōResponse€to€Commentsķ ķķķ€-€Responding€to€each€comment€received.€Đ Ėt ĐĖā ° āMany€people€who€respond€to€scoping€on€a€Ô_ÔparticularÔ_Ԁproject€want€to€be€sure€that€their€particular€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔissueÔ_Ԁwas€addressed€in€some€manner.€€One€way€to€ensure€this€is€to€devote€one€section€of€theā (# āĐ ”< Đā ° āappendix€to€a€listing€of€all€the€comments€Ô_ÔreceivedÔ_Ԁfrom€the€public.€€A€brief€sentence€or€paragraph€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔcanÔ_Ԁexplain€the€disposition€of€each€comment.€€This€list€will€also€ensure€that€no€comments€will€be€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔoverlookedÔ_Ԁin€the€preparation€of€the€document.€€This€is€also€an€excellent€place€to€address€issues€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔwhichÔ_Ԁare€focused€on€đ đuser€wantsđđ.€Đ  Dė ĐSTEPS€IN€ISSUE€DEVELOPMENT€Graphic€(sent€hard€copy€-€did€not€scan)ĖĖĐ  0Ø ĐFACTORS€FOR€IDENTIFYING€SIGNIFICANT€ISSUES€Graphic€(sent€hard€copy€-€did€not€scan)ĖĖĐ  0Ø Đō ōĶ  ĶISSUES€SECTION€EXAMPLE€Đ X ĐōōLAMB€BROOK€ENVIRONMENTAL€ASSESSMENTķķ€Đ Dė ĐĶ  Ķķ ķĖPUBLIC€ISSUES€RELATED€TO€THE€PROPOSED€ACTION€ĖĖPublic€issues€and€management€concerns€related€to€the€Proposed€Action€were€identified€by€reviewing€Forest€PlanĪdirection€for€the€area€and€by€contacting€interested€and€affected€publics€and€Forest€Service€employees.€ĖĖPublic€comments€were€collected€from€two€primary€sources.€€The€first€was€a€public€meeting€held€in€Ô_ÔReadsboroÔ_Ô,ĪVermont€in€May€of€1991.€€The€second€source€was€response€to€an€Ô_ÔApril,€1992Ô_Ԁmailing€to€121€individuals€andĪorganizations.€These€letters€informed€the€recipients€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€requested€their€comments.€ĪResponses€came€Ô_Ôin€the€form€ofÔ_Ԁwritten€letters,€telephone€calls,€and€personal€contacts.€€A€list€of€those€contacted€isĪfound€in€the€Consultation€Section.€ĖĖFrom€these€sources€of€information,€79€specific€comments,€issues,€and€concerns€were€identified.€€Each€commentĪwas€evaluated€to€determine€how€it€should€be€addressed€in€this€assessment.€€The€results€of€the€evaluation€areĪdisplayed€in€Appendix€A.€ĖĖFrom€public€comments,€six€major€issues€were€identified€and€served€as€a€basis€for€evaluating€the€Proposed€ActionĪand€the€alternatives,€and€assessing€the€environmental€consequences:€ĖĖā ° āIssue€Ô_Ô1Ô_Ô:€€Ground€Disturbing€ActivitiesĖā ° āā  āSome€people€are€concerned€that€ground€disturbing€activities€such€as€timber€harvesting€and€the€Ėā ° āā  āconstruction€of€vistas,€wildlife€openings,€roads,€snowmobile€trails,€skid€trails,€and€log€landings€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwillÔ_Ԁdecrease€land€productivity€through€increased€erosion€and€soil€compaction.€€People€are€also€€Ėā ° āā  āconcerned€that€proposed€ground€disturbing€activities€will€adversely€affect€water€quality€and€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔthreatenedÔ_Ԁand€endangered€plants€and€animals.€ĖĖā ° āIssue€Ô_Ô2Ô_Ô:€€Road€Construction€Effects€on€Wildlifeā  āā p āĐ (Đ Đā ° āā  āSome€people€are€concerned€that€the€upgrading€of€Forest€Roads€(FR)€266€and€269,€the€proposed€Ėā ° āā  āseasonal€opening€of€FR266,€and€the€construction€of€an€intermittent€use€road€at€the€end€of€FR266€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwillÔ_Ԁadversely€affect€wildlife€use€of€the€area€and€increase€wildlife€poaching.€ĖĖā ° āIssue€Ô_Ô3Ô_Ô:€€Fragmentationā  āā h āĐ Ä l! Đā ° āā  āSome€people€are€concerned€that€the€effects€of€timber€harvesting€and€the€construction€of€vistas,€Ėā ° āā  āwildlife€openings,€roads,€and€snowmobile€trails€will€decrease€habitat€for€forest€interior€species€Ėā ° āā  āthat€depend€upon€large€undisturbed€areas€by€increasing€fragmentation,€by€creating€additional€Ėā ° āā  āforest/clearing€edge,€by€reducing€the€amount€of€potential€late€successional€habitat,€and€by€Ėā ° āā  āremoving€mast€producing€beech€trees€needed€by€black€bear.€ĖĖā ° āIssue€4:€€Visual€Sensitivityā  āā h āĐ 8'ā$( Đā ° āā  āSome€people€are€concerned€that€the€effects€of€creating€vistas€and€clearcutting€vegetation€will€be€€Ėā ° āā  āvisually€unattractive€and€may€preclude,€at€some€later€date,€placement€of€wind€towers€in€an€areĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔvisibleÔ_Ԁfrom€the€proposed€vista€locations.€Đ  ü)¤'+ Đā ° āIssue€Ô_Ô5Ô_Ô:€€Accessā ¸ āā  āĐ X Đā ° āā  āSome€people€are€concerned€that€the€proposed€seasonal€opening€of€FR266€will€affect€the€solitude€Ėā ° āā  āand€remoteness€of€the€area€through€increased€parties,€trash€disposal,€vandalism€and€unauthorized€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_Ôoff-highwayÔ_Ԁvehicle€use.€ĖĖā ° āIssue€Ô_Ô6Ô_Ô:€€Management€Area€Designationā Ā āā  āĐ ôœ Đā ° āā  āSome€people€are€concerned€that€changing€the€designation€of€Management€Area€(MA)€9.2€lands€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtoÔ_ԀMA€3.1€will€not€offer€the€protection€that€the€current€direction€for€MA€9.2€offers.€ĖĖThree€of€the€comments€listed€in€Appendix€Ô_ÔAÔ_Ԁwere€determined€to€be€outside€the€scope€of€this€analysis€and€areĪdiscussed€below:€ĖĖā ° āSome€people€believe€that€timber€sales€should€not€occur€unless€revenues€exceed€costs€(Appendix€A,€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔcommentsÔ_ԀG-1,€G-2,€G-28).€ĖĖā ° āā  āThe€issue€of€below€cost€timber€sales€is€national€in€scope€and€is€being€addressed€at€that€level.€€The€Ėā ° āā  āChief€of€the€Forest€Service€has€directed€that€each€National€Forest€implement€the€Timber€Sale€Ėā ° āā  āProgram€Information€Reporting€System€(TSPIRS).€€This€information€system€provides€an€Ėā ° āā  āeconomic€comparison€of€timber€revenues€and€costs€for€each€year,€along€with€long€term€benefits€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔandÔ_Ԁcosts.€€The€Green€Mountain€National€Forest€has€prepared€this€information€for€each€year€Ėā ° āā  ābeginning€in€1988€and€currently€utilizes€the€economic€comparisons€in€improving€operational€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔefficiencyÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° āā  āWhile€the€Green€Mountain€strives€to€limit€costs,€the€Forest€Plan€recognizes€that€certain€activities€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwillÔ_Ԁcost€more€to€implement€than€they€will€generate€in€revenues.€€The€Forest€Plan€(page€4.59)€Ėā ° āā  āstates€that€đ đtimber€will€be€cut€where€financial€revenues€fall€below€financial€costs€when€the€public€Ėā ° āā  ādesires€the€resulting€non-priced€benefits€and€the€Forest€Service€decides€they€clearly€justify€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔcuttingÔ_Ô.đđ€The€non-priced€benefits€(Forest€Plan€page€4.60)€specific€to€the€Lamb€Brook€area€Ô_ÔareÔ_Ô:€1)€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔconversionÔ_Ԁof€hardwoods€to€aspen€to€enhance€vegetative€diversity;€2)€conversion€of€hardwoods€Ėā ° āā  āto€upland€openings,€vistas,€or€parking€areas€to€enhance€habitats,€scenic€views,€vegetative€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔdiversityÔ_Ô,€and€public€access;€and€3)€conversion€of€evenaged€stands€to€Ô_ÔunevenagedÔ_Ԁstands€in€order€Ėā ° āā  āto€maintain€continuous€forest€cover.€ĖĖSome€people€believe€that€the€Forest€Service€should€not€create€any€more€permanent€openings€since€recentĪmonitoring€results€indicate€that€the€Forest€is€well€ahead€of€objectives€for€openings€creation€but€behind€inĪmaintenance€(Appendix€A,€comment€G-37).€ĖĖā ° āMonitoring€has€revealed€that€many€previously€constructed€openings€are€located€in€such€a€manner€as€Ėā ° āto€make€maintenance€economically€inefficient.€€While€they€are€serving€the€intended€purpose€of€Ėā ° āproviding€open€habitat€in€the€short€term,€decisions€are€being€made€on€a€case€by€case€basis€to€allow€€Ėā ° āthese€openings€to€revert€to€a€forested€condition.€New€openings€are€being€planned€in€more€accessible€Ėā ° ālocations€to€promote€cost€efficient€on-going€maintenance.€€This€is€an€administrative€determination€Ėā ° āthat€is€outside€the€scope€of€this€document.€ĖĖSome€people€believe€that€the€Lamb€Brook€area€should€be€managed€for€old€growth€habitat,€a€condition€notĪcommonly€found€on€surrounding€non-Federal€lands€(Appendix€A,€comment€3-4).€ĖĖĖĐ  ˜.@,0 ĐÔ_Ôā ° āA€review€of€Forest€Service€compartment€data,€the€records€of€the€Vermont€Nongame€and€Natural€Ėā ° āHeritage€Program,€and€field€visits€by€Forest€Service€specialists€did€not€reveal€any€stands€currently€in€Ėā ° āold€growth€condition€nor€any€significant€natural€communities€that€have€potential€as€future€old€Ėā ° āgrowth.€€Furthermore,€Forest€Plan€old€growth€objectives€(Forest€Plan€page€4.30)€are€being€met€by€Ėā ° ādesignating€old€growth€areas€on€other€parts€of€the€forest.€ĖĖĐ  āˆ ĐÔ_ÔV.ā ° āō ōōōALTERNATIVESķ ķķķ€Đ X ĐĖA.ā ° āō ōōōReasonable€Range€of€Alternativesķ ķķķ€Đ 4Ü ĐĖā ° āThe€purpose€and€need€for€the€proposed€action€provides€the€outer€boundaries€for€the€range€of€ĖĖā ° āÔ_ÔalternativesÔ_Ô.€€An€alternative€is€outside€this€range€and€therefore€not€reasonable€if€it€does€not€meet€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔpurposeÔ_Ԁand€need.€Alternatives€which€are€suggested€by€the€public,€but€do€not€meet€the€purpose€and€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔneedÔ_Ô,€do€not€need€to€be€considered€in€detail.€Within€these€limits,€the€Forest€Plan€goals€and€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔidentifiedÔ_Ԁissues€provide€a€basis€for€developing€a€reasonable€range€of€alternatives.ĖĖā ° āā  āā ` āI<€----------------------€PURPOSE€AND€NEED€------------------------€>IĖā ° āā  āā ` āIā ¸ āā  āā h āā Ā āā  āā p āā Č āā  āā x āā Đ āā (# āĐ p   Đā ° āā  āā ` āā ¸ āā  āā h āā Ā āā  āā p āā Č āā  āā x āā Đ āā (# āŧā ° āā  āā ` āā ¸ āā  āā h āā Ā āā  āā p āā Č āā  ā€IĖā ° āā  āā ` āIā ¸ āā  āā h āā Ā āā  āā p āā Č āā  āā x āā Đ āā (# āĐ 4Ü  Đā ° āā  āā ` āā ¸ āā  āā h āā Ā āā  āā p āā Č āā  āā x āā Đ āā (# āŧā ° āā  āā ` āā ¸ āā  āā h āā Ā āā  āā p āā Č āā  ā€IĖā ° āā  āā ` āIā ¸ āā  āā h āā Ā ā€€REASONABLE€RANGE€OF€ALTERNATIVESā (# āĐ ø  Đā ° āā  āā ` āā ¸ ā€I€Ėā ° āā  āā ` āI<===========(PRACTICAL€AND€FEASIBLE)===========>l€ĖĖā ° āThere€may€be€an€almost€infinite€number€of€alternatives€that€could€be€developed€using€all€of€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔoptionsÔ_Ô,€however,€this€is€not€required€by€NEPA.€€The€idea€is€to€develop€a€number€of€alternatives,€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔusuallyÔ_Ԁ2-10€evenly€distributed€across€the€range,€to€serve€as€representative€alternatives.€€A€no€action€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔalternativeÔ_Ԁis€always€required.€ĖĖā ° āō ōÔ_ÔPurpose€and€NeedÔ_Ԁķ ķ-€As€stated€above,€the€purpose€and€need€defines€the€range€of€alternatives.€€When€Đ Dė Đā ° āa€suggested€alternative€does€not€meet€the€purpose€and€need,€a€paragraph€explaining€why€it€is€not€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔbeingÔ_Ԁconsidered€should€be€included€in€a€section€of€the€EA€titled:€đ đAlternatives€not€Considered€in€Ėā ° āDetailÔ_Ôđđ.Ô_ԀĖĖā ° āōōExampleķķ€Đ äŒ  Đā ° āSome€publics€stated€that€we€should€consider€management€alternatives€that€would€restore€the€project€Ėā ° āarea€to€its€natural€state€or€to€its€Ô_ÔpresettlementÔ_Ԁcondition€including€the€obliteration€and€Ô_ÔrevegetationÔ_Ԁof€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔexistingÔ_Ԁroads.€€The€purpose€of€the€project€is€to€move€the€area€to€the€desired€future€condition€as€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔstatedÔ_Ԁin€the€Forest€Plan.€€In€this€example€the€future€condition€may€include€increased€developed€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔrecreationÔ_Ô.€€Restoring€the€project€area€to€its€natural€state€or€to€a€Ô_ÔpresettlementÔ_Ԁcondition€would€not€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔmoveÔ_Ԁthe€area€toward€this€future€condition.€€Therefore,€this€is€not€a€reasonable€alternative€to€the€Ėā ° āProposed€Action€and€was€not€considered€in€detail.€ĖĖā ° āDo€you€ever€need€to€consider€alternatives€that€will€not€move€the€area€toward€its€Desired€Future€Ėā ° āCondition?€€Only€if€the€Purpose€and€Need€for€the€proposed€action€does€not€encompass€moving€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔareaÔ_Ԁtoward€its€Desired€Future€Condition.€€This€usually€occurs€when€there€are€newā x āā Đ āā (# āĐ *°'+ Đā ° āÔ_ÔcircumstancesÔ_Ԁor€changed€conditions€that€were€not€contemplated€at€the€time€the€Plan€was€written.€ĖĖā ° āFor€example,€an€area€was€in€an€even-aged€condition€at€the€time€the€plan€was€written,€but€the€Desired€Ėā ° āFuture€Condition€and€the€Management€Prescription€called€for€the€area€ultimately€to€be€in€an€Đ ¸-`+/ Đā ° āÔ_ÔunevenagedÔ_Ԁcondition.€€This€Ô_ÔunevenagedÔ_Ԁcondition€would€only€be€accomplished€through€a€series€of€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔeitherÔ_Ԁgroup€selection€or€individual€tree€selection€cuts.€€Therefore,€if€the€purpose€of€the€project€was€Ėā ° āto€move€the€area€toward€its€DFC,€only€alternatives€which€consider€group€selection€or€individual€tree€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔselectionÔ_Ԁwould€be€reasonable€and€appropriate.€Đ  Ä Đā ° āBut€suppose€there€was€a€severe€insect€infestation€in€the€area€which€required€all€the€timber€in€the€area€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtoÔ_Ԁbe€harvested€to€prevent€infestations€of€other€areas.€€This€is€a€changed€condition,€and€the€purpose€Ėā ° āand€need€now€focuses€on€management€activities€to€deal€with€the€infestation€as€opposed€to€focusing€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔonÔ_Ԁthe€now€out-dated€DFC.€Therefore,€an€alternative€which€includes€clearcutting€might€now€be€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔappropriateÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° āA€reasonable€range€of€alternatives:€Ėā ° āĖā ° ā-€is€determined€by€the€purpose€and€need€of€the€proposed€action;€Ėā ° ā€€Ėā ° ā-€are€alternatives€which€can€achieve€major€portions€of€the€goal€sought€to€be€accomplished;€ĖĖā ° ā-€can€be€implemented€without€major€changes€in€legislation€or€major€advances€in€technology.€ĖĖā ° āōōCourt€Decisions€Regarding€Alternativesķķ:€Đ @č  ĐĖā ° ā-€Range€of€alternatives€required€to€be€analyzed€is€determined€by€the€scope€of€the€proposed€action.€€Ėā ° ā€€The€đ đÔ_Ôscopeđđ€is€represented€by€the€purpose€and€needÔ_Ԁfor€the€proposed€action.€ĖĖā ° ā-€An€agency€does€not€have€to€consider€alternatives€which€are€infeasible,€ineffective€or€inconsistent€Ėā ° ā€€Ô_ÔwithÔ_Ԁthe€basic€policy€objectives€for€the€area.€ĖĖā ° ā-€Although€the€agency€is€not€required€to€do€the€impossible€or€to€study€alternatives€of€little€practical€Ėā ° ā€€significance,€the€agency€must€make€a€good€faith€effort€to€study€and€develop€fully€those€alternatives€Ėā ° ā€€reasonably€calculated€to€reduce€environmental€harm€while€at€the€same€time€achieving€major€Ėā ° ā€€Ô_ÔportionsÔ_Ԁof€the€goal€sought€to€be€accomplished.€ĖĖā ° ā-€Alternatives€must€be€considered€even€if€they€do€not€offer€a€complete€solution€to€the€problem.€ĖĖā ° ā-€Agencies€are€not€obligated€to€consider€alternatives€when€the€effects€cannot€be€readily€ascertained€Ėā ° ā€€or€the€alternative€is€so€remote€or€speculative€that€meaningful€consideration€is€not€possible€in€light€Ėā ° ā€€of€the€Ô_ÔtimeframeÔ_Ԁof€the€proposal.€ĖĖā ° ā-€Detailed€statement€of€alternatives€cannot€be€found€wanting€because€the€agency€failed€to€include€Ėā ° ā€€Ô_ÔeveryÔ_Ԁalternative€conceivable.€€Time€and€resources€are€too€limited€to€hold€that€an€impact€statement€Ėā ° ā€€Ô_ÔfailsÔ_Ԁbecause€the€agency€failed€to€ferret€out€every€possible€alternative.€ĖĖā ° ā-€A€potential€conflict€with€local€or€federal€law€does€not€necessarily€render€an€alternative€Ėā ° ā€€Ô_ÔunreasonableÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° āōōOther€Things€To€Rememberķķ€Đ 8'ā$( ĐĖā ° ā-€an€alternative€that€is€outside€the€legal€jurisdiction€of€the€Forest€Service€must€still€be€analyzed€if€Ėā ° ā€€Ô_ÔreasonableÔ_Ô;€ĖĖā ° ā-€alternatives€outside€the€scope€of€what€Congress€has€approved€or€funded€must€still€be€analyzed€if€Ėā ° ā€€Ô_ÔtheyÔ_Ԁare€reasonable.€Ėâ âĐ Ŧ-T+/ ĐB.ā ° āō ōōōNo€Action€Alternativeķ ķķķ€Đ X Đâ âĖā ° ā€€1.ā  āThere€are€two€possible€đ đNo€Actionđđ€alternatives:€Đ 4Ü ĐĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ôā0 ` āNo€activities€taking€place.€€For€example,€a€timber€sale€is€proposed€in€an€area€where€a€road€Đ  ´ Đalready€exists.€€The€no€action€alternative€Ô_Ôin€this€caseÔ_Ԁwould€be€to€forego€the€timber€saleĪand€leave€the€area€đ đas€is.đđ€€The€Ô_ÔnoÔ_Ԁaction€alternative€would€NOT€be€to€eliminate€theĪpreviously€existing€road€and€let€the€area€return€to€a€natural€setting.€Đ ` €%` €% ĐĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ôā0 ` āContinuation€of€current€management.€€For€example,€a€Ô_Ô430€skiÔ_Ԁarea€expansion€is€proposedĐ ¨ P  Đon€the€Green€Mountain€National€Forest.€€There€is€already€a€Ô_Ô900€acreÔ_Ԁski€area€next€to€theĪproposed€expansion€which€has€been€operating€for€some€time€and€which€has€a€valid€permitĪfor€the€next€30€years.€€The€no€action€alternative€Ô_Ôin€this€caseÔ_Ԁcould€be€to€continue€theĪcurrent€management€of€the€existing€ski€area€and€to€not€authorize€the€expansion.€Đ ` €%` €% ĐĖC.ā ° āō ōōōDevelop€each€alternativeķ ķķķ.€Đ 0Ø  ĐĖā ° āō ōAlternative€Developmentķ ķ€-€Although€the€Purpose€and€Need€provides€the€boundaries€of€the€range€of€Đ  ´ Đā ° āÔ_ÔalternativesÔ_Ô,€the€Forest€Service€uses€the€issues€as€the€means€to€develop€alternatives€within€this€range.€€Ėā ° āIf€an€issue€has€been€raised€which€will€be€addressed€in€the€Effects€section,€there€should€be€an€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔalternativeÔ_Ԁwhich€is€developed€incorporating€the€concerns€raised€by€the€issue.€ĖĖā ° ā1.ā  āIdentify€the€purpose€of€each€alternative.€The€purpose€of€an€alternative€is€usually€to€emphasize€an€Đ ŦT Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔissueÔ_Ԁor€group€of€related€issues.€€For€example,€the€purpose€of€an€alternative€might€be€toā (# āĐ ˜@ Đā ° āā  āemphasize€recreation€related€issues€over€wildlife€issues;€another€alternative€might€do€just€the€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔoppositeÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° ā2.ā  āDevelop€each€alternative€by€describing€how€it€responds€to€an€issue€or€group€of€issues,€while€still€Đ Hđ Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔrelatingÔ_Ԁto€the€purpose€and€need€for€the€proposed€action.€€For€Ô_Ôexample€lookÔ_Ԁat€the€proposedŧā ° āā  āEagle€Mountain€Ski€Area€expansion€(example€A2,€page€9).€€The€purpose€and€need€is€to€respond€Ėā ° āā  āto€Ski€Corporation's€proposal€and€to€provide€a€winter€sports€opportunity€at€Site€A.€Ėā ° āĖā ° āā  āHere€€are€alternatives€to€the€proposed€action€set€forth€on€page€9:€ĖĖā ° āā  āa.ā0 ` āLimited€expansion€of€existing€facilities€at€Eagle€Mountain.€€This€alternative€was€developed€Đ ŧ!d" Đin€response€to€the€public's€concern€that€the€proposed€action,€if€implemented,€would€exceedĪthe€local€community's€ability€to€provide€for€services€required€by€the€additional€skiers.€€ThisĪalternative€includes€a€permit€area€expansion€of€250€acres€bringing€the€total€area€underĪÔ_Ôspecial€use€permitÔ_Ԁto€acres.€This€alternative€would€increase€carrying€capacity€by€50€percentĪfrom€Ô_Ô1000Ô_Ԁto€1500€and€include€an€additional€5€trails,€2€lifts€and€associated€facilities€onĪNFS€land,€etc.€Đ ` €%` €% ĐĖā ° āā  āb.ā0 ` āDeer€habitat€protection.€This€alternative€addresses€the€€concern€that€the€proposed€action,Đ )Ä&* Đif€implemented,€would€require€clearing€75€acres€of€softwoods€near€Lear€Brook.€€TheseĪtrees€provide€critical€Ô_Ôwinter€habitatÔ_Ԁfor€about€35€deer.€€Therefore€this€alternative€wouldĪeliminate€trails€xx,€xx,€and€xx,€and€lift€Ô_ÔyyÔ_Ԁwhich€cut€through€the€deer€habitat,€and€wouldĪrequire€a€500€foot€buffer€strip€around€the€deer€habitat€to€ensure€no€human€presence€in€theĪarea€during€the€winter€season.€€The€alternative€includes€an€expansion€of€______€acres,€etc.€Đ¸-`+/` €%` €% Đā ° āā  āc.ā0 ` āExpansion€within€existing€permit€area.€€This€alternative€focuses€on€providing€increasedĐ X Đskier€opportunity€by€upgrading€existing€facilities€(replacing€single€chair€lifts€with€quads)Īand€constructing€two€new€trails€and€one€new€lift.€€This€would€increase€comfortableĪcarrying€capacity€by€20€percent€from€1000€to€1200.€€This€alternative€is€developed€inĪresponse€to€the€public's€concern€with€additional€special€use€permit€acres,€and€with€EagleĪMountain€expanding€across€Lear€Brook.€Đ ` €%` €% ĐĖā ° āā  ād.ā0 ` āThis€alternative€restricts€water€withdrawals€to€current€levels.€€All€new€trails€would€beĐ Ėt Đlimited€to€natural€snow€only.€€This€alternative€is€in€response€to€the€public's€concern€withĪadditional€water€withdrawals€from€the€Ô_ÔOtheloÔ_ԀRiver.€€Trails€would€be€located€toĪemphasize€topographic€shadowing€to€reduce€Ô_Ôsnow€meltÔ_Ԁand€located€on€lee€side€of€theĪmountain€to€encourage€natural€snow€accumulation.€€The€permit€area€would€be€____€acres,Ī____€trails,€___€lifts,€and€Ô_Ô___ā Ā ācomfortableÔ_Ԁcarrying€capacity.€Đh  ` €%` €% ĐĖUsing€the€following€example€of€a€timber€sale€in€the€Fife€Creek€drainage,€here€Ô_ÔisÔ_Ԁa€proposed€action€and€someĪpossible€alternatives.ĖĖā ° ā1.ā  āThe€proposed€action€is€to€clearcut€the€following€spruce€stands€in€the€Fife€Creek€drainage€to€Đ Ŧ Đā ° āā  āsalvage€timber€susceptible€to€Ô_ÔArmellariaÔ_Ԁinfection:€€14€acres€of€stand€2,€24€acres€of€stand€12,ŧā ° āā  āand€15€acres€of€stand€16.€€In€the€Venice€Brook€drainage€group€selection€cutting€is€planned€in€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔhardwoodÔ_Ԁstands€as€a€first€step€in€conversion€to€uneven-aged€management,€as€follows:€€20€acres€Ėā ° āā  āin€stand€5,€44€acres€in€stand€19,€and€23€acres€in€stand€24.€€This€will€require€the€construction€of€.5€Ėā ° āā  āmiles€of€Class€D€road€from€FR€219€along€the€ridge€between€Fife€Brook€and€Venice€Brook,€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwithÔ_Ԁone€2€acre€log€storage€landing€at€the€end€of€the€road.€€Two€3/4€mile€skid€roads,€one€on€each€Ėā ° āā  āside€of€the€ridge,€will€be€constructed€for€log€transport€from€the€cutting€area€to€the€storage€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔlandingÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° āā  āThe€need€for€this€action€is€to€improve€and€maintain€spruce€stands€for€winter€deer€habitat€and€to€Ėā ° āā  āconvert€even-aged€hardwood€stands€to€an€Ô_ÔunevenagedÔ_Ԁcondition.€€The€purpose€of€this€timber€sale€Ėā ° āā  āis€to€create€vigorous€new€stands€of€spruce€to€replace€those€that€are€overmature€and€to€create€a€Ėā ° āā  ānew€age€class€in€the€hardwood€stands€as€the€first€step€toward€creating€an€Ô_ÔunevenagedÔ_Ԁcondition.€ĖĖā ° ā2.ā  āThere€is€no€difference€in€the€stands€to€be€cut€or€the€cutting€method€to€be€used.€€There€will€be€Đ Ø€  Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔconstructionÔ_Ԁof€.3€miles€of€Class€D€road€down€the€ridge€and€Ô_Ô1/2Ô_Ԁmile€of€temporary€road€inā (# āĐ Ä l! Đā ° āā  āeach€drainage.€€Timber€will€be€đ đÔ_ÔhotloggedÔ_Ôđđ,€without€the€use€of€constructed€landings,€by€Ô_ÔyardingÔ_ԀĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔdirectlyÔ_Ԁto€loading€sites€adjacent€to€temporary€roads.€ĖĖā ° āā  āThis€alternative€responds€to€a€concern€by€homeowners€along€the€haul€route€that€the€traditional€Ėā ° āā  āmethod€of€logging€in€Alternative€1€creates€a€safety€hazard€as€heavy€truck€traffic€is€concentrated€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔintoÔ_Ԁa€short€period.€ĖĖā ° ā3.ā  āThis€alternative€confines€activities€to€the€Fife€Creek€Drainage,€with€cutting€deferred€in€the€Đ $(Ė%) Đā ° āā  āVenice€Brook€drainage.€€Ô_ÔIn€addition€toÔ_Ԁclearcutting€of€stands€2,€12,€and€64,€forty-seven€acres€ofŧā ° āā  āhardwoods€will€be€thinned€to€improve€stand€structure€and€growth€as€follows:€25€acres€in€stand€26€Ėā ° āā  āand€22€acres€in€stand€28.€€A€2€acre€log€storage€landing€will€be€built€on€FR€219.€€Thisā (# ā€€Đ č*(, Đā ° āā  āalternative€provides€for€the€construction€of€1.0€mile€of€skid€road€for€log€transport€from€the€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔcuttingÔ_Ԁarea€to€the€storage€landing.€ĖĖā ° āā  āThis€alternative€responds€to€an€industry€concern€that€there€is€too€much€rock€on€the€slopes€of€Đ ˜.@,0 Đā ° āā  āVenice€Brook€to€log€efficiently€and€that€by€extending€the€skidding€distance€an€equivalent€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔhardwoodÔ_Ԁvolume€could€be€logged€from€the€Fife€Brook€drainage.€ĖĖD.ō ōā ° āōōAlternatives€Not€Considered€in€Detailķ ķķķ€Đ Ä ĐĖā ° āIdentify€alternatives€not€considered€in€detail€and€explain€why€they€are€not€considered€Ô_ÔfurtherÔ_Ô.€€If€an€Ėā ° āalternative€does€not€meet€the€purpose€and€need€as€described€in€the€proposed€action,€then€it€does€not€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔneedÔ_Ԁto€be€considered€in€detail€and€can€be€dismissed€in€this€section.€The€following€example€might€be€Ėā ° āused€to€explain€why€selection€cutting€is€not€a€feasible€alternative€in€an€area€ĖĖā ° āōōExampleķķ€-€A€number€of€individuals€suggested€that€either€selection€or€group€selection€cutting€be€used€Đ ” <  Đā ° āÔ_ÔtoÔ_Ԁtreat€the€spruce€stands€in€the€Fife€Creek€drainage.€€Based€on€existing€research,€which€indicates€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔArmellariaÔ_Ԁis€transmitted€through€the€root€system€of€infected€trees,€either€method€of€selection€cutting€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔwouldÔ_Ԁbe€ineffective€in€preventing€the€spread€of€the€disease€into€adjacent€spruce€stands.€€In€addition,€Ėā ° āthe€residual€trees€would€very€likely€become€infected,€requiring€a€re-entry€for€salvage€in€only€a€few€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔyearsÔ_Ô.€€Accordingly,€this€cutting€method€was€not€considered€Ô_ÔfurtherÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° āAnother€example€is€from€the€Eagle€Mountain€ski€area€proposed€action€we€have€been€using:€ĖĖā ° āōōExampleķķ€-€Some€people€suggested€that€we€consider€whether€the€need€for€additional€skiing€facilities€Đ āˆ Đā ° āon€the€Green€Mountain€can€be€met€by€expanding€one€or€more€of€the€four€other€ski€areas€on€the€Ėā ° āGreen€Mountain,€or€by€expansion€of€one€of€several€ski€areas€within€the€Green€Mountain€area€but€off€Ėā ° āNational€Forest€lands.€€This€would€not€meet€the€purpose€and€need€of€providing€additional€winter€€Ėā ° āsports€opportunities€at€Site€A.€ĖĖā ° āThere€may€also€be€suggested€alternatives€which€may€be€consistent€with€the€Forest€Plan,€but€are€not€a€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔpartÔ_Ԁof€the€purpose€and€need€for€this€particular€proposed€action.€€The€following€is€an€example€of€how€Ėā ° āto€respond€to€comments€received€during€scoping€for€a€timber€sale€project,€suggesting€that€a€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔcampgroundÔ_Ԁbe€created€instead:€ĖĖā ° āōōExampleķķ€-€A€number€of€individuals€suggested€that€an€alternative€be€considered€that€creates€a€Đ Ŧ Đā ° āÔ_ÔcampgroundÔ_Ԁin€the€analysis€area€as€opposed€to€going€forward€with€a€timber€sale.€€This€alternative€Ėā ° ādoes€not€fulfill€the€purpose€and€need€for€the€proposed€action,€and€therefore€is€not€considered€in€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdetailÔ_Ô.€ĖĖĐ   "H # ĐRANGE€OF€ALTERNATIVES€Graphic€(sent€hard€copy€-€did€not€scan)ĖĖĐ  0Ø ĐTHERE€ARE€TWO€DISTINCT€INTERPRETATIONS€Graphic€(sent€hard€copy€-€did€not€scan)€ĖĖĐ  0Ø ĐNO€ACTION€=€NO€CHANGE€Graphic€(sent€hard€copy€-€did€not€scan)ĖĖĖĐ  Ä ĐNO€ACTION€=€NO€PROJECT€Graphic€(sent€hard€copy€-€did€not€scan)ĖĐ  Dė Đō ōĶ  ĶALTERNATIVES€SECTION€EXAMPLE€Đ X ĐōōÔ_ÔHAPGOODÔ_ԀENVIRONMENTAL€ASSESSMENTķķ€Đ Dė ĐĶ  Ķķ ķĖō ōALTERNATIVES€TO€THE€PROPOSED€ACTIONķ ķ€Đ Ä ĐĖThis€section€describes€the€alternatives€developed€in€partial€response€to€public€issues€related€to€the€ProposedĪAction.€€Figures€Ô_Ô4,5,6,7,8Ô_Ԁand€Appendix€B€display€the€specific€location€and€type€of€tree€harvest€proposed€underĪeach€alternative.€€Mitigation€measures€for€all€alternatives€are€described€in€detail€in€Appendix€D.€ĖĖThis€section€also€describes€alternatives€considered€during€the€analysis€but€not€developed€in€detail.€ĖĖAll€alternatives,€Ô_Ôwith€the€exception€ofÔ_ԀAlternative€II,€the€No€Action€Alternative,€would;€1)€meet€LRMPĪmanagement€direction,€and€2)€move€the€project€area€toward€the€desired€future€condition€(DFC).€€The€differenceĪbetween€alternatives€lies€in€their€environmental€effects,€the€means€of€achieving€the€DFC€and€how€quickly€theĪDFC€would€be€achieved.€€They€are€based€on€Ô_ÔonÔ_Ô-site€survey€and€application€of€standard€silvicultural€methodologyĪ(see€Appendix€B).€ĖĖTables€Ô_Ô1Ô_Ԁ&€2€provide€a€comparative€listing€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€alternatives.€€They€show€the€differencesĪand€similarities€of€key€activities€proposed.€€The€reasons€for,€and€expected€results€Ô_ÔfromÔ_Ô,€the€types€of€tree€harvestĪused€under€the€alternative€are€the€same€as€in€the€Proposed€Action€and€not€repeated€in€the€description€ofĪalternatives.€€Our€analysis€shows€that€all€alternatives,€Ô_ÔexceptÔ_ԀAlternative€II,€the€No€Action€Alternative,€areĪworkable€silvicultural€prescriptions€to€meet€the€long€term€DFC.€ĖĖAlternative€I.ā  āManaging€Vegetation€Ô_ÔToÔ_ԀMeet€LRMP€Age€Class€Distribution€Objectives€In€The€Next€Decade.€Đ 8 ĐĖThis€alternative€takes€advantage€of€all€silvicultural€opportunities€available€to€achieve€the€LRMP€age€classĪdistribution€objectives€for€the€project€area€in€the€next€decade€and€recreation€opportunities€at€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€notĪshown€in€the€Proposed€Action€(Figure€4€and€Appendix€B).€€More€tree€stands€are€scheduled€for€treatment€(609Īacres€Ô_ÔvsÔ_Ԁ546€in€the€Proposed€Action)€and€there€is€more€emphasis€on€evenage€management€practices€(thinning,Īclearcutting€and€shelterwood€harvests).€€As€with€the€Proposed€Action,€the€drive-by€view€of€wetlands€would€beĪcreated.€€This€alternative€responds€to€concerns€of€some€publics€that€the€Proposed€Action€does€not€include€all€treeĪstands€where€evenage€management€is€economically€feasible€within€LRMP€direction.€ĖĖ1.ā ° āō ōDeveloped€Recreationķ ķā  ā€€Đ Č p! Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€implement€the€rehabilitation€of€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀRecreation€Area€(MA€7.Ô_ÔlBÔ_Ô)€as€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdescribedÔ_Ԁin€the€Proposed€Action€(page€1).€€In€addition,€3-4€campsites€would€be€relocated€(rather€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔthanÔ_Ԁrehabilitated)€from€an€existing€wetland€to€a€dryer€forested€site.€€Secondly,€the€existing€CCCā (# ā€€Đ #8!$ Đā ° āera€structure€currently€being€used€for€equipment€storage€would€be€relocated€and€converted€into€a€Ėā ° āsmall€museum€depicting€the€history€of€the€CCC€at€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€(See€Figure€5).€ĖĖ2.ā ° āō ōPond€Managementķ ķā ¸ ā€€Đ @'č$( Đā ° āWe€would€continue€to€annually€drain€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€before€mid-October€to€flush€organic€material€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔandÔ_Ԁsediment€from€the€pond.€€There€would€be€no€dredging€of€the€pond€at€this€time€but€dredging€is€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔlikelyÔ_Ԁto€occur€at€some€future€date.€€ĖĖā ° āA€pond€monitoring€program€would€be€implemented€to€determine€changes€in€the€pond's€sediment€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔlevelsÔ_Ԁand€water€quality€to€determine€when€future€dredging€would€occur.€ĖĐ ¸-`+/ Đ3.ā ° āō ōDeer€Winter€Habitat€Managementķ ķā Ā ā€€Đ X Đā ° āTree€harvest€in€deer€wintering€areas€would€be€accelerated€to€achieve€the€desired€future€habitat€Ėā ° ācondition€as€soon€as€possible€with€more€evidence€of€tree€harvesting€and€skidding€(226€acres€vs€197€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔinÔ_Ԁthe€Proposed€Action).€€Regeneration€of€quality€softwood€thermal€cover€would€continue€to€be€theŧā ° ā€€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔfocusÔ_Ԁof€tree€harvest.€€However,€the€emphasis€would€be€on€the€use€of€evenage,€rather€than€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_ԀĖā ° āÔ_ÔmanagementÔ_Ô.ā ` āClearcutting€(20€acres€vs.€0€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action),€and€shelterwood€harvest€Đ äŒ Đā ° ā(Ô_Ô18Ô_Ԁacres€vs.€0€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action)€would€occur.€€There€would€be€approximately€the€sameŧā ° ā€€Ėā ° āamount€of€thinnings€(69€acres€vs.€62€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action),€but€less€overstory€removal€(16€Ėā ° āacres€vs.€24€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action)€and€less€selection€cutting€(103€acres€vs.€111€acres€in€the€Ėā ° āProposed€Action).€ĖĖ4.ō ōā ° āIntensive€Forest€Managementķ ķā h ā€€Đ X  Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€affect€approximately€278€acres€within€MA€3.1€(vs.€265€acres€in€the€Proposed€Ėā ° āAction).€€There€would€be€greater€emphasis€on€evenage€management€than€in€the€Proposed€Action.€€Ėā ° āThere€would€be€no€increase€in€clearcutting€(17€acres€vs€17€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action)€or€Ėā ° āshelterwood€Ô_ÔharvestÔ_Ԁ(37€acres€vs.€37€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action.€€However,€there€would€be€an€Ėā ° āincrease€in€thinnings€(125€acres€vs.€96€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action)€and€in€overstory€removal€(23€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔacresÔ_Ԁvs.€10€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action).€€There€would€be€less€emphasis€on€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_ԀĖā ° āmanagement€(individual€tree€harvest€or€group€selection)€(75€acres€vs.€105€acres€in€the€Proposed€Ėā ° āAction).€€Unlike€the€Proposed€Action,€the€5€acres€in€Stand€16,€Compartment€132€clearcut€would€not€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔbeÔ_Ԁreplanted€with€softwoods€indigenous€to€the€area.€€Rather,€it€would€be€allowed€to€Ô_ÔrevegetateÔ_Ԁwith€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔaspenÔ_Ô.€ĖĖ5.ā ° āō ōÔ_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀVegetation€Managementķ ķā h ā€€Đ l Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€improve€hardwood€and€softwood€stands€within€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀRecreation€Area€Ėā ° ā(MA€7.Ô_ÔlBÔ_Ô)€in€order€to€improve€winter€deer€habitat€and€maintain€the€area's€big€tree€character.€€It€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔwouldÔ_Ԁaffect€98€acres€within€the€recreation€area€(vs.€84€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action).€€The€result€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔwouldÔ_Ԁbe€a€stand€composed€of€trees€with€a€mixture€of€species,€sizes€and€ages.€€Individual€and€group€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtreeÔ_Ԁselection€would€continue€to€be€the€vegetation€management€tool€used.€ĖĖThere€would€be€a€higher€than€normal€amount€of€evenage€(vs.€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ô)€tree€harvest€to€achieve€age€classĪcomposition€objectives€at€an€accelerated€rate€(see€Table€2€for€comparison€with€Proposed€Action).€€As€with€theĪProposed€Action,€tree€harvest€would€be€deferred€or€designed€to€meet€resource€and€visual€needs€(Ô_Ôi.e.Ô_ԀalongĪwildlife€corridors,€recreation€trails,€riparian€areas,€wilderness€boundaries€and€where€evidence€of€bear€clawedĪbeech,€(see€Appendix€D).€€To€create€the€drive-by€view€of€the€wetlands,€selection€cutting€would€take€place€on€theĪsame€amount€of€acres€(2)€as€the€Proposed€Action.€ĖĖō ōōōCONNECTED€ACTIONSķ ķķķ€-€The€number€of€new€log€landings€and€amount€of€road€reconstruction€is€the€same€asĐ X&$' Đin€the€Proposed€Action€(Table€2).€ĖĖ6.ā ° āō ōStream€Stabilization€&€Fish€Habitat€Managementķ ķā p ā€€Đ  )Č&* Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€build€the€same€number€and€types€of€stream€restoration€structures€in€the€same€Ėā ° ālocations€as€the€Proposed€Action,€Page€4.€Đ  ü*¤(, Đō ōAlternative€II.€€No€Action€Alternativeķ ķ€Đ X ĐĖThe€Proposed€Action€would€not€be€implemented.€€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€would€not€continue€to€be€managed/ĖÔ_ÔmaintainedÔ_Ԁas€it€is€currently€done.€€Annual€draining€and€periodic€dredging€of€the€Pond€would€not€occur.€€WithoutĪannual€drainage€of€the€Pond€in€the€fall,€sediment€would€not€be€flushed€out€and€organic€material€would€build€up€inĪthe€beach€area.€€Fall€and€Ô_Ôwinter€recreation€useÔ_Ԁ(skating,€fishing,€visual€quality)€would€be€improved.€€DiscontinuedĪdredging€of€the€pond€would€result€in€it€becoming€more€shallow€over€the€years,€due€to€sediment€deposition.€€AsĪthe€water€becomes€more€shallow,€the€quality€of€swimming€and€canoeing€would€decrease.€ĖĖUnder€this€alternative€the€current€level€of€operation€and€maintenance€of€the€recreation€facilities€would€continue.€ĪNo€construction€or€reconstruction€of€facilities€at€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_Ԁrecreation€area€would€occur,€and€campgroundĪfacilities€would€continue€to€deteriorate.€€Stream€stabilization€to€reduce€sedimentation€and€fish€habitatĪmanagement€would€not€occur,€and€the€composition€objectives€described€Amendment€No.€6€of€the€Ô_ÔLMRPÔ_ԀwouldĪnot€be€met.€€The€plugged€culvert€at€the€small€tributary€would€not€be€restored.€ĖĖNo€vegetation€management€would€be€planned.€€There€might€be€unplanned€tree€removal€for€health€and€safetyĪreasons€in€the€developed€recreation€areas€and€along€travelways.€€Existing€tree€stands€would€be€allowed€to€growĪwithout€human€interference,€Ô_Ôregardless€ofÔ_Ԁpast€management€activities€or€natural€disease/damage.€ĖĖThis€alternative€responds€to€those€publics€opposed€to€vegetation€management€in€the€project€area.€€It€alsoĪresponds€to€publics€who€believe€the€proposed€tree€harvest,€openings,€vistas€and€roads€would€increase€forestĪfragmentation€and€decrease€habitat€for€forest€interior€species€and€songbirds,€particularly€neo-tropical€migratoryĪsongbirds.€ĖĖō ōAlternative€III.€€Vegetation€Management€In€Priority€Areas€Onlyķ ķ€Đ |$ ĐĖThis€alternative€would€emphasize€custodial€care€of€forests€(Figure€6€and€Appendix€B).€€Ô_ÔThe€amount€of€vegetationÔ_ÔĪmanagement€proposed€is€considerably€less€than€the€Proposed€Action€(230€vs.€546€acres).€€Tree€harvest€wouldĪfocus€on€1)€areas/stands€with€high€disease/storm/insect€damage/risk;€2)€meeting€the€DFC€for€4.1€deer€winteringĪareas;€and€3)€maintaining€healthy€forests€in€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀRecreation€Area.€€This€partially€responds€to€theĪopposition€of€some€publics€to€vegetation€management.€€However,€it€allows€us€to€deal€with€high€risk€stands,Īrecreation€needs,€and€meet€our€deer€habitat€management€obligations€with€the€state.€€There€would€be€no€drive€byĪview€of€the€wetlands.€ĖĖ1.ā ° āō ōDeveloped€Recreationķ ķā  ā€Đ ¸!`" Đā ° āThe€alternative€would€implement€the€expanded€rehabilitation€of€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀRecreation€Area€as€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdescribedÔ_Ԁin€Alternative€I€(page€12€and€Figure€5).€ĖĖ2.ā ° āō ōPond€Managementķ ķā ¸ ā€€Đ l%#& Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€implement€management€of€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€including€annual€draining€as€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdescribedÔ_Ԁin€Alternative€I€(page€12).€€Though€an€option,€dredging€would€not€occur€at€this€time.€ĖĖ3.ō ōā ° āDeer€Winter€Habitat€Managementķ ķā Ā ā€€Đ  )Č&* Đā ° āThere€would€be€evidence€of€tree€harvest€and€removal€(skidding)€on€less€acres€(172€vs.€197€acres€in€Ėā ° āthe€Proposed€Action)€within€MA€4.1.€€ĖĖā ° āBoth€evenage€and€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€would€be€used€to€create€quality€deer€softwood€thermal€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔcoverÔ_Ô.€€Only€two€types€of€tree€harvest€would€be€used.€€Thinning€would€occur€on€the€same€amount€of€Đ Ā-h+/ Đā ° āÔ_ÔacresÔ_Ԁ(62€acres)€as€in€the€Proposed€Action.€€Group€and€individual€selection€harvest€would€occur€on€Ėā ° āÔ_Ô110Ô_Ԁacres€(vs.€111€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action).€ĖĖ4.ā ° āō ōIntensive€Forest€Managementķ ķā h ā€€Đ Ä Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€affect€considerably€less€acres€of€the€MA€3.1€Management€Area€(35€acres€vs€Ėā ° āÔ_Ô265Ô_Ԁacres€in€the€Proposed€Action).€€Only€two€of€the€five€tree€harvest€methods€described€in€the€Ėā ° āProposed€Action€would€be€used.€€There€would€be€the€same€amount€of€clearcutting€(17€acres€vs€17€Ėā ° āacres€in€the€Proposed€Action)€but€a€decrease€in€group/individual€tree€selection€cutting€(18€acres€vs€Ėā ° āÔ_Ô75Ô_Ԁacres€in€the€Proposed€Action).€ĖĖ5.ā ° āō ōÔ_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀVegetation€Managementķ ķā h ā€€Đ ” <  Đā ° āAs€with€the€Proposed€Action,€this€alternative€would€only€focus€on€high€risk€stands€within€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀRecreation€Area€(MA€7.Ô_ÔlBÔ_Ô)€and€do€little€to€improve€winter€deer€habitat€or€the€long€term€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔhealthÔ_Ԁof€the€tree€stands.€€It€would€affect€less€acres€within€the€recreation€area€(23€vs€84€acres€in€the€Ėā ° āProposed€Action).€€Individual€and€group€tree€selection€would€continue€to€be€the€vegetation€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔmanagementÔ_Ԁtool€used.€ĖĖAs€with€the€Proposed€Action,€tree€harvest€would€be€deferred€or€designed€to€meet€resource€and€visual€needs€(Ô_Ôe.g.Ô_ÔĪalong€wildlife€corridors,€recreation€trails,€riparian€areas,€wilderness€boundaries€and€where€evidence€of€bearĪclawed€beech)€(Appendix€D).€ĖĖō ōōōCONNECTED€ACTIONSķ ķķķ€-€There€would€be€no€additional€miles€of€road€reconstruction€but€the€same€number€ofĐ ŧd Đtemporary€bridges€(1)€as€the€Proposed€Action.€€This€alternative€would€require€less€log€landings€(2€Ô_ÔvsÔ_Ԁ4)€than€theĪProposed€Action.€Trees€would€be€removed€using€existing€skid€trails€Ô_ÔwhereÔ_Ԁpossible.€€The€seasonal€timing€of€treeĪharvest€would€be€restricted€to€avoid€conflict€with€recreation€use€and€prevent€resource€damage.€ĖĖ6.ā ° āō ōStream€Stabilization€&€Fish€Habitat€Managementķ ķā p ā€€Đ \ Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€construct€the€same€type€of€stream€improvement€structures€in€the€same€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔlocationsÔ_Ԁas€the€Proposed€Action,€(page€8).€ĖĖō ōAlternative€IV.€€Ô_ÔUnevenageÔ_ԀManagement€Emphasisķ ķ€Đ ¸ ĐĖThis€is€a€modification€of€Proposed€Action€using€only€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€in€the€essentially€the€same€forestĪstands€identified€in€the€Proposed€Action€(Figure€7€and€Appendix€B).€€The€amount€of€vegetation€managementĪproposed€is€less€than€the€Proposed€Action€(515€vs€546€acres)€as€stands€currently€in€an€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁcondition€wereĪexcluded.€€This€alternative€would€provide€natural€appearing,€continuous€forest€cover.€€It€would€partially€respondĪto€public€concerns€over€forest€fragmentation,€in-stand€vertical€diversity€and€visual€impacts€of€evenageĪmanagement€and€large€group€selection€cuts.€€It€would€also€respond€to€concerns€that€Proposed€Action€harvestĪareas€are€too€big€for€successful€softwood€regeneration.€€Small€group€selection€cuts€(less€than€1/4€acre)€wouldĪreplace€clear€cuts;€Ô_ÔindividualÔ_Ԁtree€selection€harvest€would€replace€thinnings€and€overstory€removal.€€No€drive€byĪview€of€the€wetlands€would€be€created.€ĖĖ1.ā ° āō ōDeveloped€Recreationķ ķā  ā€Đ $)Ė&* Đā ° āThe€alternative€would€implement€the€rehabilitation€of€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀRecreation€Area€as€described€in€Ėā ° āAlternative€I,€(page€12€and€Figure€5).€Ô_ÔĖÔ_ÔĖ2.ā ° āō ōPond€Managementķ ķā ¸ ā€€Đ Ø,€*. Đā ° āThis€alternative€Ô_ÔimplementsÔ_Ԁpond€management€as€described€in€Alternative€I,€(page€12).€Đ Č-p+/ Ї3.ā ° āō ōDeer€Winter€Habitat€Managementķ ķā Ā ā€€Đ X Đā ° āRegeneration€of€quality€softwood€thermal€cover€for€deer€would€continue€to€be€the€focus€of€tree€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔharvestÔ_Ô.€€Ô_ÔUnevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€would€be€used€to€achieve€this€objective.€€The€amount€of€acres€Ėā ° āimpacted€in€MA€4.1€would€be€less€than€the€Proposed€Action€(172€vs€197€acres)€as€stands€presently€in€Ėā ° āan€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁcondition€would€not€be€impacted.€€As€with€the€Proposed€Action,€there€would€be€no€Ėā ° āclearcutting€or€shelterwood€Ô_ÔharvestÔ_Ô.€€In€addition,€there€would€be€no€thinnings€(vs€62€acres€in€the€Ėā ° āProposed€Action)€or€overstory€removal€(Ô_ÔvsÔ_Ԁ24€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action).€€There€would€be€aā (# ā€€Đ äŒ Đā ° āconsiderable€increase€in€the€amount€of€selection€harvest€used€(172€acres€vs€111€acres€in€the€Proposed€Ėā ° āAction).€ĖĖ4.ā ° āō ōIntensive€Forest€Managementķ ķā h ā€€Đ ” <  Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€affect€less€acres€(245€vs€265€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action)€in€MA€3.1€and€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔharvestingÔ_Ԁmethods€would€be€tailored€to€promote€uneven€age€management.€€Only€individual€tree€or€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔgroupÔ_Ԁselection€harvests€would€be€used.€€There€would€be€no€clearcutting€(vs€17€acres€in€the€Proposedŧā ° ā€€Ėā ° āAction),€thinning€(vs€96€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action,€overstory€removal€(vs€10€acres€in€the€Ėā ° āProposed€Action)€or€shelterwood€harvest€(Ô_ÔvsÔ_Ԁ37€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action).€€Individual€tree€and€Ėā ° āgroup€selection€harvest,€including€improvement€cutting,€would€increase€considerably€(245€vs€105€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔacresÔ_Ԁin€the€Proposed€Action).€ĖĖ5.ā ° āō ōÔ_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀVegetation€Managementķ ķā h ā€€Đ Đx Đā ° āThe€objective€of€this€alternative€for€the€MA€7.Ô_ÔlBÔ_Ԁis€the€same€as€the€Proposed€Action.€€The€number€of€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔacresÔ_Ԁ(98€acres)€impacted€is€the€same€as€Alternative€I€and€more€than€the€Proposed€Action€(84€acres).€€Ėā ° āOnly€single€Ô_ÔtreeÔ_Ԁand€group€selection€harvest€would€be€used.€ĖĖThere€would€be€less€than€normal€amount€of€evenage€management€(clearcuts,€thinnings,€shelterwood,€overstoryĪremoval)€and€more€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€(individual€tree€and€group€selection€harvest).€€As€with€the€ProposedĪAction,€tree€harvest€would€be€deferred€or€designed€to€meet€resource€and€visual€needs€Ė(Ô_Ôe.g.Ô_Ԁalong€wildlife€corridors,€recreation€trails,€riparian€areas,€wilderness€€boundaries€and€where€evidence€of€bearĪclawed€beech)€(Appendix€D)).€ĖĖō ōōōCONNECTED€ACTIONSķ ķķķ€-€The€number€of€new€log€landings€and€amount€of€road€reconstruction€is€the€same€asĐ ø  Đin€the€Proposed€Action€(Table€2).€ĖĖ6.ā ° āō ōStream€Stabilization€&€Fish€Habitat€Improvementķ ķā p ā€€Đ Ā!h" Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€be€the€same€as€the€Proposed€Action,€(page€8).€ĖĖō ōAlternative€V.€Extensive€Ô_ÔUnevenageÔ_ԀManagementķ ķ€Đ ˆ$0"% ĐĖThis€is€an€expansion€of€Alternative€IV€to€include€more€forest€stands€than€either€in€the€Proposed€Action€orĪAlternative€IV€(Figure€8€and€Appendix€B).€Under€this€alternative,€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€becomes€the€primaryĪvegetation€management€prescription€throughout€the€project€area.€€More€project€area€acres€are€treated€(699€acresĪvs€546€in€the€Proposed€Action)€and€includes€all€Ô_ÔsilviculturallyÔ_Ԁfeasible€stands.€€The€purpose€is€to€assess€the€use€ofĪwidespread€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€as€a€means€to€harvest€trees€while€maintaining€a€continuous€forest€cover.€€ĖSmall€group€selection€cuts€(less€than€1/4€acre)€would€replace€clear€cuts;€Ô_ÔindividualÔ_Ԁtree€selection€harvest€wouldĪreplace€thinnings€and€overstory€removal.€€No€drive-by€view€of€the€wetland€would€be€created.€ĖĖThis€would€partially€respond€to€public€concerns€over€forest€fragmentation,€in-stand€vertical€(Alpha)€diversity€andĐ Ä-l+/ Đvisual€impacts€of€timber€harvest€by€maintaining€a€continuous€forest€canopy.€€It€would€also€extend€deer€habitatĪmanagement€beyond€identified€deer€wintering€areas,€increasing€the€quality€of€Ô_Ônon-winter€habitatÔ_Ô,€includingĪbrowse.€ĖĖĖ1.ō ōā ° āDeveloped€Recreationķ ķā  ā€Đ ôœ Đā ° āThe€alternative€would€implement€the€more€extensive€rehabilitation€of€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀRecreation€Area€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔasÔ_Ԁdescribed€in€Alternative€I,€(page€12€and€Figure€5).€ĖĖ2.ā ° āō ōPond€Managementķ ķā ¸ ā€Đ ¨ P  Đā ° āPond€management€would€be€as€described€in€Alternative€I,€Page€12).€ĖĖ3.ā ° āō ōDeer€Winter€Habitat€Managementķ ķā Ā ā€€Đ p   Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€improve€the€quality€of€winter€and€non-winter€deer€habitat€beyond€that€in€the€Ėā ° āProposed€Action€due€to€widespread€use€of€uneven-age€management.€€There€would€be€evidence€of€Ėā ° ātree€harvest€and€removal€(skidding)€on€273€acres€(vs€197€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action)€within€MA€Ėā ° ā4.1.€Regeneration€of€quality€softwood€thermal€cover€for€deer€would€continue€to€be€the€focus€of€tree€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔharvestÔ_Ô.€€Ô_ÔUnevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€would€be€used.€€As€with€the€Proposed€Action,€there€would€be€no€Ėā ° āclearcutting€or€€shelterwood€Ô_ÔharvestÔ_Ô.€€In€addition,€there€would€be€no€thinnings€(vs€62€acres€in€the€Ėā ° āProposed€Action)€or€overstory€removal€(Ô_ÔvsÔ_Ԁ24€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action).€€There€would€be€a€Ėā ° āconsiderable€increase€in€the€amount€of€selection€harvest€used€(259€acres€vs€111€acres€in€the€Proposed€Ėā ° āAction).€ĖĖ4.ā ° āō ōIntensive€Forest€Managementķ ķā h ā€€Đ ˜@ Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€affect€slightly€more€acres€(273€vs€265€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action)€in€MA€Ėā ° ā3.1.€Harvest€methods€would€be€tailored€to€promote€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement.€€Only€individual€tree€or€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔgroupÔ_Ԁselection€harvests€would€be€used.€€There€would€be€no€clearcutting€(vs€17€acres€in€the€ProposedĖā ° āAction),€thinning€(vs€96€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action,€overstory€removal€(vs€10€acres€in€the€ĖĖā ° āProposed€Action)€or€shelterwood€harvest€(Ô_ÔVsÔ_Ԁ37€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action).€€Individual€tree€and€Ėā ° āgroup€selection€harvest,€including€improvement€cutting,€would€increase€considerably€(273€vs€105€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔacresÔ_Ԁin€the€Proposed€Action).€ĖĖ5.ō ōā ° āÔ_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀVegetation€Managementķ ķā h ā€€Đ Ô |! Đā ° āThe€objective€of€this€alternative€for€the€MA€7.Ô_ÔlBÔ_Ԁis€the€same€as€the€Proposed€Action.€€However,€theĪnumber€of€acres€(167€acres)€impacted€is€considerably€greater€than€the€Proposed€Action€(84€acres).€€Only€singleĪÔ_ÔtreeÔ_Ԁand€group€selection€harvest€would€be€used.€ĖĖThere€would€be€less€evenage€management€(clearcuts,€thinnings,€shelterwood,€overstory€removal)€than€whatĪwould€be€expected€under€normal€silviculture€practices€and€more€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€(individual€tree€andĪgroup€selection€harvest).€€As€with€the€Proposed€Action,€tree€harvest€would€be€deferred€or€designed€to€meetĪresource€and€visual€needs€(Ô_Ôe.g.Ô_Ԁalong€wildlife€corridors,€recreation€trails,€riparian€areas,€wilderness€boundariesĪand€where€evidence€of€bear€clawed€beech)€(Appendix€D).€ĖĖĐ  ü*¤(, Đō ōōōCONNECTED€ACTIONSķ ķķķ€-€The€number€of€new€log€landings€and€amount€of€road€reconstruction€is€the€same€asĐ X Đin€the€Proposed€Action€(Table€2).€ĖĖ6.ā ° āō ōStream€Stabilization€&€Fish€Habitat€Managementķ ķā p ā€€Đ  Č Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€be€the€same€as€the€Proposed€Action,€(page€€).€ĖĖĖō ōAlternative€VI€Modified€Proposed€Action€Đ Ô| Đķ ķĖAlthough€overall€management€objectives€are€the€same,€this€alternative€refines€the€Proposed€Action€based€onĪpublic€input€and€additional€field€work€(Figure€9€and€Appendix€B).€€The€need€to€relocate€campsites€in€theĪÔ_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀRecreation€Area€was€identified.€€Certain€tree€stands€were€no€longer€considered€for€harvest€(Stands€35Īand€Ô_Ô4Ô_Ô,€Compartment€132€and€Stand€24,€Compartment€55)€due€to€access/economic€constraints.€€Others€wereĪadded€(Stand€4,€Compartment€54€and€Stand€37,€Compartment€132)€due€to€silvicultural€opportunities€or€forĪcampsite€relocation€(Stand€32,€Compartment€132).€€Some€of€these€refinements€were€incorporated€in€otherĪalternatives€and€previously€described.€ĖĖBased€on€these€changes,€there€would€be€evidence€of€tree€harvest€and€removal€(skidding)€on€more€forest€acresĪ(553€acres€Ô_ÔvsÔ_Ԁ546€acres€in€the€Proposed€Action).€€As€with€the€Proposed€Action,€there€would€be€a€mix€of€bothĪevenage€and€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁvegetation€management€practices,€and€the€drive-by€view€of€the€wetlands€would€beĪcreated.€ĖĖ1.ā ° āō ōDeveloped€Recreationķ ķā  ā€€Đ ¨P Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€implement€the€rehabilitation€of€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀRecreation€Area€described€in€Ėā ° āAlternative€I,€(page€12€and€Figure€5).€ĖĖ2.ā ° āō ōPond€Managementķ ķā ¸ ā€€Đ \ Đā ° āThis€would€Ô_Ôbe€the€same€as€described€in€Alternative€IÔ_Ô,€(page€12).€ĖĖ3.ā ° āō ōDeer€Winter€Habitat€Managementķ ķā Ā ā€€Đ $Ė Đā ° āRegeneration€of€quality€softwood€thermal€cover€for€deer€would€continue€to€be€the€focus€of€tree€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔharvestÔ_Ô.€€This€alternative€would€harvest€somewhat€less€acres€than€the€Proposed€Action€(190€acres€vs€Ėā ° āÔ_Ô197Ô_Ԁacres€in€the€Proposed€Action)€impacted€in€MA€4.1.€However,€the€type,€location€and€relative€mix€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔofÔ_Ԁtree€harvests€would€be€the€same€as€the€Proposed€Action.€ĖĖ4.ā ° āō ōIntensive€Forest€Managementķ ķā h ā€€Đ °"X # Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€affect€the€same€amount€of€acres€(265€vs€265€acres)€using€the€same€relative€Ėā ° āmix€of€tree€harvest€prescriptions€described€in€the€Proposed€Action€except€5€acres€clear-cut€in€Stand€Ėā ° āÔ_Ô16Ô_Ô,€Compartment€132€would€not€be€replanted€with€softwoods€indigenous€to€the€area.€€Rather€it€Ėā ° āwould€be€allowed€to€Ô_ÔrevegetateÔ_Ԁwith€aspen.€ĖĖ5.ā ° āō ōÔ_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀVegetation€Managementķ ķā h ā€€Đ <(ä%) Đā ° āThe€objective€of€this€alternative€for€the€MA€7.Ô_ÔlBÔ_Ԁis€the€same€as€the€Proposed€Action.€€The€number€of€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔacresÔ_Ԁ(98€acres)€impacted€is€the€same€as€Alternative€I€and€more€than€the€Proposed€Action€(84€acres).€€Ėā ° āOnly€single€Ô_ÔtreeÔ_Ԁand€group€selection€harvest€would€be€used.€ĖĖĐ  Ü,„*. ĐAs€with€the€Proposed€Action,€there€would€be€a€mix€of€evenage€management€(clearcuts,€thinnings,€shelterwood,Īoverstory€removal)€and€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€(individual€tree€and€group€selection€harvest).€€Tree€harvestĪwould€be€deferred€or€designed€to€meet€resource€and€visual€needs€(Ô_Ôe.g.Ô_Ԁalong€wildlife€corridors,€recreation€trails,Īriparian€areas,€wilderness€boundaries€and€where€evidence€of€bear€clawed€beech)€(Appendix€D).€ĖĖō ōōōCONNECTED€ACTIONS€ķ ķķķ-€The€number€of€new€log€landings€is€one€more€(5€Ô_ÔvsÔ_Ԁ4)€than€the€Proposed€Action€butĐ ôœ Đthe€amount€of€road€reconstruction€is€the€same€(Table€2).€ĖĖ6.ā ° āō ōStream€Stabilization€&€Fish€Habitat€Improvementķ ķā p ā€€Đ ŧ d Đā ° āThis€alternative€would€be€the€same€as€the€Proposed€Action,€(page€8).€ĖĖō ōALTERNATIVES€NOT€CARRIED€FORWARDķ ķ€Đ „ ,  ĐĖTwo€alternatives€to€the€Proposed€Action€were€considered€but,€for€various€reasons,€not€carried€forward.€€ThisĪsection€displays€the€alternatives€considered€and€the€reasons€they€were€not€considered€in€detail.€€The€alternativesĪnot€carried€forward€are:€ĖĖo€€ō ōRestoration€Of€The€Project€Area€To€A€Roadless,€Natural€Conditionķ ķ€Đ ¸ ĐThis€alternative€would€let€natural€processes,€free€from€human€intervention,€dominate€the€project€area.€€TheĪÔ_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€Recreation€Area€would€be€closed€and€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€would€be€allowed€to€revert€to€a€wetlandĪdue€to€sedimentation.€No€planned€vegetation€management€would€occur€Ô_Ôexcept€forÔ_Ԁhealth/safety€reasons.€ThisĪwould€respond€to€those€publics€stating€we€should€consider€management€alternatives€that€restore€the€area€to€itsĪnatural€state€and/or€pre-settlement€conditions€including€obliteration€and€re-vegetation€of€existing€roads.€ĖĖThis€alternative€was€not€carried€forward€for€two€reasons.€€First,€the€purpose€of€the€project€is€to€move€the€area€toĪthe€desired€future€conditions€as€stated€in€LRMP€direction.€€Restoring€the€project€area€to€its€natural€state€or€aĪpre-settlement€condition€would€not€achieve€this€end.€€The€recreation€area€would€cease€to€exist€contrary€to€MAĪ7.1€management€direction.€€Neither€Ô_ÔwouldÔ_Ԁthis€proposal€move€toward€achieving€the€DFC's€for€the€MA's€3.1€andĪ4.1€portions€of€the€project€area.€ĖĖSecondly,€much€of€the€project€area€is€in€private€ownership€and€the€project€area€roads€are€under€the€jurisdiction€ofĪthe€Town€of€Peru.€€Therefore,€Ô_Ôregardless€ofÔ_Ԁwhat€is€done€on€Forest€Service€lands,€the€project€area€could€not€beĪrestored€to€a€roadless,€natural€setting€as€desired€by€some€publics.€ĖĖo€€ō ōExpand€and€Improve€Facilities€At€The€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀRecreation€Areaķ ķ€Đ Ā!h" ĐSome€Ô_ÔGMNFÔ_Ԁstaff€identified€opportunities€to€expand€facilities€at€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€to€accommodate€largeĪrecreation€vehicles,€including€waste€disposal€facilities.€They€also€identified€opportunities€to€expand€campsites€andĪshelters€to€attract€and€accommodate€large€groups.€ĖĖThis€alternative€was€not€carried€forward€as€our€publics€clearly€stated€their€desire€to€retain€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ÔĪRecreation€Area€as€a€low€density,€relatively€undeveloped€recreation€area.€€Based€on€this€response€and€ourĪexperience,€we€feel€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€supplies€a€recreational€experience€not€found€on€other€public€or€private€lands.€ĪWe€also€feel€there€are€enough€highly€developed€campgrounds€and€recreation€sites€within€the€general€area€toĪaccommodate€individuals€seeking€a€more€developed€recreation€setting.€ĖĖĐ  č+)- ĐVI.ō ōā ° āōōEFFECTSķ ķķķ€Đ X ĐĖA.ā ° āō ōōōIntroductionķ ķķķ€-€An€Environmental€Assessment€must€include€a€discussion€of€the€environmental€Đ 4Ü Đā ° āÔ_ÔimpactsÔ_Ԁof€the€proposed€action€and€alternatives.€€This€discussion€should€provide€sufficient€Ėā ° āevidence€and€analysis€for€determining€whether€to€prepare€an€Environmental€Impact€Statement€or€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔaÔ_ԀFinding€of€No€Significant€Impact.€€However,€the€discussion€of€effects€does€not€need€to€be€as€ĖĖā ° āÔ_ÔdetailedÔ_Ԁas€in€an€Environmental€Impact€Statement.€ĖĖB.ā ° āō ōōōThere€are€three€categories€of€effects€which€must€be€discussed€in€an€EAķ ķķķ€Đ Ŧ T  Đā ° āĖā ° ā1.ā  āōōDirect€Effectķķ€-€effects€caused€by€the€action€which€occur€at€the€same€time€and€place.€40€C.F.R.€Đ ˆ 0  Đā ° āā  ā1508.8.€ĖĖā ° āā  āe.g.€-€visual€impacts€from€clearcutting€stands€2,€12€and€16.€ĖĖā ° ā2.ā  āōōIndirect€Effectsķķ€-€effects€caused€by€the€action€which€are€later€in€time€or€farther€removed€in€Đ $Ė Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔdistanceÔ_Ô,€but€are€still€reasonably€foreseeable.€40€C.F.R.€1508.8.€ĖĖā ° āā  āe.g.€-€clearcutting€stands€2,€12€and€16€will€result€in€more€browse€which€will€result€in€an€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔincreaseÔ_Ԁin€the€deer€population.€ĖĖā ° ā3.ā  āōōCumulative€Effectsķķ€-€the€effect€on€the€environment€which€results€from€the€incremental€affect€of€€Đ ŦT Đā ° āā  āthe€action€when€added€to€other€past,€present€and€reasonably€foreseeable€actions€regardless€of€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwhatÔ_Ԁagency€(federal€or€non-federal)€or€person€undertakes€such€other€actions.€€Cumulative€Ėā ° āā  āimpacts€can€result€from€individually€minor€but€collectively€significant€actions€taking€place€over€a€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔperiodÔ_Ԁof€time.€€40€C.L7.R.€1508.7.€ĖĖā ° āā  āe.g.€-€potential€water€quality€effects€of€clearcutting€stands€2,€12€and€16,€along€with€the€water€Ėā ° āā  āquality€effects€from€previous€cutting€in€stands€24,€32,€and€43.€ĖĖC.ā ° āō ōōōProject€Level€Proposals€and€Site€Specific€Effectsķ ķķķ€-€This€training€focuses€on€project€level€proposals€Đ ø  Đā ° āÔ_ÔasÔ_Ԁopposed€to€programmatic€decisions.€€When€project€level€proposals€are€analyzed,€Ô_ÔsiteÔ_Ԁspecificā (# āĐ č  Đā ° āanalysis€must€occur.€€What€is€meant€by€site€specific€analysis?€ĖĖā ° ā1.ā  āōōWith€site€specific€analysis,€do€the€effects€of€the€proposed€action€have€to€be€explained€on€a€stand-Đ Ŧ"T # Đķķā ° āā  āōōÔ_Ôby-standÔ_Ԁbasis?ķķ€-€e.g.,€do€you€have€to€discuss€the€effects€of€the€timber€sale€on€the€soil€of€stand€1,€Đ ˜#@!$ Đā ° āā  āand€the€effects€of€the€timber€sale€on€the€soil€of€stand€2€etc.,€or€can€just€the€overall€effects€on€the€Ėā ° āā  āsoil€in€the€area€in€general€be€discussed?€ĖĖThe€answer€to€this€question€depends€on€the€individual€resource€and€the€issue.€€If€the€soils€of€stand€Ô_Ô1Ô_Ԁare€differentĪthan€the€soils€of€stand€2€and€thus€the€proposed€action€and€alternatives€will€result€in€different€effects€on€the€soilsĪof€the€individual€stands,€each€stand€should€be€discussed€separately.€€For€example,€if€stand€Ô_Ô1Ô_Ԁhas€a€soil€with€a€highĪerosion€potential€and€stand€2€has€a€soil€with€low€erosion€potential,€and€both€stands€will€be€clearcut,€the€effects€onĪthe€soils€of€each€stand€will€be€different€and€should€be€discussed€separately.€€However,€if€the€stands€areĪhomogeneous€in€that€Ô_Ôthey€bothÔ_Ԁhave€the€same€erosion€potential,€both€stands€may€be€discussed€together€in€theĪassessment€of€soil€effects.€Đ  Đ,x*. Đā ° ā2.ā  āōōWith€site€specific€analysis,€does€the€individual€specialist€have€to€conduct€site€specific€surveys€in€Đ X Đķķā ° āā  āōōÔ_ÔorderÔ_Ԁto€adequately€assess€the€environmental€effects€of€the€proposed€action€and€alternatives?ķķ€€For€Đ Dė Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔexampleÔ_Ô,€does€the€fisheries€expert€have€to€conduct€studies€of€the€streams€in€the€area?€ĖĖā ° āā  āThe€answer€to€this€question€depends€on€what€level€of€analysis€the€individual€resource€specialist€is€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔcomfortableÔ_Ԁwith€and€what€level€of€analysis€is€considered€adequate€in€his€or€her€profession.€€For€Ėā ° āā  āexample,€if€it€is€generally€accepted€among€fisheries€biologists€that€the€only€way€to€adequately€Ėā ° āā  āassess€environmental€effects€on€fish€is€to€do€intensive€site€specific€surveys€of€individual€streams,€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔthenÔ_Ԁthe€fisheries€biologist€should€do€a€site€specific€survey.€ĖĖā ° āā  āBut€what€if€the€particular€stream€has€characteristics€very€similar€to€other€streams€in€the€area,€and€€Ėā ° āā  āthe€fisheries€biologist€has€studied€these€other€streams€and€has€determined€that€with€mitigation€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmeasuresÔ_Ô,€other€similar€timber€sales€have€not€resulted€in€adverse€effects€to€fish?€€The€fisheries€Ėā ° āā  ābiologist€might€then€feel€comfortable€with€just€stating€in€the€EA€that€the€stream€is€very€similar€to€Ėā ° āā  āother€streams€in€the€area€where€no€effects€to€fish€from€timber€harvesting€have€occurred€when€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmitigationÔ_Ԁmeasures€are€employed.€€By€analogy€then,€the€fisheries€biologist€could€conclude€Ėā ° āā  āwithout€doing€any€sort€of€site€specific€survey,€that€the€fish€in€this€particular€stream€will€not€be€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔaffectedÔ_Ԁby€the€timber€harvest.€ĖĖD.ā ° āō ōōōThe€Role€of€Issues€in€the€Effects€Sectionķ ķķķ€-€Scoping€is€done€to€identify€the€major€issues€related€to€Đ Ü„ Đā ° āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁproposed€action€and€to€help€narrow€the€scope€of€the€effects€section.€€If€we€didn't€scope€andā (# āĐ Ėt Đā ° āidentify€the€major€issues,€potentially€every€conceivable€environmental€effect€would€have€to€be€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdiscussedÔ_Ԁin€depth€in€the€effects€section.€€By€identifying€the€major€issues,€the€effects€section€can€be€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔnarrowedÔ_Ԁto€discuss€in€depth€only€the€major€issues€raised€during€scoping.€ĖĖā ° āA€common€question€often€asked€Ô_ÔisÔ_Ô:€€To€what€extent€must€we€evaluate€the€effects€on€resources€that€Ėā ° āwere€not€raised€as€issues€by€the€public?€For€example,€if€the€public€was€not€concerned€about€the€Ėā ° āeffects€of€timber€harvesting€on€soils€and€water,€must€the€effects€of€the€timber€harvest€on€the€soils€and€Ėā ° āwater€in€the€area€be€discussed€in€the€effects€section?€€The€answer€is€yes.€€Soils€and€water€are€basic€Ėā ° ānatural€resources€which€Forest€Service€managers€should€be€concerned€about.€Therefore,€an€EA€Ėā ° āshould€include€a€discussion€of€the€effects€of€the€timber€harvest€on€soils€and€water€in€the€area.€ĖĖā ° āThe€nature€of€the€resource€and€the€particular€conditions€at€the€site€will€determine€the€depth€of€Ėā ° āanalysis€necessary€in€the€Effects€section.€€For€example,€two€areas€may€contain€vastly€different€soil€Ėā ° āconditions.€€In€one€area,€with€higher€erosion€potential,€steeper€slopes,€etc.,€the€effects€section€would€Ėā ° āneed€to€go€into€more€depth€than€in€an€area€that€does€not€raise€a€similar€level€of€concern€for€either€the€Ėā ° āpublic€or€Forest€Service€managers.€ĖĖE.ā ° āō ōōōHow€to€Write€the€Effects€Sectionķ ķķķ€Đ d% #& ĐĖā ° ā1.ā  āDivide€the€section€into€resources€(soil€and€water)€or€categories€(social,€lifestyle)€based€on€issues€Đ @'č$( Đā ° āā  āspecific€to€the€scope€of€the€analysis.€ĖĖā ° ā2.ā  āWithin€each€section,€describe€briefly€(in€one€paragraph)€the€area€in€its€current€state€(the€affected€Đ *Ŧ'+ Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔenvironmentÔ_Ԁor€existing€condition).€Đ  đ*˜(, Đā ° ā3.ā  āDiscuss€how€the€implementation€of€the€proposed€action€and€each€alternative€might€affect€the€area€Đ X Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwithoutÔ_Ԁthe€use€of€mitigation€measures.€(Begin€with€Forest€Plan€standards€and€guidelines.)€ĖĖā ° ā4.ā  āDiscuss€the€mitigation€measures€and€how€the€implementation€of€the€proposed€action€and€each€Đ Ä Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔalternativeÔ_Ԁwill€affect€the€area€with€the€use€of€mitigation€measures.€€It€is€important€to€distinguishŧā ° āā  āĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔbetweenÔ_Ԁproven€mitigation€and€speculative€mitigation.€ĖĖā ° āā  āā ` āā ¸ ā€€ō ōā  āōōSample€Outlineķ ķķķ€Đ ¸ ` Đā ° āĖā ° āI.ā  āSoilsā ` āā ¸ āĐ ” <  Đā ° āā  āA.ā ` āAffected€Environmentā Ā āā  āĐ € (  Đā ° āā  āB.ā ` āEffect€of€Proposed€Actionā Ā āā  āā p āā Č āĐ l   Đā ° āā  āā ` ā1.ā ¸ āwithout€mitigation€measuresā  āā p āā Č āā  āĐ X  Đā ° āā  āā ` ā2.ā ¸ āwith€specific€mitigation€measuresā p āā Č āĐ Dė  Đā ° āā  āC.ā ` āEffect€of€Alternative€1ā Ā āā  āā p āā Č āĐ 0Ø  Đā ° āā  āā ` ā1.ā ¸ āwithout€mitigation€measuresā  āā p āā Č āā  āĐ Ä Đā ° āā  āā ` ā2.ā ¸ āwith€mitigation€measuresā  āā p āĐ ° Đā ° āā  āD.ā ` āEffect€of€Alternative€2ā Ā āā  āā p āā Č āĐ ôœ Đā ° āā  āā ` ā1.ā ¸ āwithout€mitigation€measuresā  āā p āā Č āā  āĐ āˆ Đā ° āā  āā ` ā2.ā ¸ āwith€mitigation€measuresā  āā p āĐ Ėt Đā ° āā  āE.ā ` āEffect€of€Alternative€3ā Ā āā  āā p āā Č āĐ ¸` Đā ° āā  āā ` ā1.ā ¸ āwithout€mitigation€measuresā  āā p āā Č ā€€Đ ¤L Đā ° āā  āā ` ā2.ā ¸ āwith€mitigation€measuresā  āā p āĐ 8 Đā ° āā  āF.ā ` ā€Cumulative€effectsā h āā Ā āā  āā p āĐ |$ Đā ° āā  āā ` ā1.ā ¸ āProposed€Actionā Ā āā  āā p āā Č āĐ h Đā ° āā  āā ` ā2.ā ¸ āAlternative€1ā h āā Ā āā  āā p āĐ Tü Đā ° āā  āā ` ā3.ā ¸ āAlternative€2ā h āā Ā āā  āā p āĐ @č Đā ° āā  āā ` ā4.ā ¸ āAlternative€3€Đ ,Ô ĐĖF.ā ° āō ōōōMitigation€Measuresķ ķķķ€Đ Ŧ ĐĖā ° ā1.ā  āReference€Forest€Plan€standards€to€be€applied€to€the€project.€€Highlight€significant€standards€and€Đ āˆ  Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔexplainÔ_Ԁtheir€applicability.€ĖĖā ° ā2.ā  āDiscuss€any€additional€mitigation€measures€to€be€applied€to€the€project.€Đ ¤"L # ĐĖā ° ā3.ā  āDistinguish€between€proven€mitigation€(best€management€practices)€and€new€mitigation€Đ |$$"% Đā ° āā  ā(something€unique€to€this€project€or€alternative,€often€in€response€to€some€unique€action€or€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔissueÔ_Ô).€ĖĖā ° ā4.ā  āWhen€doing€an€EIS,€a€complete€mitigation€plan€must€be€discussed.€€However,€the€mitigation€plan€Đ ,(Ô%) Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔneedÔ_Ԁnot€be€implemented.€€Contrarily,€when€doing€an€EA,€mitigation€measures€must€be€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔimplementedÔ_Ԁif€the€agency€relies€on€such€measures€to€make€a€Finding€of€No€Significant€Impact.€€Ėā ° āā  āIf€this€is€the€case,€the€mitigation€measures€should€be€part€of€the€alternatives.€Đ  đ*˜(, ĐG.ā ° āō ōōōHelpful€Hintsķ ķķķ€Đ X ĐĖā ° āā  ā1.€The€Effects€section€should€not€merely€be€a€listing€of€the€mitigation€measures.€€There€should€be€Ėā ° āā  āsome€discussion€of€the€effects€of€the€proposed€action€or€alternatives€with€and€without€the€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmitigationÔ_Ԁmeasures.€ĖĖā ° ā2.ā  āSimilarly,€the€Effects€section€should€not€merely€cite€the€Forest€Plan€standards€and€state€that€there€Đ äŒ Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔisÔ_Ԁno€effect€since€the€proposal€is€in€compliance€with€these€standards.€€There€needs€to€be€a€specific€Ėā ° āā  ādiscussion€of€the€types€of€effects€that€could€occur€as€a€result€of€the€proposed€action€and€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔalternativesÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° āā  āThe€following€is€an€example€of€an€entire€Ô_ÔsoilsÔ_Ԁsection€in€an€EA.€This€is€an€example€of€ōōwhat€not€Đ € (  Đķķā ° āā  āōōÔ_ÔtoÔ_Ԁdo.€Đ l   ĐķķĖā ° āā  āōōExample€of€What€Not€To€Doķķ€Đ Dė  Đā ° āā  āđ đTimber€Effects€on€Soil€Erosionđđ€-€đ đThe€standards€and€guidelines€approved€in€the€Forest€Plan€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔrespondÔ_Ԁto€soil€erosion,€stream€siltation,€and€increased€runoff€concerns.€€The€amount€of€timber€Ėā ° āā  ācutting,€and€therefore,€the€alternatives€do€not€affect€soil€erosion,€stream€siltation€and€runoff€that€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwillÔ_Ԁoccur€in€the€opportunity€area.đđ€ĖĖā ° ā3.ā  āFocus€on€the€issues!€€The€Effects€section€doesn't€have€to€be€long€if€the€discussion€of€effects€is€Đ Ėt Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔfocusedÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° ā4.ā  āThe€decisionmaker€should€not€make€a€Finding€of€No€Significant€Impact€if€in€fact€the€Effects€Đ 8 Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔsectionÔ_Ԁstates€that€there€will€be€significant€impacts€from€implementing€the€selected€alternative.€ĖĖā ° ā5.ā  āUse€maps€to€display€the€locations€of€activities€and€relationships€to€other€resources€and€activities.€Đ Tü ĐĖā ° ā6.ā  āUse€tables€to€display€and€compare€effects.€Đ ,Ô ĐĖā ° ā7.ā  āDo€not€forget€to€consider€the€effects€the€proposed€action€will€have€on€the€following€if€they€are€Đ Ŧ Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔrelevantÔ_Ԁto€your€situation:€ĖĖā ° āā  ā-wetlands€Ėā ° āā  ā-floodplains€Ėā ° āā  ā-threatened€and€endangered€species€Ėā ° āā  ā-cultural€resources€ĖĖH.ā0 ° āō ōōōHow€Ô_Ôto€DoÔ_Ԁa€Cumulative€Effects€Analysisķ ķķķ€-€The€cumulative€effects€analysis€should€be€done€for€eachĐ d% #& Đresource€separately.€€For€each€resource,€take€the€following€steps:€Đ °€%°€% ĐĖā ° ā1.ā0  āDefine€the€scope€of€your€analysis,€i.e.,€over€what€area€will€you€assess€the€effects€of€the€past,Đ ,(Ô%) Đpresent€and€reasonably€foreseeable€actions?€€The€scope€of€the€analysis€will€depend€on€the€issue.€ĪFor€example,€if€the€issue€is€the€effects€on€a€given€deer€herd,€the€area€in€which€you€will€assess€theĪeffects€of€the€past,€present€and€reasonably€foreseeable€actions€on€the€deer€herd€would€be€theĪherd's€home€range.€€If€the€issue€is€the€water€quality€of€the€main€tributary€of€a€watershed,€the€areaĪto€be€assessed€is€the€watershed.€Đ Č,p*.€%€% Đā ° ā2.ā0  āAssess€the€effects€of€the€past€actions€on€the€resource€in€the€area€defined€in€the€first€step.€€HowĐ X Đhave€past€actions€(both€federal€and€private)€affected€the€resource?€Đ €%€% ĐĖā ° ā3.ā0  āAssess€how€other€present€actions€(both€federal€and€non-federal)€will€be€affecting€the€resource€inĐ Ä ĐÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁarea.€Đ €%€% ĐĖā ° ā4.ā0  āAssess€how€the€reasonably€foreseeable€actions€(both€federal€and€non-federal)€will€affect€theĐ āˆ Đresource€in€the€area.€Đ €%€% ĐĖā ° ā5.ā0  āAdd€the€effects€of€the€past€actions,€other€present€actions€and€reasonably€foreseeable€futureĐ ¤ L  Đactions.€Đ €%€% ĐĖā ° ā6.ā0  āAssess€the€incremental€impact€of€your€proposed€action€on€the€resource,€Ô_Ôi.e.Ô_Ԁwhen€the€effect€ofĐ h   Đyour€proposed€action€is€added€to€the€combined€effects€of€the€past,€other€present€and€reasonablyĪforeseeable€future€actions,€will€there€be€a€significant€cumulative€impact€on€the€resource?€Đ €%€% ĐĖā0 ° āCumulative€effects€is€one€of€ten€basic€Ô_ÔcriterionÔ_Ԁin€determining€whether€there€may€be€significant€effects.€€ItĪis€essential€that€this€section€be€complete€and€professionally€sound.€Đ Ŧ°€%°€% ĐCUMULATIVE€EFFECTS€ANALYSIS€Graphic(sent€hard€copy€-€did€not€scan)ĖĐ  Dė Đō ōĶ  ĶSOIL€&€WATER€EFFECTS€WRITE-UP€EXAMPLE€€Đ X ĐōōLAMB€BROOK€ENVIRONMENTAL€ASSESSMENTķķ€Đ Dė ĐĶ  Ķķ ķĖō ōAffected€Environmentķ ķ€Đ Ä ĐĖCharacteristics€of€soils€in€the€project€area,€including€suitability€for€various€development€activities,€are€describedĪin€the€Ecological€Ô_ÔLandtypeÔ_Ԁ(Ô_ÔELTÔ_Ô)€Report€for€the€Manchester€Ranger€District€(1988).€€This€report€is€available€atĪthe€District€office€and€is€incorporated€herein€by€reference.€ĖĖThree€basic€types€of€soils€occur€in€the€project€area.€€These€soils€are€described€below.€€All€soils€have€Ô_Ôa€high€ruttingĪpotentialÔ_Ô.€€The€erosion€hazard€for€all€soils€is€moderate€when€soils€are€dry,€and€high€when€the€soils€are€wet€in€theĪspring€or€during€extended€periods€of€rainfall.€ĖĖÔ_ÔRawsonvilleÔ_Ԁand€Ô_ÔHogbackÔ_Ԁsoils€(Ô_ÔELTÔ_Ԁ702b)€occur€on€upper€ridges€and€peaks€in€the€project€area.€€Slopes€areĪsteep€going€up€to€50€percent.€€The€soils€are€normally€well€drained€and€stable€for€all€but€the€wettest€seasons.€ĖĖÔ_ÔRawsonvilleÔ_Ԁand€Ô_ÔHoughtonvilleÔ_Ԁsoils€(Ô_ÔELTÔ_Ԁ705b)€occur€on€mid€to€upper€side€slopes€in€the€project€area.€€SlopesĪrange€from€10€to€50€percent.€€The€soils€are€normally€well€drained€and€stable€for€all€but€the€wettest€seasons.€ĖĖÔ_ÔMundalÔ_Ԁsoils€(Ô_ÔELTÔ_Ԁ703d)€occur€on€the€lower€side€slopes.€€These€soils€are€poorly€drained€reducing€their€ability€toĪsupport€heavy€equipment.€€The€soils€are€easily€compacted,€often€muddy€and€are€highly€erosive.€€These€soils€rarelyĪdry€out€Ô_ÔexceptÔ_Ԁduring€the€driest€summer€periods.€ĖĖThe€project€area€is€drained€by€several€small€perennial€streams€all€of€which€are€tributaries€to€the€Deerfield€river.€ĪAll€streams€are€moderate€to€fast€flowing.€Water€quality€data€are€limited€to€field€observations.€€The€streams€runĪclear,€are€well€shaded,€and€support€native€trout€populations€and€abundant€diverse€benthic€organisms.€€WaterĪtemperature€in€July€remains€in€the€mid-50€degrees€Fahrenheit,€with€some€seeps€in€the€upper€Ô_Ô40€degreeÔ_Ԁrange.€€AllĪstreams€are€designated€as€Class€B€waters€by€the€State€of€Vermont.€€This€means€that€these€waters€are€managed€Ô_ÔsoĪas€toÔ_Ԁbe€suitable€for€bathing€and€recreational€uses,€and€is€acceptable€as€a€public€water€supply€with€filtration€andĪdisinfection.€€The€project€area€is€not€in€a€municipal€watershed.€ĖĖÔ_ÔMedburyÔ_ԀBrook€was€inventoried€in€1992€to€collect€data€on€the€physical€characteristics€of€the€watershed€andĪcurrent€fish€habitat€conditions€(see€also€Fisheries€section).€€This€stream€is€similar€to€other€streams€in€the€area€inĪsize,€topography,€channel€geomorphology€and€drainage€area.€€The€stream€channel€is€moderately€entrenched€andĪwell€confined.€€Bank€erosion€and€sedimentation€are€normal€for€this€type€stream.€€The€stream€channel€isĪcharacterized€by€steep€gradients€with€a€pool/cascade€configuration.€€The€upper€reaches€contain€many€bedrockĪchutes€and€cascades.€€There€is€more€large€woody€material€in€the€lower€reaches,€and€fewer€pieces€upstream.€€TheĪsecond€growth€riparian€vegetation€that€borders€the€stream€provides€a€good€canopy€to€maintain€cold€waterĪtemperatures€and€adequate€Ô_ÔfilterstripsÔ_Ԁfor€good€water€quality.€ĖĖĐ  <'ä$( Đō ōEffects€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€Đ X Đķ ķĖā ° āō ōProposed€Actionķ ķ€Đ 0Ø ĐĖBased€upon€historical€evidence€and€Ô_Ôpast€experienceÔ_Ԁin€working€on€soil€types€which€occur€in€the€project€area,Īconstructing€and€using€the€proposed€landings,€roads,€skid€trails,€and€recreation€trails€without€mitigation€such€asĪdraining€or€hardening€the€surface€soils€and€implementing€other€erosion€control€measures,€would€cause€rutting,Īcompaction,€muddy€soils,€loss€of€soil,€and€stream€sedimentation.€€Compaction€from€logging€equipment€wouldĪreduce€soil€productivity€on€Ô_ÔtravelledÔ_Ԁsurfaces€for€about€ten€years.€€Erosion€on€travelways,€if€not€corrected,€wouldĪimpair€the€long€term€soil€productivity.€€Off-site€sedimentation€would€result€in€siltation€of€Ô_ÔstreambedsÔ_Ԁwhich€couldĪadversely€affect€aquatic€life.€ĖĖThe€proposed€vistas€and€wildlife€openings,€without€mitigation,€would€also€create€effects€as€previously€described.€ĪHowever,€cleared€areas€would€Ô_ÔrevegetateÔ_Ԁquickly,€keeping€the€adverse€impacts€to€a€minimum.€ĖĖVarious€standards€and€guidelines€have€been€successfully€employed€to€reduce€or€eliminate€potential€adverseĪeffects€of€timber€harvest€activities,€road€building,€and€trail€construction€on€the€soil€and€water€resources.€€Many€ofĪthese€standards€and€guidelines€would€be€employed€on€this€project.€€Also,€Vermont's€Acceptable€ManagementĪPractices€(AMP3)€would€also€be€followed.€Research€has€repeatedly€demonstrated€that€when€Ô_ÔAMPsÔ_Ԁare€applied,Īnegative€effects€on€water€quality€can€be€minimized€(Ô_ÔBrynnÔ_Ԁand€Clausen,€1991;€USDA€Forest€Service,€USDA€SoilĪConservation€Service,€and€State€of€Vermont,€1982).€ĖĖThe€standards€and€guidelines€applicable€to€the€proposed€activities€are€described€on€pages€4.19€through€4.26€ofĪthe€Forest€Plan.€€The€following€describes€how€some€of€the€more€important€standards€and€guidelines€Ô_Ôwould€beĪusedÔ_Ԁand€how€they€would€work€in€limiting€erosion€and€sedimentation.€ĖĖStands€falling€primarily€within€Ô_ÔELTsÔ_Ԁ703d,€702b,€and€013b€would€be€logged€when€the€ground€is€frozen.€ĪMitigation€Measure€D€in€Appendix€B€lists€the€stands€for€which€logging€on€frozen€ground€is€recommended.€€InĪaddition,€temporarily€stopping€harvest€activities€due€to€thaws,€using€hay€bale€check€dams€at€the€outlets€of€streamĪcrossing€structures€(during€both€construction€and€use),€and€reversing€grades€on€skid€trails€are€other€mitigationĪmeasures€that€would€be€implemented.€ĖĖBased€on€many€years€of€experience,€the€Forest€Service€has€found€that€logging€on€frozen€ground€greatly€reducesĪerosion,€sedimentation,€and€compaction€because€frozen€soils€do€not€easily€Ô_Ôerode€or€compactÔ_Ô.€€The€Soil€ScientistĪobserved€this€during€the€winters€of€1991€and€1992€on€the€Green€Mountain€National€Forest€timber€sales€BrandonĪBrook,€Ô_ÔChittendenÔ_ԀBrook€II,€and€French€Hollow€Brook.€Also€in€1992,€Forest€Service€resource€specialistsĪobserved€that€logging€on€frozen€ground€was€effective€in€keeping€erosion,€compaction€and€rutting€to€a€minimumĪon€the€Dragon€Brook€Sale.€€Soils€in€this€sale€area€are€similar€to€those€in€the€Lamb€Brook€area.€ĖĖThe€Soil€Scientist€also€observed€that€limited€erosion€and€compaction€does€occur€during€winter€or€spring€thaws,Īand€in€summer.€€However,€if€erosion€control€Ô_ÔstructuresÔ_Ԁsuch€as€water€bars€and€hay€bales€are€in€place€before€theĪsoils€freeze,€they€are€effective€in€controlling€water€runoff,€and€thus€erosion€and€sedimentation,€in€the€spring.€ĪThese€practices€would€be€implemented€in€each€alternative€that€includes€stands€to€be€logged€on€frozen€ground.€Đ  )ŧ&* ĐSome€soil€compaction€may€still€occur€on€skid€trails,€especially€those€used€during€snow€free€months,€resulting€in€aĪtemporary€reduction€in€productivity.€ĖĖAlso€in€these€stands,€one€additional€mitigating€measure€would€be€used€on€skid€trail€sections€that€do€not€Ô_Ôtend€toĪremainÔ_Ԁfrozen.€€These€sections€would€be€ditched€to€drain€water€from€skid€trail€surfaces€if€a€firm€skid€trail€surfaceĪcannot€be€maintained.€€This€would€allow€the€travelway€to€freeze€more€readily€and€would€reduce€the€potential€forĪrutting€and€subsequent€soil€loss.€ĖĖCulverts,€bridges,€or€temporary€crossing€structures€would€be€used€on€skid€trails,€road,€and€snowmobile€trails€toĪreduce€soil€loss€and€sedimentation€that€could€result€from€equipment€crossing€streams.€€There€is€likely€to€be€aĪsmall€amount€of€soil€loss€and€sedimentation€as€these€structures€are€installed€or€removed.€€Hay€bale€check€damsĪhave€been€used€successfully€in€the€past€to€control€sediment€movement€and€would€be€used€in€the€Lamb€BrookĪarea.€€Any€approaches€leading€downhill€to€a€stream€crossing€would€be€seeded€and€mulched€after€use.€ĖĖThe€treatments€planned€for€Compartment€113,€Ô_ÔstandÔ_Ԁ11;€Compartment€124,€stands€2,€3,€4,€and€Ô_Ô5Ô_Ô;€CompartmentĪ181,€stands€29€and€30;€Ô_ÔandÔ_ԀCompartment€182,€stands€13€and€14,€do€not€require€the€use€of€heavy€equipment€soĪthere€would€be€no€significant€effect€from€these€activities€on€soils.€ĖĖThe€proposed€new€section€of€the€Corridor€9€snowmobile€trail€crosses€Ô_ÔRawsonvilleÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔHogbackÔ_Ô,€and€Ô_ÔHoughtonvilleÔ_ÔĪsoils.€€Forest€Plan€standards€and€guidelines€(page€4.25),€such€as€Ô_ÔwaterbarsÔ_Ԁand€trail€locations€running€diagonallyĪacross€hillsides€or€located€on€side€hills,€ridges€or€other€convex€topography,€have€proven€to€work€veryĪsuccessfully€for€many€years€on€trails€crossing€soils€much€like€those€in€the€Lamb€Brook€area.€€Another€mitigatingĪmeasure,€side€ditching,€has€been€successfully€used€in€similar€soil€conditions€on€Corridors€7A,€74,€and€75€in€theĪÔ_ÔChittendenÔ_Ô,€Vermont€area€to€provide€a€firm€trail€surface€where€groundwater€is€encountered€during€construction.€ĪThis€helps€to€control€erosion€and€would€be€used€on€the€Corridor€9€construction€and€reconstruction.€ĖĖThe€proposed€extension€of€FR266€is€located€primarily€in€Ô_ÔMundalÔ_Ԁsoils.€€This€extension€would€result€in€some€localĪsoil€movement€during€construction,€but€hay€bale€check€dams,€equipment€stoppage€during€wet€weather,€andĪÔ_ÔrevegetationÔ_Ԁwould€be€effective€in€preventing€soil€loss€and€sedimentation.€€Because€the€FR266€extension€wouldĪhave€ditches€and€cross€drains,€and€would€be€used€only€during€periods€when€the€ground€is€frozen,€there€would€beĪno€significant€impact€to€soils€from€the€use€of€the€road.€ĖĖThe€intent€of€these€mitigating€measures€is€to€maintain€a€firm€travel€surface€which€would€prevent€muddiness,Īerosion,€and€sedimentation.€€By€extending€FR266€into€Compartment€123,€the€length€of€skid€trails€required€toĪremove€timber€from€this€area€would€be€reduced.€€With€a€firm€travel€surface€on€FR266€and€reduced€skidding,€theĪoverall€amount€of€erosion€or€sedimentation€likely€to€occur€would€be€greatly€reduced.€ĖĖImplementing€mitigation€measures€such€as€ditching,€crowning,€hay€bale€check€dams,€and€Ô_Ôprompt€re-seedingÔ_ÔĪwould€prevent€significant€erosion€or€sedimentation€from€the€Route€8€parking€lot€construction.€ĖĖā ° āō ōNo€Action€Alternativeķ ķ€Đ 8'ā$( ĐĖWith€or€without€mitigation€measures,€the€Ô_ÔNo€Action€Alternative€proposes€noÔ_Ԁground€disturbing€activities.€ĪTherefore,€there€would€be€no€effects€on€soils.€ĖĖā ° āō ōAlternative€Cķ ķ€Đ Ø+€)- ĐĖThe€effects€of€implementing€the€activities€proposed€in€Alternative€C€would€be€similar€to€those€of€the€ProposedĐ ´-\+/ ĐAction€except€that€there€would€be€no€logging€in€the€Ô_ÔMedburyÔ_ԀBrook€and€most€of€the€Wilder€Brook€watershedsĪand€the€1€Ô_Ô1Ô_Ô/3€mile€extension€of€FR266€would€not€be€constructed.€€As€a€result,€Ô_ÔMedburyÔ_ԀBrook€and€two€of€itsĪmain€tributaries€would€not€be€crossed€by€Ô_ÔskiddersÔ_Ԁthus€reducing€the€potential€for€minor€sedimentation€into€thoseĪbrooks.€€There€would€be€no€potential€for€minor€sedimentation€into€Wilder€Brook€and€its€tributaries€resulting€fromĪroad€construction€and€the€seven€streams€to€be€crossed.€€This€alternative€would€have€676€fewer€acres€than€theĪProposed€Action€impacted€by€timber€harvesting€and€logging€equipment€operation,€and€therefore,€there€would€beĪno€erosion€or€soil€compaction€on€these€acres.€ĖĖEffects€of€activities€in€the€remaining€areas€would€be€as€described€for€the€Proposed€Action.€ĖĖThis€alternative€would€result€in€less€potential€for€soil€loss€and€sedimentation€than€Alternative€D,€E,€or€theĪProposed€Action€but€more€than€the€No€Action€Alternative.€ĖĖā ° āō ōAlternative€DĐ Tü  Đķ ķ€Đ @č  ĐSince€this€alternative€requires€Ô_ÔbasicallyÔ_Ԁthe€same€road€and€skid€trail€system€as€Alternative€C,€with€or€withoutĪmitigating€measures,€the€effects€of€Alternative€D€would€be€very€similar€to€those€of€Alternative€C€in€all€areasĪexcept€in€Compartment€184,€stands€4,€8,€14,€15,€and€16€where€selection€harvests€would€be€done.€€In€theseĪstands,€there€could€be€minor€compaction€or€soil€loss€from€the€skid€trails€used€to€remove€trees€from€the€harvestedĪarea.€ĖĖThe€effects€on€soils€of€other€activities€proposed€in€this€alternative€would€be€similar€to€the€Proposed€Action.€ĖĖĖō ōķ ķā ° āō ōAlternative€Eķ ķ€Đ x  ĐĖAlthough€Ô_Ôsome€of€theÔ_Ԁsilvicultural€treatments€have€been€changed€from€shelterwood€cuts€to€clearcuts,€the€skidĪtrail€and€road€system€required€under€this€alternative€and€the€other€activities€proposed€in€this€alternative€are€theĪsame€as€the€Proposed€Action.€€Thus,€the€effects€of€this€alternative€on€soils€would€be€nearly€identical€to€thoseĪdisclosed€for€the€Proposed€Action.€ĖĖĐ  đ˜ Đō ōCumulative€Effects€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€Đ X Đķ ķĖAn€important€component€of€Ô_Ôa€cumulative€effectsÔ_Ԁanalysis€is€the€effects€of€actions€occurring€on€non-Forest€ServiceĪlands€within€the€identified€analysis€area.€ĖĖThere€are€many€small€parcels€of€privately€owned€land€within€the€Lamb€Brook€analysis€area.€€These€range€fromĪpermanent€Ô_ÔhomesitesÔ_Ԁof€less€than€one€acre€to€undeveloped€forested€tracts€of€500€or€more€acres.€€The€majority€ofĪsmall€parcels,€though,€are€small€10€to€80€acre€Ô_ÔhomesitesÔ_Ô,€camps,€or€undeveloped€forest€tracts.€€Many€of€these€areĪowned€by€non-residents.€€Very€few,€if€any,€ground-disturbing€activities€that€could€affect€Forest€Service€land€orĪcontribute€to€the€effects€of€proposed€Forest€Service€activities€occur€on€these€parcels.€ĖĖThe€majority€of€the€private€land€within€the€analysis€area,€numbering€in€the€thousands€of€acres,€is€owned€by€NewĪEngland€Power€Company€(Ô_ÔNEPCOÔ_Ô)€and€managed€as€commercial€forest€land.€€According€to€a€letter€and€mapsĪreceived€from€Ô_ÔNEPCOÔ_Ô,€the€lands€are€primarily€hardwoods€and€mixed€hardwood/softwood€stands€with€a€smallĪamount€of€red€pine.€€Management€has€a€variety€of€objectives€including€improving€the€quality,€growing€conditions,Īand€productivity€of€residual€stands€for€hardwood€and€softwood€sawtimber,€and€improving€wildlife€habitat€andĪspecies€diversity.€€Wildlife€habitat€management€is€accomplished€by€varying€the€intensity€of€harvest€and€usingĪsmall€patch€clearcuts€to€regenerate€desired€species.€€Thinnings€and€small€patch€clearcuts€are€the€primary€methodsĪused€to€achieve€these€objectives.€€Ô_ÔNEPCOÔ_Ԁis€scheduling€a€450€acre€tract€on€the€east€side€of€Compartment€182€toĪbe€managed€as€a€wildlife€management€unit€over€the€next€five€to€ten€years.€€They€have€indicated€thatĪapproximately€10€percent€of€the€unit€would€be€treated€annually€using€thinnings€and€small€patch€clearcuts€(lessĪthan€two€acres€in€size).€ĖĖAccess€to€Ô_ÔNEPCOÔ_Ԁlands€is€provided€by€an€old€railroad€grade,€old€town€roads,€and€old€logging€roads.€€TheirĪprimary€Ô_ÔroadingÔ_Ԁactivities€are€upgrades€to€these€existing€roadbeds€on€a€sale€by€sale€basis.€€They€indicated€thatĪroad€construction€is€planned€to€access€the€wildlife€management€unit€and€to€access€portions€of€areas€scheduled€forĪfuture€inventory.€€NEPCO€indicated€that€because€of€instances€of€unauthorized€access,€no€major€north-southĪconnector€road€would€be€built.€ĖĖNEPCO€follows€Vermont's€Acceptable€Management€Practices€when€planning€and€implementing€timberĪharvesting€activities,€and€the€application€of€these€standards€by€NEPCO€has€successfully€reduced€or€eliminatedĪadverse€effects€to€the€soil€and€water€in€the€area.€ĖĖThe€affected€area€for€the€analysis€of€the€cumulative€effects€on€soil€and€water€is€the€land€in€the€watersheds€ofĪMedbury,€Wilder,€Lamb,€Graves,€and€West€Branch€Brooks.€€There€may€have€been€some€soil€1033€orĪsedimentation€from€past€tilling€and€grazing,€but€no€evidence€of€this€exists.ā Č āGiven€the€relatively€gentle€slopes,€theĐ œ"D # Đlack€of€sediment€buildup€behind€stone€walls,€and€the€lack€of€evidence€that€the€thickness€of€the€surface€layer€of€theĪsoil€has€been€reduced€in€the€area€of€the€old€farmsteads,€it€is€likely€that€tilling€and€grazing€resulted€in€very€littleĪerosion€and€probably€had€little€lasting€effect€on€soils€or€streams€in€the€area.€ĖĖThere€is€evidence€of€soil€loss€resulting€from€roads€used€for€logging€that€occurred€while€the€land€was€still€privatelyĪowned€about€20€to€25€years€ago.€Some€sections€of€truck€roads€used€to€haul€logs€from€what€is€nowĪCompartments€124,€181,€and€182€have€eroded€due€to€the€lack€of€erosion€control€measures.€€In€addition,€the€OldĪStage€Road€has€eroded€due€many€years€of€use.€€It€is€likely€that€the€resulting€sedimentation€did,€at€leastĪtemporarily,€degrade€the€water€quality€in€Wilder€Brook€and€its€tributaries.€Đ  č*(, ĐComparing€Site€Index€measurements€(one€means€of€estimating€site€productivity)€taken€in€the€Lamb€Brook€area,Īand€comparing€them€with€Ô_ÔELTÔ_ԀSite€Index€data€from€vegetation€communities€on€similar€soils€elsewhere€on€theĪManchester€Ranger€District,€there€appears€to€have€been€no€significant€loss€of€soil€productivity€due€to€pastĪlogging€other€than€in€some€of€the€travelways.€€More€recently,€the€construction€of€the€steeper€sections€of€FR266Īapparently€caused€some€soil€loss.€ĖĖSome€of€these€existing€travelways€cannot€be€used€because€of€past€erosion€problems.€€New€skid€trails€would€beĪcreated€to€serve€the€areas€that€the€eroded€roads€and€trails€formerly€served.€€The€mitigation€measures€proposedĪwould€result€in€stable€skid€trails€and€other€travelways€that€would€allow€them€to€serve€as€a€travel€network€over€theĪlong€term.€€This€would€reduce€the€need€for€additional€travelway€construction€should€similar€activities€be€plannedĪin€the€foreseeable€future.€ĖĖThe€proposed€timber€harvest,€road,€trail,€and€parking€lot€construction€Ô_ÔisÔ_Ԁexpected€to€be€completed€within€three€toĪfive€years.€€Additional€timber€harvest€would€likely€occur€five€to€fifteen€years€after€the€first€harvest€to€remove€theĪresidual€shelterwood€overstory.€€Cutting€in€future€years€would€have€only€minor€short€term€effects€on€soilĪproductivity€and€water€quality€assuming€that€current€mitigation€measures€are€applied.€ĖĖBased€upon€field€observations€of€past€Ô_ÔroadÔ_Ԁand€trail€construction€and€logging€in€areas€similar€to€the€Lamb€BrookĪproject€area€watersheds,€the€long€term€productivity€and€water€quality€would€be€maintained€duringĪimplementation€of€the€proposed€activities.€€Combined€with€past€actions,€with€activities€occurring€on€adjacentĪprivate€lands,€and€with€foreseeable€future€actions,€no€significant€cumulative€effect€on€soil€and€water€qualityĪwould€occur.€Đ  ´\ Đō ōĶ  ĶFISHERIES€EFFECTS€WRITE-UP€EXAMPLE€Đ X ĐōōLAMB€BROOK€Ô_ÔENVIRONIMENTALÔ_ԀASSESSMENT€Đ Dė ĐĶ  Ķķ ķķķĖThere€were€no€fisheries€issues€raised€during€scoping€for€this€proposal.€However,€this€analysis€will€consider€theĪfisheries€resource€since€any€land€disturbing€activity€near€streams€has€the€potential€to€impact€Ô_Ôfish€habitatÔ_Ô.€ĖĖō ōAffected€Environment€Đ āˆ Đķ ķĖA€fish€habitat€inventory€was€conducted€in€Ô_ÔMedburyÔ_ԀBrook€in€July,€1992.€€A€review€of€these€data€indicatesĪaquatic€habitat€conditions€are€generally€good.€Although€the€stream€lacks€the€desired€percentage€of€pool€habitatĪand€number€of€quality€pools€historically€found€in€these€streams,€other€measurable€habitat€parameters€such€asĪsubstrate€Ô_ÔembeddednessÔ_Ô,€water€temperature,€and€healthy€stands€of€riparian€vegetation€for€shading€are€at€adequateĪlevels€for€production€habitats.€€Woody€material€in€the€stream€channel€is€also€below€historic€levels€and€as€such,Īreduces€the€overall€diversity€and€complexity€of€Ô_Ôaquatic€habitatÔ_Ԁin€the€stream.€€Ô_ÔStreamsideÔ_Ԁriparian€stands€have€notĪyet€reached€an€age€whereby€trees€and€woody€material€would€fall€into€the€channel€to€fully€restore€habitat€quality.€ĪOther€small€streams€in€this€Ô_ÔprojectsÔ_Ԁarea€show€similar€habitat€conditions.€€Refer€to€the€Soil€and€WaterĪenvironmental€Ô_ÔeffectsÔ_Ԁdiscussion€for€further€description€of€physical€stream€characteristics.€ĖĖFish€population€sampling€was€also€conducted€in€Ô_ÔMedburyÔ_ԀBrook€in€July,€1992€to€identify€the€species€inhabitingĪthe€stream€and€their€relative€abundance.€€The€only€species€of€fish€found€was€Brock€trout,€the€native€salmonidĪspecies€to€area€streams.€€The€fish€population€was€sampled€using€Ô_ÔelectrofishingÔ_Ԁequipment.€€A€limited€number€ofĪÔ_ÔtroutÔ_Ԁwere€captured€and€it€appears€the€population€is€relatively€low€in€comparison€to€Brock€trout€numbers€foundĪin€other€streams€on€the€Forest.€€The€cold€water€temperature€has€likely€contributed€to€maintaining€the€native€troutĪpopulation€and€limited€the€invasion€of€species€less€tolerant€of€cold€water€conditions.€€The€Deerfield€River€alsoĪsupports€a€Brook€trout€population€in€addition€to€other€species€such€as€White€sucker,€Ô_ÔBlacknoseÔ_Ԁdace,€Ô_ÔFallfishÔ_Ô,ĪSculpin€and€other€non-game€species.€€Stream€fishing€for€Brook€trout€is€an€important€recreational€activity€in€thisĪarea€and€throughout€the€State€of€Vermont.€€The€Brook€trout€is€considered€a€valuable€fishery€resource.€€HarrimanĪReservoir€also€provides€an€important€recreational€fishery€for€both€warm€and€cold€water€species€throughout€theĪopen€water€period€and€through€the€ice€as€well.€ĖĖō ōEffects€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€Đ ¨ Đķ ķĖō ōķ ķā ° āō ōProposed€Actionķ ķ€Đ Ø€  ĐĖManagement€activities€proposed€in€the€Proposed€Action€would€be€generally€confined€to€upland€areas€away€fromĪstreams€and€stream€corridors.€€Timber€harvesting,€skid€road€construction,€and€truck€road€reconstruction€wouldĪoccur€in€the€vicinity€of€Lamb,€Wilder,€and€Ô_ÔMedburyÔ_ԀBrooks,€but€with€the€exception€of€seven€stream€crossingsĪwith€specified€bridges,€none€of€these€activities€would€occur€within€the€stream€Ô_ÔfilterstripsÔ_Ô.€€The€Ô_ÔfilterstripsÔ_ԀareĪdesigned€to€prevent€siltation€of€the€streams€and€would€protect€the€soils's€infiltration€capacity€(Forest€Plan€pageĪ4.19).€Although€there€are€no€specific€data€from€past€practices€for€the€Lamb€Brook€area,€the€Ô_ÔfilterstripÔ_Ԁdesign€hasĪsuccessfully€prevented€silt€and€fine€sediment€from€reaching€Ô_ÔChittendenÔ_ԀBrook€on€the€Rochester€Ranger€District.€ĪÔ_ÔChittendenÔ_ԀBrook€and€Lamb€Brook€are€similar€sized€streams€in€similar€geologic/vegetative€conditions.€€ĖĖMonitoring€data€indicate€no€measurable€negative€effects€on€fish€spawning€and€rearing€habitat€in€Ô_ÔChittendenÔ_ÔĪBrook€resulting€from€the€Ô_ÔChittendenÔ_ԀBrook€Timber€Sale.€€In€addition,€fish€population€estimates€have€remained€atĪor€above€pre-sale€levels€three€years€after€implementation€of€timber€sale€operations.€ĖĖThe€shelterwood,€selection,€and€cultural€treatments€described€for€the€Proposed€Action€would€not€change€theĐ °-X+/ Đwater€temperatures€in€project€area€streams€or€result€in€any€other€Ô_ÔinstreamÔ_Ԁalterations€such€as€stream€bank€erosionĪbecause,€according€to€Forest€Plan€Standards€and€Guidelines,€none€of€these€activities€would€be€permitted€withinĪthe€Ô_ÔfilterstripÔ_Ԁof€these€streams.€€Where€stands€proposed€for€treatment€adjoin€riparian€vegetation,€a€canopy€ofĪtrees,€including€older€large€diameter€trees€with€a€50€to€75€percent€crown€closure€would€be€left€to€provide€shadeĪfor€maintaining€desirable€water€temperatures€for€fish€species€inhabiting€the€streams€(Forest€Plan€amendment€Ô_Ô6Ô_Ô,Īpage€4.73-2).€The€root€system€of€these€trees,€along€with€other€existing€vegetative€cover,€would€stabilize€streamĪbank€soils.€€Additionally,€the€stream€bank€(riparian)€vegetation€would€provide€a€future€source€of€large€woodyĪmaterial€needed€for€aquatic€habitat€diversity€and€complexity€(Forest€Plan€amendment€Ô_Ô6Ô_Ô,€page€4.73-1).€ĖĖMitigation€measures€described€in€the€Soil€and€Water€environmental€Ô_ÔeffectsÔ_Ԁsection€would€further€reduce€theĪpotential€for€erosion€and€sedimentation€and€would€also€protect€water€quality,€existing€fish€habitat€conditions,€andĪmaintain€the€integrity€of€the€stream€channel.€ĖĖō ōķ ķā ° āō ōNo€Action€Alternativeķ ķ€Đ Tü  ĐĖImplementation€of€the€Ô_ÔNo€Action€Alternative€would€result€in€noÔ_Ԁsignificant€impact€to€fishery€resources€in€theĪarea.€€Fish€habitat€conditions€would€Ô_Ôcontinue€to€remainÔ_Ԁin€their€current€condition.€€Streams€would€remain€shadedĪas€currently€exists€and€water€temperatures€within€the€range€for€native€species.€ĖĖā ° āō ōAlternative€Cķ ķ€Đ āˆ ĐĖThis€alternative€would€have€less€potential€for€adverse€impacts€to€fisheries€than€the€Proposed€Action€because€itĪwould€treat€fewer€acres€in€total€and€would€have€no€activities€in€Compartment€123€which€is€near€Ô_ÔMedburyÔ_ԀBrook.€ĖĖImplementation€of€this€alternative€would€result€in€no€adverse€effects€to€fisheries€due€to€application€of€Forest€PlanĪStandards€and€Guidelines€as€described€in€the€Proposed€Action.€ĖĖā ° āō ōAlternative€Dķ ķ€Đ Dė ĐĖThis€alternative€would€also€have€less€potential€for€adverse€impacts€to€fisheries€than€the€Proposed€Action€becauseĪit€would€treat€fewer€acres€in€total€and€would€have€no€activities€in€Compartment€123.€ĖĖImplementation€of€this€alternative€would€result€in€no€adverse€effects€to€fisheries€due€to€application€of€Forest€PlanĪStandards€and€Guidelines€as€described€in€the€Proposed€Action.€Đ  Đ x! Đā ° āō ōAlternative€Eķ ķ€Đ X ĐĖThis€alternative€proposes€treatments€similar€to€the€Proposed€Action€and€would€not€result€in€adverse€effects€toĪfishery€resources€in€the€area.€€Management€activities€would€be€located€in€upland€areas€away€from€streams,€andĪÔ_ÔfilterstripsÔ_Ԁwould€be€retained€in€the€riparian€corridor€to€maintain€water€quality€and€fish€habitat€in€the€streams.€ĖĖā ° āō ōCumulative€Effects€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternativesķ ķ€Đ äŒ ĐĖAs€previously€discussed,€the€entire€Deerfield€River€watershed€was€heavily€cut€in€the€1800's€prior€to€ForestĪService€management.€€Clearing€of€the€land€for€agricultural€uses,€road€construction,€timber€harvesting,€dammingĪrivers,€and€other€uses€has€undoubtedly€caused€degradation€of€fish€habitats.€€Although€substantial€time€has€passed,Īthe€aquatic€ecosystems€have€not€fully€recovered€from€these€activities.€€The€small€streams€found€in€the€proposedĪproject€area€are€beginning€to€recover€the€habitat€diversity€and€complexity€Ô_ÔtheyÔ_Ԁonce€had.€However,€full€recoveryĪis€still€many€years€away.€€The€key€to€the€successful€restoration€of€the€aquatic€systems€lies€in€the€protection€andĪenhancement€of€riparian€vegetation.€€This€vegetation,€once€recruited€to€the€streams,€will€provide€the€physical€andĪbiological€components€needed€to€restore€the€habitat€diversity€that€existed€historically€in€these€streams.€ĖĖThe€activities€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€each€of€the€alternatives€would€have€a€minimal€adverse€effect€on€theĪÔ_ÔfisheriesÔ_Ԁhabitat€and€the€probability€of€restoring€the€aquatic€conditions€in€the€area.€€Application€of€Forest€PlanĪStandards€and€Guidelines€for€fisheries€and€for€soil€and€water€would€ensure€the€integrity€of€Ô_ÔstreamsideÔ_Ԁvegetation.€ĪAll€future€management€activities€would€also€require€application€of€the€same€standards€and€guidelines.€€Therefore,Īadequate€stream€shading€would€be€retained,€and€erosion€and€sedimentation€would€be€minimized.€€Based€on€this,Īand€with€knowledge€of€past,€present€and€future€actions€in€the€watersheds,€there€would€be€no€adverse€cumulativeĪeffects€to€the€Ô_ÔfisheriesÔ_Ԁresource.€ĖĐ  €( ĐÔ_ÔĶ  ĶWILDLIFE€EFFECTS€WRITE-UP€EXAMPLEā @ āā @ āā @ āā @ āā @ āā @ āā @ āā @ āā @ āā @ āĖōōHAPGOOD€ENVIRONMENTAL€ASSESSMENTķķ€Đ Dė ĐĶ  ĶĖWILDLIFE€HABITAT/VEGETATION€MANAGEMENT€ĖĖProject€Specific€Wildlife€and€Vegetation€Issues€Deer€management,€and€wildlife/forest€fragmentation€were€raisedĪby€the€public€as€issues€appropriate€to€this€analysis.€€Specifically,€people€are€concerned€that€the€proposedĪmanagement€of€the€deer€winter€habitat€would€not€benefit€deer.€Others€are€concerned€the€construction€of€vistas,Īwildlife€openings,€roads,€trails€and€timber€harvesting€would€fragment€the€forest,€including€mature/old-growthĪhabitat,€create€excessive€edges€and€decrease€habitat€for€forest€interior€species€and€songbirds,€particularlyĪneo-tropical€migratory€songbirds.€€Though€not€raised€as€an€issue,€impacts€on€black€bear€habitat€is€also€describedĪdue€to€its€importance€in€Vermont.€ĖĖTo€address€these€issues,€wildlife€affects€are€assessed€as€they€relate€to€white-tailed€deer,€black€bear€and€birdĪspecies€diversity.€€Assessment€is€through€analysis€of€1)€changes€in€forest€age€class€distribution,€2)€changes€inĪvegetation€composition€and€3)€affects€of€human€disturbance€resulting€from€increased€roads,€trails€and€accessĪpoints/vistas.€€This€in€turn,€indicates€likely€impacts€on€specific€wildlife€species,€biological€diversity€andĪplant/animal€species€richness€as€related€to€NFMA€requirements.€ĖĖĖō ōAffected€Environment€Đ Čp Đķ ķThe€Green€Mountains€of€Vermont€are€predominantly€forested.€€In€1987,€approximately€76€percent€of€VermontĐ ´\ Đwas€forested,€with€only€17.7€percent€in€pasture€or€cropland,€and€4.6€percent€developed.€€The€amount€of€pastureĪin€Vermont€declined€by€22.4€percent€from€1982€to€1987€(U.S.D.A.€Soil€Conservation€Service,€1991).€€In€1983,ĪBennington€County€was€over€73€percent€forested,€while€Windham€County€exceeded€80€percent€forestedĪ(Salmon,€1992).€€The€amount€of€land€in€agriculture€within€Bennington€and€Windham€counties€was€only€5Īpercent.€ĖĖPublic€and€private€lands€surround€the€project€area.€€There€are€approximately€2,000€acres€of€private€lands€withinĪthe€project€area€itself.€€This€has€created€a€mosaic€of€forest,€pasture€and€second€home€developments.€€ContiguousĪforest€land€predominates€to€the€north€and€west,€a€mixture€of€forest€and€scattered€home€sites€characterize€theĪsouthern€portions€of€the€project€area,€while€pasture/farmland€predominate€to€the€east.€ĖĖThe€majority€of€the€1,500€acres€affected€by€this€proposal€was€cleared€and€farmed€in€the€18th€and€early€19thĪcentury.€€Any€forests€remaining€were€logged€for€fuelwood€and€building€materials.€€As€a€result,€no€pre-EuropeanĪsettlement€forest€exists.€€Currently,€93%€of€the€project€area€is€forested.€€Subsequent€tree€harvest€throughout€theĪproject€area€has€created€a€mix€of€forest€age€classes€ranging€from€10-15€year€old€saplings€to€mature€forests.€ĪThese€second€and€third€growth€forests€contain€both€northern€hardwoods€(787€ac),€and€softwoods€(713€ac)€as€theĪdominant€vegetative€types.€€Within€these€forest€stands,€aspen€is€a€significant€component€on€approximately€88Īacres€of€forest€and€a€minor€component€on€approximately€75€acres.€€Special€areas€include€107€acres€of€scatteredĪwetlands€(67€acres),€upland€openings€(40€acres)€and€apple€trees€(7€acres).€ĖĖVegetative€surveys€indicate€83%€(652€acres)€of€the€hardwood€stands€are€more€€than€60€years€old€and€85%€(607Īacres)€of€the€softwood€stands€are€more€than€40€€years€old.€€Three€percent€(45€acres)€of€forest€is€less€than€10Īyears€old€(Table€€1).€The€forests€are€predominately€evenaged€with€a€mix€of€tree€sizes€and€€species.€€ĖThe€relative€mix€of€softwoods€(e.g.€hemlock,€spruce€and€fir)€and€€hardwoods€(e.g.€American€beech,€ash,€sugarĪmaple€and€red€maple)€varies€€significantly€between€stands.€€Softwood€species€tend€to€dominate€in€MA€4.1€standsĪwhile€northern€hardwoods€tend€to€dominate€on€MA€3.1€and€7.1€lands.€€The€€123€acres€of€scattered€evenagedĪplantations€of€red€pine€and€Norway€spruce€were€€planted€by€the€CCC€in€abandoned€farm€fields€during€the€1930's.€Đ ˜.@,0 ĐÔ_ԇThe€project€area€is€not€considered€remote,€being€extensively€roaded€and€accessible€to€vehicular€traffic€(Figure€1).€ĪThe€terrain,€network€of€foot€&€ski€trails,€historic€roads€and€logging€Ô_ÔskidwaysÔ_Ԁprovides€easy€foot/ski€access.€TheĪproject€area€is€Ô_Ôused€year-roundÔ_Ԁby€hikers,€skiers,€hunters€and€bird€watchers.€€The€lack€of€remoteness€combinedĪwith€past€and€present€land€use€in€the€eastern,€central€and€Ô_Ôsouthern€portionÔ_Ԁof€the€project€area€where€recentĪvegetation€management€has€occurred€generally€favors€species€adapted€to€a€mixture€of€habitat€conditions€and€whoĪtolerate€human€disturbance.€ĖĖHabitat€for€species€requiring€large€blocks€of€continuous,€closed-canopy€forest€are€most€favored€north€of€theĪPeru-Ô_ÔLandgroveÔ_ԀRoad€(Ô_ÔFHÔ_Ô-3)€and€in€the€western€portion€of€the€project€area€(Stands€13,€14€and€17,ĪCompartment€136)€bordering€the€Peru€Peak€Wilderness.€ĖĖBased€on€accounts€of€a€local€resident,€the€black€bear,€a€species€sensitive€to€human€disturbance,€occurred€in€theĪproject€area€until€the€1960's.€€It€was€€likely€lost€due€to€hunting.€€Several€American€beech€trees€within€the€Īwestern-most€portion€of€the€project€area€exhibit€old€and€fresh€bear€claw€scarring€(Stands€13,€14€and€17,ĪCompartment€132).€€Though€unoccupied€by€bear€for€several€decades,€new€scaring€by€a€juvenile€bear€was€foundĪin€the€fall€of€€1992.€€This€new€scarring,€plus€recent€sightings€at€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond,€indicate€at€least€one€bear€hasĪÔ_ÔreoccupiedÔ_Ԁthe€area.€ĖĖō ōEffects€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternativesķ ķā Ā ā€€Đ đ˜ Đā ° āo€€ō ōōōWhite-tailed€deer€Managementķ ķķķ€-€Deer€in€Vermont€live€near€the€northern€limit€of€white-tailed€Đ āˆ Đā ° āÔ_ÔdeerÔ_Ԁrange€in€eastern€North€America.€€This€forces€deer€to€use€very€specific€winter€habitat€for€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔsurvivalÔ_Ô.€€Within€this€habitat,€it€is€essential€to€provide€quality€softwood€thermal€cover,€adequate€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtravelÔ_Ԁroutes€and€preferred,€accessible€browse.€€The€LRMP€and€agreements€with€the€State€of€Ėā ° āVermont€direct€that€certain€portions€of€the€project€area€be€managed€as€deer€winter€habitat€(MA€4.1€&€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔportionsÔ_Ԁof€MA€7-1).€ĖĖā ° āIn€response€to€the€public€issue€that€deer€might€not€benefit€from€the€Proposed€Action,€it€and€its€Ėā ° āalternatives€were€assessed€as€to€their€ability€to€meet€winter€deer€habitat€objectives€as€established€in€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtheÔ_ԀLRMP€page€4.107-4.116)€and€the€Management€Guide€For€Wintering€Deer€In€Vermont€(1990).€€Ėā ° āThe€assumption€being€that€the€closer€the€alternative€meets€the€objectives,€the€more€likely€it€is€to€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔbenefitÔ_Ԁdeer.€€The€area€of€assessment€includes€actual€deer€wintering€area€boundaries€as€described€in€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔcompartmentÔ_Ԁfolders€filed€at€the€Manchester€Ranger€District€office.€ĖĖā ° āEach€alternative€was€assessed€as€to€its€ability€to;€1)€achieve€habitat€composition€objectives€(Table€1);€Ėā ° ā2)€provide€short€and€long€term€softwood€winter€cover;€3)€maintain€travel€and€escape€cover;€and€4)€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔlessenÔ_Ԁthe€risk€of€human€disturbance.€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔĐ  ¤"L # Đā ° āā  ā1.ā ` āōōDesired€age€class€composition€ķķ-€Alternative€I€(Managing€Vegetation€€To€Meet€LRMP€Age€Đ X ĐĖā ° āā  āClass€Distribution€Objectives)€comes€the€closest€over€€the€long€term€to€achieving€the€desired€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔfutureÔ_Ԁcondition€for€deer€€winter€habitat€(Table€1).€€This€is€due€to€extensive€use€of€evenage€€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmanagementÔ_Ԁcreating€more€acres€in€the€0-9€year€age€class.€€Alternative€V€(Extensive€Ô_ÔUnevenageÔ_ԀĖā ° āā  āManagement)€would€provide€the€next€highest€€array€of€habitat€conditions€by€creating€more€Ėā ° āā  ātemporary€openings€than€€the€other€predominately€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€alternatives€Ėā ° āā  ā(Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€III,€IV€and€VI).€€Alternative€II€(No€Action)€does€the€least€to€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmeetÔ_ԀLRMP€habitat€objectives.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā2.ā ` āōōSoftwood€Winter€Coverķķ€-€Vegetation€Management€Mitigation€Measures€#1€and€#2€Đ  8  Đā ° āā  ā(Appendix€D)€would€be€implemented€in€the€Proposed€Action€and€all€alternatives,€except€the€No€Ėā ° āā  āAction€Alternative,€to€encourage€softwood€regeneration.€ĖĖā ° āā  āAlternatives€I€and€V€would€do€the€most€to€meet€long€term€softwood€winter€cover€objectives€due€€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtoÔ_Ԁmore€extensive€regeneration€of€softwood€stands.€€However,€they€would€cause€the€most€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔdisruptionÔ_Ԁto€existing€softwood€stands€of€all€alternatives€due€to€the€extent€of€harvest€activities.€€Ėā ° āā  āAlternative€I€also€presents€the€highest€risk€of€hardwood€regeneration€out-competing€softwoods€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔdueÔ_Ԁto€larger€openings€through€more€extensive€use€of€evenage€management.€€This€would€be€Ėā ° āā  ācounter-productive€to€the€objective€of€increasing€softwoods€critical€for€deer€winter€cover.€ĖĖā ° āā  āAs€no€softwood€harvest€occurs€in€Alternative€II,€existing€softwood€stands€would€be€maintained.€€Ėā ° āā  āHowever,€these€stands€would€continue€to€decline€as€suitable€softwood€cover€due€to€deterioration€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔofÔ_Ԁthe€softwood€overstory€and€poor€understory€regeneration.€€The€Proposed€Action€and€Ėā ° āā  āAlternatives€III€(Vegetation€Management€In€Priority€Areas€Only),€IV€(Ô_ÔUnevenageÔ_ԀManagement)€Ėā ° āā  āand€VI€(Modified€Proposed€Action)€would€not€treat€enough€acreage€in€the€immediate€future€to€Ėā ° āā  āmeet€long€term€softwood€winter€cover€objectives€but€would€correct€softwood€decline€in€priority€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔstandsÔ_Ԁand€encourage€softwood€regeneration.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā3.ā ` āōōTravel€and€Escape€Coverķķ€-€Travel€and€escape€cover€next€to€openings€ensures€a€lane€of€Đ ŧ Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔunbrokenÔ_Ԁsoftwood€cover€at€least€200€feet€wide.€Alternative€II€would€provide€the€most€travel€and€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔescapeÔ_Ԁcover€as€there€is€no€vegetation€disturbance.€€Alternative€I€is€the€least€desirable€alternative€Ėā ° āā  ādue€to€the€effects€of€clearcutting€Stand€6€and€thinning€of€Stand€11,€both€in€Compartment€132€and€Ėā ° āā  āoverstory€removal€in€Stand€2,€Compartment€54€(Figure€4).€€Based€on€field€review,€these€actions€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwouldÔ_Ԁreduce€the€quality€of€travel€and€escape€cover€adjacent€to€existing€temporary€openings.€€Ėā ° āā  āThe€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€III,€IV,€V€and€VI€would€provide€a€mosaic€of€habitat€types,€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔincludingÔ_Ԁadequate€travel€and€escape€cover.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā4.ā ` āōōRisk€Ô_ÔOfÔ_ԀHuman€Disturbance€ķķ-€Human€presence€causes€increased€stress€on,€and€movement€Đ `%#& Đā ° āā  āby,€wintering€deer.€€This€causes€deer€to€burn€more€calories€at€a€time€when€energy€conservation€is€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔcriticalÔ_Ԁto€their€survival.€€Disturbance€can€come€in€two€forms;€tree€harvest€related€and€recreation€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔrelatedÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° āā0  āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ԁā ` āHarvest€Related€-€Due€to€soil€concerns,€vegetation€management€in€deer€winter€areaĐ ü)¤'+ Đsoftwood€stands€must€occur€during€the€winter€when€the€ground€is€frozen.€€Therefore,€both€Ô_ÔtheĪamount€of€areaÔ_Ԁharvested€and€the€frequency€of€re-entries/cutting€cycles€will€determine€the€amountĪof€human€disturbance€to€deer.€€Đ €%€% ĐĖā ° āā  āAlternative€V€poses€the€greatest€risk€of€short€and€long€term€disturbance€due€to€1)€the€amount€of€Đ ˜.@,0 Đā ° āā  āacres€impacted€and€2)€the€need€for€harvest€re-entries€every€15-20€years€per€acre€of€land€to€Ėā ° āā  āimplement€true€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement.€€Alternative€I€has€the€second€highest€level€of€short€term€Ėā ° āā  ādisturbance€due€to€acres€impacted€but€results€in€less€long€term€impact€due€to€emphasis€on€Ėā ° āā  āevenage€management€using€Ô_Ôless€frequent€harvest€re-entriesÔ_Ô.€Alternative€II€poses€the€least€risk€of€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔhumanÔ_Ԁdisturbance€as€no€vegetation€management€is€planned.€ĖĖā ° āā  āThe€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€III,€IV,€and€VI€would€also€pose€a€risk€of€long€term,€on-Ėā ° āā  āgoing€human€disturbance€(Alternative€IV€slightly€higher)€due€to€reliance€on€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_ԀĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmanagementÔ_Ԁbut€to€a€lesser€degree€than€Alternative€V.€They€pose€less€short€term€risk€than€Ėā ° āā  āAlternatives€I€and€V€as€Ô_Ôless€winter€habitatÔ_Ԁis€harvested.€ĖĖā ° āā0  āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ԁā ` āōōRecreation€Relatedķķ€-€All€alternatives,€with€the€exception€of€Alternative€II,€would€increaseĐ | $  Đthe€risk€of€recreation€related€disturbance€to€wintering€deer€due€to€increased€foot€and€ski€accessĪwith€reconstruction€of€roadways€and€skid€trails€associated€with€timber€management.€€Also,€theĪreconstruction€of€existing€recreation€trails,€if€improperly€designed,€could€lead€to€increased€skiingĪand€snowmobiling€in€winter€deer€areas.€Đ €%€% ĐĖā ° āā  āTo€reduce€the€risk€of€winter€disturbance,€access€roads€and€skid€trails€would€be€unsigned€and€€Ėā ° āā  āphysically€closed€to€vehicle€Ô_ÔaccessÔ_Ԁfollowing€tree€harvest€to€discourage€public€use.€€Designated€Ėā ° āā  ārecreation€trails€within€or€adjacent€to€deer€wintering€areas€would€be€designed€(width,€stream€Ėā ° āā  ācrossings,€etc.)€and€signed€for€non-winter€use€only€(see€Wildlife€Mitigation€Measure€#1,€Ėā ° āā  āAppendix€D).€ĖĖĖā ° āBased€on€these€four€factors,€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€III€and€VI€would€be€of€most€Ėā ° āoverall€benefit€to€wintering€deer€by€perpetuating€softwood€cover€and€browse€while€maintaining€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔadequateÔ_Ԁtravel€and€escape€cover.€€Alternative€IV€also€promotes€softwood€winter€cover€and€browse€Ėā ° āproduction€but€has€a€higher€risk€of€long€term€human€disturbance€due€to€sole€reliance€on€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_ԀĖā ° āÔ_ÔmanagementÔ_Ô.€€Alternative€I€and€V€come€closest€to€achieving€the€desired€habitat€composition€but€Ėā ° āpose€the€highest€risk€due€to€either€loss€of€travel/escape€cover€or€increased€short/long€term€human€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdisturbanceÔ_Ô.€€Alternative€II€is€the€least€attractive€as€it€does€not€meet€deer€winter€habitat€objectives€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔandÔ_Ԁwould€lead€to€a€decline€in€softwood€winter€cover€and€browse€production.€ĖĖā ° āā0  āo€ā ` āōōBlack€Bear€Managementķķ€-€The€Proposed€Action€and€alternatives€are€assessed€as€to€theĐ Ä l! Đlikely€impact€proposed€vegetation€management€practices€would€have€on€the€beech€component€of€Đ €%€% Đā ° āā  āoccupied€bear€habitat€in€Stands€13,€14€and€17,€Compartment€132.€€With€the€implementation€of€Ėā ° āā  āseasonal€logging€restrictions€and€permanent€access€closures€at€the€completion€of€logging€Ėā ° āā  ā(Wildlife€Mitigation€Measure€#2,€Appendix€D),€human€disturbance€is€not€likely€to€increase€in€Ėā ° āā  ābear€clawed€beech€stands€under€the€Proposed€Action€and€all€alternatives€except€for€Alternative€II€Ėā ° āā  ā(No€Action).€€The€No€Action€Alternative€would€continue€to€leave€some€existing€temporary€road€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔandÔ_Ԁskid€trails€open€to€vehicle€access.€€This€would€increase€the€risk€of€human€disturbance€to€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔbearsÔ_Ԁwithin€these€stands.€ĖĖā ° āā  āThe€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€I€and€VI€would€generally€reduce€the€quality€of€black€bear€Ėā ° āā  āhabitat€due€to€the€use€of€shelterwood€harvest€in€Stand€14€and€in€all,€or€a€portion€of€(13A),€Stand€Ėā ° āā  ā13.€€ĖĖā ° āā  āThis€management€prescription€would€reduce€the€amount€of€mature€beech€within€Stands€13€Ėā ° āā  āand€14€and€encourage€growth€and€regeneration€of€more€shade€intolerant€tree€species€such€as€ash,€Đ ˜.@,0 Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔsugarÔ_Ԁmaple€and€yellow€birch.€€This€could€be€partially€mitigated€through€the€retention€of€healthy€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔbeechÔ_Ԁtrees€showing€evidence€of€bear€use€and€other€suitable€replacement€trees.€€The€retention€of€Ėā ° āā  āa€150€foot€buffer€along€the€Peru€Peak€Wilderness€boundary€and€seasonal€(fall)€restriction€on€tree€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔharvestÔ_Ԁwould€also€help€mitigate€the€loss€of€beech€(see€Appendix€D).€€The€thinning€of€Stand€17€Ėā ° āā  ācould€have€a€net€beneficial€affect€on€beech€trees€used€by€bear€by€increasing€their€growth€and€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔvigorÔ_Ô.€€However,€the€primary€reason€for€group€selection€harvest€is€to€promote€softwood,€notŧā ° āā  ābeech€regeneration.€ĖĖā ° āā  āAlternatives€II€(No€Action)€and€Alternative€III€(High€Priority)€would€maintain€the€current€quality€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔofÔ_Ԁthe€bear€habitat.€€The€mature€beech€Ô_ÔtreesÔ_Ԁin€Stands€14€and€17€would€remain.€€Beech€trees€in€Ėā ° āā  āStand€13€would€likely€increase€in€beech€nut€production€as€the€stand€matures.€ĖĖā ° āā  āAlternatives€IV€and€V€would€maintain€or€enhance€the€suitability€of€bear€habitat€due€to€the€use€of€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€in€Stands€13,€14€and€17.€Individual€and€group€selection€harvest€wouldŧā ° āā  āpromote€the€growth€of€existing€mature€beech€trees.€€It€would€also€encourage€regeneration€of€new€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔbeechÔ_Ԁtrees€by€discouraging€shade€intolerant€tree€species.€ĖĖā ° āā  āo€ā ` āōōWildlife€Species€Diversityķķ€-€The€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€are€assessed€as€to€1)€Đ Ŧ Đā ° āā  ālikely€impacts€of€forest€management€on€area€sensitive€species,€including€forest-dwelling€Ėā ° āā  āneotropical€migratory€birds€(Ô_ÔNTMBÔ_Ô),€and€2)€changes€in€habitat/vegetation€composition.€€Ėā ° āā  āNationally,€studies€indicate€a€general€decline€in€populations€of€Ô_ÔNTMBSÔ_Ô.€€These€studies€indicate€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔoneÔ_Ԁcontributing€factor€is€habitat€loss€and/or€fragmentation.€€Other€studies€have€documented€a€Ėā ° āā  ādirect€relationship€between€the€size€of€forest€and€non-forest€wildlife€habitat€blocks€and€the€Ėā ° āā  ālikelihood€that€certain€Ô_ÔNTMBÔ_Ԁspecies€will€be€present€or€absent€(Ô_ÔDeGraafÔ_Ԁet€al.,€1992;€Robbins€et€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_Ôal.Ô_Ô,€1989).€€This€dependence€upon€contiguous€acres€of€a€specific€habitat€is€described€as€area€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔsensitivityÔ_Ô.€€For€this€analysis€Ô_ÔNTMBÔ_Ԁare€broken€into€two€categories,€forest€dwelling€Ô_ÔNTMBÔ_Ԁand€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔNTMBÔ_Ԁrequiring€a€habitat€mix.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā1.ā ` āōōForest€dwelling€Ô_ÔNTMBÔ_Ôķķ€-€A€focus€of€recent€scientific€concern€and€raised€as€a€public€issue€Đ (Đ Đā ° āā  āspecific€to€this€project€is€the€impacts€of€forest€fragmentation€and€increased€edges€between€forest€Ėā ° āā  āand€non-forest€habitat€on€song€birds,€particularly€area€sensitive,€forest-dwelling€Ô_ÔNTMBSÔ_Ô.€€Ėā ° āā  āExamples€of€forest-dwelling€area€sensitive€species€are€the€black-throated€blue€warbler,€rose-Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔbreastedÔ_Ԁgrosbeak,€and€scarlet€tanager.€ĖĖā ° āā  āThese€species€tend€to€avoid€nesting€along€the€edges€of€forest€blocks€where€the€chance€of€Ėā ° āā  āsuccessful€nesting€is€low€due€to€1)€egg€predation€by€predators€that€travel€or€hunt€edges€and€2)€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔedgeÔ_Ԁassociated€brown-headed€cowbirds€who€lay€their€eggs€in€the€nests€of€other€birds.€€By€Ėā ° āā  āavoiding€edges,€forest€dwelling€Ô_ÔNTMBÔ_Ԁare€limited€to€the€forest's€interior.€Consequently,€Ėā ° āā  āincreasing€the€amount€of€edges€or€decreasing€the€contiguity€of€forests€through€forest€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔfragmentationÔ_Ԁcan€reduce€the€amount€of€suitable€habitat€and/or€chance€of€successful€nesting.€€Ėā ° āā  āBecause€decreasing€the€forest€patch€size€increases€the€edge€to€interior€ratio,€small€Ô_ÔwoodlotsÔ_ԀĖā ° āā  āwould€not€have€enough€forest€interior€habitat€to€support€Ô_ÔNTMBÔ_Ԁwhile€large€forest€blocks€provide€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔsuitableÔ_Ԁhabitat.€Đ  )¸&* Đā ° āā  āIt€is€important€to€note€that€the€large€blocks€of€forest€required€need€not€be€comprised€of€mature€Ėā ° āā  ātrees€as€forest-dwelling,€area€sensitive€species€also€use€a€mix€of€age€classes,€in€some€instances,€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔearlyÔ_Ԁsuccessional€habitat.€ĖĖā ° āā  āBased€on€our€assessment,€neither€the€Proposed€Action€or€alternatives€would€create€a€situation€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔthatÔ_Ԁwould€negatively€affect€forest-dwelling,€area-sensitive€species.€€There€are€several€reasons€for€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔthisÔ_Ԁconclusion.€ĖĖā ° āā  āā0 ` āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ԁā ¸ āōōThere€would€be€no€net€increase€in€edgeķķ.€€The€proposed€timber€harvesting€wouldĐ ¸ ` Đcreate€only€small€pockets€of€Ô_Ôearly€successional€habitatÔ_Ԁwithin€a€large€area€of€forestsĪgenerally€greater€than€40€years€old.€€Even€under€the€most€intensive€alternative,€AlternativeĪI,€87%€of€the€project€area€would€continue€to€be€closed€canopy€forest.€€The€majority€of€theĪharvest€methods€used€maintains€50%€or€more€of€the€forest€canopy€intact€(Tables€1€&€Ô_Ô2Ô_Ô,ĪAppendix€B).€€Ô_ÔFurthermoreÔ_Ô,€based€on€project€area€specific€experience,€stands€harvestedĪ(including€clearcuts)€quickly€reforest€and€attain€heights€close€to€that€of€the€surroundingĪforest€within€30-35€years.€€Consequently,€timber€harvesting€would€not€create€smallĪÔ_ÔwoodlotsÔ_Ԁisolated€by€large€areas€of€€unforested€habitat.€Đ ` €%` €% ĐĖā ° āā  āā0 ` āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ԁā ¸ āōōThe€southern€half€of€the€Green€Mountain€National€Forest€is€almost€completelyĐ đ˜ Đforestedķķ.€€Consequently,€birds€requiring€large€home€ranges€or€large€areas€of€forested€landsĐ Ü„ Đcan€find€Ô_Ôsufficient€habitatÔ_Ԁto€support€their€populations€in€southern€Vermont.€€StudiesĪdocumenting€the€area€sensitivity€of€forest-dwelling€Ô_ÔNTMBÔ_Ԁwere€conducted€in€forestsĪisolated€by€development€and/or€agricultural.€€The€percentage€of€forested€lands€in€theseĪstudy€areas€was€extremely€low.€Đ ` €%` €% ĐĖā ° āā  āā0 ` āo€ā ¸ āōōThe€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀProject€area€and€surrounding€lands€are€predominantly€forestedķķ.€€As€aĐ d  Đresult,€nest€predation€rates€found€along€forest€edges€would€not€change€substantially€fromĪthe€current€situation€for€forest-dwelling€area€sensitive€species.€€Studies€indicate€nestĪpredation€rates€tend€to€be€higher€in€forests€fragmented€by€development€and€agricultureĪthan€in€large,€contiguous€forest€habitats€(Ô_ÔWilcoveÔ_Ô,€1985).€€Ô_ÔBluejaysÔ_Ô,€crows,€brown-headedĪcowbirds,€cats,€raccoons,€skunks,€and€opossums€are€well€adapted€to€living€near€farms€andĪhouses€and€are€notorious€nest€predators.€€Nest€predation€occurring€along€theĪforest/Ô_ÔnonforestÔ_Ԁinterface€contributes€to€the€edge-effect€that€negatively€affectsĪforest-dwelling€area-sensitive€species.€Đ ` €%` €% ĐĖā ° āā  āā0 ` āThis€may€be€occurring€in€the€eastern€and€southern€portion€of€the€project€area€whereĪnational€forest€lands€abut€private€agricultural€lands€and€Ô_ÔhomesitesÔ_Ô.€€However,€it€is€unlikelyĪthat€the€proposed€management€activities€and€alternatives€would€increase€Ô_Ôthe€level€ofĪpredationÔ_Ԁfor€four€reasons.€€First,€cowbird€predation€is€unlikely€to€be€a€significant€factor€asĪtheir€populations€are€declining€in€Vermont.€€Secondly,€there€could€be€a€risk€of€localizedĪincreases€in€cowbird€populations€if€there€is€a€large€increase€in€Ô_Ôthe€amount€of€pastureÔ_ԀorĪlawns.€€However,€there€is€no€indication€that€this€will€occur€within€the€project€area€in€theĪforeseeable€future.€€Therefore,€the€project€area€and€surrounding€lands€would€continue€toĪbe€predominantly€forested.€€Third,€no€alternative€would€increase€the€amount€of€permanent€Đ ` €%` €% Đā ° āā  āā ` āÔ_ÔopeningsÔ_Ԁon€federal€lands.€€Finally,€the€proposed€timber€harvest€does€not€alter€the€use€of€Ėā ° āā  āā ` āÔ_ÔnationalÔ_Ԁforest€lands,€that€is,€it€remains€forest.€ĖĖĐ  Ŧ-T+/ Đā ° āā  āā0 ` āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ԁā ¸ āōōMuch€of€the€project€area€is€already€roaded.€€There€are€no€plans€to€build€additionalĐ X Đroads€within€the€area€under€any€alternativeķķ.€€Rather,€existing€roads€would€be€used.€€Ô_ÔExceptĐ Dė ĐforÔ_Ԁa€small€.5€mile€addition€to€an€existing€trail,€there€are€no€plans€to€increase€recreationalĪaccess€to€the€project€area.€€Therefore,€there€is€no€evidence€to€indicate€that€either€theĪproposed€action€or€alternatives€would€create€additional€barriers€to€wildlife€movement€orĪlevels€of€human€Ô_Ôdisturbance€greaterÔ_Ԁthan€already€exists.€€As€stated€in€the€deer€managementĪdiscussion,€certain€mitigation€measures€on€temporary€roads€and€trails€would€occur€in€allĪalternatives€to€reduce€the€risk€of€human€disturbance.€Đ ` €%` €% ĐĖā ° āā  āā0 ` āRoad€width€is€another€factor.€€Roads€wide€enough€to€open€the€forest€canopy€experienceĪhigher€vegetation€growth€along€the€edges.€€Shrubby€communities€that€develop€along€theseĪroads€attract€predators€who€hunt€and€travel€along€them.€€The€edge€effect€results€whenĪpredation€Ô_Ôrates€along€the€roads€exceedsÔ_Ԁthat€found€within€the€forest's€interior.€However,Īmost€of€the€temporary€Ô_ÔskidwaysÔ_Ԁand€recreation€trails€would€continue€to€have€a€closed€treeĪcanopy€condition,€maintaining€a€continuous€forest€cover.€Đ ` €%` €% ĐĖā ° āā  āIn€conclusion,€neither€the€Proposed€Action€nor€alternatives€would€create€isolated€Ô_ÔwoodlotsÔ_Ô,€ĖĖā ° āā  āpermanently€alter€the€use€of€the€land,€result€in€a€significantly€increased€edge€effect€or€increase€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔroadsÔ_Ô.€€Therefore,€they€would€not€cause€forest€fragmentation€for€Ô_ÔNTMBÔ_Ԁor€deer.€€The€area€Ėā ° āā  āsensitivity€documented€by€studies€in€urban€and€agricultural€areas€would€not€occur€from€timber€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔharvestingÔ_Ԁin€the€predominantly€forested,€southern€Vermont€region.€€Based€on€the€continued€Ėā ° āā  āpredominance€of€forest,€no€significant€increases€in€Ô_ÔroadingÔ_Ô,€and€the€character€of€the€temporary€Ėā ° āā  āskid€trails€and€recreation€trails,€differences€between€alternatives€would€be€inconsequential€in€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtheirÔ_Ԁeffects€on€forest-dwelling,€area€sensitive€species.€ĖĖā ° āā  ā2.€ā ` āōōÔ_ÔNTMBÔ_Ԁrequiring€a€habitat€mixķķ€-€Approximately€86€percent€of€the€Ô_ÔNTMBÔ_Ԁbreeding€in€the€Đ Pø Đā ° āā  āGreen€Mountain€National€Forest€utilize€early€successional€habitat€(DeGraaf€and€Rudis,€1986).€Of€Ėā ° āā  āthese€species,€approximately€52€percent€have€experienced€regional€population€declines€in€recent€Ėā ° āā  āyears€(U.S.€Fish€and€Wildlife€Service€Breeding€Bird€Surveys).€€Increasing€the€number€of€Ėā ° āā  āregenerating€stands€and€upland€openings€would€benefit€these€species.€€These€early€successional€Ėā ° āā  āspecies€include€the€chestnut-sided€warbler,€willow€fly-catcher,€eastern€bluebird€and€indigo€Ėā ° āā  ābunting.€€Species€such€as€the€veery,€olive-sided€flycatcher,€dark-eyed€junco€and€northern€flicker€Ėā ° āā  āwould€benefit€from€the€retention€of€partial€overstory€conditions€found€in€shelterwood€harvests,€Ėā ° āā  āparticularly€if€a€delayed€shelterwood€harvest€is€used€retaining€the€overstory€for€several€decades.€ĖĖā ° āā  āThe€Proposed€Action€and€several€alternatives€provide€opportunities€to€increase€the€amount€of€Ėā ° āā  āsuitable€habitat€for€NTMB€utilizing€early€successional€habitat.€€Because€of€species€are€sensitive€Ėā ° āā  āto€the€size€of€an€area€based€on€territory€and€home€range€requirements,€it€is€unlikely€that€Ėā ° āā  āunevenage€management€would€create€blocks€of€early€age€forest€of€sufficient€size€(1€acre€or€Ėā ° āā  ālarger)€to€provide€suitable€habitat.€€Therefore,€the€benefit€to€early€successional€NTMB€is€directly€Ėā ° āā  ācorrelated€with€the€amount€of€evenage€management€proposed€(Appendix€B).€ĖĖā ° āā  āAlternative€I€would€provide€the€greatest€opportunity€for€suitable€habitat€due€to€its€more€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwidespreadÔ_Ԁreliance€on€clearcutting€and€shelterwood€harvest.€€The€Proposed€Action€and€Ėā ° āā  āAlternative€VI€would€provide€the€next€highest€level€of€Ô_Ôsuitable€habitatÔ_Ô.€€Alternative€III€would€Ėā ° āā  āprovide€a€limited€amount€of€suitable€habitat€due€to€clearcutting€of€high€priority€softwood€stands€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔonlyÔ_Ô.€€ĖĐ ˜.@,0 Đā ° āā  āAlternatives€II,€IV€and€V€would€present€the€least€amount€of€suitable€habitat€either€because€no€Ėā ° āā  ātimber€harvest€is€planned€(Alternative€II)€or€harvest€would€depend€solely€on€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_ԀĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmanagementÔ_Ԁ(Alternatives€IV€and€V).€ĖĖā ° āā0  ā3.€ā ` āōōHabitat/Vegetation€Compositionķķ€-€Ô_ÔDeGraafÔ_Ԁ(unpublished€report),€Ô_ÔDeGraafÔ_Ԁet€al.€(1992),Đ ° Đand€Back€(1979)€point€out€the€importance€of€assessing€the€effects€of€vegetation€management€Đ €%€% Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔpracticesÔ_Ԁon€short€and€long€term€changes€in€tree€species€composition.€€This€includes€the€mix€of€Ėā ° āā  āsoftwood€and€hardwood€stands,€inclusions€of€softwoods€in€hardwood€stands€and€the€mix€of€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔhardwoodÔ_Ԁspecies€in€northern€hardwood€stands.€ĖĖā ° āā  āSome€important€wildlife€tree€species,€such€as€yellow€birch,€aspen€and€ash€are€shade€intolerant€or€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔsemitolerantÔ_Ô.€€For€successful€regeneration€they€require€direct€sunlight€as€found€in€evenage€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmanagementÔ_Ô.€€Other€tree€species€such€as€beech,€hemlock,€red€maple€and€sugar€maple€are€shade€Ėā ° āā  ātolerant€and€can€regenerate€in€a€closed€canopy€situation€as€found€in€the€existing€project€area€Ėā ° āā  āforest€or€under€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement.€ĖĖā ° āā  āIt€has€been€our€experience€on€the€Green€Mountain€National€Forest€that€a€mix€of€evenage€andŧā ° āā  āÔ_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€practices€or€evenage€management€with€follow-up€selective€removal€of€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔcompetingÔ_Ԁvegetation€maintains€a€desirable€tree€species€mix.€€Ô_ÔUnevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€would€Ėā ° āā  ātend€to€skew€the€mix€towards€shade€tolerant€softwoods€and€hardwood€species€such€as€beech,€red€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmapleÔ_Ԁand€sugar€maple.€€This€is€particularly€significant€when€one€considers€the€importance€of€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔshadeÔ_Ԁintolerant€tree€species€such€as€yellow€birch€and€aspen€in€the€northern€hardwood€forest.€€As€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmanyÔ_Ԁas€116€forest€bird€species€are€known€to€breed€in€the€aspen-birch€forest€type€(Back,€1979).€Ėā ° āā  āThis€includes€such€species€as€the€least€flycatcher,€black-throated€green€warbler,€and€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔblackburnianÔ_Ԁwarbler.€€A€long€term€reduction€in€these€tree€species€would€adversely€impact€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔassociatedÔ_Ԁbird€species.€ĖĖā ° āā  āLikewise,€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€benefits€certain€bird€species,€particularly€those€associated€Ėā ° āā  āwith€softwood€such€as€the€red-breasted€nuthatch€and€golden-crowned€kinglet€and€wildlife€species€Ėā ° āā  āutilizing€beech€and€red€maple€such€as€black€bear,€scarlet€tanagers,€and€pileated€woodpeckers.€ĖĖā ° āā  āFinally,€the€type€of€vegetation€management€proposed€has€varying€effects€on€understory€Ėā ° āā  āvegetation.€€Generally,€the€greater€the€amount€of€overstory,€the€lesser€the€amount€of€young€Ėā ° āā  āgrowth,€understory€vegetation€and€browse€with€a€corresponding€decrease€in€bird€species€Ėā ° āā  ārichness.€€Evenage€management€and€group€selection€harvests€result€in€the€creation€of€varying€Ėā ° āā  ācanopy€openings€from€less€than€1/4€acre€to€several€acres€in€size.€€These€openings€increase€the€Ėā ° āā  āgrowth€rates€of€understory€vegetation.€€Single€tree€selection€harvests€create€small€breaks€in€the€Ėā ° āā  ācanopy€that€also€increase€vegetative€growth€on€the€forest€floor.€€This€understory€can€provide€€Ėā ° āā  ānesting€cover€for€birds€or€hiding€cover€for€deer€or€black€bear.€€Thinning€treatments€have€a€Ėā ° āā  āminimal€effect€on€the€forest€canopy€and€generally€do€not€affect€long€term€ground€vegetation€€Ėā ° āā  ādensity.€ĖĖā ° āā  āFewer€residual€trees€in€a€clearcut€may€exclude€some€intermediate-canopy€trees€adapted€birds€Ėā ° āā  āsuch€as€the€dark-eyed€junco,€black-throated€green€warbler,€veery,€winter€wren,€and€yellow-Ėā ° āā  ābellied€sapsucker€(Webb€et€al.,€1977;€Chadwick€et€al.,€1986).€€However,€bird€species€Ėā ° āā  āassemblages€become€similar€in€stands€older€than€30-40€years€(DeGraff,€Undated).€€Other€species€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmightÔ_Ԁbe€impacted€by€evenaged€treatments€causing€a€reduction€in€older€forests.€Đ  Ā,h*. Đā ° āā  āSome€wildlife€species€require€habitat€components€that€Ô_Ôare€a€function€ofÔ_Ԁthe€age€of€a€forest.€€The€Ėā ° āā  ābarred€owl,€a€mature€northern€hardwood€forest€user€which€relies€on€large€cavity€trees,€might€be€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔimpactedÔ_Ԁby€its€reduction€due€to€the€potential€loss€of€large€cavity€trees.€€Other€species€requiring€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔlargeÔ_Ԁcavity€trees€are€the€northern€flying€squirrel€and€pileated€woodpecker.€Large€dead€&€down€Ėā ° āā  āprovide€Ô_ÔdenningÔ_Ԁcover€for€bear.€€Implementation€of€LRMP€standards€and€guidelines€for€snags€Ėā ° āā  āand€down€material€plus€the€high€proportion€of€Ô_ÔunmanagedÔ_Ԁforest€over€60€years€old€would€Ėā ° āā  ācontinue€to€retain€suitable€habitat€for€cavity€nesters€and€species€using€snags€or€down€trees€in€the€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔprojectÔ_Ԁarea.€ĖĖā ° āā  āSpecial€habitats€such€as€wetlands,€permanent€openings,€and€apple€orchards€within€the€project€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔareaÔ_Ԁprovide€suitable€habitat€for€a€wide€range€of€species.€€Permanent€openings€support€species€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔsuchÔ_Ԁas€the€American€woodcock,€mourning€dove,€cedar€waxwing,€and€chestnut-sided€warbler.€€Ėā ° āā  āMaintenance€of€relic€apple€orchards€also€provide€unique€habitats€and€food€sources€for€wildlife€Ėā ° āā  āspecies€such€as€the€eastern€kingbird,€white-breasted€nuthatch,€ruffed€grouse,€American€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwoodcockÔ_Ô,€and€white-tailed€deer.€€These€orchards€also€maintain€a€genetic€pool€of€apple€varieties€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔthatÔ_Ԁis€potentially€useful.€ĖĖā ° āā  āBased€on€these€factors,€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternative€VI€would€provide€the€greatest€Ėā ° āā  āwithin€stand€tree€species€richness/mix€due€to€their€focus€on€both€shade€tolerant€and€intolerant€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔhardwoodsÔ_Ԁ&€softwoods€as€well€as€their€use€of€the€delayed€shelterwood€harvest.€€Softwoods€and€Ėā ° āā  āsoftwood€inclusions€would€be€encouraged€through€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement.€€Important€wildlife€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtreeÔ_Ԁspecies€such€as€yellow€birch€would€be€encouraged€through€evenage€management.€€Aspen€Ėā ° āā  āwould€be€encouraged€through€implementation€of€Vegetation€Management€Mitigation€Measure€Ėā ° āā  ā#Ô_Ô3Ô_Ô,€(see€Appendix€D).€ĖĖā ° āā  āAlternative€I€would€also€encourage€a€range€of€tree€species€for€similar€reasons.€€However,€there€is€Ėā ° āā  ālikely€to€be€a€loss€of€between-stand€diversity€with€overstory€removal€in€Stand€2,€Compartment€54€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔandÔ_ԀStand€4,€Compartment€132;€Ô_Ôclearcutting€in€Stand€6,€Compartment€132;Ô_Ԁand€shelterwood€in€Ėā ° āā  āStand€Ô_Ô9Ô_Ô,€Compartment€132€as€well€as€extensive€thinning€throughout€the€project€area.€The€result€Ėā ° āā  āof€these€combined€actions€would€be€a€less€diverse€mix€of€habitat€types€and€loss€of€travel€and€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔescapeÔ_Ԁcover.€ĖĖā ° āā  āAlternatives€II,€IV€and€V€are€least€favorable€due€to€lack€of€management€or€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_ԀĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmanagementÔ_Ԁonly.€€Though€in-stand€structural€complexity€would€be€retained,€there€is€a€high€risk€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔofÔ_Ԁcontinued€loss€of€shade€intolerant€species,€particularly€yellow€birch.€ĖĖā ° āā  āSpecial€habitats€such€as€permanent€openings,€bear€clawed€beech,€and€wetlands€would€be€Ėā ° āā  āmaintained€in€all€alternatives€through€either€exclusion€of€activities€(wetlands),€active€Ėā ° āā  āmaintenance€(permanent€openings),€or€retention€and€replacement€through€stand€specific€Ėā ° āā  āapplication€of€standards€and€guidelines€(bear€clawed€beech,€snags,€dead€&€down)€(LRMP€page€Ėā ° āā  ā4.31-4-33).€Apple€trees€would€be€managed€for€in€all€alternatives€as€part€of€our€normal€Ėā ° āā  āmaintenance€program€(Wildlife€Mitigation€Measure€#3€and€Vegetation€Management€Mitigation€Ėā ° āā  āMeasure€#Ô_Ô3Ô_Ô,€Appendix€D).€ĖĖā ° āā  āThe€removal€of€trees€in€the€2€acre€roadside€portion€of€Stand€19,€Compartment€132€to€create€a€Ėā ° āā  ādrive-by€view€of€the€wetlands€in€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€I€and€VI€would€continue€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtoÔ_Ԁmaintain€a€closed€canopy€forest€similar€to€the€existing€condition.€€Therefore,€there€is€no€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔexpectedÔ_Ԁchange€in€wildlife€use€of€the€area€from€the€current€situation.€Ėā ° āā  āAlternatives€II,€III,€IV€and€V€would€have€no€change€from€the€current€situation.€Đ ˜.@,0 Їā ° āō ōCumulative€Ô_ÔeffectsÔ_Ԁof€Actionsķ ķ:€€Cumulative€effects€refer€to€the€combined€effects€of€past,€present,€Đ X Đā ° āÔ_ÔandÔ_Ԁreasonably€foreseeable€future€activities€on€the€area€resources.€€Activities€on€adjacent€lands€can€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔalsoÔ_Ԁcontribute€additional€impacts€to€activities€within€the€project€area.€ĖĖā ° āā0  āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ԁā ` āō ōPast€Actionsķ ķ€-€Over€the€last€200€years€the€area€has€been€roaded€and€used€for€agricultureĐ  ´ Đand€private€homes.€€Since€the€mid€19th€century€the€area€has€gradually€reverted€to€forest,€with€Đ €%€% Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔperiodicÔ_Ԁharvest€of€trees.€€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀRecreation€Area€has€existed€since€the€mid-1930's.€€The€most€Ėā ° āā  ārecent€timber€harvest€on€Forest€Service€lands€occurred€in€the€early€1980's€with€construction€of€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtemporaryÔ_Ԁlogging€roads€and€skid€trails.€€These€were€closed€to€vehicular€access€and€have€Ėā ° āā  āpartially€Ô_ÔrevegetatedÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° āā  āSince€that€time,€the€Forest€Service€has€not€conducted€any€ground€disturbing€or€habitat€altering€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔactivitiesÔ_Ԁwithin€the€area.€€Continued€relatively€light€agricultural€and€residential€development€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔpressuresÔ_Ԁhave€not€resulted€in€the€isolation€of€forest€blocks.€€This€has€created€wildlife€habitat€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔfavoringÔ_Ԁforest-dwelling€wildlife€species.€€The€moderate€use€of€the€Peru-Ô_ÔLandgroveÔ_ԀRoad€(Ô_ÔFHÔ_Ô-3)€Ėā ° āā  āand€lesser€use€on€other€town€roads€are€not€likely€to€have€created€barriers€to€movement€of€most€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔterrestrialÔ_Ԁwildlife.€ĖĖā ° āā0  āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ԁā ` āō ōImpact€of€Present€And€Future€Actionsķ ķ€-€Under€current€forest€plan€direction,€trees€willĐ ø  Đbe€harvested€to€achieve€the€desired€age-class€distribution€as€defined€in€the€LRMP€plan.€€Although€Đ €%€% Đā ° āā  āspecific€projects€have€not€been€proposed,€it€is€likely€that€on€the€average,€approximately€one-third€Ėā ° āā  āof€the€area€(500-550€acres)€per€decade€would€be€impacted€by€evenage€and€Ô_ÔunevenageÔ_ԀĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmanagementÔ_Ԁto€maintain€the€desired€mix€of€vegetation/age€class€conditions.€€Standard€Ėā ° āā  āshelterwood€harvests€require€a€second€cutting€after€5-10€years€to€đ đreleaseđđ€the€understory.€€Both€Ėā ° āā  āstandard€and€delayed€shelterwood€harvests€will€require€a€Ô_ÔprecommercialÔ_Ԁthinning€30-40€years€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔafterÔ_Ԁthe€initial€harvest.€€Ô_ÔUnevenageÔ_Ԁmanagement€requires€re-entry€on€each€acre€every€15-20€Ėā ° āā  āyears.€€In€areas€scheduled€for€softwood€regeneration,€we€would€remove€competing€hardwood€Ėā ° āā  āsaplings€within€an€8€foot€radius€of€the€young€softwood€trees.€€This€would€occur€approximately€5-Ėā ° āā  ā15€years€after€tree€harvest.€ĖĖā ° āā  āThe€long€term€impact€of€this€management€would€retain€the€wildlife€community€presently€using€Ėā ° āā  āthe€project€area,€possibly€adding€new€species€associated€with€temporary€openings€and€Ėā ° āā  ābrushfields.€€Within€25-35€years,€a€clearcut€stand€reaches€a€đ đpole-timberđđ€size-class€and€begins€to€Ėā ° āā  āsupport€a€bird€species€composition€similar€to€a€mature€forest€(DeGraaf,€1992).€€Therefore,€even€Ėā ° āā  āif€evenage€management€and€80-120€year€rotations€were€used€exclusively€on€MA€4.1€and€MA€3.1€Ėā ° āā  ālands,€10€percent€of€the€area€would€be€in€the€0-10€year€age-class,€50€percent€in€the€10-60€year€Ėā ° āā  āage-class,€and€40€percent€in€the€60-120€year€age€class.€€This€would€mean€approximately€55-65€Ėā ° āā  āpercent€of€the€lands€where€evenage€management€is€possible€would€be€capable€of€supporting€bird€Ėā ° āā  āspecies€found€in€mature€forests€and€mast€producing€beech€trees.€€Adding€the€unevenage€managed€Ėā ° āā  āforests€on€MA€7.1€lands,€insures€that€forest€habitat€would€predominate€into€the€foreseeable€future€Ėā ° āā  āunder€all€alternatives.€€Thus,€forest€fragmentation€for€forest€NTMB€would€not€occur€from€these€Ėā ° āā  āactivities.€ĖĖā ° āā  āThere€would€be€a€reduction€in€suitable€habitat€for€wildlife€species€relying€on€large€cavity€nesting€Ėā ° āā  ātrees.€€However,€these€reductions€are€relatively€small€compared€with€the€total€amount€of€this€type€Ėā ° āā  āof€habitat€on€the€forest,€particularly€national€forest€lands€to€the€west€of€the€project€area.€€Ėā ° āā  āOn€the€other€hand,€proposed€long€term€activities€would€enhance€habitat€for€species€preferring€Ėā ° āā  āearly€successional€habitat,€browse,€and€berry€producing€shrubs,€the€habitat€type€most€in€jeopardy€Đ ¸-`+/ Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔinÔ_ԀVermont.€ĖĖā ° āā  āo€ā ` āō ōActivities€On€Surrounding€Landsķ ķ€-€Even€though€the€majority€of€federal€lands€would€Đ 0Ø Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔcontinueÔ_Ԁto€be€forested€under€all€alternatives,€we€have€no€control€over€private€lands.€€However,€Ėā ° āā  ābased€on€current€ownership€patterns,€trends€in€Vermont,€and€desire€among€certain€private€owners€Ėā ° āā  āto€sell€land€within€the€project€area€to€the€Forest€Service,€lands€under€private€ownership€would€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔcontinueÔ_Ԁto€be€forested€in€the€foreseeable€future€under€all€alternatives.€€It€is€unlikely€that€forest€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔfragmentationÔ_Ԁwould€increase€beyond€that€which€already€exists.€€The€same€is€true€for€Ô_ÔroadingÔ_ԀĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwithinÔ_Ԁthe€project€area.€ĖĖā ° āā  āForest€Service€activities€in€the€project€area€could€locally€reduce€habitat€for€species€affected€by€Ėā ° āā  āhuman€disturbance€as€people€would€be€attracted€to€upgraded€facilities€at€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€and€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔincreasedÔ_Ԁvariety€of€forest€habitats.€€Even€though€there€are€no€plans€to€expand€recreation€Ėā ° āā  āopportunities€in€the€project€area,€primary€and€second€home€development€in€the€general€area€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔwouldÔ_Ԁlikely€increase€human€disturbance€via€increased€recreational€use€of€the€area.€ĖĖā ° āā  āOne€potential€impact€could€be€reduced€chances€for€bear€to€re-occupy€a€wider€portion€of€the€Ėā ° āĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔprojectÔ_Ԁarea€due€to€increased€human€presence.€€However,€management€activities€within€stands€Ėā ° āā  ācurrently€occupied€by€bear€would€be€timed€and€designed€so€as€not€to€increase€the€risk€of€human€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔpresenceÔ_Ô.€€Tree€harvest€and€related€activities€would€be€scheduled€to€occur€outside€the€bear's€fall€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔuseÔ_Ԁperiod.€€Secondly,€roads€used€for€vegetation€management€would€remain€closed€to€the€general€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔpublicÔ_Ô.€€Finally,€no€new€recreation€trails€are€planned€for€areas€occupied€by€bear.€ĖĖā ° āBased€on€these€factors,€there€will€not€be€any€foreseeable€significant€long€term€cumulative€effects€of€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtheÔ_ԀProposed€Action€or€its€alternatives€on€the€wildlife€community€presently€using€the€project€area.€ĖĐ  Tü Đō ōĶ  ĶT€&€E€SPECIES€WRITE-UP€EXAMPLE€Đ X ĐōōLAMB€BROOK€ENVIRONMENTAL€ASSESSMENTķķ€Đ Dė ĐĶ  Ķķ ķĖō ōTHREATENED,€ENDANGERED,€SENSITIVE€SPECIES;€SPECIES€OF€CONCERN€Đ Ä Đķ ķĖō ōAffected€Environment€Đ ôœ Đķ ķĖThe€following€discussion€is€the€Biological€Evaluation€for€the€proposed€action€and€€alternatives.€€In€order€toĪdetermine€the€presence€of€threatened,€endangered,€and€sensitive€species€(see€Appendix€E€of€the€Forest€€Ô_ÔPlanÔ_ԀforĪcomplete€list)€within€the€project€area,€a€search€of€Green€Mountain€National€Forest€records€was€conducted.€€TheĪrecord€search€also€included€reviewing€sites€for€rare€plant€communities€€identified€in€ōōPotential€Habitats€for€theĐ  8  ĐRare€Plants€of€the€Green€Mountain€€National€Forestķķ€(Jenkins,€1981).€€This€report€describes€what€is€known€aboutĐ | $  Đrare€€plant€distribution€and€status€in€Vermont,€notes€the€habitats€most€favorable€for€€them,€and€maps€distributionĪof€known€and€suspected€occurrences€of€those€habitats€€and€species€on€the€Green€Mountain€National€Forest.€ĪNeither€source€of€information€€indicated€the€presence€of€rare,€threatened,€endangered€Ô_ÔorÔ_Ԁsensitive€species€within€Īthe€project€area€boundaries.€ĖĖIn€addition,€the€Forest€Service€requested€that€the€Vermont€Ô_ÔNongameÔ_Ԁand€Natural€Heritage€ProgramĪ(Ô_ÔVNNHPÔ_Ô-Vermont€Agency€of€Natural€Resources,€Department€of€Fish€and€Wildlife)€search€their€records€andĪdatabases€and€conduct€an€environmental€review€of€proposed€activities.€€Ô_ÔVNNHPÔ_Ԁrecords€and€maintains€data€onĪoccurrences€of€rare€animals€and€plants,€and€communities€that€could€potentially€contain€rare€plants.€€Ô_ÔVNNHPÔ_ԀhasĪalso€identified€potential€sites€for€rare€plants€and€animals€and€unique€habitats€on€the€forest.€ĖĖThe€U.S.€Fish€and€Wildlife€Service€was€also€contacted€for€environmental€review€of€this€project.€€Their€PositionĪwas€that€review€by€Ô_ÔVNNHPÔ_Ԁis€sufficient€for€this€project€as€long€as€federally€listed€threatened€and€endangeredĪspecies€or€candidate€species€are€not€identified€within€the€project€area.€€The€presence€of€these€species€in€the€areaĪwould€then€trigger€Ô_ÔfurtherÔ_Ԁconsultation€with€this€agency.€(M.€€Ô_ÔAmaralÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔUSFÔ_Ô&WL,€personal€communication).€ĖĖÔ_ÔVNNHPÔ_Ԁdisclosed€their€findings€in€a€memo€dated€24€February,€1992,€stating:€ĖĖā ° āđ đAlthough€we€have€no€mapped€locations€for€any€endangered€or€rare€species€or€significant€natural€Ėā ° ācommunities,€two€of€the€proposed€areas€have€been€identified€as€mid€to€high€potential€sites€in€the€Ėā ° āpreliminary€report€for€the€Green€Mountain€National€Forest.đđ€ĖĖBased€on€new€information,€a€third€site€was€also€identified€in€March,€1992.€€The€first€site€was€located€in€a€standĪthat€was€subsequently€dropped€from€consideration€in€the€Proposed€Action€and€the€alternatives.€€The€second€site,Īlocated€in€Stands€3,€4,€8,€and€9€of€Compartment€184,€may€be€situated€on€bedrock€composed€of€Sherman€marbleĪand€is€thereby€potential€rare€plant€habitat.€€The€third€site€was€a€potential€old€growth€community€in€Stand€8.€BothĪsites€were€visited€by€the€Forest€Botanist€in€May€and€June€of€1992,€and€no€indications€of€rare,€threatened€orĪendangered€species€or€unique€communities€were€found.€ĖĖō ōEffects€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternativesķ ķ€Đ $(Ė%) ĐĖBy€virtue€of€their€absence,€there€would€be€no€direct,€indirect,€or€cumulative€effect€on€threatened,€endangered,Īand€sensitive€species,€or€on€other€species€of€concern€as€a€result€of€the€activities€proposed€in€the€Proposed€ActionĪor€in€any€of€the€alternatives.€ĖĐ  Ä,l*. Đō ōĶ  ĶVISUAL€EFFECTS€WRITE-UP€EXAMPLE€Đ X ĐōōLAMB€BROOK€ENVIRONMENTAL€ASSESSMENTķķ€Đ Dė ĐĶ  Ķķ ķĖō ōAffected€Environment€Đ Ä Đķ ķĖThe€Lamb€Brook€area€is€over€90€percent€mature€northern€hardwood€Ô_ÔforestÔ_Ԁwith€mature€spruce-fir€inclusions.€ĪThe€area€is€characteristic€of€central€Vermont€with€rolling€hills,€perennial€streams,€and€mountains.€€Except€forĪroads€along€the€periphery€and€some€roads€in€the€southern€half€of€the€unit,€the€area€is€generally€Ô_ÔunroadedÔ_ԀandĪinaccessible€except€by€foot€or€snowmobile€travel.€ĖĖThe€Forest€Plan€establishes€specific€visual€quality€goals€for€each€of€the€management€prescriptions€within€theĪLamb€Brook€area.€€These€goals€are€based€on€the€criteria€defined€in€the€National€Forest€Visual€ManagementĪSystem€(U.S.D.A.€Forest€Service,€1974).€€The€goals€vary€depending€upon€whether€activities€can€be€seen€fromĪcertain€areas.€€For€example,€there€are€different€visual€quality€goals€for€activities€that€can€be€seen€from€stateĪhighways€or€forest€trails,€than€for€activities€that€can€be€seen€by€someone€walking€through€the€woods.€€Forest€PlanĪpages€4.49€to€4.50€describes€the€various€visual€conditions.€ĖĖThe€Forest€Plan€directs€that€activities€occurring€within€one€half€mile€of€State€Routes€8,€9,€and€100€should€not€beĪvisually€evident€to€someone€using€those€roads,€and€that€activities€occurring€more€than€one€half€Ô_ÔmileÔ_Ԁfrom€theseĪroads€may€be€seen€but€should€be€subdued€and€subordinate€to€the€natural€appearing€landscape.€€The€Forest€PlanĪstates€that€activities€may€be€seen€from€the€snowmobile€trails€and€Ô_ÔMedburyvilleÔ_Ô,€but€these€changes€must€beĪsubdued€and€subordinate€to€the€natural€appearing€landscape.€€Except€for€off-site€views€to€prominent€peaks,€allĪareas€not€seen€from€the€Ô_Ôabove€mentionedÔ_Ԁlocations€may€be€more€noticeable€and€even€begin€to€dominate€the€viewĪbut€must€be€in€harmony€with€the€surrounding€landscape.€€Current€visual€conditions€within€the€project€area€meetĪthese€Forest€Plan€visual€quality€objectives.€ĖĖō ōEffects€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternativesķ ķ€Đ Pø ĐĖAll€proposed€vegetative€treatments€have€been€reviewed€by€the€landscape€architect€through€field€visits,€computerĪanalysis,€or€map€review€and€would€meet€Forest€Plan€visual€quality€objectives.€€The€concerns€raised€aboutĪclearcutting€vegetation€and€creation€of€vistas€are€analyzed€below.€ĖĖā ° āō ōProposed€Actionķ ķ€Đ Ü„  ĐĖNone€of€the€proposed€timber€harvests€would€be€seen€from€any€of€the€State€Highways€nor€the€proposed€vistas€andĪtherefore,€would€not€affect€the€visual€experience€of€people€traveling€these€highways€or€people€viewing€the€areaĪfrom€the€vistas.€However,€timber€harvesting€would€be€visible€from€some€portions€of€FR266€and€from€portions€ofĪthe€snowmobile€trail.€€Although€these€activities€would€change€the€visual€character€of€the€area,€they€have€beenĪreviewed€by€the€landscape€architect,€and€are€consistent€with€the€Forest€Plan€visual€quality€objectives.€ĖĖCreation€of€the€two€proposed€vistas€along€Route€8€would€increase€the€opportunity€for€people€to€view€the€areaĪconsistent€with€Forest€Plan€direction€(pages€4.59,€4.65).€Similar€vistas€have€been€created€along€roads€throughoutĪthe€Forest,€and€have€brought€Ô_ÔcomplimentsÔ_Ԁby€forest€visitors.€€Examples€of€vistas€can€be€found€along€FR77Ī(Manchester€District)€and€FR32€(Ô_ÔMiddleburyÔ_ԀDistrict).€ĖĖIn€order€to€mitigate€any€adverse€visual€effects€of€clearing€vegetation€to€create€the€vistas,€selected€trees€of€theĪlargest€diameter€available€within€a€Ô_Ô50€footÔ_Ԁcorridor€along€the€road€edge€would€be€left.€€This€would€provideĪcontinuity€of€the€forest€canopy€along€the€edge€and€thus,€an€aesthetic€appeal€to€frame€the€view.€Đ ´-\+/ ЇThree€of€the€proposed€wildlife€openings€would€be€visible€from€FR266€and€the€snowmobile€trail.€€Initially,€theseĪopenings€would€be€in€sharp€contrast€to€the€uncut€areas.€€However,€in€three€to€five€years,€the€stands€wouldĪbecome€more€natural€appearing.€€Evidence€of€Ô_ÔslashÔ_Ԁand€stumps€would€diminish€as€the€stand€takes€on€a€newĪcomposition€composed€of€shrubs€and€pockets€of€vegetation.€€Two€of€these€wildlife€openings€would€also€serve€asĪvistas€along€FR266€providing€views€to€nearby€peaks.€ĖĖThe€three€other€proposed€openings€would€not€be€seen€from€any€roads€or€trails€but€may€be€seen€by€someĪdispersed€recreationists.€ĖĖā ° āō ōNo€Action€Alternativeķ ķ€Đ ¤ L  ĐĖUnder€this€alternative€there€are€no€changes€to€the€current€visual€condition€nor€would€any€vistas€be€created.€ĖĖō ōķ ķā ° āō ōAlternative€Cķ ķ€Đ X  ĐĖThe€potential€visual€effects€resulting€from€the€proposed€timber€harvests€are€the€same€as€those€disclosed€for€theĪProposed€Action.€ĖĖHowever€since€no€vistas€would€be€created€along€Route€8,€there€will€not€be€as€many€Ô_Ô9Ô_Ԁopportunities€to€viewĪmountain€peaks€as€in€the€Proposed€Action.€€The€visual€effects€of€creating€the€permanent€wildlife€openings€wouldĪbe€the€same€as€for€the€Proposed€Action.€€Fifteen€Ô_ÔlessÔ_Ԁacres€of€openings€would€be€created€in€this€alternative€thanĪin€the€Proposed€Action.€€The€openings€along€FR266€and€Corridor€9€would€provide€views€similar€to€that€of€a€vistaĪbut€will€not€Ô_ÔbeÔ_Ԁmaintained€as€vistas.€ĖĖĖā ° āō ōAlternative€Dķ ķ€Đ l ĐĖThe€visual€effects€of€the€activities€proposed€in€Alternative€D€would€be€similar€to€those€produced€by€the€activitiesĪof€the€Proposed€Action.€€Seven€less€acres€of€permanent€openings€and€one€less€vista€(approximately€Ô_Ô1/2Ô_ԀacreĪalong€FR266)€would€be€created€in€this€alternative.€ĖĖā ° āō ōAlternative€Eķ ķ€Đ ø  ĐĖThe€visual€effects€of€the€activities€proposed€in€Alternative€E€would€be€similar€to€those€produced€byĪimplementation€of€the€Proposed€Action.€€Both€this€alternative€and€the€Proposed€Action€would€create€the€sameĪvistas€and€permanent€openings.€However,€Alternative€E€proposes€to€clearcut€two€harvest€units€in€CompartmentĪ123.€These€units€would€not€be€seen€from€the€snowmobile€trail€network€or€from€off-site€locations€and€wouldĪtherefore€create€no€adverse€visual€impacts.€ĖĖō ōCumulative€Effects€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternativesķ ķ€Đ \&$' ĐĖThere€are€no€previous€Forest€Service€actions€in€this€area€which€Ô_Ôhave€had€an€effect€onÔ_Ԁthose€visual€viewpointsĪanalyzed.€Ô_ÔBasedÔ_Ԁon€information€provided€by€New€England€Power€Company€(Ô_ÔNEPCOÔ_Ô),€there€are€no€past,€presentĪor€future€proposed€vegetative€treatments€on€Ô_ÔNEPCOÔ_Ԁlands€that€will€be€visible€from€state€highways€or€ForestĪService€roads.€€Some€of€the€effects€of€Ô_ÔNEPCOÔ_Ô's€timber€harvesting€may€be€apparent€from€the€Corridor€9Īsnowmobile€trail.€ĖĖBased€on€this€information,€the€Ô_Ôapplication€of€Forest€Plan€standards€and€guidelines,€and€a€knowledge€of€past,Đ Ā-h+/ Đpresent,€and€future€actions,€there€would€be€no€adverse€cumulative€effectsÔ_Ô.€ĖĖThe€Forest€Service€has€received€a€proposal€from€Green€Mountain€Power€Company€to€construct€a€large€scaleĪwind€powered€electric€generating€facility€on€the€ridge€to€the€east€of€Route€8.€This€facility€would€be€visible€fromĪthe€proposed€vistas€along€Route€8€and€FR266.€€The€Ô_Ôconstruction€of€the€vistas€and€the€foreseeable€futureĪplacement€of€the€wind€towers€visible€from€the€vistas€areÔ_Ԁnot€incompatible.€The€wind€power€proposal€will€beĪanalyzed€Ô_Ôin€its€entiretyÔ_Ԁat€a€later€date.€ĖĐ  Ėt Đō ōĶ  ĶRECREATION€EFFECTS€WRITE-UP€EXAMPLE€Đ X ĐōōÔ_ÔHAPGOODÔ_ԀPOND€ENVIRONMENTAL€ASSESSMENT€Đ Dė ĐĶ  Ķķ ķķķĖō ōProject€Specific€Recreation€Issuesķ ķ€Đ Ä ĐThere€Ô_Ôwere€no€projectÔ_Ԁspecific€recreation€issues€raised€by€the€public.€€As€stated€in€the€Desired€Future€ConditionĪsection,€the€Forest€Service€and€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€concessionaire€both€desire€to;€1)€bring€recreation€facilities€up€toĪstandard,€and€2)€increase€use€of€the€campground€during€mid-week.€ĖĖō ōAffected€Environmentķ ķ€Đ ŧ d ĐThe€project€area€includes€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€Recreation€Area,€a€developed€recreation€site€offering€opportunitiesĪfor€camping,€picnicking,€swimming,€hiking,€and€fishing.€€The€remainder€of€the€project€area€provides€opportunitiesĪfor€hiking,€hunting,€fishing€and€other€dispersed€recreation€activities.€€Commercial€cross-country€ski€trails€occurĪwithin€and€adjacent€to€the€western€portion€of€the€project€area€(Figure€3).€ĖĖThe€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€Recreation€Area€is€currently€run€by€a€concessionaire,€the€Vermont€Youth€ConservationĪCorps.€€This€is€one€of€two€fee€areas€on€the€district€and€the€most€popular€day-use€and€over-night€facility.€€In€1992,Īit€received€15,450€day-use€visitors€and€2,426€overnight€visitors.€€Day-use€is€at,€or€exceeds,€capacity€during€theĪhot€summer€months,€particularly€on€weekends.€€The€campground€is€rarely€full€except€for€Memorial€Day,€July€Ô_Ô4thÔ_Ô,Īand€Labor€Day€holidays.€€Weekend€usage€is€much€greater€than€mid-week€usage.€ĖĖExisting€facilities,€including€28€campsites,€40€picnic€sites€and€2€miles€of€hiking€trails,€have€deteriorated€due€to€ageĪand€maintenance€backlogs.€€As€a€result,€the€facilities€are€below€Forest€Service€standard.€€Ô_ÔFurtherÔ_Ô,€most€of€theĪfacilities€do€not€meet€the€current€legal€direction€for€access€for€people€with€disabilities.€Facilities€must€be€madeĪaccessible€as€per€the€Rehabilitation€Act€of€1973,€ōōas€amended€in€1978ķķ€(Rehabilitation€Act).€Đ ”< ĐĖō ōEffects€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€Đ l Đķ ķĖā ° āō ōProposed€Actionķ ķā ¸ ā€€Đ Dė Đā ° āThe€proposed€action€would€improve€the€recreationists'€experience€at€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€Recreation€Area€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔbyÔ_Ԁmaking€the€facilities€more€visually€appealing,€function€properly,€and€more€easily€accessible.€€This€Ėā ° āwould€be€consistent€with€LRMP€objectives€of€đ đproviding€high€quality€recreational€opportunitiesđđ€Ėā ° ā(LRMP€page€4.06)€and€improving€the€attractiveness€and€ecological€soundness€of€the€Forest's€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔcampgroundsÔ_Ԁ(LRMP€page€4.07).€The€project€would€also€bring€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_Ԁfacilities€into€compliance€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔwithÔ_Ԁthe€Rehabilitation€Act.€ĖĖā ° āThe€rehabilitation€of€portions€of€the€Pond€Loop€Trail,€the€addition€of€a€new€Ô_ÔmatchableÔ_Ԁwildlife€trail,€Ėā ° āand€the€reopening€of€the€Deer€Track€Trail€would€broaden€the€recreation€opportunities€available€for€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔvisitorsÔ_Ԁand€possibly€lead€to€an€increase€in€mid-week€campground€attendance.€ĖĖā ° āNoise€resulting€from€logging€activities€would€have€a€short-term€negative€impact€on€dispersed€Ėā ° ārecreation€users€and€on€visitors€to€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€Recreation€Area.€€A€safety€problem€could€exist€due€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtoÔ_Ԁtimber€activities€in€vicinity€of€recreationists.€€To€prevent€these€problems€from€impacting€visitors€at€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€Recreation€Area,€timber€harvesting€activities€in€M.A.€7.1€east€of€North€Road€would€Ėā ° ābe€prohibited€while€the€recreation€area€is€under€concession€(Memorial€Day€weekend€through€Ėā ° āColumbus€Day).€ĖĖā ° āTo€safeguard€hikers,€hunters€and€other€dispersed€recreation€users€of€the€project€area,€signs€explaining€ŧā ° āā  āĐ ¸-`+/ Đā ° āthe€vegetation€management€activities€and€warning€of€the€dangers€(including€the€presence€of€logging€Ėā ° ātrucks),€would€be€erected€and€maintained€at€Ô_ÔtrailheadsÔ_Ô,€along€trails€and€at€parking€areas.€ĖĖā ° āWinter€skidding€along€commercial€ski€trails€would€necessitate€closing€the€trails€to€skiing€during€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔloggingÔ_Ô.€€This€would€result€in€the€loss€of€income€to€the€Wild€Wings€Cross-Country€Ski€Area€and€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔreduceÔ_Ԁrecreational€opportunities€available€to€the€public.€€To€prevent€this,€timber€harvesting€where€Ėā ° āthe€trails€are€located€would€be€restricted€to€non-winter€seasons€(these€trails€are€on€soils€suitable€for€Ėā ° āÔ_Ônon-winter€harvest€activitiesÔ_Ô).€€Further,€ski€trails€would€be€brought€back€to€pre-sale€conditions€ĖĖā ° āÔ_ÔthroughÔ_Ԁgrading,€seeding€and/or€mulching€before€each€ski€season€begins.€ĖĖā ° āThe€proposed€project€would€maintain€the€pond's€water€quality€and€depth€necessary€for€a€quality€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔrecreationalÔ_Ԁexperience.€€Having€a€full€pond€throughout€the€year€would€be€a€benefit€to€recreationists€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔwhoÔ_Ԁvisit€the€area€in€the€fall€and€winter.€€The€pond€would€be€available€for€more€of€the€fishing€season,€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔandÔ_Ԁa€full€pond€is€more€visually€appealing.€€However,€a€safety€concern€would€develop€as€visitors€are€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔattractedÔ_Ԁto€the€frozen€pond€surface€in€winter.€There€is€a€possibility€that€sediment€would€accumulate€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔonÔ_Ԁthe€beach€during€the€winter€or€spring€high€flow€season€in€years€when€the€pond€is€not€drained.€€Ėā ° āThis€situation€would€require€extra€maintenance€in€the€spring,€and€would€require€the€beach€sand€to€be€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔreplacedÔ_Ԁmore€often.€ĖĖā ° āTimber€harvesting€activities€proposed€adjacent€to€the€Peru€Peak€Wilderness€boundary€would€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔnegativelyÔ_Ԁimpact€recreational€users€of€the€Wilderness€by€the€introduction€of€man-made€noises.ā (# āĐ ´\ Đā ° āHowever,€the€area€impacted€has€no€system€trails€and€receives€little€public€use.€€Also,€the€noise€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔgeneratingÔ_Ԁactivities€would€be€of€short€duration.€€Therefore,€impacts€on€publics€using€the€portion€of€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁwilderness€impacted€would€be€minimal.€ĖĖā ° āō ōAlternative€Iķ ķ€Đ Pø Đā ° āThe€effects€of€Alternative€I€Ô_ÔareÔ_Ԁsimilar€to€the€Proposed€Action.€€However,€Alternative€I€would€better€Ėā ° āmeet€the€LRMP€objective€for€improving€the€attractiveness€and€ecological€soundness€of€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀĖā ° āÔ_ÔcampgroundÔ_Ԁ(LRMP€p.€4.07).€Four€of€the€campsites,€currently€located€in€a€wetland,€would€be€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔrelocatedÔ_Ԁto€a€higher€and€drier€site€(Figure€5).€€The€relocated€campsites€would€be€more€visually€Ėā ° āattractive€and€easier€to€maintain€than€the€existing€campsites,€even€if€the€existing€sites€were€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔrehabilitatedÔ_Ԁas€planned€in€the€Proposed€Action.€ĖĖā ° āBy€being€located€in€a€spruce€plantation,€the€new€campsites€would€provide€a€camping€environment€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔnotÔ_Ԁcurrently€available;€Ô_ÔthusÔ_Ԁenhancing€the€campground.€Also,€the€wetland€would€revert€to€it's€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔnaturalÔ_Ԁstate,€improving€its€ecological€productivity€and€visual€quality.€€Finally,€site€relocation€would€Ėā ° āimprove€the€quality€of,€and€afford€more€privacy€for,€existing€sites€adjacent€to€those€planned€for€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔrelocationÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° āThe€relocation€of€the€CCC€era€structure€and€its€utilization€as€a€museum/information€distribution€ĖĖā ° ācenter€would€make€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_Ԁusers€more€aware€of€recreational€opportunities€at€or€near€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀĖā ° āÔ_ÔPondÔ_Ԁand€elsewhere€on€the€forest.€€By€giving€visitors€and€array€of€choices,€their€recreational€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔexperienceÔ_Ԁwould€be€enhanced.€€It€could€also€further€the€objective€of€increased€mid-week€attendance,€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔwithÔ_Ԁthe€campground€being€a€focal€point€for€longer€visits€to€the€Forest.€Đ  Ø+€)- Đā ° āBy€draining€the€pond€annually,€there€will€be€no€additional€possibility€of€sediment€accumulating€on€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁbeach.€€The€pond€would€be€available€for€recreation€only€during€the€late€spring€and€summer€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔmonthsÔ_Ô.€€The€empty€pond€would€be€visually€unattractive€to€visitors€to€the€area.€ĖĖō ōķ ķā ° āō ōAlternative€II€(No€Action)ķ ķ:€Đ ° Đā ° āThe€No€Action€alternative€would€result€in€the€degradation€of€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€Recreation€Area,€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔandÔ_Ԁpotentially€closure€of€the€site.€€Regular€maintenance€is€not€enough€to€prevent€the€eventual€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdeteriorationÔ_Ԁof€the€campground€facilities.€€This€would€not€meet€the€LRMP€direction€to€maintain€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔhighÔ_Ԁquality€recreation.€€As€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€Recreation€Area€is€the€Forest's€only€highly€developed€Ėā ° ārecreation€area€(aside€from€downhill€ski€areas),€its€closure€would€result€in€a€major€loss€of€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔrecreationalÔ_Ԁopportunity€on€this€Forest.€ĖĖā ° āThe€Ô_ÔNoÔ_ԀAction€alternative€would€not€meet€the€requirements€of€the€Rehabilitation€Act.€€Also,€there€Ėā ° āwould€be€fewer€recreational€opportunities€for€visitors€to€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€as€compared€to€the€Proposed€Ėā ° āAction.€€Finally,€the€possibility€of€increasing€mid-week€attendance€at€the€campground€is€low.€€In€Ėā ° āfact,€the€continued€deterioration€of€the€facility€would€likely€lead€to€a€drop€in€weekend€attendance€as€€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔwellÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° āAs€there€are€no€timber€harvesting€activities,€there€would€be€no€vegetation€management€related€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔimpactsÔ_Ԁon€dispersed€or€developed€recreational€use€within€the€project€area.€ĖĖā ° āHaving€a€full€pond€throughout€the€year€would€be€a€benefit€to€recreationists€who€visit€the€area€in€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔfallÔ_Ԁand€winter.€€The€pond€would€be€available€for€more€of€the€fishing€season,€and€a€full€pond€is€more€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔvisuallyÔ_Ԁappealing.€However,€a€safety€concern€would€develop€as€visitors€are€attracted€to€the€frozen€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔpondÔ_Ԁsurface€in€winter.€€By€not€draining€the€pond€there€is€a€possibility€that€sediment€would€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔaccumulateÔ_Ԁon€the€beach€during€the€winter€or€spring€high€flow€season.€€This€situation€would€require€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔextraÔ_Ԁmaintenance€in€the€spring,€and€would€require€the€beach€sand€to€be€replaced€more€often.€€If€Ėā ° āsediment€continues€to€deposit€in€the€pond€over€time,€eventually€the€pond€could€become€too€shallow€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtoÔ_Ԁsustain€quality€recreation.€ĖĖā ° āō ōAlternative€IIIķ ķ:€€Ô_ÔsameÔ_Ԁas€Alternative€I.€Đ Ŧ ĐĖō ōķ ķā ° āō ōAlternative€IVķ ķ:€Ô_ÔsameÔ_Ԁas€Alternative€I.€Đ āˆ  ĐĖō ōķ ķā ° āō ōAlternative€Vķ ķ:€Ô_ÔsameÔ_Ԁas€Alternative€I.€Đ ŧ!d" ĐĖō ōķ ķā ° āō ōAlternative€VIķ ķ:€Ô_ÔsameÔ_Ԁas€Alternative€I.€Đ ˜#@!$ ĐĖō ōķ ķā ° āō ōCumulative€Effectsķ ķ:€€Past€logging€activity€in€the€area€had€minor€short-term€impacts€on€dispersed€Đ t%#& Đā ° āÔ_ÔrecreationÔ_Ԁwhile€timber€sales€were€in€progress.€€This€has€primarily€been€closure€of€trails€and€sale€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔgeneratedÔ_Ԁnoise.€€Recreationists€are€no€longer€impacted€by€these€previous€activities€due€to€their€short€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdurationÔ_Ô.€There€are€no€present€actions€in€the€area€which€adversely€impact€recreation.€Reasonably€Ėā ° āforeseeable€future€action€in€the€area€that€may€have€the€same€short-term€adverse€impacts€would€be€Ėā ° āimplementation€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€re-entry€into€Ô_ÔshelterwoodsÔ_Ԁcreated€by€the€Proposed€Ėā ° āAction€to€remove€remaining€overstory€trees.€€This€would€occur€approximately€6-7€years€after€project€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔimplementationÔ_Ԁand€would€have€similar€impacts.€€It€is€also€likely€vegetation€management€would€Ėā ° āoccur€in€the€project€area€in€the€future,€similar€to€the€types€of€activities€described€in€the€Proposed€Ėā ° āAction€and€its€alternatives.€Đ  Ä-l+/ Đā ° āThe€cumulative€effect€of€these€actions€would€be€minor,€intermittent€short-term€adverse€impacts€to€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdispersedÔ_Ԁrecreationists€in€the€project€area€over€the€long-term.€€These€impacts€would€be€the€same€as€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔinÔ_Ԁthe€past,€namely€trail€closure€and€noise.€€Alternative€dispersed€recreation€opportunities€in€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔgeneralÔ_Ԁarea€provides€recreationists€the€opportunity€to€avoid€using€the€project€area.€€Therefore,€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔcumulativeÔ_Ԁeffects€of€the€Proposed€Action€would€be€minor.€ĖĖā ° āAlternatives€I,€III,€IV,€V,€and€VI€would€have€the€same€cumulative€effects€as€the€Proposed€Action.€€Ėā ° āThe€No€Action€alternative€(Alternative€II)€would€not€have€adverse€impacts€on€dispersed€recreation€in€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁarea,€and€would€not€contribute€to€any€cumulative€effects.€ĖĐ  ¤ L  Đō ōĶ  ĶECONOMIC€EFFECT€WRITE-UP€EXAMPLE€Đ X ĐōōLAMB€BROOK€ENVIRONMENTAL€ASSESSMENTķķ€Đ Dė ĐĶ  Ķķ ķĖThis€analysis€focuses€on€incremental€economic€differences€between€the€Proposed€Action€and€other€alternatives.€ĪThe€analysis€includes€only€variable€costs€associated€with€the€alternatives.€€Since€fixed€costs€such€as€generalĪadministration€and€program€management€do€not€change€among€alternatives,€these€costs€are€not€included.€ĪÔ_ÔFurthermoreÔ_Ô,€the€costs€included€in€the€analysis€are€only€those€expected€to€be€incurred€by€the€Forest€Service.€ĪCosts€incurred€by€timber€purchasers€or€other€parties€are€not€included.€€The€estimates€are€based€on€historical€costsĪfor€similar€projects€on€the€Green€Mountain€National€Forest.€ĖĖThese€estimates€are€based€on€appraisals€of€fair€market€value€for€timber€and€the€expected€timber€volume.€€EachĪalternative€also€produces€other€public€benefits,€such€as€wildlife€habitat,€recreation€access,€and€biological€diversity.€ĪHowever,€these€benefits€are€not€quantified€in€the€economic€analysis€because€it€was€not€possible€to€estimateĪmonetary€values€for€them€on€a€project€basis.€€The€Proposed€Action€and€the€alternatives€include€a€combination€ofĪvarious€activities€and€the€revenues€and€costs€associated€with€these€activities€must€be€viewed€as€a€single€package.€ĪTo€gain€a€Ô_Ômore€completeÔ_Ԁunderstanding€of€the€differences€among€alternatives,€refer€to€the€Environmental€EffectsĪsection€of€this€assessment.€ĖĖō ōEffects€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€Đ đ˜ Đķ ķĖō ōķ ķā ° āō ōProposed€Action€Đ Čp Đķ ķĖThe€costs€associated€with€the€harvesting€of€timber€stands€in€the€Proposed€Action€include€approximately€$72,650Īfor€road€construction€and€$52,600€for€sale€area€preparation,€site€preparation€and€stocking€surveys€(see€Ô_ÔtableÔ_ÔĪbelow).€€Other€costs€associated€with€the€Proposed€Action€include€$41,400€for€wildlife€habitat€improvements,Ī$20,000€to€construct€a€10-car€snowmobile€parking€lot,€and€$3,500€to€locate€and€construct€and€reconstruct€Ô_Ô3Ô_ԀÔ_Ô1/2Ô_ÔĪmiles€of€snowmobile€trail.€ĖĖThe€revenues€resulting€from€the€Proposed€Action€are€approximately€$161,800€in€timber€sale€receipts.€€Other€nonĪrevenue€benefits€from€the€Proposed€Action€include€the€increased€recreational€opportunities€in€the€area€resultingĪfrom€the€creation€of€vistas,€additional€snowmobile€and€hiking€trails,€and€increased€Ô_Ôwildlife€habitatÔ_Ô.€ĖĖApproximately€$40,200,€which€is€one€quarter€of€the€gross€receipts€from€the€Ô_ÔstumpageÔ_Ô,€will€be€available€for€the€25ĪPercent€Fund€which€is€returned€to€local€communities.€ĖĖā ° ā€€ō ōNo€Action€Alternativeķ ķ€Đ œ"D # ĐĖThere€are€no€incremental€revenues€or€benefits€associated€with€the€No€Action€Alternative.€ĖĖā ° ā€€ō ōAlternative€C€Đ P&ø#' Đķ ķĖThe€costs€associated€with€the€timber€harvesting€under€this€alternative€are€approximately€$16,100€for€roadĪconstruction€and€$28,800€for€sale€area€preparation,€site€preparation€and€stocking€surveys€(see€Ô_ÔtableÔ_Ԁbelow).€ĪOther€costs€associated€with€this€alternative€include€$54,400€for€wildlife€habitat€improvements.€SnowmobileĪparking€lot€and€trail€construction€costs€are€the€same€as€for€the€Proposed€Action.€ĖĖĐ  Č,p*. ĐThe€revenues€resulting€from€this€alternative€are€approximately€$76,500€in€timber€sale€receipts.€€Other€nonĪrevenue€benefits€include€the€increased€recreational€opportunities€in€the€area€resulting€from€the€creation€of€Ô_Ôvistas,Īadditional€hiking€trails,€and€increased€wildlife€habitatÔ_Ô.€ĖĖApproximately€$19,125,€which€is€one€quarter€of€the€gross€receipts€from€the€Ô_ÔstumpageÔ_Ô,€will€be€available€for€the€25ĪPercent€Fund€which€is€returned€to€local€communities.€ĖĖā ° ā€€ō ōAlternative€D€Đ Ėt Đķ ķĖThe€costs€associated€with€the€timber€harvesting€under€this€alternative€are€approximately€$26,100€for€roadĪconstruction€and€$37,300€for€sale€area€preparation,€site€preparation€and€stocking€surveys€(see€Ô_ÔtableÔ_Ԁbelow).€ĪOther€costs€associated€with€this€alternative€include€$40,000€for€wildlife€habitat€improvements.€€Parking€lot€andĪtrail€construction€costs€are€the€same€as€the€Proposed€Action.€ĖĖThe€revenues€resulting€from€this€alternative€are€approximately€$93,400€in€timber€sale€receipts.€€Other€nonĪrevenue€benefits€include€the€increased€recreational€opportunities€in€the€area€resulting€from€the€creation€of€Ô_Ôvistas,Īadditional€hiking€trails,€and€increased€wildlife€habitatÔ_Ô.€ĖĖApproximately€$23,350€will€be€available€for€the€25€Percent€Fund€which€is€returned€to€local€communities.€ĖĖā ° ā€€ō ōAlternative€Eķ ķ€Đ Ėt ĐĖThe€costs€associated€with€the€timber€harvesting€under€this€alternative€are€approximately€$72,650€for€roadĪconstruction€and€$55,300€for€sale€area€preparation,€site€preparation€and€stocking€surveys€(see€Ô_ÔtableÔ_Ԁbelow).€ĪOther€costs€associated€with€this€alternative€include€$33,900€for€wildlife€habitat€improvements.€€Parking€lot€andĪtrail€construction€costs€are€the€same€as€the€Proposed€Action.€ĖĖThe€revenues€resulting€from€this€alternative€are€approximately€$150,700€in€timber€sale€receipts.€€Other€nonĪrevenue€benefits€include€the€increased€recreational€opportunities€in€the€area€resulting€from€the€creation€of€Ô_Ôvistas,Īadditional€hiking€trails,€and€increased€wildlife€habitatÔ_Ô.€ĖĖApproximately€$37,675€will€be€available€for€the€25€Percent€Fund€which€is€returned€to€local€communities.€ĖĖĐ  Ė t! ĐThe€following€table€summarizes€the€costs€and€benefits€Ô_Ôthat€were€includedÔ_Ԁin€the€economic€analysis.€€SpecificĪtimber€costs€and€revenues€are€relatively€easy€to€determine.€€However€wildlife€and€recreation€revenues€are€difficultĪto€quantify,€therefore€there€are€no€wildlife/recreation€revenues€listed.€ĖĖÔ*•ƒ d€€dd Xdd Xdd XX€%X€%•ÔÔ,°ddÔÔ,ddÔÔ,øddÔÔ,wddÔÔ,wddÔÔ,ddÔÔ,õddÔÔ,ûddÔÔ+  ÔĐ 2( ° €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†2ĐĐ ?5l˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐPROPOSEDĐ F€5l˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†FĐ_________Đ U€D+l˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†UĐALTERNATIVESĐ X€G.l"˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†XĐĐ VL.l ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†VĐĐ ?5ė” ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐACTIONĐ ?5ė” ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐBĐ ?5ė” "˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐCĐ B€5ė” "˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†BĐDĐ Q€D+ė”"˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†QĐEĐ T€G.ė”"˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†TĐĶ  ĶĐ SI+ė” ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†SĐō ōōōTimberĐ ?5l ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đķ ķķķĐ ?5l ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5l ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5l ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5l ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ B8l ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†BĐĐ D:l ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐĐ ?5ė ”˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5ė ”˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5ė ”˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5ė ”˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5ė ”˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ B8ė ”˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†BĐĐ D:ė ”˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐō ōCostsĐ ?5l  ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đķ ķĐ ?5l  ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5l  !˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5l  "˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5l  #˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ B8l  $˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†BĐĐ D:l  %˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐRoad€ConstĐ ?5ė ” &˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$€72,650Đ ?5ė ” '˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$0Đ ?5ė ” ("˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$16,100Đ ?5ė ” )˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$26,100Đ ?5ė ” *˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$€72,650Đ B8ė ” +˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†BĐĐ D:ė ” ,˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐSale€Prep.Đ ?5l -˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$€52,600Đ ?5l .˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$0Đ ?5l /"˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$28,800Đ ?5l 0˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$37,300Đ ?5l 1˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$€55,300Đ B8l 2˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†BĐĐ D:l 3˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐĐ ?5ė”4˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5ė”5˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5ė”6˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5ė”7˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5ė”8˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ B8ė”9˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†BĐĐ D:ė”:˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐō ōRevenuesĐ ?5l;˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đķ ķĐ ?5l<˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5l=˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5l>˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5l?˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ B8l@˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†BĐĐ D:lA˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐÔ_ÔStumpageÔ_ԀValueĐ ?5ė”B˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$161,800Đ ?5ė”C˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$0Đ ?5ė”D"˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$76,500Đ ?5ė”E˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$93,400Đ ?5ė”F˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$150,700Đ B8ė”G˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†BĐĐ D:ė”H˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐĐ ?5lI˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5lJ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5lK˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5lL˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5lM˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ B8lN˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†BĐĐ D:lO˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐā  āā l āĪō ōNetĐ ?5Ø€Q˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đķ ķ$€36,550Đ ?5ė”R˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$0Đ ?5ė”S"˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$31,600Đ ?5ė”T˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$30,000Đ ?5ė”U˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$€22,750Đ B8ė”V˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†BĐĐ D:ė”W˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐĐ ?5XX˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5XY˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5XZ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5X[˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5X\˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ B8X]˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†BĐĐ D:X^˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐĐ ?5Ø€_˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5Ø€`˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5Ø€a˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5Ø€b˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5Ø€c˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ B8Ø€d˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†BĐĐ," Ø€e ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d ,Đ-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ĖÔ*ôƒ d€€d°dd°ddøddøwddwwddwddõddõûddûX€%X€%ôÔÔ,°ddÔÔ,ddÔÔ,øddÔÔ,wddÔÔ,ddÔÔ,øddÔÔ+  ÔĐ 2( āˆf €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†2Đō ōōōWildlife/Đ ?5Dėg˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đķ ķķķĐ ?5Dėh˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5Dėi˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5Dėj˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5Dėk˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ D:Dėl˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DЀ€ō ōōōRecreationĐ ?5Älm˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đķ ķķķĐ ?5Äln˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5Älo˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5Älp˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5Älq˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ D:Älr˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐō ōCostsĐ ?5H đs˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đķ ķĐ ?5H đt˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5H đu˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5H đv˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5H đw˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ D:H đx˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐWildlife€HabitatĐ ?5Č!py˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$41,400Đ ?5Č!pz˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5Č!p{"˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$16,100Đ ?5Č!p|˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$54,400Đ ?5Č!p}˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$33,900Đ D:Č!p~˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐā  āŧImprovementsĐ ?54$Ü!€˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5H#đ ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5H#đ ‚"˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5H#đ ƒ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5H#đ „˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ D:H#đ …˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐSnowmobile€TrailĐ ?5´%\#†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$€€3,500Đ ?5´%\#‡˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5´%\#ˆ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$€€3,500Đ ?5´%\#‰˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$€€3,500Đ ?5´%\#Š˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$€€3,500Đ D:´%\#‹˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐParking€LotĐ ?54'Ü$Œ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$20,000€€Đ ?54'Ü$˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?54'Ü$Ž˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$20,000Đ ?54'Ü$˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$20,000Đ ?54'Ü$˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$20,000Đ D:4'Ü$‘˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐĐ ?5´(\&’˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5´(\&“˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5´(\&”˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5´(\&•˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5´(\&–˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ D:´(\&—˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐō ōRevenuesĐ ?54*Ü'˜˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đķ ķĐ ?54*Ü'™˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?54*Ü'š˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?54*Ü'›˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?54*Ü'œ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ," 4*Ü'  ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d ,Đā ° āBenefits€are€not€quantifiableĖ-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ėâ âĐ (-Đ*Ÿ ĐÔ*΃ d€€ d°dd°ddøddøwddwddøddøX€%X€%ÎÔÔ,°ddÔÔ,ddÔÔ,øddÔÔ,wddÔÔ,ddÔÔ,øddÔÔ+  ÔĐ 2( X €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†2Đâ âō ōōōTotal€ProjectĐ ?5ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đķ ķķķĐ ?5ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ D:ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐĐ ?5<ä˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5<ä˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5<ä ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5<ä ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5<ä ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ D:<ä ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐō ōā  ā€€CostsĐ ?5ŧd ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đķ ķ€$190,150Đ ?5ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$0Đ ?5ŧd"˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Ѐ$122,800Đ ?5ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Ѐ$126,900Đ ?5ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Ѐ$185,350Đ D:ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DЀР?5<ä˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ЀР?5<ä˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ЀР?5<ä"˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ЀР?5<ä˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ЀР?5<ä˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ЀРD:<ä˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐō ōā  ā€€RevenuesĐ ?5ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đķ ķ-($28,350)Đ ?5ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ$0Đ ?5ŧd"˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ-($46,300)Đ ?5ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ-($33,500)Đ ?5ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?Đ-($34,650)Đ D:ŧd˙˙˙d˙˙˙d €€„„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†DĐĐ ?5< ä˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5< ä ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5< ä!˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5< ä"˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ ?5< ä#˙˙˙d˙˙˙d „„……†˙˙˙d˙˙˙d†?ĐĐ," < ä$  ˙˙˙d˙˙˙d ,ĐĖRevenues€from€timber€receipts€will€cover€timber€activities€but€will€not€cover€total€project€costs.€€The€values€listedĪabove€under€total€project€revenues€are€amounts€needed€in€excess€of€timber€receipts€to€totally€fund€the€projectsĪlisted€for€each€alternative.€ĖĐ  ° ( Đō ōĶ  ĶCULTURAL€RESOURCES€EFFECTS€WRITE-UP€EXAMPLEā @ ā€€Đ X ĐōōLAMB€BROOK€ENVIRONMENTAL€ASSESSMENTķķ€Đ Dė ĐĶ  Ķķ ķĖField-verified€cultural€resource€inventory€information€was€available€at€an€early€stage€in€the€project€planningĪprocess.€€This€information€has€been€considered€in€the€development€of€alternatives.€ĖĖō ōAffected€Environmentķ ķ€Đ āˆ ĐĖThere€are€14€historic€properties€in€the€Lamb€Brook€area.€€Among€these€are€a€standing€historic€bridge€and€theĪhistoric€Old€Stage€Road.€€Since€access€to€the€site€of€the€bridge€is€difficult,€it€receives€little€current€use.€€IntactĪfeatures€of€the€Old€Stage€Road€are€Ô_Ôit'sÔ_Ԁcorduroy€surface,€stone-timber-earth€bridges,€stone€and€wooden€culverts,Īand€bordering€stone€walls.€€It€is€presently€part€of€the€Corridor€9€snowmobile€trail.€€Past€Ô_ÔuseÔ_Ԁof€the€road€byĪlogging€equipment€prior€to€Forest€Service€management,€use€by€modern€recreational€vehicles,€including€illegalĪATVs€and€four-wheel€drive€trucks,€and€normal€deterioration€has€made€culverts€and€road€surfaces€more€fragile.€ĖĖō ōEffects€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€Đ 0Ø  Đķ ķĖō ōā ° ā€€Proposed€Action,€Alternatives€C,€D,€E€Đ ° Đķ ķĖFor€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€C,€D,€and€E,€the€twelve€historic€archaeological€sites€will€be€marked€inĪthe€field€and€excluded€from€the€treatment€areas.€€Accordingly,€there€would€be€no€adverse€effects€on€these€sites.€ĖĖThe€historic€bridge€in€Compartment€184€is€proposed€for€use€in€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€D€and€E.ĪThe€partial€or€total€collapse€of€this€historic€bridge€would€be€possible€if€it€is€subjected€to€intensive€logging€trafficĪwithout€physical€buffering€or€shoring.€€An€engineer€has€evaluated€the€condition€of€the€bridge,€and€will€plan€anyĪsupport€or€protection€needed€in€consultation€with€an€Archaeologist€before€it€is€used€by€trucks€or€other€heavyĪequipment.€€This€kind€of€temporary€physical€and€structural€support€can€be€accomplished€without€compromisingĪthe€integrity€of€the€bridge,€and€therefore,€would€create€no€adverse€effects.€ĖĖThe€Proposed€Action€and€Alternatives€C,€D,€and€E€would€relocate€the€Corridor€9€snowmobile€trail€from€the€OldĪStage€Road,€thereby€eliminating€adverse€impacts€that€would€result€from€activities€needed€to€maintain€the€OldĪStage€Road€as€a€corridor€trail.€€The€selection€of€the€Proposed€Action€or€any€of€these€alternatives€Ô_Ôwould€not€onlyĪmitigateÔ_Ԁpresently€occurring€adverse€effects€to€specific€features€of€the€Old€Stage€Road,€but€would€also€result€inĪthe€preservation€and€enhancement€of€the€historic€context€of€the€entire€area€since€the€road€serves€as€a€connectorĪbetween€several€other€sites€as€well.€ĖĖVegetation€treatments€in€Compartments€181€and€149€would€require€Ô_Ôcrossing€the€Old€Stage€Road€in€at€least€twoĪplacesÔ_Ô.€€When€crossings€are€required,€they€will€be€designed€and€constructed€to€assure€protection€of€the€road'sĪtread€and€other€physical€features€Ô_Ôas€well€asÔ_Ԁits€archaeological€information€value.€€The€crossing€points€would€beĪchosen€in€consultation€with€an€Archeologist.€€Should€it€be€necessary€to€breach€any€stone€walls€at€the€crossing,€theĪwall€would€be€dismantled€by€hand,€and€reconstructed€with€the€same€stones€at€the€end€of€the€project.€ĖĖĖĖĐ  ė*”(, Đō ōā ° ā€€No€Action€Alternative€Đ X Đķ ķĖThe€No€Action€Alternative€would€result€in€an€adverse€impact€on€cultural€resources€(the€Old€Stage€Road).€ĪPresent€Ô_ÔuseÔ_Ԁof€the€Old€Stage€Road€as€a€snowmobile€corridor€trail€would€continue.€€Maintenance€needed€toĪmaintain€it€to€corridor€trail€standards€would€cause€Ô_ÔfurtherÔ_Ԁdeterioration€of,€or€could€destroy,€its€rare€historicĪfeatures.€ĖĖPresent€use€of€the€historic€bridge€would€continue.€€The€twelve€archeological€sites€would€be€unaffected.€ĖĖō ōCumulative€Effects€of€the€Proposed€Action€and€Alternativesķ ķ€Đ ¤ L  ĐĖImplementation€of€the€recommended€mitigation€measures€would€result€in€no€adverse€effects€if€the€ProposedĪAction€or€Alternative€C,€D,€or€E€is€selected.€Because€there€would€be€no€adverse€effects€created€by€the€proposedĪactivities,€by€definition,€there€would€be€no€cumulative€adverse€effects.€ĖĖAs€stated€above,€the€No€Action€Alternative€would€create€adverse€impacts€to€the€Old€Stage€Road.€€Therefore,Īcoupled€with€past€deterioration,€the€impacts€of€illegal€recreational€vehicle€use€(ATVs€and€four-wheel€driveĪtrucks),€and€routine€administrative€use€and€trail€maintenance,€implementation€of€the€No€Action€Alternative€wouldĪresult€in€an€adverse€cumulative€impact€to€the€Old€Stage€Road.€ĖĖĐ  Ėt ĐVII.€ōōTHE€NATIONAL€FOREST€MANAGEMENT€ACTķķ€Đ X ĐĖA.€€ā ° āō ōōōINTRODUCTIONķ ķķķ€-€The€National€Forest€Management€Act€(NFMA)€requires€the€Forest€Service€to€Đ 0Ø Đā ° āÔ_ÔmakeÔ_Ԁseveral€findings€at€the€site€specific€level.€€These€findings€are€normally€made€by€the€deciding€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔofficerÔ_Ԁin€the€Decision€Notice.€€The€Deciding€Officer€should€give€specific€reasons€as€to€why€he/she€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔisÔ_Ԁmaking€the€specific€finding.€€These€reasons€should€then€be€supported€by€the€analysis€of€Ėā ° āenvironmental€Ô_ÔeffectsÔ_Ԁin€the€EA.€€The€following€findings€are€required€by€NFMA:€ĖĖā ° ā1)ā  āCONSISTENCY€Đ ŧ d Đā ° ā2)ā  āCLEARCUTTING/OPTIMALITY€Đ ¨ P  Đā ° ā3)ā  āEVENAGED€MANAGEMENT/APPROPRIATE€Đ ” <  Đā ° ā4)ā  āFIVE€YEAR€RESTOCKING€REQUIREMENTS€Đ € (  Đā ° ā5)ā  āVEGETATIVE€MANIPULATION€REQUIREMENTS€Đ l   ĐĖB.ā ° āō ōōōCONSISTENCYķ ķķķ€-€The€National€Forest€Management€Act€provides€that€đ đResource€plans€and€Đ Dė  ĐĖā ° āpermits,€contracts,€and€other€instruments€for€the€use€and€occupancy€of€National€Forest€System€lands€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔshallÔ_Ԁbe€consistent€with€the€land€management€plans.đđ€€It€also€states€that€,€đđWhen€land€management€Ėā ° āplans€are€revised,€resource€plans€and€permits,€contracts,€and€other€instruments,€when€necessary,€shall€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔbeÔ_Ԁrevised€as€soon€as€practicable.đđ€Ô_Ô16Ô_ԀU.S.C.€1604(i)(See.€Ô_Ô6Ô_ԀNFMA).€€Every€site€specific€project€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔmustÔ_Ԁbe€consistent€with€the€Land€and€Resource€Management€Plan.€€It€is€possible€during€project€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔanalysisÔ_Ԁthat€some€changes€to€the€Forest€Plan€may€be€considered.€€For€example,€resource€conditions€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔmayÔ_Ԁwarrant€a€change€in€some€standard€or€guideline.€€If€this€change€is€part€of€the€selected€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔalternativeÔ_Ô,€then€the€Plan€must€be€amended.€ĖĖā ° āThe€Ô_ÔEAÔ_Ԁand/or€Decision€Notice€should€document€the€finding€of€consistency.€€Since€on€the€project€Ėā ° ālevel,€the€purpose€and€need€is€oftentimes€đ đto€move€the€area€toward€its€desired€future€condition,đđ€the€€Ėā ° ādocumentation€of€consistency€may€be€found€in€the€purpose€and€need€section€(if€the€proposed€action€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔisÔ_Ԁselected)€or€in€the€alternatives€section€(if€an€alternative€is€selected).€ĖĖC.ā ° āō ōōōCLEARCUTTING/OPTIMALITYķ ķķķ€-€When€clearcutting,€the€Forest€Service€must€make€an€Đ ° Đā ° āÔ_ÔoptimalityÔ_Ԁdetermination.€€The€National€Forest€Management€Act€provides€that€đ đClearcutting€will€be€Ėā ° āused€on€national€forest€lands€when€it€is€determined€to€be€the€optimum€method€to€meet€the€objectives€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔandÔ_Ԁrequirements€of€the€relevant€land€management€plan.đđ€Ô_Ô16Ô_ԀU.S.C.€1604(f)€(Sec.€6(f)€NFMA).€ĖĖā ° āÔ_ÔWhat€exactlyÔ_Ԁdoes€this€language€mean?€€Congress,€in€drafting€this€language,€provided€very€little€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔinsightÔ_Ô.€€We€do€know€that€the€optimum€method€is€not€just€the€đ đÔ_ÔsilviculturallyÔ_Ԁessentialđđ€method€and€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔthatÔ_Ԁall€multiple€uses€must€be€considered.ā Ā āWhat€we€don't€know€is€what€does€the€law€mean€by€Đ €$("% Đā ° āđ đÔ_ÔoptimumÔ_Ôđđ€in€terms€of€meeting€the€objectives€and€requirements€of€the€land€management€plan?€€Is€the€Ėā ° āoptimum€method€the€harvest€method€that€will€move€the€area€towards€the€desired€future€condition€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔwithÔ_Ԁthe€least€environmental€effects?€Is€the€optimum€method€the€harvest€method€that€will€move€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔareaÔ_Ԁtowards€the€desired€future€condition€in€the€most€cost€efficient€manner?€€These€questions€were€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔnotÔ_Ԁanswered€by€the€drafters€of€the€legislation€nor€have€they€been€determined€by€the€courts.€ĖĖā ° āSo€how€do€we€do€an€optimality€determination€then?€€First€of€all,€for€clearcutting€to€be€the€đ đoptimumđđ€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔmethodÔ_Ô,€it€must€be€determined€to€be€better€than€all€the€other€harvest€methods.€€So€obviously,€there€Ėā ° āmust€be€some€sort€of€comparison€between€how€clearcutting€will€achieve€the€desired€future€condition€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔinÔ_Ԁthe€area€and€how€all€the€other€harvest€methods€will€achieve€the€DFC.€€Thus,€the€following€Đ ¸-`+/ Đā ° āquestions€must€be€answered:Ėā ° āā  āHow€well€does€the€group€selection€harvest€method€achieve€the€DFC?€Ėā ° āā  āHow€well€does€individual€tree€selection€achieve€the€DFC?€Ėā ° āā  āHow€well€does€the€shelterwood€harvest€method€achieve€the€DFC?€Ėā ° āā  āHow€well€does€the€clearcutting€harvest€method€achieve€the€DFC?€Ėā ° āā  āHow€well€does€the€seed€tree€harvest€method€achieve€the€DFC?€ĖĖā ° āBased€on€the€above€analysis,€you€must€then€decide€which€harvest€method€is€the€optimum€method€-€€Ėā ° āÔ_Ôi.e.Ô_Ԁmost€favorable€or€conducive€to€meeting€the€desired€future€condition.€€Remember-there€is€no€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔmagicÔ_Ԁformula€for€determining€this.€ĖĖō ōķ ķā ° āō ōNOTE:€€An€optimality€analysis€must€be€done€on€a€site€specific€basis.€€A€Forest€Plan€optimality€Đ | $  Đķ ķā ° āō ōÔ_ÔanalysisÔ_Ԁis€not€sufficient.€Đ h   Đķ ķĖā ° āōōThe€following€is€an€example€of€a€good€optimality€determination.€€It€specifically€compares€Đ @č  Đķķā ° āōōclearcutting€to€all€the€other€harvest€methods€Ô_Ôin€terms€ofÔ_Ԁachieving€the€DFC.€Đ ,Ô  ĐķķĖā ° āI€have€determined€that€clearcutting€is€the€optimum€treatment€for€stands€6€and€7€in€Compartment€123.€€Ėā ° āThese€stands€lie€in€Management€Area€3.1€which€emphasizes€deer€management€and€the€regeneration€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔofÔ_Ԁaspen.€€Currently,€MA€3.1€lacks€browse€for€deer.€€Stands€6€and€7€are€forty€year€old€aspen€stands€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔwhichÔ_Ԁare€in€a€deteriorating€condition.€ĖĖā ° āClearcutting€would€be€the€most€effective€method€of€regenerating€the€aspen€stands€and€providing€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔbrowseÔ_Ԁfor€deer.€€Ô_ÔAspenÔ_Ԁregenerates€by€root€and€stump€sprouts.€€For€effective€sprouting€to€occur,€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔresearchÔ_Ԁshows€that€there€must€be€full€sunlight.€€As€little€as€30€sq.€feet€of€basal€area/acre€left€in€the€Ėā ° āarea€will€hinder€root€Ô_ÔsuckeringÔ_Ô.€€Thus,€the€shelterwood,€seed€tree€and€individual€tree€selection€Ėā ° āmethods€would€not€be€as€effective€in€regenerating€the€area€because€of€the€overstory€left€behind€after€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁinitial€cut€is€made.€€Group€selection€would€also€not€be€as€effective€as€clearcutting€in€regenerating€Ėā ° āaspen€because€the€individual€groups€are€generally€small€(.4€to€2€acres),€and€the€shade€cast€by€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtreesÔ_Ԁalong€the€perimeter€of€the€group€will€hinder€regeneration€in€that€area€of€the€individual€group.ŧā ° āĖā ° āThus,€clearcutting€is€the€optimum€method€to€achieve€the€desired€future€condition€in€this€area.€ĖĖD.€€ā ° āō ōōōEVENAGED€MANAGEMENT/APPROPRIATENESSķ ķķķ€-€The€National€Forest€Management€Act€€Đ Ä l! Đā ° āprovides€that€đ đseed€tree€cutting,€shelterwood€cutting€and€other€cuts€designed€to€regenerate€an€Ėā ° āevenaged€stand€of€timber€will€be€used€as€a€cutting€method€only€where€it€is€appropriate€to€meet€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔobjectivesÔ_Ԁand€requirements€of€the€relevant€land€management€plan.đđ€Ô_Ô16Ô_ԀU.S.C.€1604(f)€(Sec.€6,€Ėā ° āNFMA).€€Again,€like€optimality,€the€drafters€of€the€National€Forest€Management€Act€did€not€define€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁterm€đ đappropriate.đđ€Some€suggestions€therefore€have€included€the€following:€ĖĖā ° āđ đAn€appropriate€harvest€method€is€one€which€will€move€the€area€toward€its€desired€future€condition.Ô_ÔđđÔ_ԀĖĖā ° āđ đAn€appropriate€harvest€method€is€a€method€utilized€by€the€forestry€community€in€regenerating€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔparticularÔ_Ԁtimber€type€at€issue.đđ€ĖĖE.ā ° āō ōōōFIVE-YEAR€RESTOCKING€REQUIREMENTķ ķķķ€-€The€National€Forest€Management€Act€alsoā (# ā€€Đ Ø+€)- Đā ° ārequires€the€Forest€Service€to€insure€that€timber€will€be€harvested€from€National€Forest€System€lands€Ėā ° āonly€where€there€is€assurance€that€such€lands€can€be€adequately€restocked€within€five€years€after€Đ ´-\+/ Đā ° āÔ_ÔharvestÔ_Ô.€Ô_Ô16Ô_ԀU.S.C.€1604(e).€ĖĖā ° āIn€interpreting€this€requirement,€the€courts€have€held€that€the€land€must€not€only€be€capable€of€being€Ėā ° āadequately€restocked€within€five€years€of€harvest,€the€Forest€Service€must€expect€to€have€adequate€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔrestockingÔ_Ԁwithin€five€years€using€the€restocking€method€set€forth€in€the€EA€and€Decision€Notice.€ĖĖā ° āAlso,€đ đadequate€restockingđđ€means€that€the€cut€area€will€contain€the€minimum€number,€size,€Ėā ° ādistribution€and€species€composition€of€regeneration€specified€in€the€regional€silvicultural€guides€for€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔeachÔ_Ԁforest€type.€Ô_Ô36Ô_ԀCFR€219.27(c)(3).€đ đFive€years€after€final€harvestđđ€means€five€years€after€Ėā ° āclearcutting,€five€years€final€overstory€removal€in€shelterwood€cutting,€five€years€after€the€seed€tree€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔremovalÔ_Ԁcut€in€seed€tree€cutting,€or€5€years€after€selection€cutting.€Ô_Ô36Ô_ԀCFR€219.27(c)(3).€ĖĖā ° āAgain,€like€all€the€other€NFMA€findings,€this€finding€should€be€documented€in€the€Decision€Notice€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔandÔ_Ԁsupported€by€the€analysis€in€the€EA.€ĖĖF.€ā ° āō ōōōOTHER€VEGETATIVE€MANIPULATION€REQUIREMENTSķ ķķķ€-€NFMA€also€requires€thatā (# ā€€Đ ,Ô  Đā ° āvegetative€manipulation€prescriptions€that€involve€vegetative€manipulation€of€tree€cover€for€any€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔpurposeÔ_Ԁshall:€ĖĖā ° ā1)ā  āBe€best€suited€to€the€multiple-use€goals€established€for€the€area€with€potential€environmental,€Đ āˆ Đā ° āā  ābiological,€cultural€resources,€aesthetic,€engineering,€and€economic€impacts,€as€stated€in€the€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔregionalÔ_Ԁguides€and€Forest€Plans,€being€considered€in€this€determination;€ĖĖā ° ā2)ā  āNot€be€chosen€primarily€because€they€will€give€the€greatest€dollar€return€or€the€greatest€output€of€Đ 8 Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtimberÔ_Ô,€although€these€factors€shall€be€considered;€ĖĖā ° ā3)ā  āBe€chosen€after€considering€potential€effects€on€residual€trees€and€adjacent€stands;€Đ Tü ĐĖā ° ā4)ā  āAvoid€permanent€impairment€of€site€productivity€and€ensure€conservation€of€soil€and€water€Đ ,Ô Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔresourcesÔ_Ô;€ĖĖā ° ā5)ā  āProvide€the€desired€effects€on€water€quantity€and€quality,€wildlife€and€fish€habitat,€regeneration€Đ đ˜ Đā ° āā  āof€desired€tree€species,€forage€production,€recreation€uses,€aesthetic€values,€and€other€resourceĖā ° āā  āÔ_ÔyieldsÔ_Ô;€and,€ĖĖā ° ā6)ā  āBe€practical€in€terms€of€transportation€and€harvesting€requirements,€and€total€costs€of€Đ  "H # Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔpreparationÔ_Ô,€logging,€and€administration.€ĖĖā ° ā€€Ô_Ô36Ô_ԀCFR€219.27(b).€ĖĖNote€that€the€exact€language€of€36€CFR€219.27(b)€states€that€these€requirements€apply€to€managementĪprescriptions.€€However,€because€violations€of€36€CFR€219.27(b)€have€been€raised€by€several€appellants€duringĪadministrative€appeals€of€projects,€and€because€we€have€been€attempting€to€limit€judicial€review€of€Forest€Plans,Īwe€suggest€that€compliance€with€these€requirements€be€documented€in€the€Decision€Notice€on€the€project€level.€Đ  *¨'+ Đō ōVIII.€ōōFONSIS€-€FINDING€OF€NO€SIGNIFICANT€IMPACTķķ€Đ X Đķ ķĖAs€previously€stated,€the€purpose€of€an€Environmental€Assessment€is€to€determine€whether€an€EnvironmentalĪImpact€Statement€is€necessary,€i.e.,€is€the€selected€alternative€a€major€federal€action€significantly€affecting€theĪhuman€environment?€€If€it€is€determined€that€an€EIS€is€not€necessary,€the€decisionmaker€must€make,€a€Finding€ofĪNo€Significant€Impact.€€Ô_ÔAÔ_ԀFONSI€is€a€document€which€briefly€presents€the€reasons€why€an€action€will€not€have€aĪsignificant€effect€on€the€human€environment€and€for€which€an€environmental€impact€statement€will€not€beĪprepared.€€(40€CFR€1508.13)€ĖĖIn€determining€whether€or€not€an€action€will€significantly€affect€the€human€environment,€the€decisionmaker€willĪevaluate€the€context€(scope)€and€intensity€of€the€action.€€The€intensity€of€the€action€refers€to€the€severity€of€theĪimpacts.€€When€evaluating€intensity,€the€decisionmaker€should€consider€the€following:€ĖĖā ° ā1)ā  āImpacts€that€may€be€both€beneficial€and€adverse.€A€significant€effect€may€exist€even€if€the€Đ Tü  Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔFederal€agencyÔ_Ԁbelieves€that€on€balance€the€effect€will€be€beneficial.€ĖĖā ° ā2)ā  āThe€degree€to€which€the€proposed€action€affects€public€health€or€safety.€Đ Ā ĐĖā ° ā3)ā  āUnique€characteristics€of€the€geographic€area€such€as€proximity€to€historic€or€cultural€resources,€€Đ đ˜ Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔparkÔ_Ԁlands,€prime€farmlands,€wetlands,€wild€and€scenic€rivers,€or€ecologically€critical€areas.€ĖĖā ° ā4)ā  āThe€degree€to€which€the€effects€on€the€quality€of€the€human€environment€are€likely€to€be€highly€Đ ´\ Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔcontroversialÔ_Ô.€€(Note€that€the€language€states€that€the€effects€are€likely€to€be€highlyā Đ āā (# āĐ  H Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔcontroversialÔ_Ô.€€This€does€not€mean€that€public€controversy€can€generate€an€EIS.€€The€effects€must€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔbeÔ_Ԁcontroversial€among€scientists€and€experts€in€the€particular€area.)€ĖĖā ° ā5)ā  āThe€degree€to€which€the€possible€effects€on€the€human€environment€are€highly€uncertain€or€Đ Pø Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔinvolveÔ_Ԁunique€or€unknown€risks.€ĖĖā ° ā6)ā  āThe€degree€to€which€the€action€may€establish€a€precedent€for€future€actions€with€significant€Đ ŧ Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔeffectsÔ_Ԁor€represents€a€decision€in€principle€about€a€future€consideration.€ĖĖā ° ā7)ā  āWhether€an€action€is€related€to€other€actions€with€individually€insignificant€but€cumulatively€Đ Ø€  Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔsignificantÔ_Ԁimpacts.€€Significance€exists€if€it€is€reasonable€to€anticipate€a€cumulatively€significant€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔimpactÔ_Ԁon€the€environment.€€Significance€cannot€be€avoided€by€terming€an€action€temporary€or€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔbyÔ_Ԁbreaking€it€down€into€small€component€parts.€Ėā ° āĖā ° ā8)ā  āThe€degree€to€which€the€action€may€adversely€affect€districts,€sites,€highways,€structures,€or€Đ t$"% Đā ° āā  āobjects€listed€in€or€eligible€for€listing€in€the€National€Register€of€Historic€Places€or€may€cause€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔlossÔ_Ԁor€destruction€of€significant€scientific,€cultural,€or€historical€resources.€ĖĖā ° ā9)ā  āThe€degree€to€which€the€action€may€adversely€affect€an€endangered€or€threatened€species€or€its€Đ $(Ė%) Đā ° āā  āhabitat€that€has€been€determined€to€be€critical€under€the€Endangered€Species€Act€of€1973.€ĖĖā ° ā10)€ā0  āWhether€the€action€threatens€a€violation€of€federal,€state€or€local€law€or€requirements€imposed€ā @\$ āā @\$ āforĐ č*(, Đthe€protection€of€the€environment.€€40€CFR€1508.27.€Đ €%€% ĐĖAn€action€could€significantly€affect€the€human€environment€if€it€is€small€in€scope€and€high€in€intensity.€€ForĪexample,€a€proposal€to€spray€15€acres€with€a€very€dangerous€and€lethal€herbicide€could€require€an€EIS.€€AlthoughĐ ˜.@,0 Đthe€scope€of€the€action€is€very€small€(15€acres),€the€intensity€is€high,€and€therefore,€the€action€may€result€inĪsignificant€effects€to€the€environment.€€Conversely,€an€action€that€has€a€large€scope€but€small€intensity€may€alsoĪrequire€an€EIS.€€For€example,€a€100,000€acre€bear€management€area€may€have€had€its€roads€closed€for€the€pastĪ20€years.€€The€Forest€Service€proposes€to€open€the€roads.€€Although€the€intensity€of€the€action€is€very€low€sinceĪthere€isn't€a€lot€of€traffic€on€each€individual€road,€because€roads€will€be€opened€Ô_Ôover€aÔ_Ԁ100,000€acre€area,€theĪscope€is€high,€and€therefore,€the€action€may€result€in€significant€effects€to€the€environment.€ĖĖō ōTips€Ô_ÔForÔ_ԀWriting€a€FONSIķ ķ:€Đ Ėt ĐĖState€that€the€decisionmaker€has€considered€all€10€of€the€significance€factors€and€reference€the€part€of€the€Ô_ÔEAÔ_Ԁ(ifĪapplicable)€where€you€have€discussed€each€of€these€factors.€Đ  ” <  Đō ōĶ  ĶFINDING€OF€NO€SIGNIFICANT€IMPACT€EXAMPLEā @ āā @ ā€Đ X ĐōōÔ_ÔHAPGOODÔ_ԀPOND€DECISION€NOTICEķķ€Đ Dė ĐĶ  Ķķ ķĖI€have€determined€that€the€actions€described€in€Alternative€VI,€my€chosen€alternative,€Ô_Ôare€not€a€major€federalĪactionÔ_Ô,€individually€or€cumulatively€or€in€combination€with€actions€taken€for€timber€harvest€and€fish€and€wildlifeĪhabitat€improvement€projects€described€in€the€companion€Decision€Notice€and€Finding€of€No€Significant€Impact.€ĪNor€will€it€significantly€affect€the€quality€of€the€human€environment.€€Therefore,€an€environmental€impactĪstatement€is€not€needed.€ĖĖ1.€ā ° āPublic€health€and€safety€are€minimally€affected€by€the€actions.€€One€potential€safety€concern€is€thatĐ ¤ L  Đportions€of€the€recreation€area€Ô_Ôwill€have€toÔ_Ԁbe€closed€to€the€public€during€construction/reconstruction.€€We€willĪtry€Ô_ÔdoÔ_Ԁthe€work€when€the€area€is€seasonally€closed,€but€that€may€not€be€possible€in€all€cases,€depending€onĪweather€and€contract€availability.€ĖĖ2.€ā ° āFacility€rehabilitation€and€trail€construction/reconstruction€will€not€result€in€any€known€significantĐ @č  Đirreversible€resource€commitments€or€any€significant€irretrievable€loss€of€timber€production,€boil€productivity,Īwater€quality,€wildlife€habitats,€or€recreation€opportunities€(Environmental€Effects€€Section,€EA,€pages€29-48).€ĖĖ3.€ā ° āThere€are€no€unique€characteristics€of€the€geographical€area€that€will€be€significantly€effected€by€theĐ đ˜ Đactions€of€the€project€(EA,€pages€29-62).€ĖĖ4.€ā ° āBased€on€the€involvement€from€Forest€resource€specialists€other€agencies€and€the€public,€I€do€not€Đ ´\ ĐÔ_ÔexpectÔ_Ԁthe€effects€of€this€action€on€the€quality€of€the€human€environment€to€be€highly€controversial€(see€EAĪanalysis€pages€29-64€and€EA€Consultation€Section€pages€65-67).€ĖĖ5.€ā ° āThere€will€be€no€known€effects€on€the€human€environment€that€are€highly€uncertain€or€involve€unique€orĐ d  Đunknown€risks€(Environmental€Effects€Section,€EA,€pages€29-62).€ĖĖ6.€ā ° āThese€actions€do€not€establish€a€precedent€for€future€actions€with€significant€effects€or€represent€aĐ (Đ Đdecision€in€Ô_ÔprincipleÔ_Ԁabout€a€future€consideration.€€All€actions€have€been€routinely€implemented€under€similarĪcircumstances€on€the€Green€Mountain€National€Forest.€€All€actions€are€wholly€consistent€with€the€Forest€andĪtherefore,€this€is€not€a€decision€in€Ô_ÔprincipleÔ_Ô.€ĖĖ7.€ā ° āThere€are€no€known€significant€cumulative€effects€between€this€project€and€other€past€or€reasonablyĐ Ä l! Đforeseeable€projects€in€the€project€area€or€adjacent€areas.€€This€finding€is€based€on€the€cumulative€effects€analysesĪunder€various€resource€headings€in€the€Environmental€Effects€section€in€the€environmental€assessment€(Ô_ÔEAÔ_Ô,Īpages€29-64).€ĖĖ8.€ā ° āThere€will€be€no€significant€effects€on€cultural€resources€(Environmental€Effects,€Cultural€Resources,€EA,Đ `%#& Đpage€62).€€The€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€Area€was€surveyed€for€cultural€Resources.€€Historic€sites€and€areas€showing€aĪhigh€potential€for€prehistoric€sites€have€been€identified.€€Mitigation€measures€stated€in€this€Decision€Notice€andĪshown€in€Appendix€D€of€the€Ô_ÔEAÔ_Ô,€would€protect€these€sites€and€any€new€ones€discovered€during€trailĪconstruction.ĖĖĖĐ  Ô+|)- Đ9.€ā ° āThe€Biological€Evaluation€determined€that€no€current€or€proposed€federally€threatened€or€endangeredĐ X Đspecies€will€be€adversely€affected€by€the€actions€of€this€project€(EA,€pages€36-39).€€Information€used€to€make€thisĪdetermination€is€consistent€with€direction€from€the€U.S.€Fish€and€Wildlife€Service€regarding€a€site€specificĪBiological€Evaluation€for€the€Ô_ÔHapgoodÔ_ԀPond€area.€ĖĖ10.€The€actions€do€not€threaten€a€violation€of€federal,€state€or€local€environmental€protection€laws.€ĖĖĐ  Ėt Đō ōIX.ā ° āōōDECISION€DOCUMENTSķ ķķķ€Đ X ĐĖA.ā ° āThis€is€the€time€to€reach€consensus,€if€possible.€€Choose€the€alternative€the€team€and/or€decision€makerĐ 4Ü Đlikes€best.€€Consider€the€following€when€determining€which€alternative€to€implement:€ĖĖā ° āoā  āThe€Ô_ÔICOsÔ_Ԁand€responses€to€them.€Đ ø  Đā ° āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ôā  āThe€kind€and€significance€of€effects;€Ô_ÔseeÔ_Ԁ40€CFR€1508.27(b).€Đ äŒ Đā ° āoā  āProgram€needs,€project€backlogs€or€shortfalls,€historical€or€anticipated€budgets,€Forest€Service€Đ Đx Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔinitiativesÔ_Ô.€Ėā ° āoā  āÔ_ÔPersonalÔ_Ԁvalues.€Đ ¨ P  Đā ° āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ôā  āPolitical€considerations.€Đ ” <  Đā ° āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ôā  āDesired€future€conditions.€Đ € (  Đā ° āÔ_ÔoÔ_Ôā  āPublic€comments.€Đ l   ĐĖB.ā ° āA€determination€of€which€decision€document,€if€any,€to€prepare€is€based€on€the€environmental€effects€ofĐ Dė  Đthe€alternative€to€be€implemented.€€Just€because€another€of€the€alternatives€considered€may€have€significantĪeffects€does€not€mean€an€EIS€is€needed,€if€the€alternative€to€be€implemented€will€not.€ĖĖā ° ā1.ā  āIf€the€alternative€to€be€implemented€is€to€be€categorically€excluded€and€does€not€require€a€Đ ôœ Đā ° āā  āDecision€Memo,€no€legal€notice€is€necessary.€ĖĖā ° ā2.ā  āIf€the€alternative€to€be€implemented€is€to€be€categorically€excluded€and€requires€a€Decision€Đ ¸` Đā ° āā  āMemo,€prepare€a€legal€notice€and€Decision€Memo.€ĖĖā ° ā3.ā  āBased€on€the€EA,€if€the€alternative€to€be€implemented€may€result€in€a€significant€effect,€prepare€a€Đ |$ Đā ° āā  āNotice€of€Intent.€ĖĖā ° ā4.ā  āBased€on€the€EA,€if€the€alternative€to€be€implemented€will€not€result€in€a€significant€effect,€Đ @č Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔprepareÔ_Ԁa€FONSI€and€Decision€Notice.€ĖĖC.ā ° āNotify€the€public.€Đ Ŧ ĐĖā ° ā1.ā  āDecision€Memo€-€Mail€the€document€to€those€who€have,€in€writing,€requested€it€and€to€those€Đ Ü„  Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔknownÔ_Ԁto€have€participated€in€the€decisionmaking€process;€publish€legal€notice€in€the€Federalŧā ° āā  āā ` ā€€Ėā ° āā  āRegister€or€legal€notices€section€of€the€principal€newspaper€of€general€circulation€as€required€by€Ėā ° āā  ā36€CFR€217.5.€ĖĖā ° ā2.ā  āNotice€of€Intent€-€Notify€affected€and€interested€parties€in€writing€and€publish€the€notice€of€intent€Đ d% #& Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔinÔ_Ԁthe€Federal€Register.€ĖĖā ° ā3.ā  āFONSI,€Decision€Notice€-€Mail€documents€to€those€who€have,€in€writing,€requested€them€and€to€Đ ((Đ%) Đā ° āā  āthose€known€to€have€participated€in€the€Ô_ÔdecisiorlmakingÔ_Ԁprocess;€publish€legal€notice€in€theŧā ° āā  āĖā ° āā  āFederal€Register€or€legal€notices€section€of€the€principal€newspaper€of€general€circulation€as€Ėā ° āā  ārequired€by€36€CFR€217.5.€Đ  Ø+€)- Đō ōX.ā ° āōōDECISION€NOTICESķķ€Đ X Đķ ķĖThe€Decision€Notice€is€the€decisionmaker's€opportunity€to€explain€his€or€her€decision€to€the€public.€€By€readingĪthe€Decision€Notice,€the€public€should€have€a€clear€idea€Ô_Ôas€to€whatÔ_Ԁthe€decision€is€and€the€rationale€behind€theĪdecision.€€This€is€important€because€decisions€which€are€đ đarbitrary€and€capriciousđđ€are€Ô_Ôin€violation€ofÔ_ԀtheĪAdministrative€Procedure€Act.€€Thus,€the€Decision€Notice€must€demonstrate€that€the€decisionmaker€consideredĪthe€relevant€factors€and€based€his€decision€on€those€factors.€ĖĖō ōōōPARTS€OF€THE€DECISION€NOTICE€Đ ¸ ` Đķ ķķķĖA.€€ā ° āTHE€DECISIONĐ  8  ĐB.€ā ° āTHE€RATIONALE€FOR€THE€DECISION€Đ | $  ĐC.€€ā ° āTHE€ALTERNATIVES€Đ h   ĐD.€€ā ° āTHE€FINDINGS€REQUIRED€BY€OTHER€LAWS€Đ Tü  ĐE.€ā ° āTHE€FONSI€Đ @č  ĐF.ā ° āPROJECT€IMPLEMENTATION€Đ ,Ô  ĐG.€€ā ° āAPPEAL€RIGHTS€Đ Ā ĐĖō ōAķ ķ.€€ā ° āō ōōōTHE€DECISIONķ ķķķ€-€The€decision€needs€to€be€explained€clearly€and€concisely.€€The€public€should€€Đ đ˜ Đā ° āÔ_ÔknowÔ_Ԁwhere€the€projects€will€take€place€and€precisely€what€the€project€is.€€All€aspects€of€the€project€€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔshouldÔ_Ԁbe€discussed.€€Do€not€merely€state€that€it€is€your€decision€to€have€a€đ đtimber€saleđđ€in€Ô_ÔxyzÔ_Ԁareas.€€Ėā ° āState€what€stands€will€be€involved.€€If€road€building€is€to€take€place,€state€the€location,€type€and€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔlengthÔ_Ԁof€the€road.€€Discuss€all€mitigation€measures€that€will€be€employed€and€include€a€clear€and€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔreadableÔ_Ԁmap.€ĖĖō ōB.ķ ķ€€ō ōā ° āōōTHE€RATIONALE€FOR€THE€DECISIONķ ķķķ€-€As€stated€above,€agency€decisions€which€are€Đ h Đā ° āÔ_ÔarbitraryÔ_Ԁand€capricious€are€in€violation€of€the€Administrative€Procedure€Act.€€The€rationale€for€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdecisionÔ_Ԁshould€show€that€the€decisionmaker€considered€all€relevant€factors.€€Therefore,€there€should€Ėā ° ābe€several€specific€reasons€listed€in€the€Decision€Notice€relating€to€why€the€decisionmaker€made€the€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdecisionÔ_Ԁhe€did.€€These€reasons€do€not€have€to€be€environmentally€based.€€For€example€one€reason€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔcouldÔ_Ԁbe€to€đ đsupply€wood€productsđđ.€€However,€it€is€not€enough€to€say€that€the€decisionmaker€chose€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁalternative€he€chose€because€đ đit€best€implements€the€Forest€Plan.đđ€In€addition,€briefly€explain€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔhowÔ_Ԁthe€selected€alternative€addresses€some€or€all€of€the€issues.€ĖĖā ° āō ōÔ_ÔExampleÔ_Ԁof€Rationale€from€the€Lamb€Brook€Decision€Noticeķ ķ:€Đ ¸!`" ĐĖā ° āBased€on€the€results€of€the€analysis€documented€in€the€EA,€Alternative€E€implements€the€direction€Ėā ° āfound€in€the€Forest€Plan€for€Management€Areas€3.1€and€2.Ô_ÔlAÔ_Ô,€meets€the€specific€objectives€for€the€Ėā ° āoriginal€proposal,€and€addresses€key€public€issues€regarding€ground€disturbing€activities,€visual€Ėā ° āsensitivity,€access€management,€and€the€effects€of€vegetation€management€and€road€construction€on€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔwildlifeÔ_Ԁin€the€Lamb€Brook€area.€ĖĖā ° āI€have€selected€Alternative€E€Ô_ÔbecauseÔ_Ô:€ĖĖā ° ā1.ā  āThe€regeneration€harvests€of€Alternative€E,€when€compared€to€the€other€alternatives,€will€best€Đ ô*œ(, Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmoveÔ_Ԁthe€area€toward€the€desired€future€condition€for€vegetative€composition.€ĖĖĐ ¸-`+/ Đā ° āā  āThe€mix€of€shelterwood€and€clearcut€harvest€of€Alternative€E€will€more€efficiently€and€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔeffectivelyÔ_Ԁcreate€new€stands€than€would€the€harvests€of€the€Proposed€Action.€€Alternative€E€will€Ėā ° āā  ācreate€more€acres€of€permanent€openings,€and€in€particular,€will€locate€this€additional€acreage€in€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁnorth€central€section€of€the€analysis€area€that€presently€contains€no€openings.€ĖĖā ° ā2.ā  āThe€selection€harvests€of€Alternative€E€will€best€move€the€area€toward€the€desired€future€Đ ôœ Đā ° āā  ācondition€for€MA€2.Ô_ÔlAÔ_Ԁlands€while€providing€more€timber€products€for€public€use€than€willŧā ° āā  āĖā ° āā  āAlternatives€C€and€D.€ĖĖā ° āā  āAlternative€E€will€complete€substantially€more€selection€harvesting€than€that€proposed€in€ĖĖā ° āā  āAlternatives€C€and€D,€and€thus€represents€a€major€difference€between€these€alternatives.€Ėā ° āā  āProviding€timber€for€public€consumption€is€an€important€secondary€product€of€vegetation€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmanagementÔ_Ô.€ĖĖā ° ā3.ā  āProtection€of€the€old€Stage€Road€will€be€assured€while€still€providing€recreation€opportunities.€Đ Ā ĐĖā ° ā4.ā  āAccess€management€will€best€be€achieved€by€closing€FR266.€Đ đ˜ ĐĖā ° āā  āAlternative€E€best€addresses€issues€regarding€trash€dumping,€vandalism,€unauthorized€off-Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔhighwayÔ_Ԁvehicle€access,€and€disturbance€of€bear€habitat.€€Therefore,€I€am€committed€to€keeping€Ėā ° āā  āFR266€closed,€as€it€presently€is,€to€all€but€foot€traffic€and€seasonal€snowmobile€use.€ĖĖā ° ā5.ā  āAlternative€E€will€honor€our€commitment€to€protect€resources.€Đ x  ĐĖā ° āā  āThis€alternative€allows€for€the€Wise€use€of€resources€and,€at€the€same€time,€will€provide€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔprotectionÔ_Ԁof€the€forest€environment.€€This€will€be€accomplished€through€application€of€the€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔmitigationÔ_Ԁmeasures€described€in€the€EA€(Appendix€B;€Environmental€Effects€section,€pages€30-Ėā ° āā  ā59)€and€Forest€Plan€standards€and€guidelines.€ĖĖC.ā ° āō ōōōTHE€ALTERNATIVESķ ķķķ€-€The€alternatives€need€to€be€explained€as€clearly€and€concisely€as€the€Đ ė” Đā ° āÔ_ÔdecisionÔ_Ô.€€The€public€should€be€able€to€clearly€ascertain€the€differences€between€the€alternatives.€€Ėā ° āYou€don't€need€to€include€stands€or€maps.€ĖĖā ° āBesides€stating€why€the€decisionmaker€chose€the€selected€alternative,€the€Decision€Notice€also€needs€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtoÔ_Ԁexplain€why€the€decisionmaker€did€not€choose€each€of€the€other€alternatives.€€Like€the€rationale€Ėā ° āfor€the€selected€alternative,€the€Decision€Notice€should€provide€several€specific€reasons€why€each€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔalternativeÔ_Ԁwas€not€selected.€Đ  d% #& Đō ōķ ķā ° āō ōExamples€of€Reasons€for€NOT€Choosing€an€Alternative€from€the€Lamb€Brook€Decision€Notice€Đ X Đķ ķĖā ° āProposed€Action:€€Ėā ° āI€did€not€select€this€alternative€because€it€would€have€had€slightly€more€impact€on€the€land,€and€by€Ėā ° āopening€FR266€to€vehicle€traffic,€would€not€have€adequately€addressed€concerns€regarding€access€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔmanagementÔ_Ԁand€disturbance€to€black€bears€during€critical€periods.€Also,€the€analysis€showed€Ėā ° āAlternative€E€to€be€a€more€effective€and€cost€efficient€management€of€timber€stands€under€high€risk€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔfromÔ_Ԁinsect€and€disease,€and€therefore€preferred€over€the€Proposed€Action.€ĖĖā ° āAlternative€B€-€No€Action:€Ėā ° āI€did€not€select€this€alternative€because€it€would€not€have€moved€the€area€toward€the€desired€future€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔconditionÔ_Ô.€€There€would€have€been€no€increase€in€vegetative€diversity€in€an€area€lacking€young€age€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔclassesÔ_Ô,€conifers,€aspen,€and€open€areas;€no€improvement€in€the€abundance€and€quality€of€wildlife€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔfoodÔ_Ԁand€cover€resulting€from€the€release€of€apple€and€spruce€trees;€and€no€protection€of€the€historic€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔoldÔ_ԀStage€Road€resulting€from€the€relocation€of€the€Corridor€9€snowmobile€trail.€€The€No€Action€Ėā ° āAlternative€would€not€have€enhanced€scenic€views€or€increased€parking€on€Route€8.€ĖĖā ° āAlternative€C:€Ėā ° āI€did€not€select€Alternative€C€because€it€would€not€have€implemented€Forest€Plan€direction€for€Ėā ° āManagement€Area€2.Ô_ÔlAÔ_Ô.€The€analysis€provided€opportunities€for€using€selection€cutting€in€Ėā ° āCompartments€123€and€184€to€convert€two-aged€stands€managed€previously€using€evenaged€methods€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔtoÔ_Ԁan€all-aged€management€condition€and€to€perpetuate€that€condition€as€called€for€in€MA€2.IA€areas.€€Ėā ° āAlternative€C€would€not€have€accomplished€this,€nor€would€it€have€improved€stand€conditions€in€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔthoseÔ_Ԁcompartments€by€treating€areas€damaged€by€insects,€disease,€ice,€snow,€and€wind.€€Alternative€Ėā ° āC€would€not€provide€the€Ô_Ôamount€of€forest€productsÔ_Ԁoffered€by€the€other€alternatives.€€Some€Ėā ° āopportunities€for€thinning€and€for€creating€young€age€classes€(MA€3.1€lands)€in€portions€of€Ėā ° ācompartments€182€(northwest€corner),€124€(northeast€corner),€and€123€(southern€portion)€would€be€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔnotÔ_Ԁbe€utilized.€€In€regards€to€MA€2.IA€lands,€this€alternative€would€not€work€toward€the€desired€Ėā ° āfuture€condition€as€well€as€Alternative€E.€€By€opening€FR266€to€vehicle€traffic,€Alternative€C€would€Ėā ° āalso€not€have€provided€the€desired€level€of€access€management€and€would€have€potentially€increased€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdisturbanceÔ_Ԁto€black€bears.€ĖĖā ° āAlternative€D:€Ėā ° āAs€is€the€case€for€Alternative€C,€this€alternative€does€not€implement€Forest€Plan€direction€or€work€Ėā ° ātoward€the€desired€future€condition€for€MA€2.Ô_ÔlAÔ_Ԁlands€as€well€as€Alternative€E.€Opportunities€to€Ėā ° āconvert€two-aged€stands€in€Compartment€123€to€all-aged€management€would€have€been€forgone,€as€Ėā ° āwould€some€opportunities€for€thinning€and€for€creating€young€age€classes€in€compartments€182,€124,€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔandÔ_Ԁ123€(MA€3.1€lands).€€Likewise,€by€opening€FR266€to€vehicle€traffic,€Alternative€D€would€also€Ėā ° ānot€have€provided€the€desired€level€of€access€management€and€would€have€potentially€increased€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔdisturbanceÔ_Ԁto€black€bears.€Đ  L&ô#' ĐD.€ā ° āō ōōōFINDINGS€REQUIRED€BY€OTHER€LAWSķ ķķķ€Đ X ĐĖā ° ā1.ā  āNFMA€Consistency€Requirement€-€NFMA€requires€that€all€projects€be€consistent€with€the€Forest€Đ 4Ü Đā ° āā  āPlan.€€The€fact€that€the€project€is€consistent€with€the€Forest€Plan€and€why€it€is€consistent€with€the€€Ėā ° āā  āForest€Plan€must€be€documented€in€the€Decision€Notice.€ĖĖā ° ā2.ā  āOptimality€Determination€-€It€is€the€decisionmaker's€responsibility€to€make€the€optimality€Đ äŒ Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔdeterminationÔ_Ô.€€This€determination€is€made€in€the€Decision€Notice.€€It€is€based€on€andā (# ā€Đ Đx Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔsupportedÔ_Ԁby€the€analysis€in€the€EA.€€The€Decision€Notice€should€set€forth€site€specific€reasons€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔasÔ_Ԁto€why€the€decisionmaker€thinks€clearcutting€in€this€situation€is€optimal.€The€specificā (# āĐ ¨ P  Đā ° āā  āreasons€should€reference€by€page€number€the€analysis€in€the€Ô_ÔEAÔ_Ԁwhich€supports€the€given€reason.€ĖĖā ° ā3.ā  āAppropriateness€Determination€For€Even€Aged€Management€-€Like€the€optimality€determination,Đ l   Đā ° āā  āthis€determination€is€made€in€the€Decision€Notice€and€specific€reasons€should€be€given€for€why€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁdecisionmaker€feels€evenaged€management€is€appropriate€in€this€situation.€€Again,€reference€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔtheÔ_Ԁpages€in€the€EA€which€support€this€determination.€ĖĖā ° ā4.ā  āVegetative€Manipulation€Requirements€-€State€that€the€areas€are€suitable€for€timber€harvesting€as€Đ ° Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔidentifiedÔ_Ԁin€the€Forest€Plan.€€State€that€the€vegetation€altering€sections€of€the€project€complyŧā ° āā  āwith€the€7€requirements€of€36€CFR€219.27b.€€Note€that€you€expect€adequate€regeneration€within€Ėā ° āā  ā5€years€and€reference€the€pages€of€the€Ô_ÔEAÔ_Ԁwhich€support€that€conclusion.€ĖĖā ° ā5.ā  āEndangered€Species€Act€requirements€-€Document€the€conclusions€reached€in€the€biological€Đ ¤L Đā ° āā  āÔ_ÔevaluationÔ_Ԁ-€i.e.,€will€any€T€or€E€species€be€affected€by€the€selected€action?€€Reference€the€pages€Ėā ° āā  āÔ_ÔinÔ_Ԁthe€biological€evaluation€which€support€your€conclusion.€€Place€your€conclusion€in€the€FONSI.€ĖĖE.ā ° āō ōōōFINDING€OF€NO€SIGNIFICANT€IMPACTķ ķķķ€-€See€handout€on€FONSIS€Đ Tü ĐĖF.ā ° āō ōōōPROJECT€IMPLEMENTATIONķ ķķķ€-€The€purpose€of€this€section€is€to€explain€all€the€future€actions€Đ 0Ø Đā ° āÔ_ÔassociatedÔ_Ԁwith€implementing€the€decision.€€It€is€important€to€remind€people€that€all€future€actions€Ėā ° āassociated€with€this€decision,€unless€there€is€a€changed€condition,€are€not€new€decisions,€but€are€Ėā ° āÔ_ÔratherÔ_Ԁadministrative€actions€necessary€to€implement€the€decision.€€Things€to€consider€Ô_ÔincludeÔ_Ô:€ĖĖā ° āoā  ā€Permit€requirements€necessary€prior€to€implementation€(i.e.,€State€alteration€of€terrain€permits,€Đ Đ x! Đā ° āā  āCorps€of€Engineers€404€permits,€etc.)€ĖĖā ° āoā  ā€Schedule€of€actions€Đ ”#